You may have noticed that I've been a bit quiet on the blogging front these days. This is due to 2 things--teaching online classes that take up inordinate amounts of time, and heading off to the UK for a conference in Oxford from the 23rd to August 1. The trip was bracketed by visits to London (in fact, I'm still there). This is the first of several postings about that trip.
The thing I hate about travel is that it can be unpredictable in bad ways. For instance--we were delayed flying from Newark to Heathrow by a seat belt. I kid you not--someone's seat belt was jammed in first class, and they had to call in 2 maintenance guys to fix it before we could take off. I had switched my window seat for another window seat 2 rows up, so that a mother and son could sit together. No problem. However--I was sitting next to a hipster couple, who were actually nice enough, but also personal friends with one of the flight attendants. So--this attendant waited on them the whole flight, bringing them champagne, etc. Which is fine, except that the other flight attendants would walk by, see them with food and drink, and assume that I had everything I needed as well. I really don't appreciate having to flag down a flight attendant for basic things like drinks and food.
Nonetheless, we arrived in London on time, which was kind of unfortunate, as I had a lot of time to kill before checking in to my hotel. I was staying for 9 days, so my luggage is a tad heavier than it would have been if I'd gone for just a weekend. Plus, I had my laptop with me, which tends to make the carry-on a wee bit heavier, and the results of lugging it around will probably make some chiropractor rich. But I found ways to kill time before I was able to check in. I had difficulty sleeping on the plane (surprise, surprise), so I was really exhausted by the time I got to my room.
But there was no time for dawdling--once I got myself together, it was back to Paddington to get the tube to Oxford Circus, and then to the Apple Store on Regent Street for the Electricity and Ghosts event sponsored by ArtHertz. I ran into Steve Malins there, who was pleased to be watching an event, and not involved in organizing it. I didn't know what to expect from this event, and was pleasantly surprised. Sarah Angliss was there with her band Spacedog, and they did a number of songs using synths, bells, a theremin, and a robotic talking head. They were a bit spooky in nature (as you might guess by the title), and it was a fitting prequel to the still-planned Battersea Power Station event, which focuses on the response generated by the power station and electricity by the general public. John Foxx once pointed out that modern telecommunications and uses of electricity came out of attempts to communicate with the dead. So, there is an attempt to merge those themes.
One piece they did was called "Who is this who is coming?" That rattled around in my brain, and it bothered me, as I knew I'd heard the phrase somewhere. Then I realized it was from the M.R. James story, "Oh, Whistle and I'll Come to You, My Lad". A university professor on a golfing holiday in East Anglia is asked by a colleague to check out the nearby remains of a Templar church. When he does, he finds a small metal tube, that turns out to be a whistle upon later examination. On the whistle is written the words "Quis est iste qui venit?" (Who is this who is coming?). What happens with the whistle--well, you'd have to read the story, which is quite worthwhile. Sarah mentioned in the Q&A at the end that she was influenced by M.R. James, so it did make sense. I also really liked their "cover" of "Please Come" from the Wicker Man movie, which was mixed up with other voices manipulated via the theremin. The visuals were by Roger Spy, and had a fittingly creepy feel to them.
Afterwards, I said goodbye to Steve and went in search of food, and then went to bed fairly early that night. I've learned that 4-star London hotels now have a system where you must use your room key to get the lights to work in your room. Not that anyone at the desk told me this. Fortunately, I was astute enough to figure it out on my own, in spite of how bleary eyed I was.
I might as well tell you about Saturday, as the most interesting content of the trip occurred during my week at Oxford. Saturday I spent the morning in the same place I am now--the British Library, trying to read through the papers for the conference I was attending in Oxford during the next week. Some papers were very long--after an exhausting month of reading student papers and assignments in Library Science, I really had to focus to get through papers that were anywhere from 17 to 70 pages. I did manage to get through everything by the evening, stopping only to get an early dinner near the hotel. I found myself quite interested in some of them, and recoiling at others. It ended up being a telling preview of the conference itself. But I will discuss that in the next few postings...
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Things That Can Kill You (i.e., Everything)
My mother and I had an argument today. This is not all that uncommon--we always start off well enough, and then she manages to say something that pushes my buttons. I was at a business lunch the other day, and somehow we got on the topic of families. When I described my conversations with my mother, everyone at the table agreed that we probably have the same mother. Which means Mom isn't telling me everything.
Honestly, though, it bugs me that as a rational adult, I will explode at my mother over things that I would be tactful and diplomatic about with everyone else. More than likely it is the bond--when you're a child, you need your mother to manage things for you. As an adult, you want to manage things on your own. My Mom loves to help out, which is very generous--but she frequently overdoes it, and it ends up grating on my nerves. And I look like a jerk, because my sweet mother is "just trying to help". But I'm an adult, and wouldn't look kindly on a friend taking that kind of control, either. But she's Mom, and I can't tell her to bugger off. Hence, the fireworks.
Today's argument was about my cat's litterbox. Seriously. I have a waste receptacle upstairs that doesn't have a proper lid, but is still covered, for cat waste, and about every other week I replace the bag in it and dispose of the full one. My mother thinks it is not covered well enough. I told her not to worry about it. She responded by buying me a new receptacle for waste, and then insisted that she only wanted me to "look at it", and was not imposing it on me. But let's get real--if you bought it, I'll look ungrateful if I don't take it, right? In the end I agreed to take it, but not before we had a stupid argument. I think I get more mad at myself for getting caught up in the whole thing.
Here is the gist of the argument--if there's a trash can with cat waste in my house, then I am undoubtedly breathing in those fumes, and one day they will give me lung cancer, or a horrible disease, or injure the unborn child I'm not (and never will be) carrying. I reminded her that having a litterbox in the house at ALL exposes you to fumes, but she insisted that I was wrong, and having a box with a better lid was going to make all the difference in the world. It won't, but whatever.
It does lead me to today's topic, though, which is spending half of your life worrying about things that might kill you. Now, to be fair, man has a basic survival instinct--all animals do. We have automatic responses to situations that are designed to keep us alive. But we live in a culture that is particularly obsessed about health. We worry about diet, about exercise, about the environment, and about stress. While it's good to be sensible with regard to these things, and there are a certain number of things we can change--in the final analysis, it really doesn't mean squat.
I recall a conversation with a colleague of mine who is a microbiologist, and is a very pre-planned person, right down to the last second of his day. Last winter we were discussing the shortage of flu shots. I have never gotten a flu shot, and never plan to do so. My colleague said to me, "Oh, but I thought all intelligent people went for flu shots." I guess I was flattered that he counted me with the "intelligent", but the conclusion was amusing. I said to him, "I've never needed one, and people who get them tend to get the flu, or have a perpetual cold that keeps them from getting the flu. There's nothing wrong with getting sick, and one day we'll all die when we're supposed to, so I'm not worried about it." I think he was rather scandalized by that answer.
I feel this way about food and drink, too. I'll eat and drink whatever strikes my fancy--I usually pay attention to calories, as I don't like to exceed a certain number every day, but beyond that, I don't really care. I don't care about fat content, about carbohydrates, about sugar--whatever. If I stress myself out eating nothing but rabbit food, I'll be dead sooner rather than later. I do believe that stress plays a bigger role in illness than any conventional wisdom on food. Most food is preserved by suspicious chemicals, and those that aren't are half eaten by suspicious bugs. So, all of our food is suspect. Additionally--the air we breathe is bad, the water we drink is problematic--and my question is, what exactly do you propose to do about it on a daily basis? Stop eating, drinking, and breathing? Ironically, that would achieve the result you're fighting to avoid--death.
Comedian Lewis Black seems to share my view on this; he did a very funny monologue about the oldest living man in New York. (I haven't fact-checked this one, but he swears this is a true story). This man was 115 years old, in perfect health, and had all his senses about him--no dementia, or anything like that. He was interviewed by the press, and inevitably, the question came up about his diet. He said from the age of 93, he had narrowed it down to bread fried in fatback, and a quart of Thunderbird wine a week. When they asked him why he didn't fry his bread in bacon fat, he said it was too lean. Lewis Black also went on to point out--and I would agree with this--that if the man went to a doctor and told him his diet, the doctor would say he was crazy, to stop eating that and get on a diet of fruits and vegetables. And the man would have listened, and would have been dead within a week.
I'm not advocating gluttonous or ridiculously unhealthy eating. But I do think that every person is different, and your body tells you what it needs. You will crave the foods you need to get the nutrients you need. You can't make blanket statements about what is going to make a person healthy. As I've noted before, I would die if I was forced to become a vegetarian. I have a serious aversion to most veggies.
In general--I think the more focused people are on avoiding death by trying to live according to conventional wisdom about "healthy", the sicker they tend to be overall. If something seems out of whack, I'll see what needs to be done to correct it, if anything can be done. But otherwise, I'm not going to live my life worrying about what I'm eating and breathing. As another colleague once said, "What happens if I skip on that piece of chocolate I really want and then get hit by a bus?" Worry about living your life--it's going to end whenever it's going to end, and you can't do a damn thing about it.
Honestly, though, it bugs me that as a rational adult, I will explode at my mother over things that I would be tactful and diplomatic about with everyone else. More than likely it is the bond--when you're a child, you need your mother to manage things for you. As an adult, you want to manage things on your own. My Mom loves to help out, which is very generous--but she frequently overdoes it, and it ends up grating on my nerves. And I look like a jerk, because my sweet mother is "just trying to help". But I'm an adult, and wouldn't look kindly on a friend taking that kind of control, either. But she's Mom, and I can't tell her to bugger off. Hence, the fireworks.
Today's argument was about my cat's litterbox. Seriously. I have a waste receptacle upstairs that doesn't have a proper lid, but is still covered, for cat waste, and about every other week I replace the bag in it and dispose of the full one. My mother thinks it is not covered well enough. I told her not to worry about it. She responded by buying me a new receptacle for waste, and then insisted that she only wanted me to "look at it", and was not imposing it on me. But let's get real--if you bought it, I'll look ungrateful if I don't take it, right? In the end I agreed to take it, but not before we had a stupid argument. I think I get more mad at myself for getting caught up in the whole thing.
Here is the gist of the argument--if there's a trash can with cat waste in my house, then I am undoubtedly breathing in those fumes, and one day they will give me lung cancer, or a horrible disease, or injure the unborn child I'm not (and never will be) carrying. I reminded her that having a litterbox in the house at ALL exposes you to fumes, but she insisted that I was wrong, and having a box with a better lid was going to make all the difference in the world. It won't, but whatever.
It does lead me to today's topic, though, which is spending half of your life worrying about things that might kill you. Now, to be fair, man has a basic survival instinct--all animals do. We have automatic responses to situations that are designed to keep us alive. But we live in a culture that is particularly obsessed about health. We worry about diet, about exercise, about the environment, and about stress. While it's good to be sensible with regard to these things, and there are a certain number of things we can change--in the final analysis, it really doesn't mean squat.
I recall a conversation with a colleague of mine who is a microbiologist, and is a very pre-planned person, right down to the last second of his day. Last winter we were discussing the shortage of flu shots. I have never gotten a flu shot, and never plan to do so. My colleague said to me, "Oh, but I thought all intelligent people went for flu shots." I guess I was flattered that he counted me with the "intelligent", but the conclusion was amusing. I said to him, "I've never needed one, and people who get them tend to get the flu, or have a perpetual cold that keeps them from getting the flu. There's nothing wrong with getting sick, and one day we'll all die when we're supposed to, so I'm not worried about it." I think he was rather scandalized by that answer.
I feel this way about food and drink, too. I'll eat and drink whatever strikes my fancy--I usually pay attention to calories, as I don't like to exceed a certain number every day, but beyond that, I don't really care. I don't care about fat content, about carbohydrates, about sugar--whatever. If I stress myself out eating nothing but rabbit food, I'll be dead sooner rather than later. I do believe that stress plays a bigger role in illness than any conventional wisdom on food. Most food is preserved by suspicious chemicals, and those that aren't are half eaten by suspicious bugs. So, all of our food is suspect. Additionally--the air we breathe is bad, the water we drink is problematic--and my question is, what exactly do you propose to do about it on a daily basis? Stop eating, drinking, and breathing? Ironically, that would achieve the result you're fighting to avoid--death.
Comedian Lewis Black seems to share my view on this; he did a very funny monologue about the oldest living man in New York. (I haven't fact-checked this one, but he swears this is a true story). This man was 115 years old, in perfect health, and had all his senses about him--no dementia, or anything like that. He was interviewed by the press, and inevitably, the question came up about his diet. He said from the age of 93, he had narrowed it down to bread fried in fatback, and a quart of Thunderbird wine a week. When they asked him why he didn't fry his bread in bacon fat, he said it was too lean. Lewis Black also went on to point out--and I would agree with this--that if the man went to a doctor and told him his diet, the doctor would say he was crazy, to stop eating that and get on a diet of fruits and vegetables. And the man would have listened, and would have been dead within a week.
I'm not advocating gluttonous or ridiculously unhealthy eating. But I do think that every person is different, and your body tells you what it needs. You will crave the foods you need to get the nutrients you need. You can't make blanket statements about what is going to make a person healthy. As I've noted before, I would die if I was forced to become a vegetarian. I have a serious aversion to most veggies.
In general--I think the more focused people are on avoiding death by trying to live according to conventional wisdom about "healthy", the sicker they tend to be overall. If something seems out of whack, I'll see what needs to be done to correct it, if anything can be done. But otherwise, I'm not going to live my life worrying about what I'm eating and breathing. As another colleague once said, "What happens if I skip on that piece of chocolate I really want and then get hit by a bus?" Worry about living your life--it's going to end whenever it's going to end, and you can't do a damn thing about it.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Debunking the "Traditional"
I have always struggled with tradition. In many ways, I am very conservative and traditional. In others, I would be considered liberal at best. A myriad of articles I've read over the last week and conversations I've had with family and friends has made me re-think the topic of tradition.
First--not all traditions are bad. Sometimes we follow a tradition--and don't know why--but it still leads to a positive effect for the person and the community. It is harder and harder these days to find true "community" traditions--maybe in very small towns. For instance, at the beginning of winter, there are a number of religious holidays celebrated, and there is frequently conflict when community wants to cater to one of them--or all of them. It's an interesting study in community dynamics, and the "need to belong". Emphasizing one group implies non-acceptance of others, at least to those who are complaining. In this era of individualism, we still want social acceptance. This is true among our friends, our family, our neighborhood, and then the world at large. But it is not unreasonable to assert that the larger the community, the more care has to be shown when following tradition. Nonetheless, many of us have our individual traditions that we follow--even if no one else does.
But where does tradition come from? Inevitably, it comes from myth. When I say "myth", I'm not talking about Greek and Roman gods--I'm talking about everyday mythologies--the stories we believe about the way things are. When one follows a traditional pattern, it could be nostalgic (i.e., "we always did this in my family"), but more often than not, our everyday myths come from the social stories we believe, or are pressured to believe. There are a few examples that I want to take to task.
First--the myth about women's worth. For all of the advances women have made, for all the intellectual achievements she may have, for all the good she may have done for the world--she is still judged on her attractiveness and ability to find a good mate, above all. While a woman's single or divorced status is not such a scandal anymore, she is still subtly reminded of this fact regardless of anything else she's done. I look at Eleanor Roosevelt--there was a truly accomplished woman, and yet I still hear, oh, poor Eleanor, Franklin always cheated on her and she just wasn't that attractive. (Which adds the additional sub-myth that says if your man cheats on you, it's because you're somehow undesirable). I go through this regularly myself, even though I went through a bad marriage and learned the hard way. Some days I look at myself and say, "Well, Brigid, you're probably not good looking enough, you're probably too intellectual, which men don't like..." And then I have to shake myself and tell myself to stop being such an idiot. But the point is no matter how reasonably I approach the issue, it still manages to affect me--and since it's part of the collective unconscious, it sneaks up on me to torment me when I least expect it. As much as I love being a free and independent woman, social myths, and therefore tradition, don't allow for that. So, I'm forced to struggle with it now and again.
Another related myth is one I encountered watching some old 1950s educational films. They talk about the girl who is obviously snooty and maladjusted because she wants to date the boys she likes (who may not be available to her, or interested in her), not just anyone who asks. You may say, "Well, that was the 1950s," but Yahoo recently ran an article on a similar subject (Are you single because you're too picky?). What I get from this is that I should just settle for anyone who asks me, even if I already know in my gut it's not going to work, and the guy's going to be angry with me for "leading him on" and then rejecting him. But I shouldn't reject him, right? Even if there's no chemistry? This is a myth that really irritates me. I'm sure there are women out there who are gold-diggers and status hounds--they're only interested in what status the man can give them. (Please see the first myth above). But I cannot do that no matter what--there are lots of men who I think are fine people, who are not ugly, but I'm just not feeling it. Is it better to date them and then drop the bomb, or divert their attention from that end and just stay friends? Which is kinder? Which is more honest? I can't pretend to be attracted to someone I'm not, and that doesn't make me "snooty".
And speaking of snooty--there are myths about status. This is not as much of an issue in the United States--sure, there are very rich people who have an air of superiority, but they're regarded more with amusement. People may choose to hang out with people of their own status because they understand each other (e.g., a person who struggles cleaning houses for a living may have a hard time moving in social circles with people who routinely drop thousands of dollars on clothes). But that doesn't mean they can't respect each other for what they have to offer. However, when I'm in England, I see the myth of status has a really strong grip. As an American I tend to fall outside of the whole structure--but there is a sense that, no matter what you accomplish in life, you will be judged by the social status you were born with. Men and women born into working classes may try to marry or partner with someone above them in social class--not only for money, but somehow to unconsciously prove their worth. Making money alone is not enough, though having money is a sign of being "raised up" in such a myth. I actually despise this myth, maybe more than any other, because it is an attempt to validate what Erik Erikson called "psuedospeciation"--the notion that one group of humans can some how be superior (or inferior) to another. This is the basis of all hate and prejudice. You can justify cruel actions towards someone who is "lesser", because somehow they are "less" human. And yet--the working class folk are the honest-to-goodness humans in many cases. To say that working class folk are always trashy, and upper class folk have, well..."class"--has often proven to be untrue. (Paris Hilton, anyone?)
John Foxx actually has a song I dislike intensely, called "A Million Cars". Technically and musically it's a fine song, but lyrically--well, it's all of the above. I'm not sure if John really buys into that myth (living in Britain, it's hard to imagine he's not affected), or just poking at the absurdity of it. Either way, the myth pure bullshit. Money and status doesn't raise you up from anything--you were never "low" to begin with. Being a good and decent human being to everyone--regardless of status--is what raises you above others. But it's another example of how a social collective myth can affect someone.
Switching gears, I want to mention another myth--the myth of perpetual happiness, or--the myth of not ever being sad or angry. Did you ever notice that if you have a day when you're angry or sad, people feel the need to "fix" it? On the one hand, this can be driven by the best of intentions--friends and family are there to support each other, after all. But sometimes, you need to--have the RIGHT to--be angry and/or sad. We act as though this is unnatural, and if it happens, we should move to stifle it at all costs. I'm pretty even-tempered most of the time, but I have days when I'm overwhelmed, and I feel terribly sad. And I don't want anyone to "fix" it. Leave me alone. If I don't feel it and deal with it, it will just sneak up on me again at an inconvenient time. There's no need to push things into the realm of unconsciousness--then it will probably affect others when I lose my temper at them. Own your own anger and grief when it happens. No one wants to feel pain anymore--they want to numb it out. But allowing yourself those feelings in a space that doesn't hurt others can be very helpful.
Finally--related to the above--the myth of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, but it's not what most people think it is. Forgiveness is not saying that someone's hurtful actions are okay--it's saying that you are no longer angry. Anger doesn't go away overnight if you are really hurt by something. So, you have to be angry. You have to envision yourself smacking the offender silly, or telling them which level of hell to go roast in. That doesn't mean you should ACT on your anger and hurt someone else. But you have a right to be angry--and anger is a process. Eventually the sting will lessen, and you will be able to forgive, even if the relationship is not repairable.
We are all human. We are living the drama of human life, and we have feelings. We should be true to those feelings. But to be an integrated person, you can't ignore the influence of collective myths--and tradition.
Matthew Arnold summed it up well in the end of his essay on Hebraism and Hellenism: "Everywhere we see the beginnings of confusion, and we want a clue to some sound order and authority. This we can only get by going back upon the actual instincts and forces which rule our life, seeing them as they really are, connecting them with other instincts and forces, and enlarging our whole view and rule of life. " Or, more simply--Make your own myths.
First--not all traditions are bad. Sometimes we follow a tradition--and don't know why--but it still leads to a positive effect for the person and the community. It is harder and harder these days to find true "community" traditions--maybe in very small towns. For instance, at the beginning of winter, there are a number of religious holidays celebrated, and there is frequently conflict when community wants to cater to one of them--or all of them. It's an interesting study in community dynamics, and the "need to belong". Emphasizing one group implies non-acceptance of others, at least to those who are complaining. In this era of individualism, we still want social acceptance. This is true among our friends, our family, our neighborhood, and then the world at large. But it is not unreasonable to assert that the larger the community, the more care has to be shown when following tradition. Nonetheless, many of us have our individual traditions that we follow--even if no one else does.
But where does tradition come from? Inevitably, it comes from myth. When I say "myth", I'm not talking about Greek and Roman gods--I'm talking about everyday mythologies--the stories we believe about the way things are. When one follows a traditional pattern, it could be nostalgic (i.e., "we always did this in my family"), but more often than not, our everyday myths come from the social stories we believe, or are pressured to believe. There are a few examples that I want to take to task.
First--the myth about women's worth. For all of the advances women have made, for all the intellectual achievements she may have, for all the good she may have done for the world--she is still judged on her attractiveness and ability to find a good mate, above all. While a woman's single or divorced status is not such a scandal anymore, she is still subtly reminded of this fact regardless of anything else she's done. I look at Eleanor Roosevelt--there was a truly accomplished woman, and yet I still hear, oh, poor Eleanor, Franklin always cheated on her and she just wasn't that attractive. (Which adds the additional sub-myth that says if your man cheats on you, it's because you're somehow undesirable). I go through this regularly myself, even though I went through a bad marriage and learned the hard way. Some days I look at myself and say, "Well, Brigid, you're probably not good looking enough, you're probably too intellectual, which men don't like..." And then I have to shake myself and tell myself to stop being such an idiot. But the point is no matter how reasonably I approach the issue, it still manages to affect me--and since it's part of the collective unconscious, it sneaks up on me to torment me when I least expect it. As much as I love being a free and independent woman, social myths, and therefore tradition, don't allow for that. So, I'm forced to struggle with it now and again.
Another related myth is one I encountered watching some old 1950s educational films. They talk about the girl who is obviously snooty and maladjusted because she wants to date the boys she likes (who may not be available to her, or interested in her), not just anyone who asks. You may say, "Well, that was the 1950s," but Yahoo recently ran an article on a similar subject (Are you single because you're too picky?). What I get from this is that I should just settle for anyone who asks me, even if I already know in my gut it's not going to work, and the guy's going to be angry with me for "leading him on" and then rejecting him. But I shouldn't reject him, right? Even if there's no chemistry? This is a myth that really irritates me. I'm sure there are women out there who are gold-diggers and status hounds--they're only interested in what status the man can give them. (Please see the first myth above). But I cannot do that no matter what--there are lots of men who I think are fine people, who are not ugly, but I'm just not feeling it. Is it better to date them and then drop the bomb, or divert their attention from that end and just stay friends? Which is kinder? Which is more honest? I can't pretend to be attracted to someone I'm not, and that doesn't make me "snooty".
And speaking of snooty--there are myths about status. This is not as much of an issue in the United States--sure, there are very rich people who have an air of superiority, but they're regarded more with amusement. People may choose to hang out with people of their own status because they understand each other (e.g., a person who struggles cleaning houses for a living may have a hard time moving in social circles with people who routinely drop thousands of dollars on clothes). But that doesn't mean they can't respect each other for what they have to offer. However, when I'm in England, I see the myth of status has a really strong grip. As an American I tend to fall outside of the whole structure--but there is a sense that, no matter what you accomplish in life, you will be judged by the social status you were born with. Men and women born into working classes may try to marry or partner with someone above them in social class--not only for money, but somehow to unconsciously prove their worth. Making money alone is not enough, though having money is a sign of being "raised up" in such a myth. I actually despise this myth, maybe more than any other, because it is an attempt to validate what Erik Erikson called "psuedospeciation"--the notion that one group of humans can some how be superior (or inferior) to another. This is the basis of all hate and prejudice. You can justify cruel actions towards someone who is "lesser", because somehow they are "less" human. And yet--the working class folk are the honest-to-goodness humans in many cases. To say that working class folk are always trashy, and upper class folk have, well..."class"--has often proven to be untrue. (Paris Hilton, anyone?)
John Foxx actually has a song I dislike intensely, called "A Million Cars". Technically and musically it's a fine song, but lyrically--well, it's all of the above. I'm not sure if John really buys into that myth (living in Britain, it's hard to imagine he's not affected), or just poking at the absurdity of it. Either way, the myth pure bullshit. Money and status doesn't raise you up from anything--you were never "low" to begin with. Being a good and decent human being to everyone--regardless of status--is what raises you above others. But it's another example of how a social collective myth can affect someone.
Switching gears, I want to mention another myth--the myth of perpetual happiness, or--the myth of not ever being sad or angry. Did you ever notice that if you have a day when you're angry or sad, people feel the need to "fix" it? On the one hand, this can be driven by the best of intentions--friends and family are there to support each other, after all. But sometimes, you need to--have the RIGHT to--be angry and/or sad. We act as though this is unnatural, and if it happens, we should move to stifle it at all costs. I'm pretty even-tempered most of the time, but I have days when I'm overwhelmed, and I feel terribly sad. And I don't want anyone to "fix" it. Leave me alone. If I don't feel it and deal with it, it will just sneak up on me again at an inconvenient time. There's no need to push things into the realm of unconsciousness--then it will probably affect others when I lose my temper at them. Own your own anger and grief when it happens. No one wants to feel pain anymore--they want to numb it out. But allowing yourself those feelings in a space that doesn't hurt others can be very helpful.
Finally--related to the above--the myth of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, but it's not what most people think it is. Forgiveness is not saying that someone's hurtful actions are okay--it's saying that you are no longer angry. Anger doesn't go away overnight if you are really hurt by something. So, you have to be angry. You have to envision yourself smacking the offender silly, or telling them which level of hell to go roast in. That doesn't mean you should ACT on your anger and hurt someone else. But you have a right to be angry--and anger is a process. Eventually the sting will lessen, and you will be able to forgive, even if the relationship is not repairable.
We are all human. We are living the drama of human life, and we have feelings. We should be true to those feelings. But to be an integrated person, you can't ignore the influence of collective myths--and tradition.
Matthew Arnold summed it up well in the end of his essay on Hebraism and Hellenism: "Everywhere we see the beginnings of confusion, and we want a clue to some sound order and authority. This we can only get by going back upon the actual instincts and forces which rule our life, seeing them as they really are, connecting them with other instincts and forces, and enlarging our whole view and rule of life. " Or, more simply--Make your own myths.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Reductionism
Blue Mill Road is a beautiful example of everything people believe New Jersey is not. As you drive down the road, you encounter old colonial churches, farms, willow trees curving over sparkling ponds, and tunnels of foliage created by trees that have crossed the street at their apices, embracing each other with their branches. I often drive down this road on my way to work, one of many possible ways to go.
Today, I drive into work listening to Richard Einhorn, drinking the tea I’ve brought with me in a travel mug. I’m hoping the caffeine will shake the cobwebs that seem to envelop my brain, mostly the consequence of summer allergies. I hardly ever drink coffee in the morning—there is no use in making a whole pot of coffee and then abandoning most of it when I go to work. I used to stop at KC’s in Chester for coffee, but she is opening her shop later and later these days.
There have been many studies about the health benefits of coffee these days. One study suggests that coffee can prevent rheumatoid arthritis. Another suggests that coffee can stave off Alzheimer’s disease. I’m a bit suspicious of both of these studies, because they draw conclusions based on correlation, rather than hard evidence. Correlation does not imply causation, as the old saying goes. If I eat an English muffin for breakfast every morning, and don’t develop heart disease, that doesn’t mean the English muffin prevented me from getting heart disease. But I’m seeing a lot more “studies” these days that draw such simplistic conclusions.
In our attempt to understand complex things, we often are guilty of reductionism. I recall a British TV show that had a doctor examining the age, eating habits, exercise habits, and stress levels of various individuals, and then giving them the number of years they had to live. This is stupid. Even if all those factors are important, they in no way can account for one’s personal genetics, never mind the possibility of getting hit by a bus on any given day. But assuming that we’re just talking about health—the factors that determine your health are extremely complex, just as your psyche is extremely complex. No self-respecting therapist would have a session with you and then start labeling you based on psychological theory or DSM definitions. Jung himself said that theory was not very useful when dealing with individual cases. Similarly, physical health cannot be fully evaluated and labeled, even with all of the diagnostic technology doctors have at their disposal. This is why, unless you have a specific and easily identifiable ailment, doctors frequently can’t figure out what’s wrong with you. Knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physiology are necessary background, but interpreting individual cases is more of an art than a science—there’s not one answer for a given set of symptoms.
I’m not sure if reductionism comes from human laziness, or just a sense of being overwhelmed by all the factors involved, and needing a quick solution to satisfy the mind. One thing is for sure—it’s not a great idea to start preaching about how bad certain things are for you based on this kind of reductionism. That’s what got the anti-vax movement started; if anyone had bothered to properly peer-review Andrew Wakefield’s paper (and also checked his profit-motives for the study), we might not have new outbreaks of whooping cough and other preventable diseases. It is true that there may be other reasons for these outbreaks, but you can’t ignore the influence of that movement.
Science is a beautiful thing, when executed with integrity. However, in our secular society, science is the new religion, and people often accept it and things that look like it without question (or enough questions). It’s that thing people don’t understand, so if they see these kinds of oversimplified studies—which are not rigorously scientific—they believe them because they think they ARE scientific. They don’t know enough to question it. And they don’t have time. Add the distortion of the media, and you have a different kind of cultural monster.
I am by no means a hardcore skeptic. After all, I believe in ghosts, God, astrology, and lots of other things that skeptics dismiss as idiotic. I tend to believe in things that I find valid by my own experience. However, my own experience doesn’t apply to everyone, and the most logical, fact-based conclusions are the ones that society as a whole ought to rely on, assuming anything can be relied on. Nothing is ever 100% right or guaranteed, but we need some measurable basis for large-scale decision making. This works pretty well, as long as we remember that uncertainty still exists, and individual cases usually don’t fit blanket definitions precisely. Science, after all, is about questioning and re-questioning—and not believing you have any kind of absolute lock on truth.
Today, I drive into work listening to Richard Einhorn, drinking the tea I’ve brought with me in a travel mug. I’m hoping the caffeine will shake the cobwebs that seem to envelop my brain, mostly the consequence of summer allergies. I hardly ever drink coffee in the morning—there is no use in making a whole pot of coffee and then abandoning most of it when I go to work. I used to stop at KC’s in Chester for coffee, but she is opening her shop later and later these days.
There have been many studies about the health benefits of coffee these days. One study suggests that coffee can prevent rheumatoid arthritis. Another suggests that coffee can stave off Alzheimer’s disease. I’m a bit suspicious of both of these studies, because they draw conclusions based on correlation, rather than hard evidence. Correlation does not imply causation, as the old saying goes. If I eat an English muffin for breakfast every morning, and don’t develop heart disease, that doesn’t mean the English muffin prevented me from getting heart disease. But I’m seeing a lot more “studies” these days that draw such simplistic conclusions.
In our attempt to understand complex things, we often are guilty of reductionism. I recall a British TV show that had a doctor examining the age, eating habits, exercise habits, and stress levels of various individuals, and then giving them the number of years they had to live. This is stupid. Even if all those factors are important, they in no way can account for one’s personal genetics, never mind the possibility of getting hit by a bus on any given day. But assuming that we’re just talking about health—the factors that determine your health are extremely complex, just as your psyche is extremely complex. No self-respecting therapist would have a session with you and then start labeling you based on psychological theory or DSM definitions. Jung himself said that theory was not very useful when dealing with individual cases. Similarly, physical health cannot be fully evaluated and labeled, even with all of the diagnostic technology doctors have at their disposal. This is why, unless you have a specific and easily identifiable ailment, doctors frequently can’t figure out what’s wrong with you. Knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physiology are necessary background, but interpreting individual cases is more of an art than a science—there’s not one answer for a given set of symptoms.
I’m not sure if reductionism comes from human laziness, or just a sense of being overwhelmed by all the factors involved, and needing a quick solution to satisfy the mind. One thing is for sure—it’s not a great idea to start preaching about how bad certain things are for you based on this kind of reductionism. That’s what got the anti-vax movement started; if anyone had bothered to properly peer-review Andrew Wakefield’s paper (and also checked his profit-motives for the study), we might not have new outbreaks of whooping cough and other preventable diseases. It is true that there may be other reasons for these outbreaks, but you can’t ignore the influence of that movement.
Science is a beautiful thing, when executed with integrity. However, in our secular society, science is the new religion, and people often accept it and things that look like it without question (or enough questions). It’s that thing people don’t understand, so if they see these kinds of oversimplified studies—which are not rigorously scientific—they believe them because they think they ARE scientific. They don’t know enough to question it. And they don’t have time. Add the distortion of the media, and you have a different kind of cultural monster.
I am by no means a hardcore skeptic. After all, I believe in ghosts, God, astrology, and lots of other things that skeptics dismiss as idiotic. I tend to believe in things that I find valid by my own experience. However, my own experience doesn’t apply to everyone, and the most logical, fact-based conclusions are the ones that society as a whole ought to rely on, assuming anything can be relied on. Nothing is ever 100% right or guaranteed, but we need some measurable basis for large-scale decision making. This works pretty well, as long as we remember that uncertainty still exists, and individual cases usually don’t fit blanket definitions precisely. Science, after all, is about questioning and re-questioning—and not believing you have any kind of absolute lock on truth.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Oh, The Humanity
I'm going to be headed to a conference in Oxford in a few weeks. When I was invited, I was told that the topic was religious liberty. In looking at the draft program, the topic seems to be religion and science. I was a little irritated by this ambiguity, but it then occurred to me that the debate surrounding religious liberty these days tended to be dominated by "religion vs. science" discussions. So, it may not be such a stretch.
No one seems to know what to do with religion these days. Thousands of years ago, religious practices were the center of communities. It was the people against the great mystery of uncertainty and the unknown. For all of our scientific and technological advances, we haven't eliminated that in the 21st century. However, the 21st century world is not as provincial as it was in the past. You could have a religious belief system, with a group of priestly interpreters, and that belief system would probably be uniformly accepted and unquestioned in a small tribal community. It was the glue that held the community together.
However, basic group psychology tells us that this is an untenable proposition as the group gets bigger. Human behavior is the factor that everyone seems to idealize in communities. Everyone will be a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muslim, etc.), so therefore everyone will work together, respect each other and authority, and behave decently. Why in the world we think this would be the case just shows how delusional we can be about ourselves.
First--personalities count. In a large group of people, you are likely to have a mixture of passive, complacent individuals and controlling authoritarian individuals. I don't wish to suggest there is a strict line there--often we are a mixture of these types--but the ingredients are there for the establishment of a pecking order. The stronger personalities may display leadership qualities that allow them to take over.
This leads to the second issue of survival and greed ; these two go hand in hand. We only need very basic things to survive--food and water to nourish our bodies, clothing and shelter to protect us from the elements. The more we have, the more comfortable we are materially. Ideally, a community of individuals should share among themselves, so that no one goes without. We know for a fact that this rarely, if ever, happens in large groups. Why? Because people are greedy--they don't want to share what they have. The more they have, the less inclined they are to share. In fact--people often want more, and if it's at the expense of others, so be it.
Money and possessions aren't the only thing people become greedy about--power is a big one. And this circles back to personalities--if you have a controlling personality, and are power hungry, this can be a dangerous combination if you are in a leadership position. The other possibility is that you start out honest and egalitarian enough, but are corrupted once you actually have power. When it comes to the worldly things we desire--money, land, possessions, power, status--having some of it tends to make us want more of it. It's typical human behavior.
Religions are frequently shining examples of good, honest intentions gone bad, and it is because of these basics of human behavior and group dynamics. No matter how carefully you screen leaders, it is likely that someone will get into a priestly position of power and behave in a less-than-holy manner. Taking a holy office does not suddenly nullify one's humanity. Religious discipline, designed to keep those in holy offices holy, is a tool ; like most tools, it's only useful if you take it up and really use it.
So now you take all of this outside the tribe, the village, the nation-state. You throw in the complication of a global community, where everyone comes from different smaller communities with different beliefs--and you're all sharing the same space. You also have non-believers--those who have no religious structure whatsoever. There are different worldviews, and different measures of truth. What this leads to in very provincial and authoritarian groups is a xenophobia. They don't want to deal with this outside world and its influences--it is "us against them", it invokes a myth of good forces versus evil forces, and there is a sense that the outside world must conform or be eliminated.
In order for all these different groups to function together in society, secularism is a must. Religion can't be the center of society, because the ruling government would have to choose the religion--and in choosing one, you disenfranchise others. Those who suggest the U.S. is a Christian nation should think hard about what that means. James Madison is credited with being a fighter for separation of church and state. During his term in the Virginia legislature, a motion arose to provide funding for Christian education. He fought long and hard against this motion--and eventually even the local Baptist congregations that were seeking the funds backed him up. Why? Because he made a very persuasive argument. Madison said, in short, that if the government handed out money for Christian education, they would have to define what "Christian" means. Even at that time there were a huge magnitude of Protestant denominations in the "New World", never mind Catholics. Whose version of Christianity is going to be the accepted one? Being a Christian nation sounds like a great idea to Christians, until they realize the form embraced may not be their own. Then what? And it doesn't even touch on other non-Christian groups, and non-believers.
Furthermore--if the government sanctions a religion, then they become the interpreters of that religion for that country. Just look to governments in the Middle East, and places like Somalia, to see how well that works. Would it make you happy to know that you could be executed for saying the wrong word, or wearing the wrong clothes? You can't cite "theocracy" and "freedom" in the same sentence and not be contradicting yourself, unless you are making the mistake of idealizing human nature.
The thing that is feared most by certain religious groups--certainly by the Catholic Church, and perhaps very conservative Protestant denominations--is the loss of purity of belief. If you open yourself up to a secular world and other belief systems, you run the risk of "diluting" your own beliefs. I've always seen this as a case of idolatry, pure and simple. They are clinging to their book of rules in a way that renders it absurd and invalid--they believe that they are in possession of all the knowledge about the great "Mystery" that they call "God". No one is in possession of that--we don't even know that there's a physical God.
Purity is a myth--unless you're living in a box, you're going to be influenced by others' ideas and beliefs in today's world. Instead of fighting it, these groups should embrace it. Religion would have more credibility in society if it looked at things as they really are, not as they insist or want them to be--it amounts to nothing more than arrogance to non-believers, and the idea that religious people are moronic and deluded. Everyone comes around to their truth in one way or another ; if a religion insists it must be their way, then they simply perpetuate the unnecessary battle between worldviews, and it will never end. After all, if you believe in God, you have faith that God will take care of things, yes? Actually no--the need for control is linked with the need for validation. If you are touting a belief and no one else buys it, you start to doubt it yourself. For some people, everyone must espouse their belief for them to feel validated. That's hardly belief at all. But it is human nature.
No one seems to know what to do with religion these days. Thousands of years ago, religious practices were the center of communities. It was the people against the great mystery of uncertainty and the unknown. For all of our scientific and technological advances, we haven't eliminated that in the 21st century. However, the 21st century world is not as provincial as it was in the past. You could have a religious belief system, with a group of priestly interpreters, and that belief system would probably be uniformly accepted and unquestioned in a small tribal community. It was the glue that held the community together.
However, basic group psychology tells us that this is an untenable proposition as the group gets bigger. Human behavior is the factor that everyone seems to idealize in communities. Everyone will be a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muslim, etc.), so therefore everyone will work together, respect each other and authority, and behave decently. Why in the world we think this would be the case just shows how delusional we can be about ourselves.
First--personalities count. In a large group of people, you are likely to have a mixture of passive, complacent individuals and controlling authoritarian individuals. I don't wish to suggest there is a strict line there--often we are a mixture of these types--but the ingredients are there for the establishment of a pecking order. The stronger personalities may display leadership qualities that allow them to take over.
This leads to the second issue of survival and greed ; these two go hand in hand. We only need very basic things to survive--food and water to nourish our bodies, clothing and shelter to protect us from the elements. The more we have, the more comfortable we are materially. Ideally, a community of individuals should share among themselves, so that no one goes without. We know for a fact that this rarely, if ever, happens in large groups. Why? Because people are greedy--they don't want to share what they have. The more they have, the less inclined they are to share. In fact--people often want more, and if it's at the expense of others, so be it.
Money and possessions aren't the only thing people become greedy about--power is a big one. And this circles back to personalities--if you have a controlling personality, and are power hungry, this can be a dangerous combination if you are in a leadership position. The other possibility is that you start out honest and egalitarian enough, but are corrupted once you actually have power. When it comes to the worldly things we desire--money, land, possessions, power, status--having some of it tends to make us want more of it. It's typical human behavior.
Religions are frequently shining examples of good, honest intentions gone bad, and it is because of these basics of human behavior and group dynamics. No matter how carefully you screen leaders, it is likely that someone will get into a priestly position of power and behave in a less-than-holy manner. Taking a holy office does not suddenly nullify one's humanity. Religious discipline, designed to keep those in holy offices holy, is a tool ; like most tools, it's only useful if you take it up and really use it.
So now you take all of this outside the tribe, the village, the nation-state. You throw in the complication of a global community, where everyone comes from different smaller communities with different beliefs--and you're all sharing the same space. You also have non-believers--those who have no religious structure whatsoever. There are different worldviews, and different measures of truth. What this leads to in very provincial and authoritarian groups is a xenophobia. They don't want to deal with this outside world and its influences--it is "us against them", it invokes a myth of good forces versus evil forces, and there is a sense that the outside world must conform or be eliminated.
In order for all these different groups to function together in society, secularism is a must. Religion can't be the center of society, because the ruling government would have to choose the religion--and in choosing one, you disenfranchise others. Those who suggest the U.S. is a Christian nation should think hard about what that means. James Madison is credited with being a fighter for separation of church and state. During his term in the Virginia legislature, a motion arose to provide funding for Christian education. He fought long and hard against this motion--and eventually even the local Baptist congregations that were seeking the funds backed him up. Why? Because he made a very persuasive argument. Madison said, in short, that if the government handed out money for Christian education, they would have to define what "Christian" means. Even at that time there were a huge magnitude of Protestant denominations in the "New World", never mind Catholics. Whose version of Christianity is going to be the accepted one? Being a Christian nation sounds like a great idea to Christians, until they realize the form embraced may not be their own. Then what? And it doesn't even touch on other non-Christian groups, and non-believers.
Furthermore--if the government sanctions a religion, then they become the interpreters of that religion for that country. Just look to governments in the Middle East, and places like Somalia, to see how well that works. Would it make you happy to know that you could be executed for saying the wrong word, or wearing the wrong clothes? You can't cite "theocracy" and "freedom" in the same sentence and not be contradicting yourself, unless you are making the mistake of idealizing human nature.
The thing that is feared most by certain religious groups--certainly by the Catholic Church, and perhaps very conservative Protestant denominations--is the loss of purity of belief. If you open yourself up to a secular world and other belief systems, you run the risk of "diluting" your own beliefs. I've always seen this as a case of idolatry, pure and simple. They are clinging to their book of rules in a way that renders it absurd and invalid--they believe that they are in possession of all the knowledge about the great "Mystery" that they call "God". No one is in possession of that--we don't even know that there's a physical God.
Purity is a myth--unless you're living in a box, you're going to be influenced by others' ideas and beliefs in today's world. Instead of fighting it, these groups should embrace it. Religion would have more credibility in society if it looked at things as they really are, not as they insist or want them to be--it amounts to nothing more than arrogance to non-believers, and the idea that religious people are moronic and deluded. Everyone comes around to their truth in one way or another ; if a religion insists it must be their way, then they simply perpetuate the unnecessary battle between worldviews, and it will never end. After all, if you believe in God, you have faith that God will take care of things, yes? Actually no--the need for control is linked with the need for validation. If you are touting a belief and no one else buys it, you start to doubt it yourself. For some people, everyone must espouse their belief for them to feel validated. That's hardly belief at all. But it is human nature.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Orange
Summer is just about here, and it shows. The air has been as hot and hazy as July. In looking at the weather reports, it appears this trend will continue unabated for the rest of the month. Thunderstorms are supposed to clear the air, but they frequently don't. I can't do much on hot summer days; the wet, sponge-like quality of the air soaks up my ambition with it. Even if I have some ambition, I can't think straight much of the time. It makes focusing on projects difficult.
I am one of the handful of people left with a MySpace account. I signed in today, and I'm always confronted by the inane ads they have for different bands and what appear to be television programs. Today's popped up: "Meet the Wests ; a family with different values." Then the family, dressed in dark colors, suddenly turned orange (meaning their clothes, they didn't suddenly get fake tans). Then the name changed from "Wests" to "Scoundrels".
I puzzled over this ad. Why does wearing orange make you a scoundrel? Was the ad-maker Irish Catholic? Did they work for Anheuser-Busch? More non-sensical color coding. Recently, Stephen Elliot of the Rumpus posted a Twitter update that asked why we were at "Threat Level Orange" again. I suspected that perhaps it was a sign that Fall was around the corner, but current weather conditions disprove that theory. Then I saw that a bunch of Dutch women were arrested at the World Cup games for wearing orange. It was believed that they were given the dresses by a Dutch beer company, who were clearly guilty of trying to advertise for a real beer at a game where there was, lamentably, only Anheuser-Busch products. If they'd snuck in any actual Bavaria Beer, I would have seen them as heroes. But advertising a beer that you can't have may have been a form of torture, so maybe the World Cup people were right. Don't remind everyone that they're drinking Budweiser and Busch, when they could be drinking beer that actually tastes good. Interestingly, drunkenness at the World Cup is down this year. Can't say I'm surprised. If someone told me I could drink water or Budweiser at an event, I'd opt for water, even though I hate drinking water.
So, orange is now associated with Protestantism, terrorism, rogue beer companies, and a family of "scoundrels". Does it really deserve that kind of reputation? I've always associated orange with Fall leaves, sunsets, pumpkins, bonfires, and creamsicles. Psychologically, orange is supposed to elicit enthusiasm, energy, and warmth. I've always thought it was a moderate color, tempering the intense effects of the color red with a sunny yellow. Symbolic shifts in the psyche happen slowly, and I wonder if this will be another one. I kind of hope not. But maybe it's just seasonal; we're entering the heart of summer, which in Celtic mythology is the time of the fiery eye of Balour, which is a mythological representation of the sun. When Balour opens his eye, a great fire burns up everything it sees. Coincidentally (or not), the sun is also entering a period of solar storms--which means solar flares have the potential to disrupt many things here on Earth. Weather and climate agencies say that knowing about the solar storms helps us mitigate the effects of them on our planet. But it might make people unconsciously wary of fiery orange.
I am one of the handful of people left with a MySpace account. I signed in today, and I'm always confronted by the inane ads they have for different bands and what appear to be television programs. Today's popped up: "Meet the Wests ; a family with different values." Then the family, dressed in dark colors, suddenly turned orange (meaning their clothes, they didn't suddenly get fake tans). Then the name changed from "Wests" to "Scoundrels".
I puzzled over this ad. Why does wearing orange make you a scoundrel? Was the ad-maker Irish Catholic? Did they work for Anheuser-Busch? More non-sensical color coding. Recently, Stephen Elliot of the Rumpus posted a Twitter update that asked why we were at "Threat Level Orange" again. I suspected that perhaps it was a sign that Fall was around the corner, but current weather conditions disprove that theory. Then I saw that a bunch of Dutch women were arrested at the World Cup games for wearing orange. It was believed that they were given the dresses by a Dutch beer company, who were clearly guilty of trying to advertise for a real beer at a game where there was, lamentably, only Anheuser-Busch products. If they'd snuck in any actual Bavaria Beer, I would have seen them as heroes. But advertising a beer that you can't have may have been a form of torture, so maybe the World Cup people were right. Don't remind everyone that they're drinking Budweiser and Busch, when they could be drinking beer that actually tastes good. Interestingly, drunkenness at the World Cup is down this year. Can't say I'm surprised. If someone told me I could drink water or Budweiser at an event, I'd opt for water, even though I hate drinking water.
So, orange is now associated with Protestantism, terrorism, rogue beer companies, and a family of "scoundrels". Does it really deserve that kind of reputation? I've always associated orange with Fall leaves, sunsets, pumpkins, bonfires, and creamsicles. Psychologically, orange is supposed to elicit enthusiasm, energy, and warmth. I've always thought it was a moderate color, tempering the intense effects of the color red with a sunny yellow. Symbolic shifts in the psyche happen slowly, and I wonder if this will be another one. I kind of hope not. But maybe it's just seasonal; we're entering the heart of summer, which in Celtic mythology is the time of the fiery eye of Balour, which is a mythological representation of the sun. When Balour opens his eye, a great fire burns up everything it sees. Coincidentally (or not), the sun is also entering a period of solar storms--which means solar flares have the potential to disrupt many things here on Earth. Weather and climate agencies say that knowing about the solar storms helps us mitigate the effects of them on our planet. But it might make people unconsciously wary of fiery orange.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Haunted Vehicle (Including a GH Parody)
Yesterday, for the first time in 240,000 miles, I started hearing strange noises in my car. They sound a bit like scraping noises. I’ve looked under the car for loose parts, and just had the brakes, struts, etc., checked—nothing. Everything looks peachy. The noises are not connected to steering, braking, or accelerating. To make matters even more mysterious, they come and go—I hear them some days, and not others. Being of Irish descent, and thus subject to Murphy’s Law, you can safely assume that no noises would occur if I let my mechanic take it for a spin.
So, with logical explanations being unsatisfactory, I’ve decided that my car must be haunted. Maybe I should call TAPS. I imagine the episode would go something like this:
On this episode of Ghost Hunters—TAPS heads to New Jersey to investigate a car with a troublesome poltergeist. Will Jason and Grant encounter the mischievous spirit? Hear mysterious sounds that leave everyone baffled. And see what sends Steve running for the hills...
(Cue intro)
(Show Jason and Grant driving) Jason: So, this case is in New Jersey. I hear it involves a car—we don’t get too many cases like that. Kris, do you want to fill us in?
Kris: Yeah, the owner has been driving this really old car—it’s like, 8 years old. Recently she’s been plagued by mysterious thumps, scraping sounds—once she even swears she heard voices.
Jason: How long has this been going on?
Kris: It just started in the last month.
Grant: Has she been to a mechanic?
Kris: She has, and everything has checked out as OK.
Jason: Huh, well, I guess we’d better get over there and see what we can find out.
(TAPS arrives at my house) Jason: Hi, how are you doing—I’m Jason from TAPS.
Grant: I’m Grant—we’re here to help.
Steve: I’m Steve.
Me: Hi guys. I’m Brigid. Thanks for coming. Would you like to see the car?
Jason: After you...
Me: Here it is. The car is very old—about 8 years old, which is probably at least 500 years old in car years. However, it’s always been quiet until recently. All of the sudden, I’m hearing banging and scraping noises coming from the back. And I swear I heard whispering once.
Jason: Now, no one else is hanging out in the back of your car?
Me: Um....no.
Steve: Has anyone else experienced this?
Me: Not really—I usually drive alone. It only happens when I’m driving slowly or coasting.
Grant: Are we going to be able to take the car for a drive?
Me: Sure. I’ll give you the key.
Jason: Okay, thanks for the tour. What we’re going to do now is that Steve will get the rest of the team, set up equipment, and see what we can catch.
Me: Good luck.
Jason: Thanks. C’mon, let’s get out of here.
The Investigation:
Grant: This is a really small area to investigate—it’s a car after all, and a Corolla, for Pete’s sake. So, we’re going to send investigators in two at a time.
(Jason and Grant do a thermal sweep).
Grant: We use a thermal imaging camera, which is one of the most sought-after pieces of equipment by investigators. A lot of investigations involve hot and cold spots, and the camera allows you to see temperature fluctuations.
Jason: Everything looks normal. Let’s take the car around the block.
(They get into the car, and start driving it)
Jason: You know, I wonder if this is really paranormal—this is an old car, after all, maybe it’s just...what the hell was that?
Grant: Did you hear that?
(Cut to commercial)
Grant: Did you hear that?
Jason: Yes, it’s like a scraping and a banging noise.
Jason: We started experiencing sounds like those reported by the owner, so we immediately set out to try to debunk them.
Grant: There wasn’t a muffler or any other parts hanging down, were there?
Jason: Nope, but we should get out and look to be sure.
(Grant gets out and looks under the car)
Grant: Nope, nothing is hanging down that could cause that sound. Maybe we should do some EVP work.
Grant: EVP stands for Electronic Voice Phenomena. This is a phenomena that happens very frequently. It's when you catch a voice on a recording device that you don't hear with the human ear at the time.
Jason: Can you give us a sign of your presence? Can you knock twice if you can understand me?
(They hear two faint knocks from under the car)
Grant: If that was you, can you do it again?
(Silence)
Jason: We did get a couple of knocks in response, but it didn’t happen again, so it’s hard to know if it was paranormal or not.
(Next team goes in—Kris and Amy)
Kris: Now, the owner claims to hear scraping and banging noises.
Amy: Could it just be age? I mean, this is an old car...they do make noises after awhile.
Kris: Could be. What the f**k was that? Holy s**t, that scared me!
Amy: It’s a weird banging noise...did you hear some kind of chattering?
Kris: Maybe there’s a squirrel stuck in the muffler?
Amy: I would think someone would have noticed that.
(Kris, speaking into recorder): Kris and Amy, in the car. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to us?
Amy: You don’t need to be afraid of us. Can you tell us your name?
Kris: Stop being a coward, motherf**ker—if you're here, prove it. I don't really believe you're here. You have to prove it to me.
(Silence. Not even the scraping noise).
Kris: We didn’t really hear anything else during the EVP session. Hopefully we’ll hear something in evidence review.
(Next team: Steve and Dave)
Steve: Now Tango, according to the owner, there are knocks and bangs and even a whisper...
Dave: Really?
Steve: It’s an old car—now, old cars do make noises...
Dave: Yeah, parts get rusty, even if they’re not broken
(They drive the car around the block)
Steve: Did you hear that?
Dave: Yeah, it’s like a scraping noise.
Steve: Let’s test the steering (turns the wheel). Nope, that doesn’t make a noise. I’ll hit the brakes hard next. (hits the brakes). Nope, not that either, though the brakes are a little squeaky. Do you think maybe she mistook the squeaky brakes for scraping?
Dave: It sounds like the scraping is coming from the middle of the car—right under us.
Steve: I have a theory—let me just check this thing on the dash...OH SH**T!!!!! (Stops the car, throws it in park, jumps out)
Dave: Wha..wha..what? What happened? What’s the matter?
Steve: There are f**king SPIDERS in this car!
Dave: Spiders?
Steve: Yes!
(Dave looks) Oh yeah, there are—but they’re really tiny...
Steve: Who cares? They’re spiders! I think we’ve investigated enough, don’t you?
(Jason comes over the walkie talkie): Hey guys, it’s late, I think we’ve got enough evidence to go over. Let’s wrap it up.
Jason: We did experience the phenomena mentioned by the owner, but it’s hard to say if it’s paranormal. We’ll have to see if we caught anything in evidence review.
After evidence review...The Reveal
Jason: Hi, Brigid, how are you?
Me: Hi, guys. I’m doing well, thanks.
Grant: Anything else happen since we’ve been here?
Me: Well, the noise still goes on...
Jason: Well, you know what we did, we took your claims of activity—the banging, the scraping, the voices—and tried to use our equipment to try to capture some of the activity and try to find explanations for some of your claims.
(I nod vigorously, as all good reveal-ees are supposed to do)
Grant: Jason and I took your car out, and we experienced the phenomena right away. We tried looking under the car to see if anything was obviously scraping, but we couldn’t find anything.
Me: Yeah, I’ve gone through that as well.
Jason: Our other team members also experienced the same thing. We even caught it on our recorders. Listen to it and see if this is the same sound you’ve been hearing.
(Jason plays the tape with the scraping noise)
Me: Yep, that’s definitely it.
Jason: The problem is, it’s such an old car, it’s hard to know if it’s paranormal or not. We’re not saying it isn’t, just that we don’t have enough evidence.
Grant: If you do hear voices, you just have to remember—it's your car, dang it. Tell whatever it is very firmly that it's your car, and you make the rules. It can't go around scaring people.
Jason: If you need anything from us, we’re just a phone call away.
Me: Hey, thanks, I appreciate your time.
Me: Jason and Grant just finished the reveal. Basically, they've told me what I already know. So, I guess I either tell off my car or get a new one when I have some money. I think telling it off is cheaper.
(Jason and Grant now driving home):
Grant: Well, I think that went pretty well. I think she understood that we don't have enough evidence to label it paranormal.
Jason: To be honest, it's a really old car. It probably just makes noises. I don't think there's anything paranormal about. Well, good job brother—on to the next...
(They do a fist-bump and drive off into the sunset)
So, with logical explanations being unsatisfactory, I’ve decided that my car must be haunted. Maybe I should call TAPS. I imagine the episode would go something like this:
On this episode of Ghost Hunters—TAPS heads to New Jersey to investigate a car with a troublesome poltergeist. Will Jason and Grant encounter the mischievous spirit? Hear mysterious sounds that leave everyone baffled. And see what sends Steve running for the hills...
(Cue intro)
(Show Jason and Grant driving) Jason: So, this case is in New Jersey. I hear it involves a car—we don’t get too many cases like that. Kris, do you want to fill us in?
Kris: Yeah, the owner has been driving this really old car—it’s like, 8 years old. Recently she’s been plagued by mysterious thumps, scraping sounds—once she even swears she heard voices.
Jason: How long has this been going on?
Kris: It just started in the last month.
Grant: Has she been to a mechanic?
Kris: She has, and everything has checked out as OK.
Jason: Huh, well, I guess we’d better get over there and see what we can find out.
(TAPS arrives at my house) Jason: Hi, how are you doing—I’m Jason from TAPS.
Grant: I’m Grant—we’re here to help.
Steve: I’m Steve.
Me: Hi guys. I’m Brigid. Thanks for coming. Would you like to see the car?
Jason: After you...
Me: Here it is. The car is very old—about 8 years old, which is probably at least 500 years old in car years. However, it’s always been quiet until recently. All of the sudden, I’m hearing banging and scraping noises coming from the back. And I swear I heard whispering once.
Jason: Now, no one else is hanging out in the back of your car?
Me: Um....no.
Steve: Has anyone else experienced this?
Me: Not really—I usually drive alone. It only happens when I’m driving slowly or coasting.
Grant: Are we going to be able to take the car for a drive?
Me: Sure. I’ll give you the key.
Jason: Okay, thanks for the tour. What we’re going to do now is that Steve will get the rest of the team, set up equipment, and see what we can catch.
Me: Good luck.
Jason: Thanks. C’mon, let’s get out of here.
The Investigation:
Grant: This is a really small area to investigate—it’s a car after all, and a Corolla, for Pete’s sake. So, we’re going to send investigators in two at a time.
(Jason and Grant do a thermal sweep).
Grant: We use a thermal imaging camera, which is one of the most sought-after pieces of equipment by investigators. A lot of investigations involve hot and cold spots, and the camera allows you to see temperature fluctuations.
Jason: Everything looks normal. Let’s take the car around the block.
(They get into the car, and start driving it)
Jason: You know, I wonder if this is really paranormal—this is an old car, after all, maybe it’s just...what the hell was that?
Grant: Did you hear that?
(Cut to commercial)
Grant: Did you hear that?
Jason: Yes, it’s like a scraping and a banging noise.
Jason: We started experiencing sounds like those reported by the owner, so we immediately set out to try to debunk them.
Grant: There wasn’t a muffler or any other parts hanging down, were there?
Jason: Nope, but we should get out and look to be sure.
(Grant gets out and looks under the car)
Grant: Nope, nothing is hanging down that could cause that sound. Maybe we should do some EVP work.
Grant: EVP stands for Electronic Voice Phenomena. This is a phenomena that happens very frequently. It's when you catch a voice on a recording device that you don't hear with the human ear at the time.
Jason: Can you give us a sign of your presence? Can you knock twice if you can understand me?
(They hear two faint knocks from under the car)
Grant: If that was you, can you do it again?
(Silence)
Jason: We did get a couple of knocks in response, but it didn’t happen again, so it’s hard to know if it was paranormal or not.
(Next team goes in—Kris and Amy)
Kris: Now, the owner claims to hear scraping and banging noises.
Amy: Could it just be age? I mean, this is an old car...they do make noises after awhile.
Kris: Could be. What the f**k was that? Holy s**t, that scared me!
Amy: It’s a weird banging noise...did you hear some kind of chattering?
Kris: Maybe there’s a squirrel stuck in the muffler?
Amy: I would think someone would have noticed that.
(Kris, speaking into recorder): Kris and Amy, in the car. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to us?
Amy: You don’t need to be afraid of us. Can you tell us your name?
Kris: Stop being a coward, motherf**ker—if you're here, prove it. I don't really believe you're here. You have to prove it to me.
(Silence. Not even the scraping noise).
Kris: We didn’t really hear anything else during the EVP session. Hopefully we’ll hear something in evidence review.
(Next team: Steve and Dave)
Steve: Now Tango, according to the owner, there are knocks and bangs and even a whisper...
Dave: Really?
Steve: It’s an old car—now, old cars do make noises...
Dave: Yeah, parts get rusty, even if they’re not broken
(They drive the car around the block)
Steve: Did you hear that?
Dave: Yeah, it’s like a scraping noise.
Steve: Let’s test the steering (turns the wheel). Nope, that doesn’t make a noise. I’ll hit the brakes hard next. (hits the brakes). Nope, not that either, though the brakes are a little squeaky. Do you think maybe she mistook the squeaky brakes for scraping?
Dave: It sounds like the scraping is coming from the middle of the car—right under us.
Steve: I have a theory—let me just check this thing on the dash...OH SH**T!!!!! (Stops the car, throws it in park, jumps out)
Dave: Wha..wha..what? What happened? What’s the matter?
Steve: There are f**king SPIDERS in this car!
Dave: Spiders?
Steve: Yes!
(Dave looks) Oh yeah, there are—but they’re really tiny...
Steve: Who cares? They’re spiders! I think we’ve investigated enough, don’t you?
(Jason comes over the walkie talkie): Hey guys, it’s late, I think we’ve got enough evidence to go over. Let’s wrap it up.
Jason: We did experience the phenomena mentioned by the owner, but it’s hard to say if it’s paranormal. We’ll have to see if we caught anything in evidence review.
After evidence review...The Reveal
Jason: Hi, Brigid, how are you?
Me: Hi, guys. I’m doing well, thanks.
Grant: Anything else happen since we’ve been here?
Me: Well, the noise still goes on...
Jason: Well, you know what we did, we took your claims of activity—the banging, the scraping, the voices—and tried to use our equipment to try to capture some of the activity and try to find explanations for some of your claims.
(I nod vigorously, as all good reveal-ees are supposed to do)
Grant: Jason and I took your car out, and we experienced the phenomena right away. We tried looking under the car to see if anything was obviously scraping, but we couldn’t find anything.
Me: Yeah, I’ve gone through that as well.
Jason: Our other team members also experienced the same thing. We even caught it on our recorders. Listen to it and see if this is the same sound you’ve been hearing.
(Jason plays the tape with the scraping noise)
Me: Yep, that’s definitely it.
Jason: The problem is, it’s such an old car, it’s hard to know if it’s paranormal or not. We’re not saying it isn’t, just that we don’t have enough evidence.
Grant: If you do hear voices, you just have to remember—it's your car, dang it. Tell whatever it is very firmly that it's your car, and you make the rules. It can't go around scaring people.
Jason: If you need anything from us, we’re just a phone call away.
Me: Hey, thanks, I appreciate your time.
Me: Jason and Grant just finished the reveal. Basically, they've told me what I already know. So, I guess I either tell off my car or get a new one when I have some money. I think telling it off is cheaper.
(Jason and Grant now driving home):
Grant: Well, I think that went pretty well. I think she understood that we don't have enough evidence to label it paranormal.
Jason: To be honest, it's a really old car. It probably just makes noises. I don't think there's anything paranormal about. Well, good job brother—on to the next...
(They do a fist-bump and drive off into the sunset)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Interim, or, The Obvious
The punctuation in the title of this post is dedicated to my cataloging students.
Last night I dreamt that I was walking around Brooklyn, and kept tripping over writers I knew of who were hipsters. All of them were in conversation with someone about how much they hated hipsters.
I went downstairs, and found my cat staring intently at the gap under my stove. He wasn't even interested in his breakfast. He was rewarded about a half an hour later when he came marching into the living room with a mouse hanging out of his mouth, still alive. He slammed it around like one of those criminals you see brought in for questioning by the tough detective in the movies. I managed to pick up the mouse with a rag, and put him outside. He stood up, shook himself, and then promptly walked into a railroad tie that has a bee's nest in it. Adds to my theory that mice as a group should win a Darwin Award.
While looking through RSS feeds, I saw the following article on vacations. Basically--the idea is that you are happier on vacation than you are at work. I rate the usefulness of this study right up there with last year's study of Santa Claus's health and the effects of HDTV on octopi. They don't even consider variables--such as vacations involving annoying friends, spouses, or relatives. I've been on a few of those kinds of vacations, and work never looked so good. In general, though, these are the kinds of explorations that make you wonder how much spare time and money these newspapers have.
And speaking of overpaid psychologists--I saw this article on Fark about the murder trial of a Manitoba man. A psychologist testified, saying he might have been motivated by "rage". Really? I would have thought anything but that. I've never heard of a murder motivated by rage. Oh wait...
Finally, to round out the conglomerate of the blindlingly obvious, here is an article on "manners that time forgot". How much time has elapsed since we forgot, if you're including such things as Internet flame wars and not answering your mobile phone while out with a friend? But memories are short-term these days as well, so maybe the "time" part is relative. And civility is hard to come by these days. But that doesn't make it any less sad that someone wrote this article.
Anyhow--sorry for being away for more than a week. I'll try not to do it again.
Last night I dreamt that I was walking around Brooklyn, and kept tripping over writers I knew of who were hipsters. All of them were in conversation with someone about how much they hated hipsters.
I went downstairs, and found my cat staring intently at the gap under my stove. He wasn't even interested in his breakfast. He was rewarded about a half an hour later when he came marching into the living room with a mouse hanging out of his mouth, still alive. He slammed it around like one of those criminals you see brought in for questioning by the tough detective in the movies. I managed to pick up the mouse with a rag, and put him outside. He stood up, shook himself, and then promptly walked into a railroad tie that has a bee's nest in it. Adds to my theory that mice as a group should win a Darwin Award.
While looking through RSS feeds, I saw the following article on vacations. Basically--the idea is that you are happier on vacation than you are at work. I rate the usefulness of this study right up there with last year's study of Santa Claus's health and the effects of HDTV on octopi. They don't even consider variables--such as vacations involving annoying friends, spouses, or relatives. I've been on a few of those kinds of vacations, and work never looked so good. In general, though, these are the kinds of explorations that make you wonder how much spare time and money these newspapers have.
And speaking of overpaid psychologists--I saw this article on Fark about the murder trial of a Manitoba man. A psychologist testified, saying he might have been motivated by "rage". Really? I would have thought anything but that. I've never heard of a murder motivated by rage. Oh wait...
Finally, to round out the conglomerate of the blindlingly obvious, here is an article on "manners that time forgot". How much time has elapsed since we forgot, if you're including such things as Internet flame wars and not answering your mobile phone while out with a friend? But memories are short-term these days as well, so maybe the "time" part is relative. And civility is hard to come by these days. But that doesn't make it any less sad that someone wrote this article.
Anyhow--sorry for being away for more than a week. I'll try not to do it again.
Monday, June 07, 2010
John Foxx at the Roundhouse, June 5, 2010
Judging from my stats on Google Analytics, a lot of people are waiting for this review. I’m surprised and flattered that people are that interested in my opinion of the Foxx events. I am still recovering from a 5-hour time difference within a 72-hour period, so I hope this is coherent.
I arrived at my hotel across from the Roundhouse at around 10:30 pm on Friday. This is always a bit disconcerting, as I usually have to be at Newark Airport at 7:00 in the morning for my flight. Camden Town is obviously a happening place—I couldn’t believe how many people were out. London is not New York—everything closes down by 11:30 or so in many places. By contrast, everything is just STARTING in New York at 11:30. But I digress...
The next day it was HOT. Not as hot as New Jersey—just turn the sauna steam down a few notches, and you have this past weekend’s weather in the south of England. London is also not known for having a whole lot of air conditioning, so it was a sticky affair. I had some errands to run in the West End before heading back to my hotel at around 12:30. I was already tired from walking around. I met up with a friend for lunch around 2:30, and then headed over to what has been dubbed “Foxxgate” at the Lock Tavern in Camden, not far from the Roundhouse. Our friend Brian (Mateybloke), who seems to have become the unofficial Foxx event documentarian, has some video from that event:
I met quite a few people from the forum there, and we chatted until about 7:00, when it was time to head over to the venue. There was quite a long line—I don’t think the show sold out, but there were certainly a few hundred people there, at the very least. I would have preferred to have been front and center for this gig, but I really wanted to hold on to the barricade in the front row—my legs were not doing a good job of supporting my body at that point. Too much walking around when I don’t get to walk around enough at home, I think—my ankles were actually swollen when I got back to my hotel later.
There were DJ sets by Jori Hulkkonen and Mark Jones before Foxx came on around 9:00. Gary Numan was supposed to come on after Jori, but he was delayed, so they swapped the sets around. From what I heard a lot of Numan fans were not happy about this; many had to catch the last train to their destination, and expected his set to be earlier.
Foxx played from about 9:00 to about 11:00. Here is the setlist, which I’ve totally ripped off from my friend Martin (Birdsong), with many thanks to him for putting it together:
Part One - Metamatic
Plaza
This City
Burning Car
He's A Liquid
No One Driving
Underpass
Part Two - Gordongate
Shadow Man
A Million Cars
An Ocean We Can Breathe
Part Three - The Maths
(new material here, someone might know the correct titles)
Running Man
In Summer Land (??)
Watching A Building On Fire
Catwalk/Satellite Town (??)
Part Four - Ultravox
Dislocation
Quiet Men
Slow Motion
"Encore"
new track - Ghost Shadow(??)
is this from the sessions with Paul Daley...?
Man Who Dies Every Day
Destination
"Encore"
Just For A Moment
As you can see from Martin’s list above, Foxx played material from different albums, with different people throughout the night. He had a full band backing him for most of it—I think it really enriched the sound of everything. Robin Simon (who played on Ultravox's Systems of Romance, John's last album with Ultravox)joined him towards the end, and Louis Gordon also came onstage for a few songs. I really enjoyed the new material with Benge (the Maths stuff)—that album comes out in the Fall, and I’m very much looking forward to it.
Here are a couple of videos from the show. One is mine, and another is Brian’s—he had a much better vantage point for filming, and has a better camera:
Brian's video of "Quiet Men"
My video of "Underpass"
(You can see more of Brian's video on Youtube by looking for videos by "mateybloke").
There were 5 cameras recording the event, which may come out on an official DVD. Gary Numan came on afterward, but I couldn’t stand inside the venue any longer, so I didn’t see his set. I went out to see about the aftershow, when Karborn came downstairs and gave me a backstage pass. I wasn’t thrilled about the “rock-starrishness” of this venue—I’m used to John just coming out to chat with the fans in the bar. But, it’s a larger than usual venue, so that’s how it works. Fortunately everyone else waiting to talk to Foxx got to come upstairs as well, so it was quite an aftershow. I talked to Foxx for a little while, though there were so many people, we didn’t talk about much but a potential trip to New York (no details on any New York events at this point). Steve Malins said he was taking next week off, and given the magnitude of the event, it’s obviously much needed and well-deserved. I also talked with Karborn about a number of things over the course of the evening, including his new website, which has some interesting new works—I encourage you to check it out.
I also met some new people during and after the show—lots of folks from the Metamatic forum—it was nice to finally put faces and names together. It was lovely to meet Nicola and Nadiin, and to see Isabelle, whom I didn’t expect to see. I wish we all had more time together. Can you all sign a petition for me to move to the UK or something?
Before I said goodbye to Foxx, he said, “Brigid, I hope it’s been worth it for you to come all this way.” And it always is.
I arrived at my hotel across from the Roundhouse at around 10:30 pm on Friday. This is always a bit disconcerting, as I usually have to be at Newark Airport at 7:00 in the morning for my flight. Camden Town is obviously a happening place—I couldn’t believe how many people were out. London is not New York—everything closes down by 11:30 or so in many places. By contrast, everything is just STARTING in New York at 11:30. But I digress...
The next day it was HOT. Not as hot as New Jersey—just turn the sauna steam down a few notches, and you have this past weekend’s weather in the south of England. London is also not known for having a whole lot of air conditioning, so it was a sticky affair. I had some errands to run in the West End before heading back to my hotel at around 12:30. I was already tired from walking around. I met up with a friend for lunch around 2:30, and then headed over to what has been dubbed “Foxxgate” at the Lock Tavern in Camden, not far from the Roundhouse. Our friend Brian (Mateybloke), who seems to have become the unofficial Foxx event documentarian, has some video from that event:
I met quite a few people from the forum there, and we chatted until about 7:00, when it was time to head over to the venue. There was quite a long line—I don’t think the show sold out, but there were certainly a few hundred people there, at the very least. I would have preferred to have been front and center for this gig, but I really wanted to hold on to the barricade in the front row—my legs were not doing a good job of supporting my body at that point. Too much walking around when I don’t get to walk around enough at home, I think—my ankles were actually swollen when I got back to my hotel later.
There were DJ sets by Jori Hulkkonen and Mark Jones before Foxx came on around 9:00. Gary Numan was supposed to come on after Jori, but he was delayed, so they swapped the sets around. From what I heard a lot of Numan fans were not happy about this; many had to catch the last train to their destination, and expected his set to be earlier.
Foxx played from about 9:00 to about 11:00. Here is the setlist, which I’ve totally ripped off from my friend Martin (Birdsong), with many thanks to him for putting it together:
Part One - Metamatic
Plaza
This City
Burning Car
He's A Liquid
No One Driving
Underpass
Part Two - Gordongate
Shadow Man
A Million Cars
An Ocean We Can Breathe
Part Three - The Maths
(new material here, someone might know the correct titles)
Running Man
In Summer Land (??)
Watching A Building On Fire
Catwalk/Satellite Town (??)
Part Four - Ultravox
Dislocation
Quiet Men
Slow Motion
"Encore"
new track - Ghost Shadow(??)
is this from the sessions with Paul Daley...?
Man Who Dies Every Day
Destination
"Encore"
Just For A Moment
As you can see from Martin’s list above, Foxx played material from different albums, with different people throughout the night. He had a full band backing him for most of it—I think it really enriched the sound of everything. Robin Simon (who played on Ultravox's Systems of Romance, John's last album with Ultravox)joined him towards the end, and Louis Gordon also came onstage for a few songs. I really enjoyed the new material with Benge (the Maths stuff)—that album comes out in the Fall, and I’m very much looking forward to it.
Here are a couple of videos from the show. One is mine, and another is Brian’s—he had a much better vantage point for filming, and has a better camera:
Brian's video of "Quiet Men"
My video of "Underpass"
(You can see more of Brian's video on Youtube by looking for videos by "mateybloke").
There were 5 cameras recording the event, which may come out on an official DVD. Gary Numan came on afterward, but I couldn’t stand inside the venue any longer, so I didn’t see his set. I went out to see about the aftershow, when Karborn came downstairs and gave me a backstage pass. I wasn’t thrilled about the “rock-starrishness” of this venue—I’m used to John just coming out to chat with the fans in the bar. But, it’s a larger than usual venue, so that’s how it works. Fortunately everyone else waiting to talk to Foxx got to come upstairs as well, so it was quite an aftershow. I talked to Foxx for a little while, though there were so many people, we didn’t talk about much but a potential trip to New York (no details on any New York events at this point). Steve Malins said he was taking next week off, and given the magnitude of the event, it’s obviously much needed and well-deserved. I also talked with Karborn about a number of things over the course of the evening, including his new website, which has some interesting new works—I encourage you to check it out.
I also met some new people during and after the show—lots of folks from the Metamatic forum—it was nice to finally put faces and names together. It was lovely to meet Nicola and Nadiin, and to see Isabelle, whom I didn’t expect to see. I wish we all had more time together. Can you all sign a petition for me to move to the UK or something?
Before I said goodbye to Foxx, he said, “Brigid, I hope it’s been worth it for you to come all this way.” And it always is.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Paranormal Investigation at Red Mill in Clinton, NJ, with TAPS Members
On Saturday evening I made the long commute to the Holiday Inn Express in Clinton, NJ (a whopping 10 minute drive) for a ghost hunting event at the famous Red Mill. I used to have an apartment very close to the Mill--I could walk to it in about 15 minutes. Until I saw the Ghost Hunters episode on the Red Mill, I had no idea it was haunted. I visited it years ago when I was still married--I remember thinking it was a pretty spooky place. But I hadn't heard any of the stories in connection with the place.
According to Bruce Peabody, who is on the Board for the Mill Museum, the Mill was a pretty awful place to work--at different times in its history it has milled grain, plaster, talc, and graphite. The rooms had little ventilation, working conditions were unsafe, and men worked 12 hours or more per day. Some of the ghosts alleged to be there are of a woman who committed suicide by drinking lye, an Irish worker who was assaulted and hung by his co-workers, and a crabby foreman who makes very unkind remarks about women.
I was not sure how this investigation was going to go--when it's a pre-planned event involving tickets, you wonder how credible it will be. I was pleasantly surprised--they broke us up into 5 groups, with about 13-15 people in each group, and we did 5 separate 45-minute investigations. There are 4 floors to the Mill, and a bunch of outbuildings. We worked with a different professional investigator on each floor and outside--on the top floor was Dustin Pari of Ghost Hunters and Ghost Hunters International fame, on the 3rd floor was a woman known as CC the Huntress, a very sweet lady who made use of dowsing rods, and was a fan of "instant EVPs" (doing a rapid succession of questions and immediately checking the results), Kris Williams of Ghost Hunters on the 2nd floor, and Bruce Tango (known, as he says, as "Dave Tango's Dad") on the 1st floor. The outbuildings were investigated with a local medium named Arlene.
Before heading over to the Mill, we had a "meet and greet" with the celebrity investigators, and a question and answer period, followed by a debriefing on the site, and a viewing of the Ghost Hunters episode on the Red Mill. I probably chatted the most with Dustin Pari, who is my favorite investigator of all time--he's very easygoing, not melodramatic, has an ironic sense of humor, and above all--reminds me of my nephew Tucker. I feel almost like Dustin is MY nephew. (We're probably fairly close in age, so that's rather silly, but still...). He was very down to earth, very nice (he declared us "best buds" since I'd been in the front row chatting on and off with him for 20 minutes), and during the investigation, he answered a lot of questions for me.
I want to mention a couple of things from the Q&A. First--someone beat me to the question about the Ghost Hunters episode at Leap Castle in Ireland. In this episode, the "elemental" that is supposed to haunt Leap Castle actually lifted Dustin up and dropped him to the floor. He said that the floor had been covered in straw, but he managed to be dropped at the spot where there was no straw, and stone floors are quite hard. What I didn't know was that this didn't happen when they were formally filming. He said that the team had come in with the attitude of being "Americans who were going to show these Irish how it was done", and didn't take warnings about provoking very seriously. He said that he and Dave were heavily provoking, joking around--the barometric pressure began to drop, and Irish investigator Barry Fitzgerald (now also on Ghost Hunters International) came upstairs, warning them to stop provoking. They laughed and dismissed his warnings, and nothing actually happened while the cameras were running. It wasn't until they were packing up that Dustin was picked up and dropped--it was picked up by one of the hand-held video recorders only, and not the entire event. He said it made him think twice, to realize that you couldn't go into an investigation and be disrespectful, no matter how skeptical you might be about the paranormal.
Another interesting question was from a woman who asked about "encountering Satan" during their investigations. Dustin said they never encountered Satan, and said that any encounter with Satan is rare, if not non-existent. (I don't personally believe in a literal being called Satan--it's clear that Dustin does, but I think we reach the same conclusion). Dustin said that Satan has little interest in our lives, and he has "bigger fish to fry"--giving the Holocaust and September 11 as examples. Demonic possession is extremely rare--most of it can be relegated to the realm of psychological disorder. I was pleased that he mentioned that Ouija boards are not doorways to the Devil ("Parker Brothers does not have a contract with Satan"), but did mention that the mental fitness of those using such tools was often the main factor in whether or not there would be trouble. I also give him kudos for dismissing as nonsense the notion that 3:00 am (or 3:15 am for Amityville Horror fans) was any sort of "Devil hour that mocked Christ". I first heard this said by Ed Warren, and it has been repeated on episodes of Paranormal State by Ryan Buell, who is no doubt quoting the Warrens. I'm not dismissing the Warrens outright, but I agree with Jason Hawes--you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. It's especially refreshing because I know that Dustin is a devout Christian, and I'm glad that he's not sidetracked by these kinds of superstitions.
While investigating the fourth floor of the Mill, I had the opportunity to ask Dustin about my mother's strange case. I think I've mentioned in earlier blog postings that my Mom has been plagued by some kind of being when she lays down to go to sleep--it either breaths in her ear, or makes these loud repeated popping sounds. In some cases she thinks she hears a voice. I've noticed she sleeps with her Latin missal and rosary beads next to her bed. My father never hears what she hears, and says she's just imagining it. But I did hear it--when I went to Florida for my niece's graduation, I drove back with my parents, and we shared a hotel room. I could hear this strange popping noise in my parents' bed. I thought it was my father--but then my mother said, "Brigid, do you hear that?" I said, "Yes, isn't that Dad?" She said, "No, it's not. It's that thing I was telling you about." So, I sat up, observed, and listened. Finally I said, "Mom, that's coming from YOU. You're generating that." But she has never believed me. Now, asking Dustin, he agreed that it could very well be a stress phenomenon, especially since my mother was past menopause. He said he has seen such cases, and the only way to dissipate the entity is through stress management via exercise and/or counseling. There are cases where people are haunted by entities, but often they invite them in for similar reasons, with a similar remedy.
CC the Huntress had some interesting EVPs while the previous group on her floor was present, and apparently an old-fashioned sewing machine started up by itself. Not much happened while we were there. On the second floor, we experienced Kris Williams' approach to ghost hunting. For one thing, she tries not to be too "serious"--we're sitting around hoping to contact dead people, how silly is that? She's also a great provoker--when nothing is happening, she starts saying provocative things. She related an incident on the Ghost Hunters show, when they were filming in a location that she thought was pretty lame. Nothing happened--she did her provoking and got nothing. As they were packing up, Steve Gonsalves asked if she was ready to leave. "Yes, this place is lame," she replied. Their DVRs were still running, and later upon review, Kris heard a man say, "Get that bitch out of here" after she made her comment about the place. So--back to what Dustin said about being respectful. Though Kris does have a point--if nothing happens, sometimes this rudeness is the only way to make things happen.
On the first floor we worked with Bruce Tango, who told us that an earlier group experienced movement in one of the drill bits hanging from the ceiling. It wasn't just a slight motion--it was an actual rotation, like a pendulum. When someone asked it to spin the other way--it stopped and began to spin the other way. During our investigation there, we heard a loud bang, and one woman felt something touch her--like a bug smacking into her head, but there was no bug. There were a few cold spots, but not much else happened. While working with Arlene, we went to the schoolhouse on the grounds, and the tenant house. She did some medium readings in the schoolhouse--they were relevant to others, but not me. Which is not surprising--I try not to hold onto those who have passed. The medium talked about her own experiences, especially in the tenant house. While she was talking, several members of our group heard footsteps on the level above us. No one else was in the house with us. I, sadly, did not hear the footsteps. I have heard that this is a common phenomenon in that building.
Usually in haunted places, I get a feeling in my gut, and my hairs stand on end on my body, as if electrified. I didn't have that feeling at the Mill, though I was experiencing on-and-off sinus headaches from the high humidity, and drastic temperature changes between the upper and lower floors of the Mill. The resulting shakes I had made it difficult to tell if I had any other sensations about the place.
All in all, it was an interesting investigation. I had a digital voice recorder running for all 4 hours of the investigation, and I still need to review it. Dustin Pari encouraged those with recorders to send any possible EVP clips to him at his website. I certainly will, if I find any in review.
I also recommend that local NJ residents become members of the Clinton Mill Museum--you would get free admission to the Museum, and information about a lot of ghost walks and paranormal events that go on there regularly. And it's a piece of history worth preserving, whether you believe in ghosts or not.
According to Bruce Peabody, who is on the Board for the Mill Museum, the Mill was a pretty awful place to work--at different times in its history it has milled grain, plaster, talc, and graphite. The rooms had little ventilation, working conditions were unsafe, and men worked 12 hours or more per day. Some of the ghosts alleged to be there are of a woman who committed suicide by drinking lye, an Irish worker who was assaulted and hung by his co-workers, and a crabby foreman who makes very unkind remarks about women.
I was not sure how this investigation was going to go--when it's a pre-planned event involving tickets, you wonder how credible it will be. I was pleasantly surprised--they broke us up into 5 groups, with about 13-15 people in each group, and we did 5 separate 45-minute investigations. There are 4 floors to the Mill, and a bunch of outbuildings. We worked with a different professional investigator on each floor and outside--on the top floor was Dustin Pari of Ghost Hunters and Ghost Hunters International fame, on the 3rd floor was a woman known as CC the Huntress, a very sweet lady who made use of dowsing rods, and was a fan of "instant EVPs" (doing a rapid succession of questions and immediately checking the results), Kris Williams of Ghost Hunters on the 2nd floor, and Bruce Tango (known, as he says, as "Dave Tango's Dad") on the 1st floor. The outbuildings were investigated with a local medium named Arlene.
Before heading over to the Mill, we had a "meet and greet" with the celebrity investigators, and a question and answer period, followed by a debriefing on the site, and a viewing of the Ghost Hunters episode on the Red Mill. I probably chatted the most with Dustin Pari, who is my favorite investigator of all time--he's very easygoing, not melodramatic, has an ironic sense of humor, and above all--reminds me of my nephew Tucker. I feel almost like Dustin is MY nephew. (We're probably fairly close in age, so that's rather silly, but still...). He was very down to earth, very nice (he declared us "best buds" since I'd been in the front row chatting on and off with him for 20 minutes), and during the investigation, he answered a lot of questions for me.
I want to mention a couple of things from the Q&A. First--someone beat me to the question about the Ghost Hunters episode at Leap Castle in Ireland. In this episode, the "elemental" that is supposed to haunt Leap Castle actually lifted Dustin up and dropped him to the floor. He said that the floor had been covered in straw, but he managed to be dropped at the spot where there was no straw, and stone floors are quite hard. What I didn't know was that this didn't happen when they were formally filming. He said that the team had come in with the attitude of being "Americans who were going to show these Irish how it was done", and didn't take warnings about provoking very seriously. He said that he and Dave were heavily provoking, joking around--the barometric pressure began to drop, and Irish investigator Barry Fitzgerald (now also on Ghost Hunters International) came upstairs, warning them to stop provoking. They laughed and dismissed his warnings, and nothing actually happened while the cameras were running. It wasn't until they were packing up that Dustin was picked up and dropped--it was picked up by one of the hand-held video recorders only, and not the entire event. He said it made him think twice, to realize that you couldn't go into an investigation and be disrespectful, no matter how skeptical you might be about the paranormal.
Another interesting question was from a woman who asked about "encountering Satan" during their investigations. Dustin said they never encountered Satan, and said that any encounter with Satan is rare, if not non-existent. (I don't personally believe in a literal being called Satan--it's clear that Dustin does, but I think we reach the same conclusion). Dustin said that Satan has little interest in our lives, and he has "bigger fish to fry"--giving the Holocaust and September 11 as examples. Demonic possession is extremely rare--most of it can be relegated to the realm of psychological disorder. I was pleased that he mentioned that Ouija boards are not doorways to the Devil ("Parker Brothers does not have a contract with Satan"), but did mention that the mental fitness of those using such tools was often the main factor in whether or not there would be trouble. I also give him kudos for dismissing as nonsense the notion that 3:00 am (or 3:15 am for Amityville Horror fans) was any sort of "Devil hour that mocked Christ". I first heard this said by Ed Warren, and it has been repeated on episodes of Paranormal State by Ryan Buell, who is no doubt quoting the Warrens. I'm not dismissing the Warrens outright, but I agree with Jason Hawes--you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. It's especially refreshing because I know that Dustin is a devout Christian, and I'm glad that he's not sidetracked by these kinds of superstitions.
While investigating the fourth floor of the Mill, I had the opportunity to ask Dustin about my mother's strange case. I think I've mentioned in earlier blog postings that my Mom has been plagued by some kind of being when she lays down to go to sleep--it either breaths in her ear, or makes these loud repeated popping sounds. In some cases she thinks she hears a voice. I've noticed she sleeps with her Latin missal and rosary beads next to her bed. My father never hears what she hears, and says she's just imagining it. But I did hear it--when I went to Florida for my niece's graduation, I drove back with my parents, and we shared a hotel room. I could hear this strange popping noise in my parents' bed. I thought it was my father--but then my mother said, "Brigid, do you hear that?" I said, "Yes, isn't that Dad?" She said, "No, it's not. It's that thing I was telling you about." So, I sat up, observed, and listened. Finally I said, "Mom, that's coming from YOU. You're generating that." But she has never believed me. Now, asking Dustin, he agreed that it could very well be a stress phenomenon, especially since my mother was past menopause. He said he has seen such cases, and the only way to dissipate the entity is through stress management via exercise and/or counseling. There are cases where people are haunted by entities, but often they invite them in for similar reasons, with a similar remedy.
CC the Huntress had some interesting EVPs while the previous group on her floor was present, and apparently an old-fashioned sewing machine started up by itself. Not much happened while we were there. On the second floor, we experienced Kris Williams' approach to ghost hunting. For one thing, she tries not to be too "serious"--we're sitting around hoping to contact dead people, how silly is that? She's also a great provoker--when nothing is happening, she starts saying provocative things. She related an incident on the Ghost Hunters show, when they were filming in a location that she thought was pretty lame. Nothing happened--she did her provoking and got nothing. As they were packing up, Steve Gonsalves asked if she was ready to leave. "Yes, this place is lame," she replied. Their DVRs were still running, and later upon review, Kris heard a man say, "Get that bitch out of here" after she made her comment about the place. So--back to what Dustin said about being respectful. Though Kris does have a point--if nothing happens, sometimes this rudeness is the only way to make things happen.
On the first floor we worked with Bruce Tango, who told us that an earlier group experienced movement in one of the drill bits hanging from the ceiling. It wasn't just a slight motion--it was an actual rotation, like a pendulum. When someone asked it to spin the other way--it stopped and began to spin the other way. During our investigation there, we heard a loud bang, and one woman felt something touch her--like a bug smacking into her head, but there was no bug. There were a few cold spots, but not much else happened. While working with Arlene, we went to the schoolhouse on the grounds, and the tenant house. She did some medium readings in the schoolhouse--they were relevant to others, but not me. Which is not surprising--I try not to hold onto those who have passed. The medium talked about her own experiences, especially in the tenant house. While she was talking, several members of our group heard footsteps on the level above us. No one else was in the house with us. I, sadly, did not hear the footsteps. I have heard that this is a common phenomenon in that building.
Usually in haunted places, I get a feeling in my gut, and my hairs stand on end on my body, as if electrified. I didn't have that feeling at the Mill, though I was experiencing on-and-off sinus headaches from the high humidity, and drastic temperature changes between the upper and lower floors of the Mill. The resulting shakes I had made it difficult to tell if I had any other sensations about the place.
All in all, it was an interesting investigation. I had a digital voice recorder running for all 4 hours of the investigation, and I still need to review it. Dustin Pari encouraged those with recorders to send any possible EVP clips to him at his website. I certainly will, if I find any in review.
I also recommend that local NJ residents become members of the Clinton Mill Museum--you would get free admission to the Museum, and information about a lot of ghost walks and paranormal events that go on there regularly. And it's a piece of history worth preserving, whether you believe in ghosts or not.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Religious Education?
Today I saw this post about the GCSE Religion exam in Great Britain. "GCSE" stands for "General Certificate of Secondary Education", and British students have to pass a test (or tests?) to obtain this. There was some disgust about the fact that secondary school students wouldn't be able to identify Mary or Joseph in a standard Nativity scene. Unlike the United States, Great Britain does have an official state church, even though they do accept other religions. The complaint in the article was that students spent too much time on world religions and not enough on Christianity.
Is that really the problem? I think it's the opposite problem--people aren't educated enough about ANY religion. The fact that we live in a modern, secular society doesn't change the fact that people do practice various religions. While I don't think anyone in a Western country is keen on having any particular religion foisted on them in public schools, the lack of historical education is, quite frankly, a problem. This is not about indoctrinating youth into a set of beliefs; it's about the religious history of civilization.
Think about this: I read a posting recently from a religion professor in a university who was teaching about the Crusades. A young conservative Christian student raised her hand, and wanted to know where the Protestants were in all of this. She seemed to be clueless about the fact that the Protestant Reformation took place about 400 years later. I've read similar accounts from professors who teach conservative Christian students in conservative Christian colleges. When questioned about the basics of their own religion, they fail. And when we talk about Christianity's intersection with American history--only look at the previous blog post to see how many idiots--including those in elected positions--still think that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian country".
Consider this as well: How many conspiracy theories are still extant about the Jews and a "Zionist plot"? How many people out there still think all Muslims are terrorists and linked with Al-Qaeda? And these are just the major monotheisms. I couldn't begin to tell you how many people ask me how I could practice Hinduism, when Hindus believe that all those statues are gods.
Ironically enough, those that oppose religious education the most vehemently are the very religious. There is a great fear that if their children learn about other religions, they will lose their faith in their parents' religion. To them I say--is your religion so flimsy and weak that it can't stand up to historical scrutiny?
This is not about teaching the Bible in class or some brand of Christianity. It's about teaching the basic facts and history of the major world religions--and about the impact of religion in society, and maybe looking at some of those religious works. There ought to be a History of Religions class that students have to pass before graduating from high school. There should be no editorializing, just the facts. Even the children of atheists would do well to understand the religious landscape and its context. It affects everything in our society, like it or not--and the negatives come mostly from ignorance.
Is that really the problem? I think it's the opposite problem--people aren't educated enough about ANY religion. The fact that we live in a modern, secular society doesn't change the fact that people do practice various religions. While I don't think anyone in a Western country is keen on having any particular religion foisted on them in public schools, the lack of historical education is, quite frankly, a problem. This is not about indoctrinating youth into a set of beliefs; it's about the religious history of civilization.
Think about this: I read a posting recently from a religion professor in a university who was teaching about the Crusades. A young conservative Christian student raised her hand, and wanted to know where the Protestants were in all of this. She seemed to be clueless about the fact that the Protestant Reformation took place about 400 years later. I've read similar accounts from professors who teach conservative Christian students in conservative Christian colleges. When questioned about the basics of their own religion, they fail. And when we talk about Christianity's intersection with American history--only look at the previous blog post to see how many idiots--including those in elected positions--still think that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian country".
Consider this as well: How many conspiracy theories are still extant about the Jews and a "Zionist plot"? How many people out there still think all Muslims are terrorists and linked with Al-Qaeda? And these are just the major monotheisms. I couldn't begin to tell you how many people ask me how I could practice Hinduism, when Hindus believe that all those statues are gods.
Ironically enough, those that oppose religious education the most vehemently are the very religious. There is a great fear that if their children learn about other religions, they will lose their faith in their parents' religion. To them I say--is your religion so flimsy and weak that it can't stand up to historical scrutiny?
This is not about teaching the Bible in class or some brand of Christianity. It's about teaching the basic facts and history of the major world religions--and about the impact of religion in society, and maybe looking at some of those religious works. There ought to be a History of Religions class that students have to pass before graduating from high school. There should be no editorializing, just the facts. Even the children of atheists would do well to understand the religious landscape and its context. It affects everything in our society, like it or not--and the negatives come mostly from ignorance.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Texas Zombies
Do you remember when this sign appeared in Austin, Texas?
Well, they weren't kidding:
You can read the full blog post on this here.
If this were limited to a small area of Texas it might not be a big deal. However, these folks make textbook decisions that affect the entire country.
There is no explanation for this except that their brains have been eaten. If you have children in grade school, be very afraid. They're coming for their brains next.
Well, they weren't kidding:
You can read the full blog post on this here.
If this were limited to a small area of Texas it might not be a big deal. However, these folks make textbook decisions that affect the entire country.
There is no explanation for this except that their brains have been eaten. If you have children in grade school, be very afraid. They're coming for their brains next.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Cartesian Chaos
Perception is so untrustworthy. Frequently your perceptions are based on how much your brain and/or your body hate you on a particular day. I’m sure someone with more math skills than myself could come up with a formula.
Getting up at 3am is not that big of a deal. I usually get up at 4am—this is just one more hour. Going to work is not a big deal—I know exactly what I have to do, and I do it. I get home before the rush hour, and if I don’t have a brief appointment somewhere, I’m at home making dinner and relaxing. I go to bed early because—well, I have to get up at 3am.
So, overall, no big deal, right? A little stressful, lots of things to do, but it’s not as if this is something new to my life. However, my brain and body feel very differently about this. According to my perceptions, I’m being trampled over and over again by a team of Clydesdales. And boy, are my brain and body MAD about it. I’ve never felt such anger about absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. John Foxx uses the metaphor of “having your skin scraped off by a lot of nice, friendly people” in a recent interview, in reference to different stresses of public life. I think it’s something like that, but Foxx is English, which means he’s better at hiding his feelings about such experiences. And he remembers to carry an umbrella when he’s out in English weather. I’m bad at both things, and Foxx is nice enough to only scold me about the latter.
But back to perceptions. For all the meditation I’ve done and still do, however many times I tell myself that reality is just an illusion, a game, not to take it too seriously—I am frequently annoyed that I still have to play politics with my brain and body, who do not accept this. They’re like the Tea Party of my soul—I have no choice but to put up with their loud protestations even though they’re idiots.
Speaking of idiots and idiocy, I learned that Bristol Palin, famous for being Caribou Barbie’s daughter and having a baby out of wedlock, is going to command a $30,000 per-event speaking fee. Apparently she’s planning to talk about moral issues like abstinence, which goes to show you that if you fail at something, you can make a killing off of it. I’d mention lemons and lemonade, but I hate old clichés. It also makes me want to put my sign back up with the big “X” in the middle and the instructions “bang head here”. I thought I could put that away permanently when I stopped working for County government.
But seriously—I must be in the wrong line of business. $30,000 per speaking event when your only qualification is being the daughter of a pop tart? I think I’ve lived too honestly and intellectually, and have actually bought the old BS line that suggests I will be successful with both of those things. I guess success in this case means “personal satisfaction” and not “making a ton of money”. In any case, one hopes that Bristol has a better command of the English language than her mother. Not that it will matter to her audience—most of them can’t spell. (Ironically, they are usually the same lot that demands the U.S. be an “English-only” country. They’d have to leave.)
You see? I’m getting aggravated again. This sort of thing goes on all the time lately. Maybe I’m not living a sheltered enough life. Or maybe I’m not drinking enough beer. Of course, I’ve heard that neither of these things is good for you, but I heard that from the same people that said working hard at my academic pursuits would make me wildly successful.
I think I just need to remind myself that life is absurd, that my thoughts about it are absurd, that we’re all crazy, and I just need to remain centered and disciplined.
Eh, forget it. My body wants a pizza.
Getting up at 3am is not that big of a deal. I usually get up at 4am—this is just one more hour. Going to work is not a big deal—I know exactly what I have to do, and I do it. I get home before the rush hour, and if I don’t have a brief appointment somewhere, I’m at home making dinner and relaxing. I go to bed early because—well, I have to get up at 3am.
So, overall, no big deal, right? A little stressful, lots of things to do, but it’s not as if this is something new to my life. However, my brain and body feel very differently about this. According to my perceptions, I’m being trampled over and over again by a team of Clydesdales. And boy, are my brain and body MAD about it. I’ve never felt such anger about absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. John Foxx uses the metaphor of “having your skin scraped off by a lot of nice, friendly people” in a recent interview, in reference to different stresses of public life. I think it’s something like that, but Foxx is English, which means he’s better at hiding his feelings about such experiences. And he remembers to carry an umbrella when he’s out in English weather. I’m bad at both things, and Foxx is nice enough to only scold me about the latter.
But back to perceptions. For all the meditation I’ve done and still do, however many times I tell myself that reality is just an illusion, a game, not to take it too seriously—I am frequently annoyed that I still have to play politics with my brain and body, who do not accept this. They’re like the Tea Party of my soul—I have no choice but to put up with their loud protestations even though they’re idiots.
Speaking of idiots and idiocy, I learned that Bristol Palin, famous for being Caribou Barbie’s daughter and having a baby out of wedlock, is going to command a $30,000 per-event speaking fee. Apparently she’s planning to talk about moral issues like abstinence, which goes to show you that if you fail at something, you can make a killing off of it. I’d mention lemons and lemonade, but I hate old clichés. It also makes me want to put my sign back up with the big “X” in the middle and the instructions “bang head here”. I thought I could put that away permanently when I stopped working for County government.
But seriously—I must be in the wrong line of business. $30,000 per speaking event when your only qualification is being the daughter of a pop tart? I think I’ve lived too honestly and intellectually, and have actually bought the old BS line that suggests I will be successful with both of those things. I guess success in this case means “personal satisfaction” and not “making a ton of money”. In any case, one hopes that Bristol has a better command of the English language than her mother. Not that it will matter to her audience—most of them can’t spell. (Ironically, they are usually the same lot that demands the U.S. be an “English-only” country. They’d have to leave.)
You see? I’m getting aggravated again. This sort of thing goes on all the time lately. Maybe I’m not living a sheltered enough life. Or maybe I’m not drinking enough beer. Of course, I’ve heard that neither of these things is good for you, but I heard that from the same people that said working hard at my academic pursuits would make me wildly successful.
I think I just need to remind myself that life is absurd, that my thoughts about it are absurd, that we’re all crazy, and I just need to remain centered and disciplined.
Eh, forget it. My body wants a pizza.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck reminds me of a rabid dog, with the difference being that dogs are smarter. (Yes, even rabid ones). My father watches him religiously, and I've never been able to sit with him through more than 5 minutes of that bat-shit insanity. (OK, you caught me--it's really more like 5 seconds).
In any case, if you're an American, you probably (I hope) know this already, and if you're not--well, I'm sure other countries have their resident crazies, I just don't know if a major network gives them a show or not. Actually, seeing some examples of the UK's hate-speech law in action, I'm betting Beck would be banned entirely. While I'm for freedom of speech, I have to confess that I wouldn't be particularly sad about that.
For your viewing pleasure--here is a satire from The Onion regarding Mr. Beck:
Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck
And Lewis Black on Glenn Beck, totally on-point as usual:
In any case, if you're an American, you probably (I hope) know this already, and if you're not--well, I'm sure other countries have their resident crazies, I just don't know if a major network gives them a show or not. Actually, seeing some examples of the UK's hate-speech law in action, I'm betting Beck would be banned entirely. While I'm for freedom of speech, I have to confess that I wouldn't be particularly sad about that.
For your viewing pleasure--here is a satire from The Onion regarding Mr. Beck:
Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck
And Lewis Black on Glenn Beck, totally on-point as usual:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Back in Black - Glenn Beck's Nazi Tourette's | ||||
| ||||
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Marvelous Mr. Bierce
It's been a few days since I've done any blogging, but not without reason. May has been the Month of Panic, as I've got online lectures to record (14 of them, ranging from 1-2 hours each), stories to finish before going to Book Expo next week, unexpected visits from West Coast family, anxiety about bills as this is my last month without a 2nd/3rd job--and realizing after weeks of little sleep and non-stop work that I still have a lot more to do. So, not feeling any pressure or anything.
In talking with friends and co-workers in recent days, it's interesting how everyone has had a sense of feeling "trampled" these days. Lately I find myself getting irritated at selfish and uncivil behavior, even though it's pretty much the norm in our self-absorbed society. In such cases, where people may be wrong but you can't change them, there's really only one solution: satire.
I've forced myself to take some time out to relax over the last couple of days, and I've taken that time to do some reading. My book of choice is "The Ambrose Bierce Satanic Reader". Bierce was an American writer from the late 19th century, well-known for his short stories and his ultra-cynical "Devil's Dictionary", one of my favorite pieces of writing ever. Bierce was a master of the art of "telling it like it is". The "Satanic Reader" features clips from news articles written by Bierce in various newspapers from the 1860s to the 1880s. The articles provide a glimpse into the social and political life of America on the West Coast (namely San Francisco) during that time period, and Bierce's cynical feelings are hardly concealed. What is remarkable is how little has changed between now and then. Here are some examples:
On religion in the "land of the free" (1869):
"Mr. J.G. Methua was arrested for giving a theatrical exhibition on Sunday. Mr. J.G. Methua would better have a care how he conducts himself in a country of equal rights. Sunday theatricals may be safe in the crumbling despotisms and rotten aristocracies of the old world, but not in the lusty young republic of religious toleration--not in a land of religious liberty! Rally round the Cross, O leathern-lunged elect, for the recognition of Christianity, and its relentless enforcement by law! Let us jam our holy religion down the protesting throats of the heathen and the infidel, so that they shall be brought to know God, and to love him as we do; yea, that they may hanker after him, even as a baby craveth rhubarb, or a cat lusteth after soft soap."
In a section called the "Fallacy of Democracy" we have the following:
The Versatile Lieutenant-Governor (1869)
"The Secretary of the State Prison Commission complains that the Lieutenant-Governor, who is ex-officio Warden of the Penitentiary, is selected without reference to his qualifications for that position, but for his fitness to take the place of Governor in case of necessity. He is selected with no reference to either, but is usually well qualified to take the place of the Governor or of the prisoners, indifferently."
Essence of Political Differences (1877)
"Judge Bradley says of the electoral commission: 'I firmly believe that the differences of opinion were honest, and arose from the different standpoints of individuals.' Not a doubt of it; seven members of the commission looked at the question from a standpoint of self-interest, and eight considered it from one of personal advantage."
The Pattern of Power (1884)
"The wrongs that the poor and feeble suffer from the rich and powerful transcend expression. The sufferers are themselves but dimly aware of them: 'tyranny', 'plunder', and 'insult' are mild terms to describe them. But redress there is none--there is only escape; the victims must emancipate themselves by acquisition of wealth and power. They cannot hope successfully to fight. They are a minority, and have neither the intelligence nor the means to cope with the formidable energies and exhaustless resources of the system that is to them an engine of oppression. Nine men in ten have in them the potencies and possibilities of rascality, which need but opportunity to develop. Let Socialists make the laws to-day and they would break them to-morrow. No sooner do the poor become rich than they harden their hearts to the miseries of the poor. In so far as it proposes to correct the evils of unequal fortune, Socialism aims to repeal the laws of nature."
On Prisons (1886):
"The newest 'fad' of the penologists is 'indeterminate sentences'--that is to say, criminals are to be simply sent to prison, to be, like patients in a hospital, 'discharged when cured'. This plan--which has the merit of Prison Director Hendrick's approval--will work first rate if God will agree to act as the discharging officer. It is hardly likely, though, that he would accept the position; he has long been out of politics."
"Case Dismissed" (on bribery) (1871)
"We have the highest possible regard for Mr. Freelon, the Assistant District Attorney, but if we had caused as many murder cases to be dismissed in one week as he has, we should expect somebody to affirm that we were bribed. That nobody has made that charge against Mr. Freelon is extremely creditable to our community, and very fortunate for Mr. Freelon. If it were once made somebody would be sure to believe it, and would swear that it was the only intelligible explanation of his conduct. Let us give thanks that Mr. Freelon is above suspicion, and let Mr. Freelon feel grateful that we are above suspecting him."
And so on. Bierce was often criticized for "telling it like it is", and in my favorite response to that charge he says:
"...I had a thing to say which nobody else would say, and it was necessary to be said. One of the disadvantages of our social system, which is the child of our political, is the tyranny of public opinion, forbidding the utterance of wholesome but unpalatable truth. In a republic we are so accustomed to the rule of majorities that it seldom occurs to us to examine their title to dominion; and as the ideas of might and right are, by our innate sense of justice, linked together, we come to consider public opinion infallible and almost sacred."
Which is also why we need satire--it's a joke that's only half-joking. People can't handle "unpalatable" truth head on. More importantly, satire reminds us that we take ourselves and our opinions too seriously. We do know this, which is why The Onion, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report are all more popular than the regular news. They're not only more truthful; they remind us how absurd everything is.
In talking with friends and co-workers in recent days, it's interesting how everyone has had a sense of feeling "trampled" these days. Lately I find myself getting irritated at selfish and uncivil behavior, even though it's pretty much the norm in our self-absorbed society. In such cases, where people may be wrong but you can't change them, there's really only one solution: satire.
I've forced myself to take some time out to relax over the last couple of days, and I've taken that time to do some reading. My book of choice is "The Ambrose Bierce Satanic Reader". Bierce was an American writer from the late 19th century, well-known for his short stories and his ultra-cynical "Devil's Dictionary", one of my favorite pieces of writing ever. Bierce was a master of the art of "telling it like it is". The "Satanic Reader" features clips from news articles written by Bierce in various newspapers from the 1860s to the 1880s. The articles provide a glimpse into the social and political life of America on the West Coast (namely San Francisco) during that time period, and Bierce's cynical feelings are hardly concealed. What is remarkable is how little has changed between now and then. Here are some examples:
On religion in the "land of the free" (1869):
"Mr. J.G. Methua was arrested for giving a theatrical exhibition on Sunday. Mr. J.G. Methua would better have a care how he conducts himself in a country of equal rights. Sunday theatricals may be safe in the crumbling despotisms and rotten aristocracies of the old world, but not in the lusty young republic of religious toleration--not in a land of religious liberty! Rally round the Cross, O leathern-lunged elect, for the recognition of Christianity, and its relentless enforcement by law! Let us jam our holy religion down the protesting throats of the heathen and the infidel, so that they shall be brought to know God, and to love him as we do; yea, that they may hanker after him, even as a baby craveth rhubarb, or a cat lusteth after soft soap."
In a section called the "Fallacy of Democracy" we have the following:
The Versatile Lieutenant-Governor (1869)
"The Secretary of the State Prison Commission complains that the Lieutenant-Governor, who is ex-officio Warden of the Penitentiary, is selected without reference to his qualifications for that position, but for his fitness to take the place of Governor in case of necessity. He is selected with no reference to either, but is usually well qualified to take the place of the Governor or of the prisoners, indifferently."
Essence of Political Differences (1877)
"Judge Bradley says of the electoral commission: 'I firmly believe that the differences of opinion were honest, and arose from the different standpoints of individuals.' Not a doubt of it; seven members of the commission looked at the question from a standpoint of self-interest, and eight considered it from one of personal advantage."
The Pattern of Power (1884)
"The wrongs that the poor and feeble suffer from the rich and powerful transcend expression. The sufferers are themselves but dimly aware of them: 'tyranny', 'plunder', and 'insult' are mild terms to describe them. But redress there is none--there is only escape; the victims must emancipate themselves by acquisition of wealth and power. They cannot hope successfully to fight. They are a minority, and have neither the intelligence nor the means to cope with the formidable energies and exhaustless resources of the system that is to them an engine of oppression. Nine men in ten have in them the potencies and possibilities of rascality, which need but opportunity to develop. Let Socialists make the laws to-day and they would break them to-morrow. No sooner do the poor become rich than they harden their hearts to the miseries of the poor. In so far as it proposes to correct the evils of unequal fortune, Socialism aims to repeal the laws of nature."
On Prisons (1886):
"The newest 'fad' of the penologists is 'indeterminate sentences'--that is to say, criminals are to be simply sent to prison, to be, like patients in a hospital, 'discharged when cured'. This plan--which has the merit of Prison Director Hendrick's approval--will work first rate if God will agree to act as the discharging officer. It is hardly likely, though, that he would accept the position; he has long been out of politics."
"Case Dismissed" (on bribery) (1871)
"We have the highest possible regard for Mr. Freelon, the Assistant District Attorney, but if we had caused as many murder cases to be dismissed in one week as he has, we should expect somebody to affirm that we were bribed. That nobody has made that charge against Mr. Freelon is extremely creditable to our community, and very fortunate for Mr. Freelon. If it were once made somebody would be sure to believe it, and would swear that it was the only intelligible explanation of his conduct. Let us give thanks that Mr. Freelon is above suspicion, and let Mr. Freelon feel grateful that we are above suspecting him."
And so on. Bierce was often criticized for "telling it like it is", and in my favorite response to that charge he says:
"...I had a thing to say which nobody else would say, and it was necessary to be said. One of the disadvantages of our social system, which is the child of our political, is the tyranny of public opinion, forbidding the utterance of wholesome but unpalatable truth. In a republic we are so accustomed to the rule of majorities that it seldom occurs to us to examine their title to dominion; and as the ideas of might and right are, by our innate sense of justice, linked together, we come to consider public opinion infallible and almost sacred."
Which is also why we need satire--it's a joke that's only half-joking. People can't handle "unpalatable" truth head on. More importantly, satire reminds us that we take ourselves and our opinions too seriously. We do know this, which is why The Onion, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report are all more popular than the regular news. They're not only more truthful; they remind us how absurd everything is.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Snip
It’s nothing short of a miracle that I got out of bed and to work on time this morning. Every day I wake up feeling like I’ve transmuted into lead overnight. Which is the reverse of alchemy, I think.
When I’m tired, I sometimes get crabby. I think I’m feeling fine, then someone does something stupid, and I’m ready to knock their head off. I like to think of it as being “a tad oversensitive”. You know—like getting a slight burn on your finger, and it’s just enough at the surface of your skin to sting and throb—not a big deal, but it can drive you absolutely mad, and you get over-caffeinated or ridiculously drunk as you slog down cold beverages, just to have something cold to put on your wound. Third degree burns never smart like that—you’ve actually burned away the nerve endings. I got a third degree burn once, and released so many endorphins that I was happy. There’s a lesson here somewhere, but I think I’d better avoid it.
After the library rally on Trenton, there were several articles in the news about the rally, and every single one managed to piss me off. Not because they reported on our concerns; because they all referred to us as “usually quiet librarians”. I find it staggering that news reporters have never set foot in a library. I have never met a quiet librarian. Actually, that’s not quite true—I’ve met a few. I’ve also met quiet accountants, plumbers, salesmen, artists, construction workers, and musicians. “Quiet” is not a personality trait reserved for librarians. If anything, librarians are quiet because the public insists that the public librarians be quiet. I recall a long debate in my library management class many years ago about whether or not libraries were places of quiet or places of learning (i.e., not quiet). It’s probably a mixture, but consider the following exchange I had with a woman about 8 years ago in a public library.
The woman was studying for a test, and looked quite agitated. She chose a seat in the Reference Room right next to the librarians’ desk. I wouldn’t be caught dead doing public desk service, but I happened to be walking through, and the woman who was giving the librarians dirty looks and exasperated sighs, stopped me, and said, “Aren’t they supposed to be quiet?? This is a library and they are so loud!”
I pointed to the rooms behind her. “Ma’am, do you see those rooms?”
She turned around to look, then looked back at me.
“Those are quiet study rooms. Those rooms are quiet. The rest of the library is noisy. They have to answer reference questions, so it’s always going to be loud here. ”
I don’t think she liked my answer. In any case, “the quiet library” and the “shushing librarian” are a lot of horseshit, and people use the stereotype to be demeaning. The only librarians I’ve seen putting a finger to their lips are Golden Dawn initiates. (You occultists out there can work that one out for yourselves...)
Anyway, when I’m tired, I also tend to pass by information I see on e-mail, on Facebook, and on various websites in a haze. It’s a bad time for me to read, because I read the same page 100 times, at least, and never get past it. Something has to be a bit strange for me to notice it.
I’ve made a list of random quotes and headlines that I’ve encountered over the last few days. Some are from Facebook, some are from Twitter, some are from various blogs/sites I read regularly:
“Cooler in Times Square contained water bottles. Everybody PICNIC.” (Fark)
“Headline: No charges for corpse parked outside Glen Oak High School. Great. Now zombies are going to think they can park wherever the hell they want to.” (Fark)
“The smell of napalm and iced coffee...” (FB)
“Be there, or be vaguely rhomboid” (FB)
“The modulated scream: pain in late medieval culture” (book title)
A photo of a grocery store with a section called “Friendly Bacteria” (FB)
“A crazed driver rammed at least 17 black cars throughout London, convinced the vehicles were ‘out to kill him.’” (Arbroath)
“ A council spent nearly £1,000 on a bouncer to protect staff at a library from '’unruly’ school children.” (Arbroath)
“Death wants to hump your leg” (FB)
“Twitter is broken? Does anyone care besides Justin Bieber fans?” (Village Voice)
“My wife has a copy of the book ‘How to Kill Your Husband’. She denies having read it, which explains why I am not dead yet.” (FB)
And—just for something different—here is the inside of the receiving vault at the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, which I visited for a nighttime tour last week. Awesome. (Though driving almost 2 hours home at 11 pm was not so awesome. Might explain why I’m tired...)
When I’m tired, I sometimes get crabby. I think I’m feeling fine, then someone does something stupid, and I’m ready to knock their head off. I like to think of it as being “a tad oversensitive”. You know—like getting a slight burn on your finger, and it’s just enough at the surface of your skin to sting and throb—not a big deal, but it can drive you absolutely mad, and you get over-caffeinated or ridiculously drunk as you slog down cold beverages, just to have something cold to put on your wound. Third degree burns never smart like that—you’ve actually burned away the nerve endings. I got a third degree burn once, and released so many endorphins that I was happy. There’s a lesson here somewhere, but I think I’d better avoid it.
After the library rally on Trenton, there were several articles in the news about the rally, and every single one managed to piss me off. Not because they reported on our concerns; because they all referred to us as “usually quiet librarians”. I find it staggering that news reporters have never set foot in a library. I have never met a quiet librarian. Actually, that’s not quite true—I’ve met a few. I’ve also met quiet accountants, plumbers, salesmen, artists, construction workers, and musicians. “Quiet” is not a personality trait reserved for librarians. If anything, librarians are quiet because the public insists that the public librarians be quiet. I recall a long debate in my library management class many years ago about whether or not libraries were places of quiet or places of learning (i.e., not quiet). It’s probably a mixture, but consider the following exchange I had with a woman about 8 years ago in a public library.
The woman was studying for a test, and looked quite agitated. She chose a seat in the Reference Room right next to the librarians’ desk. I wouldn’t be caught dead doing public desk service, but I happened to be walking through, and the woman who was giving the librarians dirty looks and exasperated sighs, stopped me, and said, “Aren’t they supposed to be quiet?? This is a library and they are so loud!”
I pointed to the rooms behind her. “Ma’am, do you see those rooms?”
She turned around to look, then looked back at me.
“Those are quiet study rooms. Those rooms are quiet. The rest of the library is noisy. They have to answer reference questions, so it’s always going to be loud here. ”
I don’t think she liked my answer. In any case, “the quiet library” and the “shushing librarian” are a lot of horseshit, and people use the stereotype to be demeaning. The only librarians I’ve seen putting a finger to their lips are Golden Dawn initiates. (You occultists out there can work that one out for yourselves...)
Anyway, when I’m tired, I also tend to pass by information I see on e-mail, on Facebook, and on various websites in a haze. It’s a bad time for me to read, because I read the same page 100 times, at least, and never get past it. Something has to be a bit strange for me to notice it.
I’ve made a list of random quotes and headlines that I’ve encountered over the last few days. Some are from Facebook, some are from Twitter, some are from various blogs/sites I read regularly:
“Cooler in Times Square contained water bottles. Everybody PICNIC.” (Fark)
“Headline: No charges for corpse parked outside Glen Oak High School. Great. Now zombies are going to think they can park wherever the hell they want to.” (Fark)
“The smell of napalm and iced coffee...” (FB)
“Be there, or be vaguely rhomboid” (FB)
“The modulated scream: pain in late medieval culture” (book title)
A photo of a grocery store with a section called “Friendly Bacteria” (FB)
“A crazed driver rammed at least 17 black cars throughout London, convinced the vehicles were ‘out to kill him.’” (Arbroath)
“ A council spent nearly £1,000 on a bouncer to protect staff at a library from '’unruly’ school children.” (Arbroath)
“Death wants to hump your leg” (FB)
“Twitter is broken? Does anyone care besides Justin Bieber fans?” (Village Voice)
“My wife has a copy of the book ‘How to Kill Your Husband’. She denies having read it, which explains why I am not dead yet.” (FB)
And—just for something different—here is the inside of the receiving vault at the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, which I visited for a nighttime tour last week. Awesome. (Though driving almost 2 hours home at 11 pm was not so awesome. Might explain why I’m tired...)
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Sacrifice
If you live in New Jersey, you're hearing a lot of garbage about "sacrifice" these days, specifically from the Governor's supporters in relation to his budget. I'm not going to get into the politics of the whole thing, but I do want to offer some thoughts on "sacrifice".
What passes for sacrifice these days is a living example of the old cliche, "Give an inch and take a mile". Those who are strong and willing to make sacrifices are the ones who end up screwed. Let me give you some examples.
My boss and I were talking one day, and she said, "Did you ever notice that if, say, the local post office holds a food drive for a local food bank--those people in your community who are barely getting by or have nothing will bring in bags of groceries, while the wealthy won't give anything at all, or maybe one canned item?" While I am sure there are exceptions to this, generally speaking, it tends to be the pattern. My friend Liz works in a library where the biggest complainers about free programs (or having to pay anything for a library program) are the wealthy. Her boss told her, "Liz, that's why they have money. They never spend it." In our current state budget crisis, Governor Christie has repealed a tax put in place by the previous governor on people making over $400,000 a year (note: see update on this in comments below), and has handled the state's financial crisis by eliminating or severely crippling services for the poor, the handicapped, and the unemployed. When people complain he and his cronies say, "Hey, we're sorry to do it, but we all have to make sacrifices." Which translates to "the middle class and the poor have to make sacrifices. Don't bother my rich friends."You don't see the upper classes sacrificing anything.
Greed certainly accounts for some of this, but part of it is a social phenomena that revolves around our accepted responses to difficult situations. We want to have enough of everything, to be able to pay our bills, to have some extra for leisure, and perhaps for some favorite "toys" (a new car, a new iPad, whatever). However--there is never enough money. Spending increases proportionate to your income (and so do your taxes--unless you make huge amounts of money). And as spending increases, debt increases, and you need more and more money to pay it. Even the most frugal can run into financial crises--I had wiped out all my debt a few years ago except my mortgage, and then I suddenly needed a new furnace and a new roof for my house. Not cheap when you have a moderate income level.
There is a mistaken notion that salary increases will also increase your personal wealth. When I got my first big raise from $30,000 to $50,000 a year about 10 years ago, it was a $20,000 increase, but I ended up giving back close to $15,000 in taxes, Social Security, etc. So--I only netted about $5,000 in extra income for my troubles. As I said before--there is never enough money, and the numbers are deceptive. Perhaps this is why the rich want big tax breaks, but is it fair to make the poor and middle class pick up the burden? The economic collapse a couple of years ago shows you that the "trickle down" economics theory is pure bullshit. If you bail out the very rich, they won't spend the money to right things--they'll put it in their own pockets.
And this is my point about sacrifice. Sacrifice is fine for those who are willing to do it. Those who have plenty are more than happy to let those who are struggling make the sacrifices. Shows of strength and community solidarity are shrugged at by those who really could make a financial difference. They say, "Well, see, they don't need our help, they can take care of themselves," and start grumbling about laziness and "pulling oneself up by their boot straps" when those of modest resources are drained and in need of help. You dragged yourself through the alligator-infested swamp before, you can do it again! Don't be such a baby!
That is the grumbling of the new tea party these days, which is mostly made up of the wealthy. "I worked hard for my money, I'm not giving it to some lazy idiot who can't get a job" is one of their mantras. This is why they have their money--they won't spend it. They want the government to provide things, but they are appalled at the notion that they should put their money into the system to make it happen. And those in the middle class and below should think about this. I'm not suggesting that you should give up the value of sharing with others and supporting your community. But if you grew up on the values of Shel Silverstein's "The Giving Tree", throw that damn book away and start placing limits on your sacrifices. You're only being sacrificed by the greedy for the maintenance of their own monster.
What passes for sacrifice these days is a living example of the old cliche, "Give an inch and take a mile". Those who are strong and willing to make sacrifices are the ones who end up screwed. Let me give you some examples.
My boss and I were talking one day, and she said, "Did you ever notice that if, say, the local post office holds a food drive for a local food bank--those people in your community who are barely getting by or have nothing will bring in bags of groceries, while the wealthy won't give anything at all, or maybe one canned item?" While I am sure there are exceptions to this, generally speaking, it tends to be the pattern. My friend Liz works in a library where the biggest complainers about free programs (or having to pay anything for a library program) are the wealthy. Her boss told her, "Liz, that's why they have money. They never spend it." In our current state budget crisis, Governor Christie has repealed a tax put in place by the previous governor on people making over $400,000 a year (note: see update on this in comments below), and has handled the state's financial crisis by eliminating or severely crippling services for the poor, the handicapped, and the unemployed. When people complain he and his cronies say, "Hey, we're sorry to do it, but we all have to make sacrifices." Which translates to "the middle class and the poor have to make sacrifices. Don't bother my rich friends."You don't see the upper classes sacrificing anything.
Greed certainly accounts for some of this, but part of it is a social phenomena that revolves around our accepted responses to difficult situations. We want to have enough of everything, to be able to pay our bills, to have some extra for leisure, and perhaps for some favorite "toys" (a new car, a new iPad, whatever). However--there is never enough money. Spending increases proportionate to your income (and so do your taxes--unless you make huge amounts of money). And as spending increases, debt increases, and you need more and more money to pay it. Even the most frugal can run into financial crises--I had wiped out all my debt a few years ago except my mortgage, and then I suddenly needed a new furnace and a new roof for my house. Not cheap when you have a moderate income level.
There is a mistaken notion that salary increases will also increase your personal wealth. When I got my first big raise from $30,000 to $50,000 a year about 10 years ago, it was a $20,000 increase, but I ended up giving back close to $15,000 in taxes, Social Security, etc. So--I only netted about $5,000 in extra income for my troubles. As I said before--there is never enough money, and the numbers are deceptive. Perhaps this is why the rich want big tax breaks, but is it fair to make the poor and middle class pick up the burden? The economic collapse a couple of years ago shows you that the "trickle down" economics theory is pure bullshit. If you bail out the very rich, they won't spend the money to right things--they'll put it in their own pockets.
And this is my point about sacrifice. Sacrifice is fine for those who are willing to do it. Those who have plenty are more than happy to let those who are struggling make the sacrifices. Shows of strength and community solidarity are shrugged at by those who really could make a financial difference. They say, "Well, see, they don't need our help, they can take care of themselves," and start grumbling about laziness and "pulling oneself up by their boot straps" when those of modest resources are drained and in need of help. You dragged yourself through the alligator-infested swamp before, you can do it again! Don't be such a baby!
That is the grumbling of the new tea party these days, which is mostly made up of the wealthy. "I worked hard for my money, I'm not giving it to some lazy idiot who can't get a job" is one of their mantras. This is why they have their money--they won't spend it. They want the government to provide things, but they are appalled at the notion that they should put their money into the system to make it happen. And those in the middle class and below should think about this. I'm not suggesting that you should give up the value of sharing with others and supporting your community. But if you grew up on the values of Shel Silverstein's "The Giving Tree", throw that damn book away and start placing limits on your sacrifices. You're only being sacrificed by the greedy for the maintenance of their own monster.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
WAMFEST: Eugene Mirman and His Pretty Good Friends
WAMFEST was pretty much everywhere last week. If you don't know what that is--it's the Words And Music Festival organized by David Daniel in the creative writing department at Fairleigh Dickinson University, and curated by Wesley Stace (a.k.a. John Wesley Harding), who is FDU's artist-in-residence. This year's WAMFEST got a lot of attention, mainly because of the last day--Bruce Springsteen teamed up with former U.S. Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky in a session called "Jersey Rain" (Pinsky and Springsteen were both born in the same hospital in New Jersey 9 years apart). I didn't go to this particular WAMFEST event, as I was at the rally against the NJ Governor's budget cuts for libraries in Trenton. WAMFEST this year also included John Doe and Exene Cervenka of X (which I missed because I was sick), and Stace in conversation with poet Paul Muldoon (which I missed because of a doctor's appointment). However, I did attend the WAMFEST event on Tuesday of that week, which included Eugene Mirman and His Pretty Good Friends.
Last year I posted a YouTube video with a graduation speech given by Eugene Mirman at his high school. He had read us the draft of that speech at last year's Rumpus/McSweeney's party at the Highline Ballroom in Manhattan. I enjoy good comedy, and I think Eugene Mirman is excellent. So I was happy to be in the front row for this particular event. (It helps when the event is one building over from where you work.)
There were 4 comedians in the troupe that afternoon--Leo Allen, Kumail Naanjiani, Michael Showalter, and Eugene Mirman (in that order). Leo Allen brought his (or someone's) copy of the Brothers Karamazov onstage to try to look more intellectual, since he was at a university. He then recited the Fairleigh Dickinson University joke that was repeated later by Kumail Naanjiani--one I've never heard before. He expressed how pleased he was that this was "Fairleigh Dickinson", and not "Very Dickinson", or "Not at All Dickinson". I'm surprised no one has made that joke before--or that they didn't know about the "Fairly Ridiculous University" joke. What I remember most about Leo Allen's routine was his account of being in a McDonald's at 3AM, with a mentally retarded McDonald's employee, and another employee who was clearly high. Allen was drunk, so he said, "mentally, we were all on the same level." He noted that you have really sunk to the lowest point possible when you go home with McDonald's food and look at Internet porn at 3 in the morning. "If you reach down for that french fry you've dropped while jacking off.."
Kumail Naanjiani took the stage next. I couldn't help but think that he looked familiar. Later it hit me--when I saw the Found Footage Festival Volume 4 show, they had a clip that I loved called "Beggars CAN be Choosers", in which they spoofed a video dating clip. They were all saying what they weren't looking for in a woman. Naanjiani was the guy who said, "If I had to say what I didn't want, I would say, no drug users. Actually--there are probably some pretty nice drug users out there. Can I...can I take that back?" So, if you've seen Found Footage Festival, and haven't been on Comedy Central lately (I haven't)--this is that guy. He was very funny--he talked about the video game "Call of Duty", which very realistically puts the player in war zone situations. There are games for earlier wars (like World War II), but there are also versions for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Naanjiani noted that he was Pakistani, and avoided these games initially on principle, but then ended up playing a game at a friend's house, and threw principle out the window. One level in the Afghanistan game is actually the name of his own hometown. He figured he would have an advantage there, as he already knew where everything was. But he noted that all the road signs and such were in Arabic, and they speak Urdu. "You would think, after 3 years developing every detail of this game to be perfect--someone would have Googled 'Pakistan language'. But no..." He talked about his childhood experiences with movies (he saw a Disney movie--I can't remember which one now--and when he was upset about the ending, his mother said, "Animals can't talk. Stop crying." But when he watched The Elephant Man--not knowing what it was about--he said to his mother "Good thing this is just a movie," and she said "No, this one is real.") He mentioned Paranormal Activity, and how scared his wife was after seeing it. He told her, "It's just a movie." But he went home and dreamed that night that he and his wife were the people in the movie--and when he woke up at 1am having to go to the bathroom, he had to bring his cat Bagel with him, reasoning that the cat would sense something weird before he would.
Michael Showalter's act appeared to be an experiment in "unexpected" comedy--where he just says things, the audience comments, and he lashes out at the audience. He later said, when asked, that he was basically unprepared. I don't think he was joking. In any case, I had a hard time warming up to his brand of comedy. He did do enough research to know that Fairleigh Dickinson was a person, and argued with a guy who said the school was founded in 1942, not 1948 (the guy in the audience was right). I thought it was more interesting that most of the students were totally clueless about the university's origins. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Eugene Mirman was last, and was incredible. He read quips from cocktail napkins that he liked to give out as fortunes ("have a baby--it will save your marriage"). He also joined one of the "Tea Party" sites, so that he could look at people's profiles. He brought some of the pictures posted to that site. He managed to infiltrate with a few of his own, which were hilarious. ("Taxation without Tea? No way, Mister Obama-Hitler-Stalin"). At the end of his routine, he told his famous joke about the 12-year-old boy with Asperger's syndrome (leading to Mirman's CD, "God is a 12 year old boy with Asperger's).
Wesley Stace led a Q&A afterwards that was brief, and the event was over by 5:30. I came home that evening to no power and another attack by the attack tree in my yard. I heard from a friend that a massive thunderstorm had come through around 4:00, and actually cracked one of her windows. I have to say I'm glad I missed it.
Last year I posted a YouTube video with a graduation speech given by Eugene Mirman at his high school. He had read us the draft of that speech at last year's Rumpus/McSweeney's party at the Highline Ballroom in Manhattan. I enjoy good comedy, and I think Eugene Mirman is excellent. So I was happy to be in the front row for this particular event. (It helps when the event is one building over from where you work.)
There were 4 comedians in the troupe that afternoon--Leo Allen, Kumail Naanjiani, Michael Showalter, and Eugene Mirman (in that order). Leo Allen brought his (or someone's) copy of the Brothers Karamazov onstage to try to look more intellectual, since he was at a university. He then recited the Fairleigh Dickinson University joke that was repeated later by Kumail Naanjiani--one I've never heard before. He expressed how pleased he was that this was "Fairleigh Dickinson", and not "Very Dickinson", or "Not at All Dickinson". I'm surprised no one has made that joke before--or that they didn't know about the "Fairly Ridiculous University" joke. What I remember most about Leo Allen's routine was his account of being in a McDonald's at 3AM, with a mentally retarded McDonald's employee, and another employee who was clearly high. Allen was drunk, so he said, "mentally, we were all on the same level." He noted that you have really sunk to the lowest point possible when you go home with McDonald's food and look at Internet porn at 3 in the morning. "If you reach down for that french fry you've dropped while jacking off.."
Kumail Naanjiani took the stage next. I couldn't help but think that he looked familiar. Later it hit me--when I saw the Found Footage Festival Volume 4 show, they had a clip that I loved called "Beggars CAN be Choosers", in which they spoofed a video dating clip. They were all saying what they weren't looking for in a woman. Naanjiani was the guy who said, "If I had to say what I didn't want, I would say, no drug users. Actually--there are probably some pretty nice drug users out there. Can I...can I take that back?" So, if you've seen Found Footage Festival, and haven't been on Comedy Central lately (I haven't)--this is that guy. He was very funny--he talked about the video game "Call of Duty", which very realistically puts the player in war zone situations. There are games for earlier wars (like World War II), but there are also versions for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Naanjiani noted that he was Pakistani, and avoided these games initially on principle, but then ended up playing a game at a friend's house, and threw principle out the window. One level in the Afghanistan game is actually the name of his own hometown. He figured he would have an advantage there, as he already knew where everything was. But he noted that all the road signs and such were in Arabic, and they speak Urdu. "You would think, after 3 years developing every detail of this game to be perfect--someone would have Googled 'Pakistan language'. But no..." He talked about his childhood experiences with movies (he saw a Disney movie--I can't remember which one now--and when he was upset about the ending, his mother said, "Animals can't talk. Stop crying." But when he watched The Elephant Man--not knowing what it was about--he said to his mother "Good thing this is just a movie," and she said "No, this one is real.") He mentioned Paranormal Activity, and how scared his wife was after seeing it. He told her, "It's just a movie." But he went home and dreamed that night that he and his wife were the people in the movie--and when he woke up at 1am having to go to the bathroom, he had to bring his cat Bagel with him, reasoning that the cat would sense something weird before he would.
Michael Showalter's act appeared to be an experiment in "unexpected" comedy--where he just says things, the audience comments, and he lashes out at the audience. He later said, when asked, that he was basically unprepared. I don't think he was joking. In any case, I had a hard time warming up to his brand of comedy. He did do enough research to know that Fairleigh Dickinson was a person, and argued with a guy who said the school was founded in 1942, not 1948 (the guy in the audience was right). I thought it was more interesting that most of the students were totally clueless about the university's origins. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Eugene Mirman was last, and was incredible. He read quips from cocktail napkins that he liked to give out as fortunes ("have a baby--it will save your marriage"). He also joined one of the "Tea Party" sites, so that he could look at people's profiles. He brought some of the pictures posted to that site. He managed to infiltrate with a few of his own, which were hilarious. ("Taxation without Tea? No way, Mister Obama-Hitler-Stalin"). At the end of his routine, he told his famous joke about the 12-year-old boy with Asperger's syndrome (leading to Mirman's CD, "God is a 12 year old boy with Asperger's).
Wesley Stace led a Q&A afterwards that was brief, and the event was over by 5:30. I came home that evening to no power and another attack by the attack tree in my yard. I heard from a friend that a massive thunderstorm had come through around 4:00, and actually cracked one of her windows. I have to say I'm glad I missed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)