Abuse your illusions

In addition to events in your personal life, this year's Carrier IQ story and revelations about mental illness and its treatment show that everything that seems good is actually bad. And if not actually, then eventually. But that won't change anything.

(Taking the Carrier IQ story to its logical conclusion, in the not-too-distant future we'll have contact lens computer screens. Soon after that, thoughts can be harvested and stored on Google servers. Then thoughts will be stored on a centralized, searchable database. Scary!)

Happy New Year!

A thing about the novella "Train Dreams" by Denis Johnson

Starting around the turn of the century, this fiction novella chronicles the adult life of northwestern laborer Robert Grainier. Denis Johnson's colloquial, often spartan prose endows Grainier and his story with simplicity. At this time the pace of change in life and society was gaining speed but Grainier, for the most part, remains insulated from all that in living his unexamined reclusivity from a woodsy outpost. But he isn't in hiding; in his life Grainier finds love, is found by tragedy; he comes to know the ache of time, the fury of nature; and from the margins he sees innovation and flirts with moral decay. Reading, we aren't driven by the plot or even the characters. Train Dreams feels like a writing exercise and succeeds with the down, diminished beauty of its prose.

Might be looking for more by Denis Johnson.

The current fascination: Cult of Personality

I read articles like today's Time magazine piece "NKorea Calls Kim Jong Un 'Supreme Leader'" and can't help but think all the analysts, pundits, and other talking heads delight in using the word "Leader" in this context. One the one hand, I guess it respects the practice of the North Koreans, but, on the other, it seems only to emphasize their otherness.

Together at any cost

The New York Times interest piece "Navigating Love and Autism" (1) establishes romantic relationships as a normalizing force and (2) documents an effort to normalize autistic people. The story begins with college-aged Kirsten dating a young man who offers her some much needed coaching in the social graces. She chafes under his direction and is soon drawn to another young man, Jack, who shows no interest in such social conventions. Comforted by the lack of expectations each felt from the other, Jack and Kirsten strike up a relationship. Soon, though, she realizes she needs more affection and understanding than her new beau can give. He has Asperger syndrome, and, turns out, she sort of does, too. They push on together, usually either arguing or just keeping one another company. She starts learning to cope and eventually he lets her get a kitten.

We're supposed to assume that being in a troubled relationship is preferable to being alone, and that this couple is to be congratulated even though their partnership is fraught with difficulties. From the article:

The months that followed Jack and Kirsten’s first night together show how daunting it can be for the mindblind to achieve the kind of mutual understanding that so often eludes even nonautistic couples.

The story continues: After establishing a presence on an advice web site for Autistic people, Jack and Kirsten are somehow invited to speak publicly about relationships. Kirsten is quoted as saying  “Parents always ask, ‘Who would like to marry my kid? They’re so weird.' But, like, another weird person, that’s who." The people who approached them for advice feel anxiety about their own relationship prospects.

The message: They may not be happy but at least these autistic people can try to be normal by having a relationship.

Since the earliest diagnoses, the prevailing wisdom has said that people with Aspergers were mostly unable to have meaningful personal relationships. So, now, the general narrative spawning this article and Jack and Kirsten's efforts is supposed to be that "the overarching quest of many (new adults) in this first generation to be identified with Asperger syndrome is the same as many of their nonautistic peers: to find someone to love who will love them back." Before establishing this narrative we might first check whether we share a common definition of love and value the same things in relationships. What we consider a traditional relationship may not be the shoe that fits Kirsten or Jack.

Where does this "quest" come from? Why the anxiety about being alone?

Notes:

• I heard Asperger syndrome won't appear in the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (this would be volume five). Instead the diagnosis will fall under the general Autism spectrum.

• The best part of the article comes when the question is put to Jack: Did you ever fear being alone? He answers, “I have no doubt if I wasn’t dating Kirsten I would have a very hard time acquiring a girlfriend that was worthwhile.”

Kai Ryssdal talks like your popular friend

Inspiration

In this culture you often hear of at least two kinds of inspiration: (1) artistic inspiration and (2) personal inspiration.

Talk of artistic inspiration might sound like, "Beethoven's 5th and 9th Symphonies are his most inspired" or "Beethoven was inspired when he wrote his 9th Symphony". Talk of personal inspiration comes in two flavors: (a) Common personal inspiration and (b) uncommon personal inspiration.

Someone might use common personal inspiration when boosting a child who's performing poorly in school: "You know, Einstein failed classes in school when he was a kid". The inspirational message being driven is something like "You never know what you might be capable of achieving".

Uncommon inspiration stories often explicitly speak of overcoming adversity. For example, you might hear about a promising young athlete who after a car accident is left paralyzed from the waist down. This same young athlete then goes on to be an accomplished musician. Or, the inspiring person may grow up dirt poor or suffer from a mental or cosmetic handicap but accomplish great things nevertheless.

The subject or protagonist in uncommon inspiration stories rarely--maybe never--overcomes adversity because he was inspired by another uncommon inspirational story. Rather, his motivation and ability is unique to who he is. In other words, uncommon inspirational stories usually do not inspire. They serve as stories of interest. But they have a wider cultural effect: These stories create an archetype of a poor, disadvantaged, or disabled person from which we draw expectations about the poor, disadvantaged, or disabled.

(pictures) Mesquite tree

Something about the film "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men"

John Krasinski from the American version of "The Office" wrote, produced, and directed this adaptation of collected short stories by James Foster Wallace. In the film, a female doctoral candidate interviews dozens of men, exploring their hang-ups and modi operandi. But her motivation is not purely academic; recently heartbroken, she hopes to learn some elusive Truth. Unfortunately the dialog in this troubled film is tortured, as soliloquies of armchair psychology are spliced with eye-rolling confessionals. But we find one diamond in the rough--a short but picture perfect performance by Christopher Meloni in which he narrates an encounter with a young, heartbroken woman at the airport, his braggadocio showing a hairline fracture.

Pictures of sorts, again

Validation!

Recently I commented on “You Say You Want a Devolution", Kurt Andersen's article in the current (January 2012) Vanity Fair in which he argues that America has stagnated culturally, as evidenced by 20 or more years of unchanged style and fashion. I've spotted a number of published responses, including "Is 2011 really just 1991?" by Maria Russo in Salon. Of course I cite hers specifically because her thoughts brush elbows with mine, if only briefly, when she echos my guess that what people wear and what they listen to means less now (or at least means something different):

Technology is definitely making lifestyle—and the expense associated with acquiring it—less relevant. (Which is fortunate for those of us who can no longer afford much of one, anyway.) Much of what Andersen prizes from the allegedly more innovative American past is just display. But when your life—public and private, working and leisurely—revolves around a MacBook and an iPhone, and constant, disembodied exchanges of information in placeless cyber realms… well, you don’t need to overturn the Aeron chair, do you? Nor do you need to fixate on the status-symbolism of where you live. Best of all, you don’t need to worry about what you buy and what it says about you, because you may buy very little.

Notes:

• Also, she sounds way too condescending throughout.

In trial's coverage, large issues are ignored

Today The Washington Post included the Associated Press article "Army private’s defense team to make its case over leaked trove of government materials" which briefly sets the stage for the defense team's argument in the military trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of "releasing a trove of secret information to the WikiLeaks website" and facing 21 charges, including aiding the enemy.

Based on early trial statements, the article says the defense will argue that (1) Manning was of unsound mind and (2) other personnel had access to the machine(s) on which the alleged crimes were committed. Then, later, a contrast within the gallery is made:

A half-dozen buttoned-down, mostly young men and women favoring charcoal-colored suits have come and gone from gallery seats behind the prosecutor’s table, declining to identify themselves to journalists but apparently representing the Justice Department, the CIA or other government agencies. 

Across the room are Manning’s supporters, including a long-haired young man from the Occupy Wall Street movement and a pony-tailed, elderly military veteran wearing a “Free Bradley Manning” T-shirt.

Why does Manning have supporters? And what does the Occupy "movement" have to do with it? Some explanation would have been beneficial; these are not fans of insanity defenses and arguments of reasonable doubt. No, these supporters presumably value transparency and whistleblowing (nevermind whether Manning embodies either). But as such, the story is incomplete. Furthermore, by focusing on the contrast between the suits and long hair, the article gives the impression that Manning's supporters are unserious. Were any of his supporters in suits? Did any of them not have long hair?

On the helpfulness of health news

The New York Times article "Journals Asked To Cut Details Of Flu Studies" reports that

a government advisory board is asking scientific journals not to publish details of certain biomedical experiments, for fear that the information could be used by terrorists to create deadly viruses and touch off epidemics.

At first I read this as the story of an unserious government response to a serious problem: the threat of bioterrorism. But more likely it's just bad reporting--unhelpful and uninformative at best, borderline alarmist at worst. The reason is that by emphasizing this one advisory board request, the reporting (similarly appearing in other publications) de-emphasizes other government-coordinated efforts at preventing and monitoring bioterror threats. As a result, the reader comes away thinking that the editors of a few scientific journals play a larger role in the drama of national security than they actually do, and that bioterror is a more imminent threat than it actually is.

Something on the film "Blue Valentine"

"Blue Valentine" unveils the un-summable beginning and end of Cindy and Dean's marriage. Their undoing is rooted in differences between their characters' values. The film articulates these apposed values in two pivotal scenes set before the couple's fated initial meeting.

First, during a discussion between Cindy and her ailing, aged grandmother, the elder recalls her own ill-fitted marriage to a man who didn't appreciate her, then she cautions Cindy not to choose a man who doesn't have regard for her as a person. Cindy asks herself how she can trust her feelings when so many people have bad marriages. This Cindy is practical, pragmatic, and ambitious. Second, during a discussion with his co-workers, Dean colors himself an unapologetic romantic as he laments so many women choosing stable guys with good jobs instead of their true loves, their hearts' desire. This Dean thinks with his heart, not his head.

The couple meets and soon marries, Cindy pregnant with her ex-boyfriend's child and Dean accepting it. We don't see the next eight years of their life, but find them at the other end of those years suddenly facing the irreparable harm done after what was likely a long, slow, almost imperceptible decline. They now live a latent, settled life in the boonies that revolves around their little girl who, like Dean, is sweet but stubborn, with Cindy acting as the stressed working mother and Dean, the resignedly content husband and father. Cindy wanted more for herself, more from Dean and the years. Dean lived the years, taking what comes. Ultimately it is Cindy who discovers her love and their marriage are gone, passed from this life like the dead family dog found on the side of the road.

Something about Christopher Hitchens

For me he fell into that category of people who are impressive but not necessarily admirable. Although I generally disliked the piece as a whole, my favorite passage of his comes from the second installment of "On the Limits of Self-Improvement", his chronicling of a makeover. Here he describes getting a Brazilian wax:

Here’s what happens. You have to spread your knees as far apart as they will go, while keeping your feet together. In this “wide stance” position, which is disconcertingly like waiting to have your Pampers changed, you are painted with hot wax, to which strips are successively attached and then torn away. Not once, but many, many times. I had no idea it would be so excruciating. The combined effect was like being tortured for information that you do not possess, with intervals for a (incidentally very costly) sandpaper handjob. The thing is that, in order to rip, you have to grip. A point of leverage is required: a place that can be firmly gripped and pulled while the skin is tautened. Ms. Turlington doesn’t have this problem. The businesslike Senhora Padilha daubed away, took a purchase on the only available handhold, and then wrenched and wrenched again. The impression of being a huge baby was enhanced by the blizzards of talcum powder that followed each searing application. I swear that several times she soothingly said that I was being a brave little boy … Meanwhile, everything in the general area was fighting to retract itself inside my body.

That's laugh-out-loud funny to me.

Now he's dead so a lot of praise is being thrown his way--not necesarrily at him, but at his talent, wit, and powers of consumption. The best piece written about him ever, though, is this book review called "‘No Bullshit’ Bullshit". It isn't complimentary.

Notes:

I take issue with one point in Stefan Collini's review; he parenthetically writes,

It is interesting to note that Hitchens, loyal to aspects of the Trotskyism he has for the most part abandoned, always says Stalinism where most people would say Communism.

I'm not so sure Hitchens avoided the term "communism" because he had some affinity for it still. Rather, I like to think he recognized that we have never known a pure Communist system that wasn't just a front for a totalitarian government, and so he used (as many pundits do) the name of the fascist who ran the place.

A thing on the book "At Home" by Bill Bryson

In At Home, author Bill Bryson offers an anecdote-rich tour of the modern suburban house. For this purpose he uses his own home, an impressive and well-aged English estate. This is a thick book of historical trivia in which Bryson introduces mostly little-known events and figures who share in the responsibility for our modern daily domestic experience. Bryson skips around the centuries (mostly the last four) and hops between Europe (mostly Western) and the Americas (mostly North).

Some pages in, I began to suspect Bryson of merely using the house as an excuse to assemble and publish a bunch of disparate historical tidbits he culled and collected along the way; oftentimes a story contributed nothing to our understanding of how the modern suburban house took shape.

But this doesn't make the reading any less agreeable. It's a good gift book, something that might liven up a coffee table in a lasting way.

Notes:

• I wouldn't want Bryson to really give me a tour. Not of his home or of a telephone booth or of anything.

The times, they are a-changin'

In the Vanity Fair piece "You Say You Want a Devolution?", Kurt Anderson argues that fashion and design--art, music, movies, television, clothes, cars, etc.--looks much the same as it did 20 years ago. This fashion freeze is our collective response, Anderson offers, to the unparalleled rapidity of change in other areas such as economics and technology.

It's an interesting thesis. Well argued and written, too. But to totally buy into his idea, you have to share Anderson's vision: Anderson sees fashion as a collective bundle of popular trends, and the evolution of these trends looks something like a line on a graph surging upward as trends continue evolving. Over the last 20 years, though, that line has leveled off, according to his view.

This picture needs complicating, so I suggest an alternative model.

First, sticking with our graph: I think fashion includes at least a few lines, not just one, that have historically surged upward. And rather than leveling off, I see these lines splintering over last 20 years--even more so the last ten--as social groups subdivide into ever smaller subcultures of like-minded people.

While most of these lines keep trending upward over time, in my splintered model there could indeed exist some mainstream line hovering between and below these subcultures--a mainline that appears to level off and soldier on. But rather than see this grouping as having stagnated, it could be they just dropped their fidelity to fashion altogether. In this sense, their line simply stops. For them--the designers and the consumers--fashion has moved from the aesthetic realm to the political. (Note that fashion continues to demarcate affiliations.)

What the mainstream wears and what they listen to means less (or at least means something different) to them now than it did 20 years ago. So, for example, if you wore a new pair of Nike sneakers in 1993, you were saying something: Nike was synonymous with Michael Jordan and basketball supremacy, and the label was expensive so a new pair of kicks was a sign of status. If you're wearing a new pair of Nike shoes today, it's probably because your old ones wore out. More likely you wear New Balance because you've chosen comfort and practicality--the politics of personal choice--over glamour and status--the fidelity to fashion.

Anderson too briefly discusses changes in how we consume fashion. He's right here, of course, but doesn't take it far enough. He says,

The only thing that has changed fundamentally and dramatically about stylish objects (computerized gadgets aside) during the last 20 years is the same thing that’s changed fundamentally and dramatically about movies and books and music—how they’re produced and distributed, not how they look and feel and sound, not what they are.

Yes, technologically production, distribution, and consumption has changed. But these facets have changed in meaning, too. How and what we make and consume is now a political matter: Toyota Prius or Hummer? File sharing and torrents or iTunes? Walmart, Whole Foods, or local?

-Other Notes:

• Anderson noted the tendency towards nostalgia one minute and then pointed to the outright freeze on design the next. This muddled his point. But his words ring clearly when he hypothesizes about the institutional and market forces at work.

• Certainly not all but many successful artists (designers, trend setters) from all fields in every age have kept an eye on the past. Designers and architects who worked in the Georgian period of the 18th century drew from the Classical Age just as their descendants in the age of Art Deco did in the 1930s.

• In the 1990's we referenced the 1970's. Right now (2011) the 1980's seem popular; the post-hippie feel of the Grunge era has been replaced by the post-New Wave kids of today.

• There is nothing totally new under the sun.
  

Something on Tom Perrotta's novel The Leftovers

With somewhere around 30 pages left, Perrotta's books usually end with a flurry of page turning, a race to what happens. Not so with The Leftovers. But what The Leftovers lacks in action, it makes up for with meaning and emotion. I've read every Perrotta book and although this one ranks low, his low is still high.

The story picks up shortly after a mysterious happening likened to the rapture in which half the Earth's population vanished in an instant, and in the quiet aftermath we watch a cast of characters deal with the loss best they can. One facet of loss that interested me was that of identity. The subtraction of so many peers seemed to leave people wanting for their own identities, as if they were only who they were with everyone else around to verify it. This suggests we're all social constructions.

Also missing are the identities of the vanished, most of whom are unsurprisingly canonized, honored at small parades, days of remembrance and the like. Likewise, relationships are recreated in the minds of the rememberers. One of the novel's characters, a teenaged girl named Jill, lost a childhood friend-turned-acquaintance but, in the friend's absence, the two girls are recast as best friends who were much more alike and much closer and more dear to each other than they had ever been before the rapture.

I don't know that identity was an issue Perrotta intentionally explored. Anyway, good book.

Race and politics

The Los Angeles Times article "One black woman's personal mission to reelect Obama" uses a couple of big economic facts to say that blacks remain faithful to the President despite their worsening economic condition. The facts lack context, however, and this larger premise is a tremendous over-simplification and it's short-sighted.

The piece profiles grassroots Obama booster Gerri Hall, a retired black woman in Flint, MI. Note the difference in values that emerges at the outset when the article comments on changes since Hall's youth:

Fifty years later, there is a black man in the White House and Hall is firmly rooted in the middle class, with a nice home in a leafy neighborhood, a pension from her 30-year job at General Motors and enough savings to help her grown son buy a starter place of his own. 

"Things have definitely gotten better," she allows, "in terms of tolerance and coexistence and people getting along."

Note that the author speaks in economic terms, whereas Hall refers to social progress. The article reflects market-oriented values, but its subject, social values.

Then the article posits that black Americans see themselves reflected in Obama as he battles Republicans: "The sentiment may explain why Obama still enjoys commanding support among African Americans, even though blacks have suffered the worst of the deep recession that soured so many others on the incumbent." And again a few paragraphs later:

The statistics are grim. The poverty rate for African American children has increased under Obama, along with black joblessness. Nationally, black unemployment was 15.5% in November, almost twice the overall rate. For black teenagers it was just under 40%. 

Even so, African Americans remain far more upbeat than the rest of the country.

The article assumes--or, more likely, plays along with the assumption--that what happens during a President's term is attributable to him. Next, the black unemployment rate is given without any historical context. What was the unemployment rate for blacks under Bush? Under Clinton? What role does Congress play in all this?

Another misdirect comes on the heels of the previous quote. The article text says:

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll done with theGrio.com, a black-oriented website, found that 49% of African Americans felt the country was on the right track, compared with nearly 3 in 4 overall who felt otherwise. Most African Americans blamed congressional Republicans, rather than Obama, for the country's economic ills.

The article treats the tendency to blame congressional Republicans ambiguously; one could read this as a feature exclusive to the black community. What is the overall trend? Could this be a party issue rather than a race issue?

This article dumbs down the whole discussion. The author is owing to black allegiance or camaraderie what's more likely long-term developments of political power relations within areas ranging from economics to social status, and education to faith.

Continuing on the unemployment argument, the article states: "Unemployment is officially 16.5% in Flint, where fortunes soared and, for the last several decades, plummeted with the near collapse of the auto industry." Has the auto industry really collapsed? What role does outsourcing in this industry play in local (and national) unemployment? And what are the politics behind that?

The point isn't that the writer hasn't done his job. It's that readers must evaluate what they read.

I did read one line I liked for its well-writteness: "To this day, Hall has the manner of one accustomed to being in charge: her diction precise, her dress fastidious and her case for Obama outlined in PowerPoint and carefully sorted fact sheets."

Another way

There is a moment I remember, her nose in the honeysuckle bush down the alley and the world falling away in a rush. Over the years when I'd get frustrated with one thing or another, I'd remember that--our short walk to the doughnut shop in Summer 2011, or maybe remember some other such blessing and be born again. It was in that first year of marriage I realized she didn't make magic; she was magic. Not me, I didn't think. I kept after myself about being close with my son and her. She was always better at the loving and it never did get harder for her the way it did me. But when I'd finally get around to talking out loud about something like that, some burden, she could help me come around, and then I would sometimes go out to the patio or garage, off to be alone a minute, and let my eyes burn with how grateful I was she's there. Life had the magic of goodness with her.

Pictures of sorts

Something on the film W

Left-leaning critics of George W. Bush tend to fall into one of two camps: Those who view the man as evil and those who view him as a puppet ne'er-do-well. Oliver Stone's film "W" agrees with the latter view, depicting the 43rd President as an over-confident and devout man driven by his need for approval. This angle of the W story is a familiar narrative--that of a son always seeking his father's approval. To be the man his father could admire, W believes he must appear in control. The role of "the decider" becomes crucial.

The film feels a little canned, but that may be part of the point: Bush is not an exceptional man, nor is his story at its core. What was extraordinary was the consequences of the group-think so pervasive in his cabinet, seized upon and steered by Vice President Cheney--the unassuming villain in this film, always lurking at the edges.

By combining an uncomplicated character study of George W. Bush with a cohesive narrative of his tenure, the film is useful for giving critics a shared interpretation of the events that transpired between 2001 and 2007. The film reviews I read when "W" premiered were pretty consistent and accurate in voicing surprise at Stone's restrained depiction of the younger Bush, revealing a deeply flawed man who found his own direction rather than a one-dimensional villain or straw man. The film attributes W's formidable initial political successes to his religious conversion, brought on suddenly after a physical and mental collapse during a very hungover three mile jog. His failures come as a result of his gullibility and insecurities.

Stone uses a thematic metaphor in the film--the baseball pop fly: the movie Bush often dreams of fielding a high fly ball in center field and then basking in the the praise and adoration of a cheering crowd. In the film's last scene, Bush, dreaming again, backs up to make the play on the pop-up, but the ball never comes down, leaving a confused Bush staring into the quiet stadium lights, wondering how the winning moment and adulation eluded him.

Adult contemporary

Recently the New York Magazine article "Indie Grown-Ups: Are Wilco and Feist our adult contemporary music?" turned a critical eye on a few prominent indie rock artists, describing, for example, Feist's recent album as merely "gusty singsong melodies about finding clarity by the oceanside delivered over cozy acoustic arrangement". The author's larger point was this:

These acts, intentionally or not, have won; they’ve taken a lower-sales, lower-budget version of the type of trip Sting once took, from a post-punk upstart to an adult staple.

Later he indicts labels for having aided and abetted this trend, grooming innocuous sounds from the likes of Feist, Wilco, Radiohead, and Bon Iver to create a new generation's equivalent of adult contemporary.

Although written in response to a different New York Magazine article, The AV Club piece "What makes music boring?" reinterprets this critique by distilling and elaborating on the "cozy" quality described above, this time using the language of boredom:

In a sense, all music is boring. The same, however, can’t be said about “boring” music. “Boring” is its own genre. It is a code word that instantly conjures artists with clearly definable attributes. “Boring” music is slow to mid-tempo, mellow, melodic, pretty in a melancholy way, catchy, poppy, and rooted in traditional forms. It is popular (or popular-ish). It is tasteful, well-played, and meticulously produced. (Or it might sound like it was recorded in somebody’s bedroom under the influence of weed and Sega Genesis.) It is “easy to like”—or more specifically, “easy for white people to like” (“white people” being a sub-group of white people singled out by other white people). It is critically acclaimed (perhaps the most critically acclaimed music there is), and yet music critics relish taking “boring” musical artists down a peg more than any other kind of artist.

This critique to me seems easy to argue, which is to say I don't disagree. But it just isn't particularly insightful. Both articles essentially make this analogy:

• Adult Contemporary is to pop music genres as Feist is to indie music.

This analogy extends easily:

• Adult Contemporary is to pop music genres as Poison is to glam metal/hard rock.

It can even extend to other discussions:

• Adult Contemporary is to pop music genres as scones are to sweets.

And the articles aren't more controversial because they take on indie music--indie music has no exclusive claim to coolness. My comment on glam metal and scones means more. It took more imagination.

Don't Look Back

Recently The New York Times moderate Conservative political columnist David Brooks asked readers over age 70 for a "gift":

...write a brief report on your life so far, an evaluation of what you did well, of what you did not so well and what you learned along the way. You can write this as a brief essay or divide your life into categories — career, family, faith, community, and self-knowledge — and give yourself a grade in each area.

A morbid request, I think, but people obliged. Brooks' sampling will in the end lack diversity, but so far it volunteers interesting narratives. Any pattern of self-judgement is elusive. Some writers regret disastrous decisions because of their consequences, while others disregard effects, choosing instead to emphasize the values symbolized in the decision, like courage. In all, the essays offer no real surprises. The source of greatest fulfillment and greatest regret was usually love and family. Failed marriages were a common theme, inspiring regrets, except in the case of one man who remained friends with his exes. Estranged children caused pain, while relationships with adult children bring rewards.

The current of familial autopsies denotes an irony Brooks will likely miss or ignore: His respondents don't reflect the success of moral-majority ideals Brooks would like to impart. Rather, with their multiple marriages, estranged children, and indifference (or, sometimes, bitterness) towards religion, these folks represent a reality the self-righteous can't acknowledge--that however well-meaning one may be, we all suffer personal shortcomings and from circumstances that make strict adherence to value codes all but impossible. Sometimes we fail. Sometimes we need help and second and third chances.

Brooks thinks self-reflection is valuable and not performed often enough. That's a debatable if not dubious claim. He also thinks these essays might prove a good resource for the young. Could they instead prove harmful and confusing? Seeing ourselves as subjects fit for analysis comes so naturally.

Another picture post

Stuff about an article on Newt Gingrich

Plodding further along the media-worn path of horse race campaign coverage, the Time magazine article "Gingrich Could Draw GOP Ire on Immigration" hones in on Gingrich and how his stance on immigration may affect his ranking:

The firebrand former House speaker broke with what has become a reflexive Republican hard line on immigration, calling for "humane" treatment for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for decades, establishing deep family and community ties.

"Firebrand" qualifies as an odd characterization given that Gingrich is thoroughly establishment, old guard, and a while out of the game. Nevertheless, the article never explains how Gingrich's position contrasts with his opponents and their "hard line". The closest comparison comes more than halfway throughout the piece:

But Romney has been tough on illegal immigration while running for president. He said Tuesday night that what Gingrich was proposing would act as a magnet for foreigners to enter the country illegally.

"Tougher" goes undefined. Also undefined are the immigrants. But this quote from a Gingrich supporter holds a clue:

"With me, personally, I fall right in line with him," said Columbia, S.C., Gingrich supporter Allen Olson, a former tea party official. "It's utterly impossible to round up 12 million people and ship them off.

Yep. Mexicans. When Conservatives and media discuss immigration, usually they mean Mexicans. This is understood, but rarely if ever said. The Conservative stance on Mexican immigrants goes unexamined here in this piece as it does elsewhere. The Conservative response to Gingrich, however, does not:

The response was swift. Some conservatives asserted he had wounded his candidacy, perhaps fatally.

That Gingrich's "humane" position should so offend a large segment of voters merits some examination here. The reporter might ask, Why? What are the reasons? Are those reasons valid? Instead of diving into the meaning and merits of this debated issue, the piece cynically treats the position as mere political maneuvering:

And far from a stumble, Tuesday night's remarks seemed a calculated tactic to draw a contrast with Romney, whom he now sees as his chief rival to the party nomination and who has had his own trouble with conservatives ...

This article also includes the obligatory nod to Gingrich's presupposed intelligence in this quote, courtesy of Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss:

"He's one of the smartest politicians out there, and don't think he hasn't thought this through."

Gingrich's intellect has long been an object of admiration in his media coverage.

Science, society, and responsibility

The Time magazine editorial "Was Jared Loughner In Control of His Actions?" interests me because it addresses the issue without dumbing it down too much. The author, psychology professor Michael Gazzaniga, answers his question with both a Yes and No, but probably thinks the better answer is Yes.

Gazzaniga refers to emerging cognitive science-related research that says we are not as in control and not as rational as we like to think we are. Framed as a re-evaluation of our decision making, this conclusion has been gaining media traction, highlighted right now in discussions with and/or about economist Daniel Kahneman's book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. I see this discussion as a resurrection of Descartes' mind-body problem, but using the language of science instead of philosophy. The knowledge holders now preface their statements with something like "The research tells us ..." when really they are interpreting research, disavowing assumptions, then they're telling us.

Nevertheless, returning to the editorial, Gazzaniga tenderly leaves the recognition of responsibility to society, not science.

Something on The Ask

His wife cheats on him, he lacks the requisite affection for his own son, his employment as development officer at a third-tier university was recently terminated for bad behavior, and he's aging badly, quickly: Milo is a sad, bitter man. This unfit protagonist of The Ask knows his own insufferability, describing himself as the unsympathetic lead in some bad novel. But author Sam Lipsyte's rendering of Milo's self-loathing loserhood disarms the reader just enough, bypassing our hostility on a bridge of rickety empathy.

After college, Milo quickly traded in his aspirations in the art world for a rat-race life of quiet desperation and loud disappointment. His opposite is his estranged college buddy, Purdy, who's now a wealthy, enviable man whose stock has only risen since graduation. The memory of Purdy seems to figure in whenever Milo takes stock of his own failure. But Purdy does have one spot on his record: A son he didn't know he had and now wants to hide. The son turns out to be twice as bitter and resentful as Milo, and for better reason.

To those of us quick to blame others, the narrative encourages turning that critical eye inward, and taking a break from the self-hating and social criticism long enough to appreciate what we do have, which is often more than first imagined. If the novel has a point, that may be it. The Ask reads quickly but has a lot of flaws: Barely tolerable characters, a drawn-out plot structure, some unclear resolution points, and the author frequently employs one affected choice of syntax that bothered the hell out of me.

A tale of two endings

The New York Times issued two death certificates today. The first was for soft and sterile Republican candidate Jon Huntsman. The article "Major Ad Blitz for Huntsman in New Hampshire, by Group Backed by His Father" maintains the narrative that candidate Jon Jr. is the son who can't escape the shadow of his rich, self-made father. The article says this explicitly:

Though Mr. Huntsman has clearly made his own name as the governor of Utah and, most recently, as the ambassador to China for President Obama, he has grown up in the long shadow of his father, one of the richest men in the country and an entrepreneur behind iconic items of Americana ...

And the supporting details from the article (parenthetical is mine):

Governor Huntsman made it clear early this year that he did not think he could be a viable presidential contender if he did not raise money on his own, telling reporters, “Unless you can raise it legitimately, you’re not going to win.”

As he has struggled to do so, his aides and supporters have placed increasing hope that Mr. Huntsman’s father would shovel enough money into (Jr.'s PAC) Our Destiny ...

Mr. Huntsman has been loath to ask his father to up his commitment to the outside group, several people familiar with the situation said. His father, on the other hand, they said, has been unwilling to do so without being asked, especially given the uncertainty of whether the investment would make a huge difference.

The Huntsman candidacy never had a chance, and The New York Times' insistence on this narrative only hurt.

The second death certificate is for the Occupy Wall Street movement--or, at least the occupation part. The article "Beyond Seizing Parks, New Paths to Influence" depicts the police raids and impending Winter as ruinous for the protestors encamped in parks across the nation. The article's sources now predict a shift in strategy from attention-getting to information sharing and political action. The New York Times has consistently been critical of the protestors and the movement, focusing on the perceived lack of a unifying message or list of demands and the nuisances caused to locals and businesses, but the paper has stayed pretty neutral about the politics. This article seems to argue that Occupy Wall Street succeeded in raising consciousness about the issues, if nothing else.

Few things on the case R. J. Reynolds et al v. United States Food and Drug Administration

A district court just ruled on whether the FDA can force cigarette companies to publish graphic anti-smoking images on packs. The Judge, Richard J. Leon, gives a failed rhetorical analysis in his opinion:

Unfortunately for the Government, the evidence here overwhelmingly suggests that the Rule's graphic-image requirements are not the type of purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures that are reviewable under this less stringent standard. Indeed, the fact alone that some of the graphic images here appear to be cartoons, and others appear to be digitally enhanced or manipulated, would seem to contravene the very definition of "purely factual." That the images were unquestionably designed to evoke emotion - or, at the very least, that their efficacy was measured by their "salience," which the FDA defines in large part as a viewer's emotional reaction, see CompI. ~ 58 (citing 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,638-36,639) - further undercuts the Government's argument that the images are purely factual and not controversial, see, e.g., Defs.' Opp'n at 22-29. Moreover, it is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit, or never to start, smoking: an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information. 18 Thus, while the line between the constitutionally permissible dissemination of factual information and the impermissible expropriation of a company's advertising space for Government advocacy can be frustratingly blurry, 19 here - where these emotion-provoking images are coupled with text extolling consumers to call the phone number "1-800-QUIT" - the line seems quite clear. --Memorandum Opinion, 11/07/2011, R. J. Reynolds et al v. United States Food and Drug Administration

The Judge ruled in favor of tobacco companies by preserving the status quo and the cigarette package's text warning that smokers routinely ignore now. I don't fault his decision (in fact, I tend to agree), but I do hate his remaining faithful to the ideation of  a "purely factual and uncontroversial information"--a quote originating from Zauderer, describing a concept that has been around forever: A pure observation language. Such a language will never be, and can never be.

Anyways, I hope this case goes to the Supreme Court. How do you warn people about a product that, if used as intended, will almost certainly lead to addiction and quite likely a slow, painful death. (And, more to the Government's unspoken point, the resulting deaths exact a heavy cost on taxpayers every year.)

Which of the following are purely factual and uncontroversial information?:

• Cigarettes cause cancer and death
• Leaving for work today may result in your dying in an accident
• Orange juice contains vitamin C
• Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear

Pictures

A good piece on Herman Cain asks, Why isn't he even more on the ropes?

Let's examine one of the author's conclusions in the enjoyable article "On the Ropes with Herman Cain" which appears this month in The New York Times Magazine.

The piece profiles the candidate with a critical eye, leaving the general impression that (1) this politician is flawed--seriously lacking, even, and (2) his campaign is unusually resilient. The resiliency point is well made except for this one high-profile example: "And in the first two national polls that were conducted after the sexual-harassment scandal broke, Cain was still looking strong, running right up at the top with Romney." This phenomenon isn't remarkable. While a scandal might pervade a campaign's coverage, it needn't necessarily hurt a candidate's approval. Just a recent example: Obama's numbers held steady through all the Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright talk that followed him in 2007.

A candidate's approval rating is damaged when the nature of his scandal threatens or challenges his base. For example: Democrats sick of George W. and the GOP in 2007 did not worry about Obama associating with mostly irrelevant Leftists. Likewise, today's Republicans, many of whom are suspicious of litigation and dismissive of feminists, don't care about old sexual harassment charges.

An event is only a scandal if it offends the values of your peers, and a speech act is only a gaffe if it draws their derision, thereby embarrassing you.

A separate point: I've read speculation that Cain intends not so much to win to the election, but rather to make himself a celebrity. This jibes with my old theory that elections would soon evolve into popularity contests between game show host-like candidates. But, should this happen, it would only be a temporary phase in the history of US electioneering. And, moreover, that campaigns and candidates are the essential form of PR isn't news.

Something on The Heart is a Lonely Hunter

I previously wrote on two short Carson McCullers stories that depict love as a lost cause. Her most cited and celebrated work, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, zooms in on the lost. Loneliness reverberates through these pages as we  follow a modest cast of characters who harbor passions that stir and agitate them. Each character is doomed by their ill-fit connection to this world, seemingly unable to relate to it and to others. Isolated, they turn their thoughts and feelings over and over again in their minds before finding an outlet in a polite deaf-mute whose soft smile and modest nods of approval disguise his own pain.

Stealing moments alone with the deaf-mute, each character imagines they've finally found someone in the world who understands them without realizing that that someone actually does not. It may be the sole blessing in their miserable lives that they don't realize this, but even that delicate respite is stolen when the deaf-mute commits suicide. The Heart is a Lonely Hunter moves ploddingly at times but the characters are well drawn and the sorrowful tones resonate without deafening us to the sounds of tiny bubbles bursting.

The hunter and the Huntsman

We know mainstream media covers elections like a horse race, focusing only who's winning rather than the implications of candidate X winning as opposed to candidate Y. But in the article "Huntsman: Cain’s miscue on China nuke capability, Romney’s trade rhetoric raise policy issues" The Washington Post goes off this election-coverage script and talks policy. Or, rather, they transcribe the candidates talking policy. Of course, the consolation candidate, Huntsman, made it possible. But faithfully, almost dutifully, the article returns to horse race coverage at the end with this reminder: "While Cain and Romney have been leading the GOP contest, Huntsman has trailed badly, barely registering in early polls."

All or nothing when talking values and money

In this week's editorial, David Brooks either misses the point or hopes to talk around it.

He argues that the Occupy protest movement targets the wrong type of inequality. To make his argument, Brooks organizes inequality into two varieties conveniently named Blue and Red. According to Brooks, Blue inequality--the target of the Occupy movement--consists of the wealth gap between the elite business/finance sector and everyone else. Red inequality consists of the opportunity and values gap between college graduates and those who never make it to college.

The differences between college grads and non-college grads, Brooks says, are "inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment". Besides making the sweeping generalization that college graduates are better at raising children and run better homes, Brooks makes the common mistake of separating values and economics and then emphasizing one at the expense of the other. The poor need stable, good paying jobs to support a family the way Brooks wants them to. Liberals tend to overemphasize the economics of poverty, while Conservatives focus on values.

Towards his conclusion, Brooks writes that Blue inequality is "not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent." With jobs being outsourced or eliminated due to downsizing, and with workers' wages stagnant while CEO pay skyrockets, Brooks is naive to think that if only the poor married before having children, their conditions would improve and opportunity would follow.

A thing on the film Lars and the Real Girl

Socializing hurts Lars, but through a co-worker he learns of a website that sells life-like sex dolls, so he orders one and, upon her arrival, makes her his girlfriend. To him, she poses no threat. She can be his creation, and from her he creates a saintly Brazilian missionary immigrant named Bianca who, being wheelchair-bound and having a limited understanding of English, is completely dependent upon him.

But soon other townsfolk co-opt his creation, and they make Bianca more dynamic, resourceful, and, eventually, independent. Lars originally used Bianca to approximate intimacy; with her he could relate to the world the way he wanted to be related to--with patience and sensitivity, without possibility of rejection. But suddenly realizing he is no longer Bianca's only connection to this world, thereby feeling rejected, Lars defiantly sets out building connections of his own by going out with a young lady he works with. From there, we put Lars on the road to deliverance from the prison of his inhibitions.

The movie feels sweet, but underneath is a careful power struggle between Lars and the town. Lars' truth is dubbed a delusion, and soon others' truths are being imposed from all sides until Lars, having lost control of his creation, announces that Bianca has died--a final and dramatic act of self empowerment. What is it exactly that either pushes or inspires Lars to change, to conform to the town's normalizing desire for him to be more social?

Photos, from some weeks back

Squashing Dissent

The CNN article "Tear gas used on Occupy protesters in Oakland" quotes police statements released after violent attempts to squash Occupy Wall Street protests. The article does not (1) investigate these statements, (2) include counter statements by protestors or neutral observers, nor does it (3) discuss relevant questions about whether demonstrators needed or acquired permits for their events. This article represents a lot of modern mainstream coverage and is decidedly not journalism. It shows how media outlets function primarily as loudspeakers for establishments, both government and private industry.

OK, maybe every statement can't be checked. That's understandable. But at least say so in the article because a lot of people trust authorities, especially the police, and these people accept official statements as gospel.

My favorite part: The article concludes with this:

Oakland and Atlanta are two of many cities worldwide dealing with the Occupy Wall Street protests, the leaderless movement that started in New York in September.

Dealing with?

Something on short stories by Carson McCullers

The drifter's wisdom imparted in Carson McCullers' short story "A Tree. A Rock. A Cloud." tells us that love don't come easy. Having first failed at love, this drifter concludes that to be successful he must take baby steps, first feeling love for a tree, a rock, then a cloud--objects seemingly less complicated, less sacred and dangerous than his love's final destination, the woman that got away. He claims his approach is a science. His conclusion indicates that he believes he is not the problem. No, love itself is the problem and, moreover, the beloved is tricky and must be approached with caution. If his conclusion holds true, does this make love impossible for all men? Only the aged can hope for true love. It's a guaranteed tragedy at best.

A similar message is driven home in McCullers "The Ballad of the Sad Cafe". Here she tells of misguided, unrequited love. The three primary characters are defined by a lack of love--either a lack of love given or returned--so much so that they are ultimately victimized by love, turned tragic characters doomed to love an impossibility while drenched in loneliness and soft brutality. The love we can call healthy escapes McCullers' universe.

Broken Flowers

In the film "Broken Flowers", Bill Murray plays Don Johnston. I'd guess that Murray's motivation when he plays Don is that he has no motivation at all. The woman leaving him in the film's opening describes Don as an over-the-hill Don Juan, but what's so Don Juan about him, we can't tell. Rather than impassioned and hungry, this aging man is listless and indifferent.

The stoical plot of "Broken Flowers" begins when an anonymous letter informs Don that he has a 19 year-old son who may be looking for him. This revelation leads Don's amateur sleuth neighbor to map out a quest to identify the mother. So Don reluctantly accepts this mission. On his road trip, Don reunites briefly with four women who may have sent the letter. They are his unknowing suspects; Don is their detached inquisitor. These women all respond differently: The first with familiar affection, the next with frigid nervousness, another with distanced suspicion, and the last with outward aggression. None of these encounters leads Don to identify the mother. But once back again in his home town, Don spots a young man loitering first at the bus station, then outside the diner where Don lunches. Don approaches the stranger for an impromptu sit down which ends with Don embarrassing himself and frightening off the apparently wrong young man. It may be that Don never chose to be a confirmed bachelor. It may be that he never chose anything at all. He simply stopped developing but kept being. When the film ends, we can wonder if Don has been stirred again, or we might think this fruitless search has only affirmed his negation. But wait--a strange happening just before the credits only deepens the uncertainty.

Other interpretations: (1) The amateur sleuth neighbor represents the seeker; he is one who searches for Truth. Don is the skeptic, a slightly cynical denier of Truth. But, when Don is faced with the possibility of Truth he reaches out to take hold of it, wanting. But what does it mean that Truth evades him? (2) Another interpretation (my preference): The amateur sleuth neighbor represents the person compelled to exercise power, to subject the world to his gaze and prescribe truths, thereby creating knowledge he uses as he wishes. Don neither wishes to exercise power and refuses to have power exercised on him. When he takes up the quest for power and knowledge, he finds nothing but a stretch of time that is uninterpretable and not to be used for the purposes of meaning, knowledge, and power.

"Broken Flowers" is a good film, if a little flat in its pacing. Bill Murray, of course, awards even this static character with soul.

Current narrative on Occupy Wallstreet

The media narrative on Occupy Wall Street says the participants have no clearly defined unifying goal or policy objective. By contrast we're shown the Tea Party who want smaller government and less taxes. Nevermind that "smaller government" and "less taxes" are amazingly broad demands that, if actually instituted, would result in changes that the Tea Party would not support, including cuts to the military, cuts to US farm and oil subsidies, and cuts to Social Security and Medicare (presumably, once unknowing senior Tea Party members are made aware these are government-run programs, some would change their mind).

Occupy Wall Street's thematic conceptual equivalent to "smaller government" and "less taxes" is probably "inequality" because this key word holds much meaning for the protestors: Inequality of wealth distribution (the poor get poorer and the rich get mega-rich), inequality of bailout-giving (big banks get 'em, homeowners and college loanees don't), inequality of criminal prosecutions (white collar crimes are often ignored, crimes of the poor cause prisons to spill over), and so on.

If the narrative is true that Occupy Wall Street lacks a cohesive, meaningful message, then it is equally true of the Tea Party. In fact, as the Tea Party grew in number, its aims became even more diverse, including Obama citizenship-deniers, health care reform opponents, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, veterans, seniors, libertarians, the rich and the poor. Yet they were celebrated in the media for allegedly lacking leadership and being a true-blue grass roots movement. The same benefit of the doubt is denied Occupy Wall Street.

Bias in prisoner swap story

Mainstream outlets cover the Israeli-Palestinian prisoner swap from the Israeli perspective (i.e., "Israeli Solder to be Released") while others and foreign outlets go either way. In this case (pictured at right), only Al Jazeera takes an angle on the Palestinian prisoners.

Incidentally, the ratio of prisoners being freed (1000 Palestinians to 1 Israeli) is interesting because it lends itself to either of two diametrically opposed conclusions: (1) 1000 to 1? How many warmongering Palestinians are there?, or (2) 1000 to 1? How could the Israelis imprison so many Palestinians?

On Foucault's The Will to Knowledge

In the first volume of The History of Sexuality, The Will To Knowledge, Foucault dissolves the conventional wisdom that says sexuality has been repressed since the Victorian age. He argues instead that it began to flourish in the 18th century through discourse. Conceptually, sexuality came into being then as a social construct that has since permeated our lives. This flourishing began with the rite of confession and from there evolved and spread through the newly powerful institutions of science, medicine, and education. A general example: What was a simple debauchery before came to be identified as a specific perversion--and only one of many possible perversions--that evidenced any number of other sexual issues to be uncovered in the recesses of childhood memory and untangled in the psychiatrist's office and later echoed in the medical texts. Sexuality is a secret we tirelessly mine for truths about ourselves. Foucault doesn't deal in conspiracies. Rather, his are institutional analyses, demystifications of the larger issues and forces at play anytime we and our managers attempt reform and understanding.

This volume--or, at least this translation--feels less inspired than Foucault's earlier works, gifting us with fewer flourishes and specific citations. But the overall concepts are more accessible; for example, the recent history of family medicine and psychiatry are less foreign to casual readers than, say, the innards of the asylum. But my main criticism is this: Madness and Civilization excelled at painting a picture of what madness meant before the modern age took hold of it; The Will To Knowledge, on the other hand, gives us little idea of what sex meant to society prior to the Victorian era. Nevertheless, like any Foucault work, this is to be studied and enjoyed for its originality, insight, thoroughness, style, and potential. And I enjoyed this volume far more than I did the third volume, The Care of the Self.