(100% TRUE.)
It was a very cold day November, 1994, in New York City. I was walking north on Fifth Av in midtown. The broad sidewalks were crowded with people as usual on a weekday, and wisps of snow blew around on the concrete. I had the impression that it was one of those days when it was too cold for snow to fall heavily.
As I crossed an intersection I saw a young man on the other side, facing toward me, facing south, standing still and so standing out from all the people who'd begun to move when we got the green light. He was probably in his 20's, had fair thinning hair which was cut short, was just a little bit on the pudgy side. He stood out for other reasons too: He was wearing a winter jacket, but it wasn't zipped up. There was no hood on his jacket, and he wasn't wearing a hat, or gloves. Or shoes or socks. His toes hung over the edge of the curb. His arms hung at his sides with his palms turned forward. His eyes were rolled up into his head. But what really made him stand apart from the crowd was that his fly was open and he was peeing into the street in a thick stream. The real "New York" aspect of the situation was, with all the big crowds around, no one was paying any attention to him.
A block or two further, between 47th and 48th on the east side of 5th, I came to Brentano's bookstore, a great bookstore. That 5th Av location has since closed. As I entered the store Allen Ginsberg came rushing out, so hastily that we very nearly crashed into one another, his face came within inches of my face. I didn't have time to turn around and say "I'm sorry" before he was gone. At the time I had the impression that either he was late for an appointment and rushing to get there, or repulsed by something or someone in the store and rushing to get away before he lost his temper or something. This was long before I had been diagnosed as autistic. Since that diagnosis a third explanation for me and Allen Ginsberg so nearly colliding has occurred to me. Because I am autistic, my perceptions of events often differ radically from those of others, and because I know that now, I wonder whether possibly Ginsberg had not been rushing along at all, but rather that I had been lumbering along like a big half-blind moose (I'm rather large), abstracted, in my head and not watching where I was going, and so that perhaps the near-collision was entirely my fault. I am not good in crowded situations and that is putting it mildly. I've taken to making extra conscious efforts to get out of other people's way in crowded places.
A forth possibility has also occurred to me: perhaps Ginsberg was in a terrible rush, but not because he was late to be somewhere else nor very anxious not to be there anymore, but because he knew the young barefoot urinating gentleman, and had just been alerted as to his current behavior, and was rushing to the young man's aid and hoping he got there before the guy got into trouble. This forth possibility jibes more with my image of Ginsberg as consistently compassionate and concerned for the welfare of people in trouble. I have no idea whether or not this image is accurate because I never met Ginsburg apart from that near-collision.
Once I was inside the store, I asked an employee, "Was that Allen Ginsberg?" The employee said yes, he had just given a reading. I was disappointed that I had missed that. I asked if I could fill out a job application. Brentano's never hired me -- within a few days I was working at another bookstore on the west side of 5th Av a few blocks farther north -- and a few years later they went out of business. A complete coincidence? You tell me.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
True Stories From My Life. Part 1: Me And Joey Ramone
(100% TRUE.)
It was 1996, and I was working in a bookstore in the East Village. (This was a little bit before the East Village became "cool" -- in my opinion anyway. But what do I know?) On our lunch break, a co-worker asked if I'd like to go to a sushi restaurant with him. I had never had sushi before and was intrigued. (Turned out, I like sushi a lot. In my opinion now, cooked fish is pretty much ruined fish.) We were pretty close to where CBGB was (it closed a while ago), around where Joey Ramone Place is now, when I saw Joey Ramone and another guy get out of a van across the street. I said to my coworker, "Hey, look, it's Joey Ramone!" I waved at Joey and yelled in my booming baritone, "Hey, Joe-EEEEEE!" My coworker cringed and whispered something about being cool. Joey waved back and yelled in his booming baritone, "Hey, how you doin', man!" Maybe my coworker cringed because he thought I was about to run across the street and bother Joey for an autograph or something, but I'd just wanted to say Hello. I was done. My coworker and I kept walking down our side of the street toward the sushi restaurant, and Joey and the other guy went on about their business.
It was 1996, and I was working in a bookstore in the East Village. (This was a little bit before the East Village became "cool" -- in my opinion anyway. But what do I know?) On our lunch break, a co-worker asked if I'd like to go to a sushi restaurant with him. I had never had sushi before and was intrigued. (Turned out, I like sushi a lot. In my opinion now, cooked fish is pretty much ruined fish.) We were pretty close to where CBGB was (it closed a while ago), around where Joey Ramone Place is now, when I saw Joey Ramone and another guy get out of a van across the street. I said to my coworker, "Hey, look, it's Joey Ramone!" I waved at Joey and yelled in my booming baritone, "Hey, Joe-EEEEEE!" My coworker cringed and whispered something about being cool. Joey waved back and yelled in his booming baritone, "Hey, how you doin', man!" Maybe my coworker cringed because he thought I was about to run across the street and bother Joey for an autograph or something, but I'd just wanted to say Hello. I was done. My coworker and I kept walking down our side of the street toward the sushi restaurant, and Joey and the other guy went on about their business.
Someone Asked Whether Religion Was Bad For Animals
The answer is obviously yes: we're animals and religion is bad for us. It's also unfortunate that some religions teach that humans are fundamentally different from other life forms. I'm not an expert on Native American cultures, but I gather that some of them regard humans as just one part of life, no more important than other parts, an insight which Graeco-Roman Judaeo-Christian culture has resisted with much tenacity. And for all I know there many be many other human cultures in other parts of the world which lack these strange ideas about humans being unique, and about "nature" as something separate from humans. It amazes me to see how many biologists, although they've managed to shake the primitive belief in a deity or deities, still hang on to primitive ideas of human exceptionalism, insisting that humans are unique and separate from the rest of life, in the face of ever-mounting evidence that we are not. It's as if they haven't fully grasped the fact that all life forms are continuing to evolve, and that a paltry few million years ago our ancestors were creatures which human exceptionalists would not recognize as human, and that there's no reason to think that in a paltry few million years the descendants of dogs or cats won't be able to read or build computers or do other things which supposedly are "uniquely human." (What, you think dogs and cats aren't paying attention to us?) Not to mention assuming things such as that other species here and now have no human-like emotions, or that we actually comprehend their sophistication in other fundamental ways and are therefore qualified to compare them (disparagingly) with ourselves. Heraclitus and Nietzsche only got this one half right when they pointed out the similarity between apes and humans and said that people don't want to see the obvious similarities because apes are ugly and the similarity is insulting to us: some of the similarities between us and apes are insulting to the apes.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
My Opinion Of Myself And Some Others. An Advertisement For Myself
I feel pretty good about what I write. I think I'm a good writer.
And suddenly today that started to worry me, when I contrasted it with remarks about writing by two of my favorite writers. One is by Kurt Vonnegut,
from the preface to one of his books. I don't remember it word-for-word but it went something like this: "How do I feel about this book? I feel lousy about it. I feel lousy about all my books." Seemed he felt somewhat embarrassed that he hadn't be able to do better. The other remark is by Samuel Beckett
and is more concise: "To write is to fail."
That's what two writers whom I find to be excellent -- Beckett especially -- have to say for themselves. Pretty close to outright apologizing for doing what they did. What I'm worried about is that perhaps they were so good in significant part because they were profoundly dissatisfied with themselves, and therefore constantly striving mightily to do better, and that, conversely, my satisfaction with my own work keeps it relatively mediocre. But you know what? I still think I'm pretty good. And people whose opinions I value highly also have praised my work.
I wouldn't say that it's a widespread opinion that I'm a good writer, because I don't think enough people know anything at all about me for any opinion about me to legitimately be called widespread. I'm not good at marketing my work. I'm more sure about this negative opinion of my marketing skills than about my positive opinion of my writing, because marketing skills can be measured objectively, in terms of numbers, and the quality of writing cannot. I won't tell you how few clicks this blog gets, because 1) I don't want you to cry or feel sorry for me, and 2) it's basically nunya bidniss nohow. But I need an agent. I had an agent once, a good one, but I lost him again, because I never finished the novel which got him interested in working for me, and by the time I finished another novel he had moved on to another profession. I got that agent by the sheerest and dumbest of sheer dumb luck, and unfortunately for me, finding an agent, a skilled person to market one's work, is itself a kind of marketing. (*sigh*)
And because I am not (yet) so hugely successful that counting my money and turning down business offers occupies all of my free time, and also because I am a bit of a schmuck, let's face it, I spend some time commenting on articles on Huffingtom Post, where they keep us schmucks coming back and clicking on their site and making them money with dumb things including badges, yes badges, and what inspired me to write this post was that today I noticed that ________* had received the Community Pundit badge, which comes with the perk that some of yr comments are conspicuously placed above the others immediately below the text of an article. I'm pretty sure that the Pundits don't actually get PAID or anything, still it irks me mightily than an absolute dolt and moron like ________ has been named a Pundit, whilst I have not.
Then again, do I really want to be in a club which would have ________ as a member? And how are Pundits really chosen? HP says:
"HuffPost Pundits are our most engaged and thought-provoking commenters. Pundit Badges are awarded based on a strong history of insightful comments,"
which sounds as if HP would have us believe that some actual human beings working (as unpaid interns?) for HP found ________ to be insightful and thought-provoking. Can that really be? If that's true it would be quite discouraging, for it would mean that some real bozos are driving the bus over there. Or are Pundit badges actually awarded like the other badges: by a machine which counts clicks, counts things like fans and friends and faves? That too would be discouraging, but in a different way: it would be yet another indication that HP comments section is just another internet flame war trying to pass itself off as a moderated "community."
In any case, sad for me that my life's empty enough that I care. May that change soon, completely and forever. From your lips, gentle readers -- from both of you -- to Andrew Wylie's ears.
*I considered writing ________'s handle in this post, but why do that?
And suddenly today that started to worry me, when I contrasted it with remarks about writing by two of my favorite writers. One is by Kurt Vonnegut,
from the preface to one of his books. I don't remember it word-for-word but it went something like this: "How do I feel about this book? I feel lousy about it. I feel lousy about all my books." Seemed he felt somewhat embarrassed that he hadn't be able to do better. The other remark is by Samuel Beckettand is more concise: "To write is to fail."That's what two writers whom I find to be excellent -- Beckett especially -- have to say for themselves. Pretty close to outright apologizing for doing what they did. What I'm worried about is that perhaps they were so good in significant part because they were profoundly dissatisfied with themselves, and therefore constantly striving mightily to do better, and that, conversely, my satisfaction with my own work keeps it relatively mediocre. But you know what? I still think I'm pretty good. And people whose opinions I value highly also have praised my work.
I wouldn't say that it's a widespread opinion that I'm a good writer, because I don't think enough people know anything at all about me for any opinion about me to legitimately be called widespread. I'm not good at marketing my work. I'm more sure about this negative opinion of my marketing skills than about my positive opinion of my writing, because marketing skills can be measured objectively, in terms of numbers, and the quality of writing cannot. I won't tell you how few clicks this blog gets, because 1) I don't want you to cry or feel sorry for me, and 2) it's basically nunya bidniss nohow. But I need an agent. I had an agent once, a good one, but I lost him again, because I never finished the novel which got him interested in working for me, and by the time I finished another novel he had moved on to another profession. I got that agent by the sheerest and dumbest of sheer dumb luck, and unfortunately for me, finding an agent, a skilled person to market one's work, is itself a kind of marketing. (*sigh*)
And because I am not (yet) so hugely successful that counting my money and turning down business offers occupies all of my free time, and also because I am a bit of a schmuck, let's face it, I spend some time commenting on articles on Huffingtom Post, where they keep us schmucks coming back and clicking on their site and making them money with dumb things including badges, yes badges, and what inspired me to write this post was that today I noticed that ________* had received the Community Pundit badge, which comes with the perk that some of yr comments are conspicuously placed above the others immediately below the text of an article. I'm pretty sure that the Pundits don't actually get PAID or anything, still it irks me mightily than an absolute dolt and moron like ________ has been named a Pundit, whilst I have not.
Then again, do I really want to be in a club which would have ________ as a member? And how are Pundits really chosen? HP says:
"HuffPost Pundits are our most engaged and thought-provoking commenters. Pundit Badges are awarded based on a strong history of insightful comments,"
which sounds as if HP would have us believe that some actual human beings working (as unpaid interns?) for HP found ________ to be insightful and thought-provoking. Can that really be? If that's true it would be quite discouraging, for it would mean that some real bozos are driving the bus over there. Or are Pundit badges actually awarded like the other badges: by a machine which counts clicks, counts things like fans and friends and faves? That too would be discouraging, but in a different way: it would be yet another indication that HP comments section is just another internet flame war trying to pass itself off as a moderated "community."
In any case, sad for me that my life's empty enough that I care. May that change soon, completely and forever. From your lips, gentle readers -- from both of you -- to Andrew Wylie's ears.
*I considered writing ________'s handle in this post, but why do that?
The 2014 Midterms
What's that you say? It's a tad early to be thinking about the midterms? No, it's not early at all. "Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel." Also, for a while the Republicans have been outdoing us in contributions, advertising and turnout in the midterms. Why not try to turn that around? A Republican would be less likely to say it's early yet. "Traditionally," anyway, as the "pundits" tend to say, who are better at reading returns from past elections than at gauging what's going on around them now, because the latter is hard, let's face it. The Dems have defied a few pieces of "conventional wisdom" lately -- ah, imagine if wisdom actually were conventional, wouldn't that be sweet -- and if we can manage a huge turnout in 2014, that could make for a truly tremendous change in the US. Imagine if Obama could spend his last 2 years in office with a Congress which co-operated with him, except for the occasions when it pulled him to the Left.
Contact your local Democratic Party. If you don't know where the local HQ is, look here. Volunteer. Educate yourself on health care, the environment, voting rights, civil rights, education itself and other issues. TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT POLITICS. (Although in the case of people who have voted Green in the past and intend to continue doing so, you may want to consider how much time you want to spend talking to them. It would be a waste of your time to spend too much time talking to people who are too stupid to grasp the difference between the US political system and systems employing proportional representation, in which voting Green is not worse than a complete waste, where Greens are actually elected to public office. Try to spend your time and energy to maximum effect.) Register new voters.
And since we all know that most of you will actually do none of that, at least GET UP OFF OF YOUR BUTTS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2014, AND VOTE. Thanks.
We mustn't be overconfident. Overconfidence will ruin your game every time, in chess and in politics. Democrats were overconfident after the 2008 elections, and in 2010 the Tea Party happened. The Tea Party was overconfident after 2010, and in 2012 we handed their asses to them. It's time to stop the 2012 Snoopy happy dance NOW and put on our game faces.
Contact your local Democratic Party. If you don't know where the local HQ is, look here. Volunteer. Educate yourself on health care, the environment, voting rights, civil rights, education itself and other issues. TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT POLITICS. (Although in the case of people who have voted Green in the past and intend to continue doing so, you may want to consider how much time you want to spend talking to them. It would be a waste of your time to spend too much time talking to people who are too stupid to grasp the difference between the US political system and systems employing proportional representation, in which voting Green is not worse than a complete waste, where Greens are actually elected to public office. Try to spend your time and energy to maximum effect.) Register new voters.
And since we all know that most of you will actually do none of that, at least GET UP OFF OF YOUR BUTTS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2014, AND VOTE. Thanks.
We mustn't be overconfident. Overconfidence will ruin your game every time, in chess and in politics. Democrats were overconfident after the 2008 elections, and in 2010 the Tea Party happened. The Tea Party was overconfident after 2010, and in 2012 we handed their asses to them. It's time to stop the 2012 Snoopy happy dance NOW and put on our game faces.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Congress Recently Amended A Bill To Prevent The Military From Hiring Secular Humanist Chaplains, And I'm Not Too Upset About It
-- because, what the heck is a Secular Humanist chaplain anyway? I've only encountered one so far, Chris Stedman, a Secular Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, and Stedman is hard for me to take when I'm in a good mood. It's hard for me to imagine him being much comfort to military personnel in crisis. To me he's barely distinguishable from a "modern" Christian or Jewish theologian. He's more supportive of religion, more quick to excuse its flaws and more critical of other atheists, than many of the conventional sort of religious clergypeople.
Jason Heap had been attempting to become the Navy's first Humanist chaplain. It's unclear at the moment whether -- excuse me. Let me re-phrase that in a less pompous manner: I don't know whether this amendment will prevent his appointment. Heap is 38 years old, a graduate of the Brite Divinity School and Oxford University, and has the endorsement of the Humanist Society, whoever they are. In case you're wondering whether Brite Divinity School might be some sort of atheist institution, associated with the so-called "brights" -- no such luck. It's a Christian seminary affiliated with Texas Christian University. Oh joy, another theologian, just what the world needed, and atheists in particular.
It is my considered opinion that what is most urgently needed in the military, what has been insufficiently replaced by chaplains for a long, long time, and, I fear, would be just as insufficiently replaced by Secular chaplains, is psychologists. Unfortunately, of course, there is still a great stigma attached to psychology: ("You want to consult with a specialist in the human mind in order to improve your mood and coping skills?! What are ya, crazy?!")
I'm not crazy about the idea of Secular clergy, in the military or elsewhere. I've noticed that some atheist churches have sprung up, and I'm not dying to visit any of them. (I attended a Unitarian church for a little while once, and I'm not going back anytime soon.) I think that the atheist monuments going up on public land next to things like copies of the Ten Commandments are silly, and I think the energy put into the court battles for permission to erect those monuments would've been much better spent supporting science education and combating the efforts of pseudoscientific Creationism to attain the status, legally and in people's opinions, of science. I think that the formal debates between atheists and creationists lend Creationism an air of seriousness it doesn't deserve. The fact that "In God We Trust" is on our money doesn't bother me. It seems I disagree with the typical New Atheist on every one of those points, with the possible exception of the Unitarians. It seems that snake handlers, "modern" theologians and New Atheists all differ from me in their need for forms and institutions which are either religious or copy religions.
Jason Heap had been attempting to become the Navy's first Humanist chaplain. It's unclear at the moment whether -- excuse me. Let me re-phrase that in a less pompous manner: I don't know whether this amendment will prevent his appointment. Heap is 38 years old, a graduate of the Brite Divinity School and Oxford University, and has the endorsement of the Humanist Society, whoever they are. In case you're wondering whether Brite Divinity School might be some sort of atheist institution, associated with the so-called "brights" -- no such luck. It's a Christian seminary affiliated with Texas Christian University. Oh joy, another theologian, just what the world needed, and atheists in particular.
It is my considered opinion that what is most urgently needed in the military, what has been insufficiently replaced by chaplains for a long, long time, and, I fear, would be just as insufficiently replaced by Secular chaplains, is psychologists. Unfortunately, of course, there is still a great stigma attached to psychology: ("You want to consult with a specialist in the human mind in order to improve your mood and coping skills?! What are ya, crazy?!")
I'm not crazy about the idea of Secular clergy, in the military or elsewhere. I've noticed that some atheist churches have sprung up, and I'm not dying to visit any of them. (I attended a Unitarian church for a little while once, and I'm not going back anytime soon.) I think that the atheist monuments going up on public land next to things like copies of the Ten Commandments are silly, and I think the energy put into the court battles for permission to erect those monuments would've been much better spent supporting science education and combating the efforts of pseudoscientific Creationism to attain the status, legally and in people's opinions, of science. I think that the formal debates between atheists and creationists lend Creationism an air of seriousness it doesn't deserve. The fact that "In God We Trust" is on our money doesn't bother me. It seems I disagree with the typical New Atheist on every one of those points, with the possible exception of the Unitarians. It seems that snake handlers, "modern" theologians and New Atheists all differ from me in their need for forms and institutions which are either religious or copy religions.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Bullying For Fun And Profit
I wonder whether it was purely a coincidence that an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" which deals with the issue of bullying aired recently on TBS right before the premiere of "Deal With It," a reality/game show which IS bullying. Could it possibly be that the scheduling was more than a coincidence, that an executive who had failed to prevent TBS from greenlighting "Deal With It" made sure that those two half-hours aired back-to-back, as a subtle form of protest?
In "The Speckerman Recurrence," the episode of "The Big Bang Theory" in question, Jimmy Speckerman (played by Lance Barber, a very nice guy irl, so I hear), who bullied Howard when they were in high school, unexpectedly shows up, and Howard decides to confront his former tormenter. In talking about the topic of bullying with Bernadette and Amy, Penny realizes that she was a bully in high school, whereas her two friends were both victims of bullying, and becomes sensitized to the issue.
All very well and good. And then we immediately cut to "Deal With It," in which celebrity bullies put hidden earpieces on civilian victims and get their rocks off by making them humiliate themselves and endanger close relationships for a chance at getting a check which, I'll just bet you anything, is smaller than any of the checks the celebrities get for the episode. The victims piss their pants, stick their fingers up their noses, try to kiss friends on the lips, pretend to flirt in front of their spouses, etc. The most satisfying victim, the one who goes along the farthest and the best with the bullies' orders, gets $5000. Oh what fun for the celebrities and the sadists at home.
It's disgusting.
I don't know anything at all about Howie Mandel, the executive producer of "Deal With It," and so the following is pure speculation and may be 100% wrong. But it seems to me that earlier in his career, as a stand-up comic and then on "St Elsewhere," Mandel was very vulnerable, a nerd, clearly someone who must have been inviting prey to bullies in school. And then suddenly, sometime before "Deal Or No Deal," Mandel butched up. The shaved head. The pirate earrings, yarrrr... The soul patch. And the 'tude, suddenly it was completely different too, and has remained so. Mandel suddenly looked and acted much more like a bully than a victim of bullying. It seems he's going to continue the cycle instead of, hey lookit that, dealing with it.
In "The Speckerman Recurrence," the episode of "The Big Bang Theory" in question, Jimmy Speckerman (played by Lance Barber, a very nice guy irl, so I hear), who bullied Howard when they were in high school, unexpectedly shows up, and Howard decides to confront his former tormenter. In talking about the topic of bullying with Bernadette and Amy, Penny realizes that she was a bully in high school, whereas her two friends were both victims of bullying, and becomes sensitized to the issue.
All very well and good. And then we immediately cut to "Deal With It," in which celebrity bullies put hidden earpieces on civilian victims and get their rocks off by making them humiliate themselves and endanger close relationships for a chance at getting a check which, I'll just bet you anything, is smaller than any of the checks the celebrities get for the episode. The victims piss their pants, stick their fingers up their noses, try to kiss friends on the lips, pretend to flirt in front of their spouses, etc. The most satisfying victim, the one who goes along the farthest and the best with the bullies' orders, gets $5000. Oh what fun for the celebrities and the sadists at home.
It's disgusting.
I don't know anything at all about Howie Mandel, the executive producer of "Deal With It," and so the following is pure speculation and may be 100% wrong. But it seems to me that earlier in his career, as a stand-up comic and then on "St Elsewhere," Mandel was very vulnerable, a nerd, clearly someone who must have been inviting prey to bullies in school. And then suddenly, sometime before "Deal Or No Deal," Mandel butched up. The shaved head. The pirate earrings, yarrrr... The soul patch. And the 'tude, suddenly it was completely different too, and has remained so. Mandel suddenly looked and acted much more like a bully than a victim of bullying. It seems he's going to continue the cycle instead of, hey lookit that, dealing with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)