From Streetcars To Spaceships

About all those "Portland" lifestyle trends…

So I see that yet another group of "New Yorkers" is getting snotty about these "new" more sane and sustainable ways of living by calling them just "college life in the pacific northwest".

Pissants.

Here's where the stupid has now gathered.

Normally this is a wonderful web site. But on this one the idjits have risen to storm levels and well overflowed the levees of reasoned analysis. These people are so deep into the depths of the Sea of Moron that they are citing Portlandia as a way to figure out life in Portland. Television, kids. Fiction. Really.

So I wrote a simple little response. Note please that being a REAL native New Yorker, raised by real New Yorkers, I had the discipline to take out all the curse words that I kept wanting to include. I would like to think that the ghost of my cigar-smoking, fiercely political and analytical grandfather (yes, he really did typically say "toity-toid and toid") would have thought all the same monosyllabic additions and been enough of a German intellectual to take them right back out again.

My post:

Speaking as a one-time fourth generation Manhattanite (over 35 years in NYC) who now lives in Portland, folks, some of us were backing NON-gentrification forms of this right in New York's poorer neighborhoods back in the freaking SEVENTIES. So would you please stop, catch your breath, and accept that urbanism, density, and "edge" are in no way contrary to "green" ideas, sustainability, or inexpensive craft/DIY business.

The Gaia Institute was doing rooftop plantings in Morningside Heights in the 80's. A few blocks from the pioneer greenmarket on Amsterdam and 103rd. Which wasn't too far from the "rooftop beekeeper" whose honey was being sold locally well before any such ventures got going on the left coast. Local chickens from known sources? We always had those. Local eggs, too. My mother always bought both at a place in Harlem. Though she had them kill and butcher the bird, unlike many of the other customers, who having grown up in places like Jamaica and Puerto Rico, wouldn't even consider buying a dead bird, let alone one chopped up and wrapped in plastic.

All, mind you, surrounded by community gardens, locally run, low cost theater and micropublishing, and "world fusion" cuisine. I could find all of this near my apartment at 97th and Amsterdam while Carter was president so, if anything, I was sad to see it fade away. And moved west mostly to be part of the next round.

I still miss the smell and vibration of the printing plants of the west 20's and east 50's where I used to work and where many New Yorkers had their short-run printing done cheap and fast. And the "artisan" midtown leather shops like the one my uncle Abe worked in. And the "scratchbuilders" I used to hang out with at Polk's on 31st. And later at the machine shops and supply shops on Lafayette and Fulton and Canal who were always so helpful to us young, self-taught prototypers and craftspeople.

If denigrating these trends by calling them "too Portland" gives y'all such joy then, hey, have a day. I'm sitting here in a $500 a month, 800 square foot, 12' ceiling loft space and somehow enduring the pain of all this "Portlandness" even if I do have to tolerate "nice" people, clean sidewalks, and visible sky. And I can see how that offends you. But I'll keep thinking of these trends as things I first saw and became part of on the 70's Upper West Side and wonder just when you out-of-towners evidently new to the city will buy yourselves some clue.

---------- End of post-----------

So that's it. That's what I wrote. What I didn't say (much) was how predictably this kind of chowderheaded trash is typical of ignorant dingbats, fresh from some expensive liberal arts college somewhere in Ohio or wherever and eager to show how now that they've been in "the city" for a few months they are real New Yorkers and have that appropriately "real" new York contempt for things like civility, plants, a visible sky, or anything else that wouldn't get ample screen time in the cop shows and gang life fantasies that they eagerly and religiously studied for years to "learn all about" NEW. YORK. CITY.

Well, let me tell you clueless little dipshits how it is. New York is harsh and expensive and difficult. And oh, by the way, teaches those of us smart enough and strong enough to be able to handle it a very sophisticated sense of esthetics and appropriate behavior. And those of us who are really good at it find ways to live such lives without vast salaries or slavish adherence to whatever trash the fashion magazines are trying to sell this hour.

It's a shame that you're not up to the job yet of seeing how things like rooftop gardens are actually very New York and always have been. Most of you are probably too microbrained to ever figure this out. But I look forward to the day that some of you grow up (five or six years in New York should be a good start) and I enjoy the knowledge that you will then look back, remember the childish contempt you had for these things before, and be ashamed.

Punks. 

Toes? You're afraid of toes? Really?

The current kerfuffle about a picture in a J.Crew advertisement has caught my attention. Many years back I spent a rewarding and involving year working in the "creative" department (the folks who did the catalog and most of the ads) and I am proud to remember it now. I am proud of them for having run the image. And I am even prouder of them for having stood by it.

My only question is why hasn't anybody interviewed Rena Delevie about this yet? She used to be the operations manager of J.Crew's creative department, she stayed there for years, worked in other parts of fashion and publishing for more years, and knows plenty about the decisions made about what does and does not run in a catalog or an ad. And she's now doing a documentary about motherhood for which she's been interviewing moms for ages now. Not to mention that she's funny, very smart, clear thinking, and vivacious as all get out. And of course has spent tons of time on the other side of the mic and so knows what an interviewer needs. I'll bet that she gives killer sound bite.

Okay, and yeah, she's really cute.

Anyway, as for this whole gender thing, I dunno. In my experience all those years back J.Crew was amazingly rational and full of smart, capable people who had plenty of funny things to say (Jeff Grewe, I'm thinking of you) about narrow-mindedness but they were actually less indicative of norms in the New York media world than you might think. Or at least among many of the people outside editorial.

Later I had a long-standing gig at ad agency DDB Needham. I'd been working there on and off for around two years. One Monday morning we started talking about men wearing nail polish and I pulled off one of my loafers and showed that my own toenails were painted. (A wonderful turquoise from Bendel's, if I remember correctly). The barrage of homophobic comments and actions that day left me entirely gobsmacked. (For example, "I'm afraid to be alone in a room with you; how do I know that you won't rape me?") Later that week my gig got unexpectedly canceled and I never got work there again. To this day I wonder if part of it was simple shock on their part. After all, I was this perennially sweaty, aggressive, bearded guy who was constantly trying to pick up various cute women and now and again dating them. (Ahh! Stacy Turner!) I guess that when they saw my tiny little bits of color I was messing with their handy-dandy stereotype. Strange. And kind of sad, actually.

A few years after that when my similarly bedecked toes were noticed poolside after an Americares day with the staff of This Old House Magazine I found myself the subject of snotty and nasty remarks ("should we start calling you Rustina?") and general static, including some from my boss. Interestingly, the people who responded negatively then and in the days after were all women. Women who always wore makeup every day and were very gender conventional in their presentation. And again I suspect that part of it was that I was the same guy I had been at DDB, though now with a shaved head and a manic gamer friend in a beat up leather jacket who would drop by and hang. Though sadly, since I was by then the IT Director, I had reluctantly stopped asking the cute women out. ;->

This stuff has always seemed chowderhead to me, at best. What's your deal, folks? Why are you so threatened by this? What makes you so timid that you need to have everybody fit into little labeled boxes? We can do better. In fact, given the force that gender roles exert on things like norms for executive behavior ("the department needs to come across as strong so we're going to refuse to give in on that budget proposal") we need to remember that these forced dichotomies actually impede things like our ability to pass treaties or address international debt. Let alone to accept things like greenroof as serious. Even now I still see residual bits of contempt for those in architecture and engineering who work in "less manly" specialties like landscape design. And a tendency to muddy up otherwise clear proposals for things like swales with ungainly chunks of superfluous jargon and obstructively precise specifications that only serve to increase costs and pressure the implementors into trying to force living things into a degree of linearity that just can't ever work.

I used to have a friend, Janet Pascal, who was prone to saying that in 1600's Europe a gentleman's perfect day was putting on makeup, lace, high heels, and brocade, wading into bloody sword fights on a smoky, chaotic, mud-covered battlefield littered with the bodies of his enemies and loud with the screams of the dying and the horns and drums of the victorious. And then back home, where he would bathe, put on a nice lacy robe and perfume, and write flowery poetry about it all. Of course, it's crucial that one's lace, pen, and robe all have just the right sweet, diaphanous fragility. Shows one's quality, you see.

Yes, let's not forget that all this mahooah from "conservatives" about "how things have always been" is just yet more proof that they are, let's come out and say it, ignorant and foolish. Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben, the military genius who whipped the colonial army into shape (sometimes literally) and wrote the field manual that our military used throughout the Revolutionary War and for decades after was, by any rational definition, a man's man. A combat-hardened, tough, strong survivor and commander in a time when even just normal life for a person who traveled the world required considerable hardness. And the men who were his lovers would all have agreed.

Can we please just grow up already, admit that people vary greatly, that gender is a multi-variable and complex thing, and move past the second grader's need to divide the world up into primitive, simplistic, crayon-bordered categories of This or That?

 We can, we must, do better.

 

Re Greg Mortenson, how deep does the rot go?

I see that people are finally reading my post from six months ago about Greg Mortenson and the CAI (Central Asia Institute). The 60 minutes piece and the CNN article and all the rest have changed things, haven't they? I never went into details last year about what might be in it for the people who I have long suspected are behind him. So I guess that's kind of overdue.

First of all, I'm going to say it yet again. If you want to get a handle on what's going on in that part of the world, personally, I say drop "Mortenson's" books. Instead, read Charlie Wilson's War (The movie's not bad in its own way), Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, by Ahmed Rashid, and The Root of Wild Madder: Chasing the History, Mystery, and Lore of the Persian Carpet, by Brian Murphy.

Just for starters, this would also be the time to say that I was born in Panama. To parents who had spent quite a bit of time in Mexico. And each of whom has since spent ample time in the developing world, from Sri Lanka to Kenya to Nicaragua. And very little of that in hotels or other "Americanized"and protected zones. My best friends when I was a little kid were the missionary family down the hall. Their mom was from a Wyoming family of evangelists (she eventually spent years in China) and their dad grew up in a mission in Burma and did his thesis on U Thant, who was then just a local notable. I'll get back to him later.

I could go on with the long list of missionaries and NGO folks and ethnobotanists and mountain climbers in my life or the time I've spent in my own kinds of places that aren't exactly "U.S. mainstream" but let's just say that when I wrote six months ago about having a visceral sense of Mortenson's books being wrong, it wasn't in comparison to Discovery Channel specials. It was in comparison to things like, oh, god, my father is caught in a "civil revolt" again and I'm really impatient to hear from him. Or once, oh crud, here I am arguing with my mother about is it worth keeping our appointments while the smoke from the protests and Guardia Civil's tanks wafts into our room?

Okay, that having been said, it's time for me to speculate.

My guess is that there were people in, well, let's just say the Mary Bono/Mellon-Scaife world, who were uncomfortable with the various movements by people like BRAC to route around the horrific but very controllable "education" infrastructure in south Asia.

In other words, there were, by the late nineties, any number of groups, most native to south Asia, that were working to build schools, many also for especially for girls, tying this into microcredit (note how CAI has now positioned themselves as a gatekeeper for microcredit as well) and enable things like access to birth control and health care for women. In other words, groups that were and still are generally taking a decentralized, locally controlled, collaborative approach to the systemic problems that have kept women (and actually, to some extent, everybody not from the ruling families) relatively powerless in that part of the world for, at the least, centuries.

Now, I don't know about how much y'all followed the Reagan period approach to policy there but a key part of it was a systemic approach to do just the opposite. To keep things such that oil companies and our local totalitarians could "smoothly" keep doing their thing. I've long since lost track of the number of schools U.S.-backed people like the Contras burned down or how many teachers they tortured and killed. And it's not like U.S. foreign policy has exactly become simon-pure since then or avoided such techniques before.

Not to mention that birth control, especially in the developing world, is a big no-no to such people. They feel that it's VERY important to keep groups backing that on the margins. Our Congress has given us demonstrations of just how hard and viciously the right will fight for that quite recently, haven't they?

So they found an American, a charismatic guy raised in a missionary outpost, a very controllable, very ambitious, very Christian guy who was already doing something in the field and happily admitted that he wanted to hand off things like publicity and managing money, and they turned him into a front man they could position publicly as THE voice of education reform in that part of the world. It's a game as old as Alfred Sloane. If you can't kill a threatening movement you build your own organization under your control (G.M. backing Greyhound Lines, anybody?) and position it as the "more legitimate" and emotionally compelling substitute for the people who are threatening your power.

And Greg Mortenson would have been, I suspect, a very controllable front indeed for the person who knew what buttons to push. I don't think that my friends' dad ever quite got the hang of American culture and his permanent confusion about what "America" meant is pretty common among people who grow up overseas in missions. I strongly suspect this applies to Greg Mortenson. They grow up on idealized and very fraught stories of the U.S. and visits from friends of their parents and workers for the mission and some of these former mission kids seem to have trouble all their lives with a certain kind of "in-betweenness" and need to get back to what feels "real" conflicting with a guilt that they should want to be "back" in the U.S. where they've been told they "belong" but never entirely feel comfortable. Except when spending time with others from the same backgrounds which just leaves them driven to go back "overseas" again. Sound familiar?

So if Mortenson's would-be backers/handlers can drape their "suggestions" and "advice" in the language he was brought up in, then he'd be eager to agree and go along. And as, over time, that advice grew to include money and organizational help and maybe now and again "one of our people who'll drop by and fix that little problem you're having with your accounting" he would be quite possibly relieved to be able to turn his back and not look too closely at the details. And as the "help" shifted over to them buying him expensive suits and flying him around on private jets, there would always be somebody there to tell him that this wasn't a bribe or a luxury. Just a selfless part of doing the job. And as the Pakistani and then U.S. military stepped in, he could just keep saying that it was all for the purest of reasons. And as for his millions in "personal expenses", he wasn't stealing CAI's money. It was all for the greater good, really, and surely not at all, well, sinful. I don't think that any of us will ever know how deep the lies went in his head and among the staffers at CAI. But we know that one way or another the answer was "pretty deep."

At the moment the world out there is enjoying their high dudgeon about "this is an OUTRAGE!" but they aren't, from what I've seen, asking the question, "so, if this has been going on for over ten years, why weren't you covering this in, say, 2007, when he was already a celebrity but hadn't gotten the massive support from everybody from the New York Times to Oprah Winfrey that he has now had?"

This is about centralization of power, and the coordination and propaganda machines that play such a key role in making that centralization possible. It's also about the media's collective habits of what to cover and how.

 

And that makes it everybody's business.

 

-Rustin

 

The Teabaggers PURPOSE Is To Be Vandals, Bullies, and Thieves.

I disagree with those of you who have been saying, today and in general, that bad spelling, combovers, etc. aren't issues for the new right. Quite the contrary.

The Tea Party and the movements it's interwoven with, whatever their funding and whomever writes their talking points for them, is fundamentally, as far as I can tell, all about being a truculent wave of spite. A collective mass of vindictive assault upon the things that they claim to revere. A blue in the face resentful toddler yelling IT'S NOT FAIR! about having been caught and forced to stop stealing candy or beating up the smaller child who lives next door.

It is a vast pouting child of a movement of people who have been passed by as their various unearned advantages have stopped letting them wallow in unjustified privileges. Privileges of race and sex and position that used to be supported by the very measures that folks like us have spent the past hundred and fifty years fighting.

It is INTENDED to be the voice of losers, liars, and lechers. Of those whose failures in the world, whose diminishing power, are manifestations of ways that the system works. These are, disproportionately, the ones who lost their jobs to somebody else because they never deserved them in the first place.

It's not that they don't care about the evidences of ignorance, slovenly thinking, and cowardice among their mouthpieces. It's that they CELEBRATE how "authentic" those evidences make their chosen representatives. And are determined to believe that those of us who don't litter our houses and speech and thought with anti-intellectual trash are secretly just like them. We just, they tell each other, do a better job of hiding it.

George W. Bush was elected by people who openly admitted that they cared more about having a president who they could pretend would enjoy having a beer with them than about having a president who could do the jobs the Constitution and our society actually expect that person to do.

Don't make the mistake of taking these shambling, evasive, willfully vague People Of Walmart at their word. Never let yourself mistake these people for clueless bumblers who haven't noticed or don't understand that their every project weakens our country. Weakening the things that make our country worthwhile is, in truth, exactly what they want to do.

 

Good education can be found in more places all the time.

With all the negative things I have to say about mass media in general, you might think that I want all of us to hide in forest caves with no more than a quill pen and a few sheets of paper. T'ain't so. Occasionally I'll get wind of something coming out of the market-directed media that I find not only admirable, but useful. More specifically, I am convinced that we get closer every day to being able to build small, world class educational institutions simply from a building body of works. Works that can serve as superb tools for learning that depend neither on equally superb teachers to be effective nor on conventional textbooks or course-length curricula.

Seems to me that the new documentary about Allan Ginsberg's Howl is an excellent example. As this NY Times article lays out, this movie is itself (according to the author), not only literary criticism, but a solid introduction to what literary criticism is. Even, to some extent, to what it means to be a writer and to write well. Seems to me that a well-built five page teacher's guide to using this film should enable any basically competent teacher to get most kids over the age of twelve up to speed on these dynamics in six or seven hours of class time, including time to see the movie twice. In, let us remember, a way tied to enough emotionally rich stimulation to be considerably easier to retain than most pedagogy manages.

Add to this such resources as the much-discussed M.I.T. online materials initiative and sites such as Khan Academy, and we're well on our way to considerably attenuating our dependence on conventional schooling or the arduous, not entirely accepted approaches to home and community schooling available now.

Every day we get a little closer. We just need to learn to use these new resources and spread the word of what we find.

Publishers still have a role to play.

I am an author. I am also a publisher. Both are hardwon skills and both require time and resources. In fact, there's actually not much overlap between the skills and resources involved in each. There should be nothing surprising about the fact that I have had others publish some of what I've written and have sometimes published the work of others.

If this does not seem clear to you, then perhaps a few minutes of reading will improve your perspective. http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/02/03/why-in-fact-publishing-will-not-go-away-anytime-soon-a-deeply-slanted-play-in-three-acts/

No, Joss does NOT "need" for the network execs to give him another show.

So I see that there is yet another round of hubbub because Joss Whedon is being considered again to helm a television series. Part of me hopes that he gets it but part of me feels that J.W. just isn't up to the job of working within a network. We should know this by now. It seems to me that it's long past time that he lined up his own financing and became in charge of his own production or partnered with some kind of longer-term thinking person.

The man doesn't "need" network execs to wake up one morning and become different kinds of people with different pressures upon them or a different culture to be working within. He might as well be said to "need" to be ten years younger or six inches taller. Network television is what it is and it's time that we stopped being surprised every time it keeps not working out.

What's the classic definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting *what* again?

Maybe he needs to turn to Felicia Day as a mentor instead of thinking that it's the other way around. Maybe he needs to put more oomf behind the production mechanism that made Dr. Horrible possible.

But one way or another, what he really "needs" is his own Desilu. His own United Artists. Capital, an executive team, and operational support that isn't under the control of Fox or Sony or any of the vast media conglomerates. They are what they are and no number of fan petitions and, let's face it, no amount of series profit will change that. Frankly, by the standards of those kinds of public companies, he's little people and they will never truly change to suit him.

Time for him to grow up and buy his own house. He needs to accept that he has less in common with J.J. Abrams than he does with Woody Allen for, for that matter. Shakespeare. So he needs to get busy building his Globe Theater.

Sooner he does, the better for all of us.

Grow up. Now. The world needs adults. Not crybabies.

The next time you find yourself looking at the all too many crises out there, then, in addition to corporate fraud and all the usual suspects, you should add another thought to your reflexive response.

When hundreds of millions of adults try to live by a toddler's rules this is what you get.

We've become a nation infested with permanent children who model their behavior on what makes sense to a typical three year old. I've been saying it for years and I plan to go on saying it.

If we intend to get serious about what has caused and is causing global climate change, the rise of the Right Wing, the advancing power of monopolistic corporations, shifts to anti-reason evangelical churches, and a host of other crippling problems, then we need to get serious about this. If we don't successfully address the fundamental flaws in how people think then no number of arguments from reason add up to much more than self-congratulatory mental masturbation.

As far as I can see, ever since the 30's more and more parents have been raising their children to never grow beyond the worldview that is appropriate for a toddler and more and more of society has been adapting to validate that idiocy. Corporations, not surprisingly, love this sh*t and encourage it whenever they can. So do all too many political and religious groups. Dr. Spock played his role. So did the proud spoiling of children that so frequently is done by the first generation of a family to reach prosperity. So has the shifting nature of our schools and other educational institutions.

"We're all special in our own way"? Bugger off.

But the truth is, how it happened matters far less than what it is causing now and what it will take to reverse the trend.

To these "believers" the world is broken up into the world of We Children, which includes them, their friends, and their activities and The Grownups, which includes most property, the government, and all the Big Things done by magical Others whom one addresses with begging, Being Good, tantrums, and the like. Rarely, mind you with actions meant to substantively shift the factors that caused a thing to happen in the first place.

One is then either granted beneficences/gets one's way or is "punished" based on how effectively one has convinced The Grownups to do what one wants. Their lives are lived around the parallel goals of performatively being a Good Child ("but I tried hard!") and getting things with tantrums ("we'll make them do what we want!) And when their typical sloth and ineffectual behavior doesn't work out, they hold up the child's logic of But Don't You Love Me Anyway? and It's Not My Fault!!

To them everything in the world has agency. Somebody caused it. Intentionally. Nothing ever just happens or is an unintended consequence of some entirely differently motivated activity, let alone something caused by, you know, physics. And, as any preliterate child can tell you, if it affects them it was addressed primarily to them. If you are housemates with such a person and your moving to a new city means that they need to find a new housemate, then you are moving, first and foremost, to hurt them. They are far less interested in finding and addressing the true causes of a problem than in assigning blame. After all, if they can pull off the claim that it's somebody else's fault, then they should have a "right" to be kept immune to the consequences.

These people can be identified, as much as anything else, by the speed with which they will respond to a difficulty, or especially the prospect of work, with what other people "should" be doing instead. By which they mean what they think would be right. With little or no knowledge or interest in why the existing situation is as it is or in how or why the people responsible make the choices they do. After all, the usally rather shallowly hidden subtext is that since that other person "didn't do it right" why should the speaker have to do work to address it? After all, that would be "unfair". I never cease to be amazed at how much these idiots think that they have usefully contributed, in fact, "done their share" of solving the problem by describing, in a callow, off the cuff sentence or two, something like "well, they shouldn't be storing things there anyway."

I always tell assistants of mine that I don't want to here the word "should" coming out of their mouth in a use like that. Each and every moment spent in that kind of thing is obstructive distraction from actually addressing the problem.

On a related front, they will find just about anything acceptable (that doesn't cost them too much) if they've been told a good story about why and how it got that way. Again, I tell my assistants, just because somebody "has a reason" doesn't make it okay. Charles Manson has reasons. Sarah Palin has reasons.

These people, in terms of the issues they're even willing to face, find bare facts to be alien, incomprehensible gibberish. Even, as I said above, hostile things "meant" to hurt them to be fought back into the shadows where they won't have to risk seeing them. But, oh, they sure do love their stories. Or, as we've all grown to call it, a persuasive narrative.

As for the Bigger World out there, that's Parentland, where things are done by a magic and fundamentally unknowable web of processes.

The idea that assets and institutional frameworks are things run by people much like them that can be shifted or even acquired with things like well thought-out work is not only alien, it's anathema since such thinking is a threat to that We Little Kids worldview. Wow, will they get angry fast if they figure out that something you say weakens their structure of rationalizations and appeasements.

In my experience both certain types of Good Little Corporate Citizens and many doctrinaire Marxists tend to remarkably blatant forms of this. "All property is theft" comes naturally to people who believe that all things of value were preexisting, and that therefore anything but an "even" distribution of all material goods, with each person "getting" exactly the same as each other person is "unfair".

It frequently strikes me how blatantly such people will use the language of young children to describe policy issues. Something that is "unfair" obviously should be responded to with a tantrum, oh, I'm sorry, a "protest", to convince the Magic Adult People in government to Fix It and give everybody their Fair Share.

You know. Just like in kindergarden.

Things don't happen for reasons; they Just Are.

And, notably, they're usually real fuzzy on the details of how this collection and redistribution is supposed to take place. After all, that's the territory of Magic Adult People.

As far as I can see, the very core of most Marxist thought fits very well indeed into the Permanent Toddler way of seeing things.

To wit:

-all property is prexisting

-all labor is of equal value, to be measured solely on the basis of exertion and time used. Moving the same rock back and forth all day in a dark room for a year is of exactly the same value as the same time and degree of exertion used to build a set of chairs or succesfully raise a crop.

-therefore, all members of the manager class (i.e. "bad parents") are useless since no literal sweat raises on their brow. And, of course, management accomplishes nothing since all that they do is shift the choices of what labor is done, which we already "know" adds nothing since all labor is equal, and move capital, which we "know" should in a "fair" world just be evenly and randomly distributed anyway.

Note, by the way, that authoritarians like Rudolf Guiliani use different parts of the same logic. To idiots like that, all that it takes to be a good manager is to order people to do something and you've now "fixed" the problem. Organizational actions aren't caused by responses to scarce or ample resources. They're not caused by compensation structures or training or culture. Actions just HAPPEN. So if you want different actions to happen, you just say that you'll beat them up or give them candy based on whether they do what you want or not. Simple, right?

Bullshit. Dangerous bullshit.

Randites, whatever their problems, are generally utterly and entirely free of this kind of thing. In fact, Ayn Rand's books give all too painfully eloquent portrayals of quite a few aspects of what happens when fools like this get their way. Her endless pages of people competing for who can seem the most pathetic and helpless before various Committees of Distribution only seem exaggerated to those of you who have never dealt with any number of "consensus-based" organizations.

In 2006 I wrote a bit of a note on one aspect of this that got reproduced here.
(My letter starts right below the first image.)

This article in the Atlantic (once you get past the title) does a pretty decent job of covering a major example of how it can utterly permeate a subculture. And has. And then damage all of us through the consequences of their ill-considered actions.

And please don't say, "oh, that's magical thinking" and then dismiss it on the logically fallacious ground that by having described it (poorly, by the way), you've now put it entirely under a Somebody Else's Problem field. To describe a thing is not to "reduce it to a problem already solved". If you really think that, then say it to my face, go out there, cure a few dozen people of these behaviors, and come back to me with proof. Unless and until you can do that, pay attention. This applies to you. We are all subject to the damage this causes.

People like this, in my experience, are also real fast to judge their own work and that of their friends by the standard of "it's good enough" while judging things like products in the supermarket by a standard where any perceived inadequacy is the same as complete failure. And why bother to write in complete sentences or spell correctly? "You know what I meant!" and intent is all, you see. But a product on a store shelf that isn't perfectly vegan, and organic, and entirely free of all chemicals, GMO organisms, and on and on and on, is just the same as a factory farmed beef patty from Walmart. Unless it was made by somebody they know, a punk band, or some other variation on Little Kids Like Us, in which case all sorts of things are forgivable.

And stealing isn't bad if it's done from a large institution. Or, in fact, doing anything you want to such an institution is morally fine. After all, they're just Magic Adult People and hence have infinite resources and can't be hurt by the actions of Little Kids Like Us. Which is, of course, logically inconsistent with the stated reasons that many will give for actions like ecosabotage ("we'll hurt them so bad that they'll give up and leave!") but entirely consistent, as I've written above, with protests that are, ideally, as loud and obstructive as possible and for which coherent messages about why and what are trivial or even counterproductive. It's a logic for tantrums that any two year old would respect and agree with.

I think that we all know some of the more obvious other symptoms of this way of seeing and interacting with the world. Emo, anybody? People who have children of their own walking the streets in fuzzy pajama pants in patterns a ten year old should be ashamed to be seen in?

I have trouble even trying to explain to people under the age of thirty that the idea of walking around in costumes in the ways that so many now do (ooh, look at my authentic military camoflage shirt! Ohh! I'm wearing a jersey just like Michael Jordan's!") was, from ancient times until the 1980's, the kind of thing that people were expected to outgrow about the time they gave up bedwetting. In fact, when a show from the seventies or earlier wanted to make entirely clear that a particular child was Just A Little Boy or Little Girl, (say, as the innocent potential victim in a bank robbery) one of the classic quick signifiers was to have the child "still" wearing a cowboy hat or a pretend army jacket. After all, what surer proof could one need that this kid is barely more than a toddler?

Oh, we certainly do have our carefully worked out rationalizations these days (I'm supporting the team!) but funny how those rationalizations always neatly correlate with opportunities to Play Pretend. And, when folks are drunk or tired or simply don't expect to be judged, they sure come out with plenty of admissions of "this makes me feel like I'm a pilot in the Top Gun program" or whatever.

Personally, I wanted a leather jacket for years. For somebody who lives the life I do, they've ungawdly practical. But I did without for years because I had no willingness whatsoever to buy one with patches from some unit I've never been in, let alone a fake map as a liner meant to help the owner fantasize about being a daring pilot over WWII China.

Oh, and fwiw, I fucking well did contract work for Avirex.The co-inventors of the "bomber jacket". They offered me access to their company store and insider discount. But I had no willingness to do that sort of thing.

It's fantasy, folks. And unless you're in the business you should be ashamed of yourself.

And no, you're not a goddamn pirate. Or a ninja. Or a pro sports celebrity.

I'll come back to this subject again. As I keep saying, I'm convinced that this pattern of behavior is central to why so many people keep making such terrible decisions. I'll probably come back at some point and expand this piece. But for now I need to go out and get back to work.

Because if you're not creating useful results, you're just wanking.

Happy holidays.

-Rustin

 

Much later addendum: I just love this video. It does a wonderful job of showing that "I must be profound because I throw tantrums all the time" ethos of much of the supposedly "radical anarchist" crowd.

I also think that this article about Black Bloc does a very good job of laying out some of how these dynamics play out in practice within the Occupy movement. 

OK, I admit it, Burn Notice did something very cool.

A friend of mine just posted a video from San Diego ComicCon. The team that does Burn Notice did a special series of "advice from a spy" shorts on, yes, optimizing your time at ComicCon. How to deal with having two panels you want to see scheduled for the same timeslot. How to maximize your take of swag. And so on. Jeffrey Donovan did a great job at keeping a straight face while reading out of a script that was full-on comics nerd in both goals and jargon.

Sadly, I'm not posting the youTube link since those things get takedowns in hours or less.

Lots of media companies spend money on cons these days. Plenty even send their stars for panels. And with Bruce Campbell in the cast they must have had some lead on what this all is like. But even so, major points for style, guys. Money is nice. Stars are nice. But actually tying up your production staff to make something directed not at your television audience but just at our geeky hearts.

Shiny.

-Rustin

Harlan, you're fighting for us again.

The decades pass, the executives get richer, and those of us who put in our time and our creative output to keep them going generally get something between jack and shit. Even those who get paid above and beyond hourly rates get stiffed pretty reliably in direct proportion to how much they focus on creating good work instead of playing corporate politics.

If you're reading this blog, you probably already know this right down the the marrow of your bones.

But what justice there is can usually be traced back to somebody whose work was valuable, who somehow did build a certain reserve of their own wealth and power, and who is a sufficiently stubborn son of a bitch to refuse to accept "I'm sorry, we seem to have lost your letter on this matter; please send it again for our consideration" as a sufficient answer.

Right now Harlan Ellison is doing this. You can read about it here. Star Trek would never have done as well without his writing and he's demanding a fair accounting of all the products they've derived from his work, from a Christmas ornament that plays back lines he wrote to a series of books entirely built around characters he created. They've been giving him the runaround about this since Shatner had his own hair and will keep doing so forever unless this suit wins.

To which I say, GO HARLAN! All of us who have ever written for pay, all of us who have ever seen our creative output of any sort treated with off-handed contempt upon reception, recognized as lucrative internally, and then bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated for their maximum gain while the actual creators aren't even invited to the table to play a role, let alone get paid anything proportionate, should be willing to do whatever it takes to help. He is fighting for everybody who sells the products of their mind or even who has previously and now finds themselves getting nothing while gladhanding, seatwarming, frat boys congratulate each other on how much they've screwed us thinkin' folks yet again.

Once, years back, I took on a really nasty consulting job for an English magazine group that was launching a cooking magazine in the States.
The company IT manager has carried only two things away from his punk youth, expensive tattoos, and a very brownshirted insistence that everything be done his way, despite New York being just slightly different from London in, well, everything from supply relationships to voltages and software release dates. But being the young idiot and compulsive fixer I was I worked away at it anyway.

But somehow, as the weeks turned into months, once my first bill had been covered, I still wasn't being paid any of the rest. The New York office said I needed to talk (on the phone, mind you, in the early nineties) to the relevant people in the London accounting office. Those people, knowing perfectly well what each call was costing me, kept saying "the person you need just stepped out. How about you call again later?" When I finally got them on the phone they said that they needed more approvals from the folks in the New York office. And back and forth and back and forth. By this time the gig was over and, as far as I knew, my leverage was nil. And I was thousands of dollars behind, not even including expenses they were now disallowing entirely. Their lies and betrayal were leaving me unable to pay my rent.

For a while I stewed uselessly but then I talked to Martha Leinroth, a designer and photographer I knew from a consulting firm we both used to work for. She was older than me, more established, and generally more endowed with both perspective and experience about this kind of thing and she told me a story. Now, Martha was always a very elegant woman. She spoke and acted with grace and I had seen her stay composed and clear thinking through some pretty tumultuous times. So when she said that once, after a client had just absolutely refused to pay a bill, she had walked into their office, up to the relevant person's desk, kicked everything off the desk, and stood on it looking down at these weasels, saying that she would come down only when a signed check was in her hands, I believed her. And when she said that the check was soon in her hands, I understood her point.

Now, not being an elegant, black-clad, near six-foot tall, female college professor, I figured my approach should be a bit different. So I went to the magazine's offices and said that I wanted to talk to their bookkeeper about the delay in my check.

I was told that she had an appointment. I said that I would wait. I was told that it would be a long appointment. I said that was okay, and opened my bag, showing my notebook, some product literature I needed to review, and at least three books. That's fine, I said; I have plenty to keep me busy. The receptionist threatened to call security if I wouldn't leave and I said that was fine. I would then call the police and file charges of felony theft. She said that, well, then I could wait there after all. The entire exchange, mind you, spoken in plausibly polite tones.

I was still there at 6:00. I was back at 9:00. If I remember correctly, it took me about four days over the course of a little over a week. (Lost a few days to other gigs.) But eventually, a little after I had settled in for yet another day in their lobby with my copies of MacWeek, my books, my daytimer, their bookkeeper came out to the front and insisting that this had just been a trivial misunderstanding (though still trying to somehow pin all the delay on me), walked out and handed me a check. Not for the full originally promised amount, I'll grant. They got away with chiseling about a thousand of various expenses and such. But, nonetheless, most of my money and sure as hell money I wouldn't have seen at all if I had waited "politely" for them to be "reasonable".

My friend Sara Stewart and I wonder sometimes, when did it become assumed that being a progressive meant being everybody's doormat? What ever happened to all that the unions worked for to create a just fury among those who get screwed by the kind of people who take dinner dates with judges and host benefits for legislators? What softened away the righteous willingness to stand up and say that we've had enough to the faces of the scam artists who seem to be behind so much these days?

We know many of the answers to that. Corporate structures that hide every decision behind layer upon layer of "customer service" desks and 800 numbers where we're supposed to accept them as the authoritative and sufficient voice of the corporation when they're saying offensive things to us but be polite to them no matter what because, after all, "it's not their fault, they're just doing their jobs".

In person, for what it's worth, I'm not terribly big on literally raising my voice as a way to get things changed. I've generally found it more effective to calmly, implacably, refuse to go away."I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. May I speak to your manager, please?" "your manager is away? I see. Who is the store supervisor at this time. I see. Then I'll speak to them. They're busy? That's okay. I'll wait. No, I don't need a seat. I'll stand right here" (in the middle of their busiest aisle). Or sometimes, as I'm told I need to sign something or check something, to simply walk away and force them to either yield the point or need to physically attack me.

But we all need to to do this. We all need, sometimes, to refuse to "sit back down and not disturb the other customers". We all need to, as I did yesterday, walk up to the sales desk at Comcast and tie up half an hour of their time going over how it's illegal to sabotage downloads (it's called "throttling") as they have been found to do and that I will be changing my service soon. Feels good. I've had a good rant to clear my head and they'll be a little more reluctant to hang onto those jobs as corporate stooges.

Y'all mostly know about my DIY Manifesto. You know that I fight for the big battles, too. To change zoning codes and how kids are raised and how people are taxed and regulated and punished. But this stuff is crucial, too. Once you yield to a bully, you betray not only yourself, but everybody who will deal with that bully after you. And which is more polite, being calm and "understanding" while somebody fucks you over, or defending not only yourself, but those who will come after?