Monday Poem

I love words and the convolutions of language; how we arrange and rearrange it; how we invent new ways communicate old things; how we nurture its nuances —which is where poetry comes in.

Idioms have always intrigued me. They’re short poems. One-liners created to make startling something banal and obvious. Idioms lighten things up. They renovate tired and dilapidated bits of worn truth and create more transparent windows on the world and the things we do in it.

I'm not hanging noodles with boarder I learned recently of a book containing a collection of international idioms which are indeed startling, funny, and fun. The book, by Jag Bhalla, is called I’m Not Hanging Noodles on Your Ears, which is a Russian way of saying, “I’m not pulling your leg.”

Bhalla’s book is sure proof that humans are humorous and truthful when we dump the BS. These idioms have nothing to do with BS. They present the truth with humor and a sometimes brutal directness, but they never veer into hypocrisy.

I had some fun this past week with a few snippets from Noodles myself. The poetic tale below (enlightened by the glossary that follows) was built with an arrangement of Jag Bhalla’s idiomatic bricks (in italics).

I’m Not Hanging Noodles on Your Ears

Unable to stop being an owl
my eyes were stolen
by
a piece of the moon.

I thought, what curves
and me without brakes.

It was
dry firewood meets flame.
I wanted to be
your leg, your goat,
your bumblebee.

Swallowed like a postman’s sock
and steaming
like water for chocolate,
I was so far gone I’d completely
eaten the monkey.

I mused, if only
I could drink your lips
and we, in the midst of a
buckle polish,
under the sway of the
ever romantic Tony Bennett
might, in the magical afternoon light
pluck the turkey.

But love means having
no time to die;
although
for you I'd surely
break my horns.

Yet if one day, despite all,
the tomatoes had faded
and you were
a red apricot
gone over the wall

and I
took the rake
and was
left nailed
I'd still hope that perhaps
(just maybe) we might
reheat the cabbage and I,
instead of being a
lonely
yawning mussel
(but with fast hands),
might find that you were
once again a
sweet potato
for me

—and
I’m not
hanging noodles on
your ears

Read more »



Monday, August 24, 2009

Will Someone Rid Me of Private Health Insurance?

Michael Blim

ScreenHunter_03 Aug. 24 16.49 So the Prez says we’re in a wee-wee period. Well, I am in a pee’d off period. Looks like nobody is going to rid me of my private health insurance. The public option looks dead.

I’m lucky. I have something I wish to be rid of. At least 46 million Americans don’t have anything — not private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. According to experts quoted in the New York Times (8/23/09), another 25 million are badly under-insured.

I work for the City University of New York. My union along with other unions representing New York City employees has been able to negotiate decent health benefits. We have an array of plans we can join. All city agencies, including the university, contribute to the purchase of health insurance, $418 a month per person or $1025 a month per family, using the premium for a modestly priced plan with pretty modest benefits as its baseline. If you take the baseline plan, then it’s a wash. Your health insurance is free, though many costs fall outside the plan, and according to colleagues, it’s often tough to find a doctor who accepts patients with it.

So, for every employee, city agencies are paying either $5000 per person per year or $12,300 per family per year for health coverage. Every employee can choose more expensive insurance than the baseline policy, but the additional cost is on them.

I live in one state and work in another. I have access to treatment at a top-notch research hospital where I am domiciled. The insurance plan carried by the city that I have covers me in another state and includes most of my providers. Last year the plan cost me $306 over and above what the university paid for, which amounts to $3672 in premiums that were deducted from my pay.

The university contributes $800 annually to a union welfare fund that helps pay for our drug and dental expenses. I put in $50 a month to the welfare fund as well.

To summarize: The university contributes $5800 a year to cover my health, drug, and dental plans. I pay in $4300 a year. Together, we are paying $10,100 in total health insurance premiums. I’ve asked around. It could be a lot worse.

What do I get for $10,100? A lot of very good care. I do end up paying on average about another $2,500 a year for drugs and co-pays.

Read more »

shiny happy tomorrow people

Is the Baroness right?

ScreenHunter_04 Aug. 24 21.40Susan Greenfield, the Baroness in question, says that “happy people” are “not the people who build civilizations.” Dr. Greenfield is Fullerian Professor of Physiology and Comparative Anatomy at Oxford University, and she made the remarks in response to questions posed by Discover Magazine. Here's the context:

Isn't it desirable to bioengineer our children to be happy?

G(reenfield): Some people think happiness is spending their days on the beach, at the bars, on drugs. Is that happiness? It might be. People do pay money to do those things. But then you are no longer self-conscious, because you have let yourself go; you have lost your mind. You are no longer being a human being. For instance, you are at a party and the hostess says, I will put you next to Jane. She is an extremely happy person. She has never been miserable. She has never had a bad love affair. She has never had anyone ill. She has never had to face a big crisis. She has never failed at anything. How do you feel about this person? You would want someone who knows adversity, who was rejected and worked hard, who had a bad affair—it would make her more interesting.

Are happy people more passive than people who want to improve their lives?

G: Happy people know what they want, but they are not ambitious. They are not the people who build civilizations.

Interesting comment, but is it true? I have a visceral reaction that says no, based on my sense that unhappy people tend more toward passive despair that corrective action. I have a more analytical reaction, too:

Show me the data.

Read more »

Monday Poem

… the “Law of Frequency of Error” … reigns amidst the wildest confusion. The huger the mob, the greater the anarchy, the more perfect is its sway. It is the supreme law of Unreason.
……………………………………………………………….
Victorian statistician ­Francis Galton

The Frequency of Error

The frequency of error
is not a count of radio waves
or of an articulation of sound
radiating from me to you
through space with
ample atmosphere

The frequency of error
is the number of times,
in the fog of Me,
I’ve stumbled into doors
and bashed my head
on low-hanging branches
of the tree-of-knowledge-
of-good-and-evil
yet against all odds
have lived to tell the tale

The frequency of error
is not a dulcet wave
but a mob of mad particles
which routs the better angels of my nature
hammering them with crude clubs
made by my own hand
in fits of.id

by Jim Culleny; August 2009

The Humanists: Satyajit Ray’s Apu trilogy (1955-1959)

Apu

by Colin Marshall

Where Apurba Kumar Roy goes, so goes death. As well as we know the events of the films that chronicle his life, what mid-1950s viewer could have predicted that the wide-eyed, bobble-headed tot introduced in the first would, by the third's end, have seen off nearly his every family member? Perhaps readers of Pather Panchali, Bibhutibhusan Bandopadhyay's classic piece of Indian literature, had some idea. But while that particular bildungsroman's fame remains Subcontinental, the trilogy that Satyajit Ray grew from its seed stands tall and proud over all the world 's cinema culture.

You can see this in the name-dropping alone. A range of filmmakers as diverse in aesthetic and sensibility as Abbas Kiarostami, Wes Anderson, Carlos Saura and Danny Boyle profess to have learned much from the films. Even François Truffaut, who at first expressed displeasure at the mere idea of watching “a movie of peasants eating with their hands,” eventually admitted its influence. Top accolades have poured in from such authoritative organs of cultural journalism as Sight & Sound, The Village Voice, the New York Times and Rolling Stone. And can the creators of The Simpsons have dubbed Springfield's beloved Kwik-E-Mart clerk “Apu,” the nickname that gives the films their collective title, coincidentally?

Given such publicity over the past half-century, does more need be said about the Apu trilogy? I submit that, like any great film, their bottomless capacity to generate discussion ensures that more can always be said, written and exchanged. (If you're looking for an elegant definition of greatness, consider that a candidate.) Ray performs three acts of apparent cinematic alchemy with these pictures, creating a product whose mastery, nuance and purity inspire the awe of jaded cinephiles out of an inexperienced cast and crew, the equivalent of a few thousand U.S. dollars and the simple tale of a rural boy gone cityward.

1955's Pather Panchali (“Song of the Little Road”) introduces a very young, very energetic Apu; his older sister Durga, given to occasional thievery; his unambitious, sporadically-employed scholar father Harihar; his long-suffering mother Sarbajaya and his aged, toothless aunt Indir. Durga and Apu play in the forest, trail the local candy salesman and watch passing trains, concealed in a field of tall Kans grass. Indir irritates Sarbajaya with her very presence. Harihar promises Sarbajaya he'll find work outside the village. Durga steals fruit, which she passes along to Indir. Sarbajaya indignantly refutes the neighbors' accusations of theft. Apu observes.

Read more »

Monday, August 17, 2009

Notes on Communal Bathing

By Aditya Dev Sood

Image In the summer of 1991, I visited the Rudas Baths for the first time. The guidebooks had indicated that it was one of the major attractions of Budapest and one of the few architectural remnants of Turkish domination over the region in the 1500s. Kurt, David, Russell and I, four college friends from the University of Michigan, entered an odd-shaped building with a shallow dome tucked into a low mountain soaring above the banks of the Danube.

Attendants dressed in white uniforms accommodated our flailing German, and a small misshapen man with grey stubble led us to a series of lockers, whose peeling and sickly green colored paint are still vivid in my memory. Through his gesticulations and barked commands, we understood that we had to strip naked and wear a kind of loin-cloth or diaper that hung loose in front and behind from a chord at the waist. It seemed oddly Egyptian, and insufficient, given how much of the buttock it left exposed. We had quick showers and crossed a foot-cleansing trough en route through to the central hall.

Few architectural spaces have had such an impact on me. The square hall was awash in light streaking through hexagonal holes punctured into the shallow dome that was its roof. Below, most of the area was taken up by an octagonal stepped pool surrounded by an arcade of peaked Turkish arches. In the four resulting corners of the hall were triangular pools filled with water of different temperatures, ranging from the cool to the scalding. Behind and beyond the hallways, in a warren of intersecting hallways were additional saunas, steam rooms, massage rooms and a frigidarium. The water in the central pool smelled sulfuric and mineral. All four of us were hushed for a while, but soon began unwinding on our own, languishing in different parts of the complex, enjoying the water, the light, the space.

Read more »

Quaeries #4: The Search-Engine

Justin E. H. Smith

[For Quaeries #'s 1, 2, and 3, go here, here, and here]

LeibnitzMachineOutsideSketch Good job, Isaac! You've finally done it! We're in. We're in the 'Net!

Do you realise what this means? Do you? Don't just stand there and stare at me with your servile grin. Tell me what it means! That's right, Isaac, that's right. This is the dawn of a new Age for our Quaeries. We shall no longer have to entrust them to scorbitical Sea-farers and Rye-soak'd country Doctors.

No, now we need simply enter our Quaeries into the trusty “Search-Engine,” and we shall have the answer to every matter ever dreamt of by Natural Philosophy, faster than you can suffocate a Sparrow in a Vacuum Chamber!

Let us give it a try. Think of a Quaery, Isaac. Anything. O never-mind, you Sugar-Loaf. I've got one:

“Whether the Engine doth know anything of 'Sexting'? Some members of our Society are keen to learn this art, but we lack so much as a single working Sextant. We used to have a fine one, until Geech the Astronomer, by some tragic mis-understanding, got it into his senescent Head that it was an Instrument for taking measure of…”

What's this Isaac? The blasted Engine has cut me off in mid-Quaery. What, then? You say I must needs be more concise? Alright then, I've another Quaery, altogether different:

“Whether Chicken-Soup be good for the Soul, and, if so, whether for the Souls of Moms, Dog-Lovers, Christian Teens, or indeed for Souls simpliciter.”

Read more »

Monday Poem

Sunup to Noon Tonight

A constellation of
black-eyed susans
framed in the screen
of our kitchen door—

each dark peering eye
dead center in its radiant
gold-fringe petal-collar looks
as if it had
burst
from its core
an instant before

Though each susan keeps still
at the end of her stem
as if snapshot-clicked
except for a
nudging breeze
that streams between
mobs of livid phlox
the color of anger and lust
and daylily sprays which
like splinters of sun blaze
(having been carelessly
dropped by Helios
into our cool green garden
as he hauled his blistering
load of heat and light
from sunup to noon
tonight)

Jim Culleny; August 2009

On Knowledge Without Wisdom

By Namit Arora

Pic1 The Greeks understood philosophy as the love of wisdom. They valued theoretical knowledge to the extent it contributed to practical wisdom. Inside Plato’s Academy was a grove of olive trees dedicated to Athena, the goddess of wisdom. But philosophy today, at least as pursued by much of the Anglo-American academy, is markedly different. For the most part, its concerns have shrunk to sub-disciplines in epistemology, paving the way for the acquisition of theoretical knowledge as an end in itself. The pursuit of wisdom seems to have left the academy and alighted on the stormy shores of self-help aisles.

The First Philosophy

Aristotle described his major work, Metaphysics (not his term for it but of a later editor), as ‘first philosophy’ and called it a study of ‘being qua being’ and ‘the first causes of things.’ In it Aristotle sought to explore the issues that were most fundamental and most general, and which framed all other investigations. Suitably enough, he chose ontology to be the principal subject matter of Metaphysics.

Ontology is the study of the nature of being, existence, and reality. It explores the most fundamental of questions: what does it mean to be and to exist; what standards do we use to distinguish what is from what is not; what properties identify a thing; how do we decide whether a thing has merely changed or ceased to exist; what makes something concrete or abstract, real or ideal, independent or dependent; what interrelationships, boundaries, and classifications do we assign to things; do numbers exist; what is the relation between language and reality; and so on.

Pic2 How we answer such questions shapes, and is shaped by, the basic concepts through which we conceive our world, concepts like force, energy, motion, nature, impermanence, truth, language, space, time, history, god, mind, evil, suffering, possibility, reason, spirit, etc. These ontological concepts arise from a combination of our senses, imagination, and our being in the world, and they influence what we make of the world, as well as how we investigate it. The Greeks, Gnostics, Aztecs, Confucians, and the Hindus all differed in their ontological assumptions. Not all concepts were shared by them or were given the same interpretations.

Read more »

Psychological Science: The [Non-]Theory of Psychological Testing – Part 3

“Psychological Science: The [Non-]Theory of Psychological Testing – Part 1” can be found HERE.

“Psychological Science: The [Non-]Theory of Psychological Testing – Part 2” can be found HERE.

Note: My views in these three articles on Psychological Test Theory (PTT) are limited to psychological science, particularly what we know as the statistical theory of psychological testing: Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT). While I do not cover, explicitly, classical infe113007_el-thorndikerential statistics in psychological research, some of my ideas would extend to that domain, particularly on Plato's Ideal Forms, and the tautological nature of some psychological statistics. I have nothing to say about how my views apply, or not, to engineering, quantum physics, and neural activity in the brain. At times, I use 'overstatement' as a rhetorical device to make a point.


“If a thing exists, it exists in some amount; and if it exists in some amount, it can be measured.” *

* –E. L. Thorndike (1874-1949), Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measurements (1904)

“Thus, if we perceive the presence of some attribute, we can infer that there must also be present an existing thing or substance to which it may be attributed.” **Rene_descartes_002

“For I freely acknowledge that I recognize no matter in corporeal things apart from that which the geometers call quantity, and take as the object of their demonstrations, ….” **

** –Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Principles of Philosophy. I:52 and II:64 (1644).

More philosophical embarrassments for psychology

These oft quoted, or paraphrased, ideas have been unfortunate for psychological science. E. L. Thorndike's pioneering contributions to educational, social, general, and industrial psychology, and animal behavior are substantial, without dispute. However, this forceful attempt to establish, with 'common sense', a justification for psychological testing, was no more than a restatement of Plato's Ideal Forms. At the beginning of his illustrious career, psychology and philosophy were commonly administered in the same college and university departments. During his lifetime we saw the ascendancy of psychological science as a discipline separate from philosophy, but with a vestige of relationship issues from the prior marriage of long standing.

Descartes gave us another problem, frustrating when we look back on it, that limited progress in Animalpsy1 Rene_descartes_001 science and philosophy for nearly 400 years. When it came to mental life (thinking, reasoning, cognition, memory), there was a clear line of demarcation between humans and the rest of entire animal world. Humans could think, plan, imagine, reason, and solve complex problems; animals functioned at the level of instinct and base neural connections. Thorndike reinforced this notion by a refusal to see the possibility of human-like thought processes in research on animals. The problem of mind and body, since Descartes, advanced only by putting a hyphen between the two words, 'Mind-Body'. Fortunately, philosophy has stopped asking itself questions that can't be answered.

Read more »

Friday, August 14, 2009

In Memoriam G. A. (Jerry) Cohen

GA Cohen

by Gerald Dworkin

Last week I learned, while lecturing in Spain, of the sudden death of my closest friend, and best philosophical interlocutor, Jerry Cohen. A graduate student once asked me for what audience I wrote my philosophical papers. Was it for all philosophers, for just moral and political philosophers, for the general public? I replied that I wrote for three people. Jerry was one of them. He was one of the most distinguished political philosophers of my generation. He was also an extraordinary person whose kindness, wit and integrity will be remembered as much by those who knew him as his intellectual brilliance.

I first met Jerry in 1962 on the way back from Moscow where I had participated in a sit-down in Red Square to protest the Soviet resumption of atmospheric nuclear testing. It was a brief acquaintance but it was clear that we would be friends. We were close in age, both political philosophers of an analytic bent, and we were both “red-diaper” children, i.e. raised by Communist mothers to believe that historical progress was inevitable and that its engine was the working-class. As important a factor was that we shared a sense of humor; knowing a funny joke, or making a clever pun, was as natural and important for us as making a good argument or knowing the details of a text. Last, and least, we were both Gerald’s who were always, and only, called Jerry’s.

Read more »

Monday, August 10, 2009

The Tinkerer

This is an extract from a work in progress… a short story, perhaps. Let me know what you Think.

Tinkering with his iron fragments the stooping figure beads in sweat so as this heat won’t extinguish him. Seven steps astride him pink-lipped petals set the wind a moving; seeds at depth force Earth versus its sky; a honey coloured beetle arranges its deathbed, a future in revolt against the flowers. These meadows offer little for the tinkerer, since not a war’s been fought amongst them for such an age as all that’s left is ruby rust. Still, he cricks his spine in sensing, gouging his cart a track along which to guide it, and wanders over the meadow banks; wanders a crest a thoughtless dream in search of iron scraps.

all that’s left is ruby rust...As a life he’d had plenty enough, seen such a family of moons not a starry gaze could count them. On colder days the river banks took hold of the ice, painting memories for him of years past when the water flowed a different path. Each icy bed locking inside the clutter of pictures which made him. Only when the water was solid did any time seem long enough for the tinkerer, but this coming winter would be his last; so The Thinker had told him. At sunrise the meadow stole at the night, tinkering itself the last of the dew across its banks to wake the birds in freshness, slipping silken tongues into worlds of water atop each sliver of grass. Soon this would stop, the tinkerer knew, turn to ice each morning, locking away the tinkerer’s delights in prisons of frozen earth. Winter was a time for musing. Not a patch of iron was he to find when all was thought about him, in the season of his death.

Read more »

Losing The Plot (Dreaming Dulles)

By Maniza Naqvi

PoppyblossomShe had been at Arlington cemetery on that hot swampy August day when a flag draped coffin had arrived from Andrews Air Base. The constant roar of planes taking off from National Airport nearby and the insistent shrill of their landings was making it difficult for Eileen to hear the speeches though it was possible to catch their gist: A great debt was owed. Jet stream streaked the steamy skies above.

Colleagues, hundreds of them, straightening, tightening and yanking their ties given the occasion and sweating in their suits on that hot humid afternoon, had come to pay their last respects from both sides of the beltway and the river. Old buddies had gathered that day to say their goodbyes and pay their respects—she had spotted George Schultz —Bill Webster and Bob Gates, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Zbigniew Brzezinski; there was Judge Bork and Alexander Haig and Edmund Muskie, and Charles Percy—and the intrepid and ubiquitous Charlie Wilson and so many, many others that she recognized. Good men. Strong men. Brave hearts. Men with resolve. Patriots.

There must've been a thousand people at the funeral that day by the time the second coffin was lowered into the ground. There had been no wives to receive the folded flags—both men recently divorced. Ambassador Arnold Raphel and Brigadier General Herbert M. Wassom. They'd laid down their lives for their country—bringing down the Soviet Union. No two ways about it. God damn heroes, God Bless them.

The head of the Pakistan Intelligence Services a General had been there too, of course. A man who could be sinister in a roomful of people to those he considered as lesser in the species and at once genial to a fault to those he considered his superiors because of rank and power. A man of considerable zeal, also to a fault. He was there at the funeral as though he were family. In fact he was the main receiver of condolences, embraces, pats on the back. Naturally. A man who had a special vision for his country and understood the pulse of Pakistan.

In her own way she understood it too. Eileen knew Pakistan well. Or rather Eileen knew the Pakistanis who counted, well. She had written off Stanley's off color remark as just his being drunk rather than being a jab at her. Not much there. Eileen had managed to change her name from Irene Stone to Irene Khan to Eileen Costa, in several decades. She had been a widow and a divorcee. Neither one of her marriages had lasted long—one man had obliged by dying, the other one by leaving her for another man in Washington DC. There was not much to embellish. Eileen knew how to compartmentalize, recognize the useful, take it and move on. This was her core competency. At the age of nineteen she had been passing through Pakistan as a college dropout after having decided after her sophomore year to hitch-hike across the planet instead of graduating. This decision of hers to go further had been a sure why not kind after she had arrived in Europe with a group of friends in the summer of 1970. They had made their way across Europe and were in Trieste when she was faced with the choice of taking that one space left in the car to join a couple of friends who had purchased a Citroën and who were going to drive it through Yugoslavia to Bulgaria on through Turkey into Iran and Afghanistan and on to Pakistan. The plan was to get to India. The plan stopped there. The idea was that by the time they arrived in India they would know who they were and where they were going: presumably to an ashram. All would be revealed. All they had were their passports, a few hundred dollars for the gas—and some change of clothing each. Almost everywhere they stopped along the way they ate for free—welcomed by people into their homes. They had heard about the treachery of border guards and highway robbers but they never got to experience any of this. They ate, drank, smoked, sang and drove their way all the way to Pakistan. Eileen got sick in Rawalpindi. Too sick to travel any further: Hepatitis. Her friends left her in the care of the nuns and a very attentive and kind doctor at the Holy Family hospital. Eileen was given a private room by the staff who after seeing that she was a foreigner felt she was in need of special care. There, lay Eileen, for four months, a hue of seasick green and chalk, her hazel eyes sunken and circled by dark shadows, her face gaunt, her long honey brown hair now cropped by the sisters to improve its health. Two months after that she had not only made a full recovery but had, more remarkably, married the doctor who had been treating her: the very kind and middle aged Dr. Asfandiyar Khan. At the age of twenty Eileen, half her husband's age and towering above him by a good six inches found herself catapulted to the position of being the much admired and looked up to (literally) wife of a respected physician. Dr. Khan was considered an admirable man because he had broken away from the traditions of his feudal family who presided over the supervision of large tracts of farming land and did precious little else except the very strenuous task of ruling and controlling. Now she was the daughter in law in a family of a powerful Government civil servant who was the special advisor to the President who was a military General, of course. She had in-laws and relatives-in-laws who's names read like the who's who list in the military, bureaucracy and business corridors in the country. To keep herself busy she volunteered once a week at a women's center for handicraft production; twice a week at the United States Information Center—as a librarian and English tutor; and once a week at the American School as a substitute teacher. The marriage was exciting, fun and mercifully short lived. By the time she found herself getting bored, the good doctor too had obliged and died of a heart attack. Shortly after the funeral Eileen had taken a Pakistan International Airline flight back home. It was the very same air craft, she was told, that had taken Kissinger and his team to Beijing, for secret talks with Zhou En Lai thanks to Pakistan's services in its status as the best friend forever of both China and the US and therefore the ideal match maker. The marriage, Eileen's, hadn't produced progeny. So all she had was the experience and it was to serve her well. It had been enough, this intense cultural immersion, upon which to build a career. It had made her as they put it on either side of the Potomac, a Pakistan hand. In addition to writing several novels with names such as “The Veil and the Sword”; followed by the “Veiled Caravans followed by two more: “Wives are Witches and Mothers Saints” and “The Naked Fakir”, she had managed to complete her college and university education in international relations and gender studies with a specialization on Pakistan. She had made her way back to Pakistan almost a decade later. And there at a garden party one evening at the embassy replete with white gloved waiters; guests armed with gossip and innuendos as their depth of political analysis and Chinese lanterns dangling amongst the lush fragrant blossoms of the Frangipani she had met Stanley. Who, at that time, sardonic and handsome was playing his part as the spy master intellectual and she a USAID consultant on gender issues. That was the summer of 1984.

Eileen had repeated and rehashed at least a thousand times what Stanley had said to her on the phone three nights ago until she realized that he had said something very different from what she had understood. He had said their names when he called her in the middle of the night. She had played it back in her head over and over again—and it seemed to be clearer now. But she couldn't be sure. She thought he had mumbled on about infallible innocence. But now she thought he had said something like Raphel and Wassom, Eileen, Raphel and Wassom. She hadn't heard what he had said before that—but then she was sure he had said our infallible innocence before hanging up.

Stanley had been there too, at Arlington Cemetery. He seemed very alone though he was surrounded by so many colleagues. He had accompanied the coffins back home from Islamabad.

She had looked across at him—standing there in his seasonally appropriate and anything but, occasion wise, very crumpled cream colored seer sucker suit. His face was pale and gaunt, aviator glasses masked his eyes. The sun was strong. He was looking towards her but she couldn't tell whether he had picked her out in the crowd or was even looking at her—. She hadn't seen him in over a year. A lot had happened since then. She'd gotten married to a career diplomat Jeffery Costa—posted recently in Nairobi. And Stanley had continued on in Islamabad.

After the ceremony, as the crowd made its way to the parking lot, she had caught up with him. She had offered to drive him to his hotel and he had accepted. Instead, when she stopped her Ford Taurus at the last light before she turned into the hotel in Chrystal city—and Stanley had said: God, I need a drink, she had offered to fix him one at her home. He had come back with her to the apartment in West Falls Church which she and her husband were renting while she completed her training at Langley and he was away doing a tour of duty in Kenya. A rental worked in this transitory life style. As she had explained to Stanley, later when Jeff and she retired they would get something in Georgetown or out in Rappahannock County. Stanley was jetlagged, drunk and still shaken. After a few minutes of fumbling with love making, Stanley had patted her on the head; rolled over and promptly started to snore. A few hours later she had driven him back to the hotel. They had chalked their lack of enthusiasm to the events and the fact that Stanley was drunk, shaken and jetlagged.

The day before, just before dusk, in the incandescent light of a sinking sun on the horizons of the capital, in a plot in the same cemetery other funerals had taken place. Here too, US flag draped coffins, two, had been lowered in gently and had been given the full honors. No speeches. The remains of General Zia ul Haq and General Akhtar Rahman were buried with full honors in Arlington Cemetery as fallen American heroes. Zia and Rahman. Raphel and Wassom.

Stanley had attended with several colleagues and the ISI General. There was one very special guest, General Zia's mistress, the blonde bombshell from Miami, who sobbed throughout the short ceremony her eyes red and swollen behind the black net veil of her hat—her long legs in black fish net stockings, her low cut cocktail satin sheath of a dress entirely appropriate for the patriotic part she had played in keeping the stressed out General happy.

Stanley had imagined that he had heard a ghostly drawl whispered in his ear: Islamabad's half as big as Arlington cemetery and twice as dead. When the pieces began to fall into place in later years the habit of hearing Dulles in his ear became a past time on quiet evenings of reflection over whiskeys, listening to the BBC World Service and watching the light diminish against the hills in Islamabad. Stanley imagined himself in conversations with the founding father the legendry and long dead CIA Director Allen Welsh Dulles –In Stanley's day dreaming he would be sitting beside Dulles in his study in front of a crackling log fire in a beautiful home in Georgetown along a tree lined street near Dumbarton Oaks. Just beyond the closed door filtering sweetly in, would be the sounds of grand children chasing each other their parents telling them to pipe down—Gramps was working. The aroma of many mingled good scents wafting around them: tobacco, whiskey, leather seats Old Spice and the smell of turkey on its final minutes of roasting.

Stanley did not know whether to place Dulles in the setting of an ascetic—of mission furniture—and austere surroundings—enveloped in silence—outside a bleak dead scene of January or instead in the embrace of domestic bliss. Stanley had chosen to imagine him this way:—surrounded by warmth—on the coziest day of the year—thankful, contented and satisfied. Poinsettias on the bay window sill sat looking out on to a white picket fence. An autumnal tree lined cobbled street beyond. Persian carpets at his feet—miniatures on the walls— here a Ming vase in the corner, there a stone relief from Angkor Wat—or instead perhaps something encrusted with sapphires a snuff box from Battambang. It was a full house of living long and prospering. If you want to keep it this way over here—then we have to keep it that way over there.

There was Dulles—puffing on his pipe—wiping his spectacles with his silk tie before readjusting them on the bridge of his nose and holding forth on his life's experiences: Back in my day just when I was getting started in all this I learned a lot from the British and the Germans. Everything I know. I wrote a book—I know Stanley, you're a fan—you've read it back and forth—memorized it I'll bet: The Craft of Intelligence. So you know how much I love secret operations.

As do I Sir. As do I.

Yes Stanley. But be careful son. In trying to understand one's adversary my boy—one risks the danger of becoming him—or at the very least empathizing. This is a hazard of the trade.

How often does that not happen? Stanley in his musings had asked.

What?

Stanley had rephrased his question: That we don't become him? At some point far along in the operation, do we even know the difference between him and us? Especially if we have created him?

Dulles nodded: Ah—yes—that would be the mirror effect——looking too deeply at something has the effect of reflecting back one's own image—even if there is nothing at the point at which our gaze is directed—If we look hard enough—an image emerges—like a mirage in the desert. It can happen to great men like ourselves. It always does on principle—happen to great men like ourselves.

Yes, sir.

I approve of your creativity Stanley—thinking outside and inside the box—you're committed to constant change! As I was in my time: Operation 40; Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paper Clip—ah those were the days! The only problem is that over time—these things can establish and entrench themselves and morph into their own organizations—cartels even—unless there is constant change. The first principle of a good organization committed to maintaining its monopoly on information and power, Stanley is constant re-organization. But here's the dilemma, Stan—how can you ensure change to be constant when you're the agent for stopping change?

Indeed Sir. How?

Ah, Stanley my boy—I like your idea—a coffee company—it has merit. I had an idea like that myself called it the United Fruit Company. So you see Stanley it's all been done before there's nothing new—no phenomena at all. No surprises. Besides—in your case—the country you've grown so fond of—Pakistan is as old as we are, the Agency. I mean. It is our lover, our mistress—-it is our sibling in a way isn't it—if not our very own child?

Stanley must have grimaced at this suggestion because Dulles seemed to have admonished him: Now don't go getting ideas Stanley that anyone of these shits including that chit of a girl that Bhutto's daughter was any different. They are all our products. Not worth losing any sleep over. All created, groomed and taught by us. All of these so called leaders—right and left—belong to us—belong to each other—they're our quislings—can't do without our commodities, our luxuries—our way of life. Don't expect them to rise up against us, do you? They are us. More us than we are us. Indebted to us—no—not just indebted to us—but indelibly us.

And Stanley had interrupted: The question is: who will rise up against them?

Well now that's what we need to look out for and look into. That's what we're forever trying to fix aren't we? The non-quislings' rebellion. In that our interests seem to converge with that of the cartel's. We want to keep the natives from getting restless, so to speak, keep the rebellion down.

Stanley had interjected: But the cartel Sir, is our enemy too. It will destroy us as surely as it will Pakistan.

And Dulles would have had replied: There are no permanent enemies as they say my dear boy, only permanent interests. We are permanent. And I assure you Pakistan will not be destroyed it is permanent, have no fear. It is ours permanently. Henry Mortimer Durand and Sir Cyril Radcliff—did the deed of breaking off the chunk that was of interest to us. They were assigned the task to make the mess we have today. The British weren't interested in keeping all of India—they couldn't leave fast enough—two world wars had finished them. The only part of India that ever interested them was the western part and that's the chunk they broke off and kept for themselves. The good bits. That's the part that gave them access to Central Asia, China, Russia, and Iran. That's the part, which fit their imperial needs and commercial enterprises best. And then of course, ours too. No sunlight between the Brits and ourselves you see. That's the part they irrigated, grew cotton in and parceled off to their stooges—And those stooges—those stable boys who tended the British horses those two anna servants of the Raj who scraped, bowed and cow-towed at noon—the time when the Englishmen loved to ride—those are the guys who became a strengthened tribal and feudal elite. The Two-annas, and Noon and so forth. Our stable hands—at the helm. It was this part—with the rivers—the water and the glaciers; the cotton and wheat fields; and the irrigation systems, which they put a boundary around garrisoned and called Pakistan. This was the part that they wanted to keep—the jewel in the crown so to speak. The eastern part was a mistake—and that corrected itself in 1971—we right sized the chunk we wanted. And it is this Pakistan that is ruled by the Brits and us to this day through our quisling class that speaks English and is educated in Oxbridge—and Sandhurst and now of course in Yale, Harvard and Princeton and down the road in both directions and in our War Colleges and so forth.

And then when that stopped working they got themselves goons like the one who controls Karachi and General Musharraf—both of whom live in London protected by the British! Of course, that's fine by us. The days of the gentlemen lawyers studying at Lincolns Inn are over—They were quite useless in following through effectively on the plans in any case. Lily-livered. The new mafia bosses are more up to the task and greedy too. They do the job for us in this day and age and they are the ones that rule now. It's all about ensuring that the port functions just fine for our commerce and our coalition forces….The British never left. They got themselves a permanent garrison. And of course we just took over. And who ever has come along and decided, foolishly, very foolishly indeed, to question these boundaries these rules of the game—or turn on the deals they've made with us—in these past 60 years—well it's been fatal for them—they've gotten very sick and died of arsenic poisoning—termed as cancer or a heart attack, or have been assassinated—Till I was around this is how things were done. And later much the same things continued: executions, assassinations or simply disappearances. No need for investigations or anything into any of these murders. Oh yes, when the crowd amongst the quislings clamored for some level of inquiry or investigation—we agreed to the Brits trotting out Scotland Yard to sort things out—From the murder of the first Prime Minister all the way to Benazir—all an inconclusive investigation—and then we provided the record as a press release through our BBC. Everything sounds better in British English—sounds truthful. Even to us. We kept everything running smoothly at the big ol' Garrison!

You tell me that the Taliban are the wretched chaps flailing about—in their rage—against us and the cartel. I can see your point of view Stanley. Your theory may have some merit. It's a rebellion of the have-nots who have risen up against the cartel—without even knowing who is in the cartel. Poor saps—the only problem is that we are using them too—and so is the cartel. They are our pawns: our mules and our minions–and therefore our worst enemies. They are nobody and they are everybody who wants their country back and everybody who wants an end to misery. But misery never ends. That's the dynamic of power. But here we are: Our own minions and mules dare to mutiny against us. Tsk. Tsk. What a sorry state of affairs. It always is.

And Stanley had asked: And what do we plan to do now? I mean what's our end game? What's the grand plan? Are we in danger of creating another Khmer Rouge—are we going to end up instigating the carnage that we had in Cambodia during the Vietnam war?

Dulles had looked at him with indulgence: Grand plan? There is none. We do it, for its sake. That's the plan.

Do we keep fighting till we've killed every Afghan, every Pathan, every Punjabi, every Baluchi and every Pat Tillman that gets it? And then, what? Where does this stop?

And Dulles replied: Does it?

Dreaming Dulles for Stanley always stopped there. Dulles was his own special theatrical tintinitus.

On the fourth night of his absence Stanley had returned. When he knocked on her hotel door—she had opened it, and the look on his face accusatory perhaps had made her scream out his name and rush forward to hug him and pull him into the room.

Where have you been Stanley! I've been worried to death. Three days ago you called me at 4 a.m. and then you disappeared!

Stanley sounded tired and calm: I didn't disappear—who said I disappeared—I closed my shop and went for a trek in the mountains. But tell you what—I had a little visit from our colleagues four days ago—snooping around my house—Hey Eileen did you sound the alarm on me?

Eileen had started crying to Stanley's surprise.

She crisscrossed her arms across her chest holding onto her shaking shoulders and hugged herself: What was I supposed to do? I called you in the morning—you didn't answer—you weren't answering any of your phones.

Stanley interrupted her—No I meant did you—

Eileen sobbed: The help in your house or your coffee shop had no idea where you were so what was I supposed to do? I was petrified, I was completely at my wits end. I informed the Embassy. They looked for you and….

Looked for me? Stanley laughed….well here I am Eileen.

Really Stanley….Eileen had begun…You have no idea what I've been through. I cancelled everything. I haven't moved from here, from the hotel waiting for word from you. The embassy called me in today and showed me a video. I thought I would die.

Come on now Eileen—you?

Stan! I thought I had lost you Stanley. I was so scared. It was a video of a guy in a hood sitting cross legged on the floor—some Arabic words behind his head —Three guys standing behind him were also hooded and in shalwar kameezes carrying automatic weapons. They told me it was a video they had received from your kidnappers and Stanley—they are planning on going public with it.

Stanley laughed….well here I am Eileen. How do you think they're going to explain their little foray into Hollywood?

I don't know, Eileen replied as she pulled him to her and onto the bed. Look at you, just look at you she said over and over again.

Stanley lying half over her propped his head on his arm seemed amused and surprised: What's gotten into you girl—I thought we were done.

Done? I'll never get passed you Stan. Murmured Eileen, as she reached up and pulled him down and began with gusto to demonstrate to him the ardor of her devotion.

Later—sleepless and satiated with Eileen in bed next to him he had kissed her head and said: I guess they'll call it a false alarm—they'll have some terrorist expert come on to explain that this is a disinformation propaganda tactic by the terrorists to break our morale. I don't know.

What's going on Stanley—I don't understand.

I just told you what I think. The kidnapping looks pretty real doesn't it? We're good at making things look real. We lead in making movies. And here I was only hiking in the mountains. Darn! But hey kid—I didn't know you felt this way—I'm touched.

Shut up Stanley! Eileen laughed with embarrassment. She appeared endearingly clumsy, gawky in her stance and almost shy.

Stanley replied gently: Okay.

I mean over all these years Stan—you're the only one. Eileen her eyes moist, her nose red had sniffled and stared at Stanley's face.

You should have let me know you were alright Stan. I'm scared for you. I'm scared there's something terrible that's going to happen to you. I don't understand what you're doing here. I mean for three days you completely disappear—the embassy shows me a video of your kidnapping—Now you're here in my hotel room I mean what's next?

The end of the drug cartel.

Uh huh Stan-drug cartel. I thought it was the coffee shop…..

Stanley had asked: Can I trust you Eileen.

And she had replied wide eyed: I don't know Stan can you?

The coffee business as you must know Eileen is just a front.

A front? A front for what Stanley—I thought you said you had had enough of us and wanted a break.

Yup, you heard right. The coffee shop gave a couple of us a good front to start following the money–. I get to stay here—there are a couple of us in this with me.

Couple of you? Who? What? Where? Doing what exactly Stan?

I'm here, the others are stationed in Miami, Dubai, Yerevan, Kyiv and Pristina, I haven't met them yet—but we've all met on line. That's the way we want to keep it to insure each other's security. We've got started on a little coffee investigation. It's our front—from my little café to the coffee importers and exporters offices we've set up in other places. No one's suspicious about a guy gone native trying to grow some coffee and starting up a coffee shop. So we've been looking into where to grow it, how to finance it, how to transport it—Who to talk to about licenses, clearances, finances, imports, exports, port authorities, truckers—the whole distribution network. Funny, how everything here involves the Generals—and the truckers. And coffee growing follows the pattern of poppies—from blossoms to bombs. And interesting how coffee and heroin have the same routes and the same bankers. And everything in between is a growth industry: drugs, oil, weapons and human trafficking.

We set up shop Eileen, to see who would show up, offering to buy, sell and finance. It's interesting what we're learning. The defeat of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war right? Let Freedom ring, right? Ching-ching! After all free people are free to loot, right? Free market, right? It's called unbridled capitalism.—the war we won when we took down the U.S.S. of R. So when the cartel wants to expand into tourism—build hotels and they find that there's existing over capacity—well they simply blow up the existing capacity—–same thing for anything else—they've learned the B-52 way of getting things done—if it's getting in the way—just blow it away.

I was here on April 10, 1988 when the arsenal depot at Ojheri camp, the ammunition depot to supply the Afghan war, which was located in Islamabad exploded, days before a Pentagon investigation panel was supposed to arrive to take inventory of the Stinger missiles and other weapons that were supposed to have been in there.

Kaboom! Live ammo falling all over the city. The smell of burning flesh and death, Three things happened that day. Thousands of civilians were killed by the debris and exploding weapons. No problem. Zia used that to dismiss the civilian stooge Prime Minister who was beginning to make noises against him. No problem. Evidence of missing Stinger missiles—sold by a weapons cartel—gone. No problem. But it was a problem. The explosion at the arms depot was a huge problem for us. It was clear that there was collusion between the CIA and the Pakistanis. The arrival of the weapons panel was supposed to have been a top secret. Even the members of the panel weren't supposed to know until the last moment after they had boarded the plane as to what their mission was supposed to be. It was on a strictly time sensitive need to know basis. The coincidence of the camp exploding—was too big—someone on the inside on our side and all the way up there on the food chain had to have leaked the information.

Uhuh?

The information that the leak was being investigated was leaked as well. Our guys and their guys had set up a pretty cozy drugs and arms business with a gigantic network. They had a pretty free reign for a long, long time, no questions asked. Ojehri Camp which was supposedly housing our Stingers was blown up to make sure that the trail ended there and no investigation panel could ever verify what was missing. Now all that was needed was one more spectacular act to ensure that the business could flourish. Take-off.

We know that a C-130 exploded over Bahawalpur on August 17, 1988. We know that the plane carried the President of Pakistan and the Chief of Army Staff General Zia-ul-Haq and his top seven generals: We know that the plane carried the US Ambassador Arnold Raphael and Brigadier General Herbert M. Wassom.

We know that by 1988—the Soviets had left Afghanistan—the drug trade was at its peak—and the Generals in Pakistan were making money hand over fist on this trade. We know that the CIA was using the drug trade to finance their war in Afghanistan. We don't know whether the guys handling the Generals and supervising the whole operation were involved in making money for themselves.

What if the Generals and their American friends including the Ambassador had forged a loving relationship in a drugs and arms cartel? What if they staged their own deaths—and are now running the whole drug mafia operation under different names—different identities, different faces? What if General Zia, General Rehman (CJCSC), Lt Gen Afzaal (CGS), Maj General Nasir (DGCD), Maj General Abdus Sami (VCGS), Maj General Awan (GOC 23 Div) Arnold Raphel and Brigadier General Herbert M. Wassom are all alive and well? What if all eight of them Generals and the Ambassador are living in Houston, Miami and Dubai and operating the world's most successful and lucrative drugs and weapons cartel? What if the rest of the guys on that plane—are dead? Those poor saps, the pilots and the ADCs etc murdered before the plane took off-the plane was flown by two cartel pilots. What if the C-130 took off and landed safely—what if what exploded in mid air—was a drone.?

Stanley, what if I tell you that you need to be fitted for a straight jacket?

The Americans on the plane, if we don't count the fact that all the Generals including Zia had American citizenships—were Ambassador Arnold L. Raphel, who was considered, like myself a Pakistanphile—the expert who had been a close friend and confidant of Zia. The other guy was Herb—remember him? General Herbert M. Wassom, the head of U.S. Military aid mission to Pakistan?

I know who was on the plane Stan.

General Akhtar Abdur Rehman, was Zia's best friend. He was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and. That made him the number two guy after Zia, in Pakistan. Under Zia, General Rehman headed Inter Service intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's and he worked closely with us in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He was responsible for putting the Mujahideen force together, training them, organizing them into fighting units—raising resources and getting our weapons to them. He ran the circus on that freak show with a couple of freaks from our side.

And then the explosion—Kaboom. And with that it was all over. Eleven years of a powerful military regime and eleven years of our backing it with everything we had—everything—–and not a whimper even when it blew up? A funeral—and then nothing? Isn't that strange? No follow up by the army—the most powerful force in the country—no follow up by us?—At all? Not for Arnie not for Herb? Nothing? Even though we had our guys on the plane plus our most trusted ally who had defeated the Soviet Union? Nothing? Granted, neither left a widow behind to rail and rant demands for an investigation. But why was the FBI involvement to investigate stopped huh?—Why was their investigation stopped? An investigation which was mandated by law? Why was it stopped by the Centcom Commander back then General George Crist? And none of the FBI agents were even allowed into Pakistan to look into anything having to do with the plane crash till seven months after the event. And meanwhile we were told that evidence from the crash had disappeared not only from the crash site but also from the hangar in which supposedly parts of the C-130 were kept.

The cartel was functioning fine—the drug trade was thriving—then the Taliban happened. A major setback for a while but then the ISI was deployed to rein them in and to do the cartel's bidding. All was going well. And business continued to show growth. There were promising opportunities for expansion and diversification. The cartel defeated the USSR and set up its own shop. To the victors go the spoils, right? Now that the Soviet Union had fallen —-mafias were thriving and had taken root. What if amongst them was the biggest one—the cartel started in the name of Washington's and Zia's jihad against the infidel the USSR? There was potential to be tapped into apart from the drug and weapons trade. There were oil and gas fields, ports pipelines and hotels. And more wars to finance and infrastructure construction. Dubai was a shining success story. New Jersey started to get constructed as a financial center right across the river from the World Trade Centers—-right around that time, didn't it Eileen? Coincidence?

But then a real setback to the cartel happened when Ahmed Shah Massood who sat on a major trafficking route into Europe and on major poppy fields—informed the cartel that he was cutting loose—striking out on his own—going straight to the source through his own networks in Kosovo. On September 9, 2001 the cartel took care of this little rebellion by Massood. Two days later—the cartel's plan to take full control began to unfold.

Eileen laughed: You expect me to buy any of this?

Sovereign debt. That's where they're sitting, Eileen. Governments have been selling bonds—the cartel has been buying up the bonds. They've been buy up the bonds through private equity investment firms that belong to them based out of Dubai. Governments have in effect been laundering money for the largest criminal organization in the world headquartered in Dubai. The bonds are financing the wars. The cartel is financing the wars. The cartel owns us. Isn't it something!

Stanley, you're losing it…

We live in the age of Erik Prince and Blackwater–Xe–why is this so unbelievable for you? What if I tell you that the attacks in Mumbai—and the war that we are fighting in Afghanistan—are their war to keep the drug and weapons trade and their business interests, their vast business networks thriving?

Stanley—I'd have to say you're……

You have to trust me Eileen. You asked me Eileen —whose side I was on? I decided Eileen to go to the other side, gather information for the law protectors. I decided to join a group of guys and become an informant for the FBI. Enforcing the law and protecting the constitution seems much more appealing to me then enforcing our foreign policy. And guess which tower the FBI had a quiet little investigative unit going on in it, gathering all the intel on all these fuckers? Now Eileen, who's side are you on?

Read more »

Monday, August 3, 2009

Who John Galt Isn’t

Obama-o It was the “o” what did it, three swirling red crests with the vertiginous rabbit-hole center fading into white that hypnotized my attention and coaxed my bike tire left so that I nearly grazed the back wheel of a BMW. It was an encounter I would have lost, surely, and it surely would have been my fault, though I’m confident the owner was selfish and had no interest in looking out for my interests.

The bumper sticker was affixed with tape or static cling to the back windshield, hovering just below eye level. “Socialism Didn’t Work Last Time Either,” only instead of the “o” in “Socialism,” some wag had substituted the Obama “o”. One immutable law of rhetoric is that digs don’t need to be accurate to make their point. But as the BMW shifted gears and drag-raced past me, a second bumper sticker appeared, balancing the first like a convex diptych, secured in the other far corner of the back windshield, written in a cleaner sparer font than the fat white letters of “Socialism.”

“Who is John Galt?” Who, indeed.

The allusion, of course, was Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, a manifesto (or apologia) for capitalism unbound. Galt is the Prometheus of productivity, a dynamo whose fiery ideas would ignite the economy if not for the vulture bureaucrats. When Galt (among others) withdraws from society in the book and refuses to offer his liver to the body politic, the vultures panic, and society teeters on collapse. The lesson—practically spelled out in italics—is that a few brilliants like Galt drive mankind forward, and any constraints on their activities impoverishes all. Sporting a Galt bumper sticker ensures that you can take a moralistic stand without having to actually do anything.

I’m going to leave aside here the dubious taste of anyone who’d admit they read and liked Rand. If you plotted Literary Merit on the x-axis versus Book Sales on the y-axis, the slope of the line for Rand’s oeuvre would be undefined, a perfect vertical up and down. She’s atrocious with dialogue, unconvincing with sex, clumsy with pacing, heavy-handed with foreshadowing, lousy with clichés. (I’d add character development if she included any human beings in her stories.) I’m embarrassed for her, and she died in 1982.

Read more »

Monday Poem

…in a curved space, a body can seemingly defy basic physics
and “swim” through a vacuum without needing to push on anything
or be pushed by anything.

………………….Eduardo Guéron; Scientific American, August 2009

Swimming in Space Time

A short walk from our house
2 minutes tops
the river came through
in a bend at the end of
a short street where
on a small beach
built of slow sand
the river had sloughed
in the shelter of a prominence
upon which a monarch of a
tree stood its four foot trunk
under a green crown
cumulous as the cloud of
dark hair I’d one day wear
I dove down and came up
swimming in space time
in a vacuum when
a bird turned
above my head
and dove too
intent upon a dragonfly
which buzzed through
like the humming bird
with crimson neck
and impossible wings
(as invisible as she
was divine)
swimming in
space time

by Jim Culleny; 7/29/09

The Nobleness of Life is to do Thus

A tribute to Omar Azfar by Azra Raza, M.D.

There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’t is not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all.

Shakespeare, HAMLET, Act v. Sc. 2.

ScreenHunter_08 Jul. 26 22.11 At the end, the readiness to face whatever providence had in store was there, both in the case of Omar as well as his mother Naheed. I only saw him two or three times without Naheed in the roughly 16 months of our acquaintance in New York, therefore it is hard for me to think of them separately. She brought her two sons to meet me in September of 2007 shortly after I had moved to New York. Omar, the 38 year old elder son, a graduate of Oxford and Columbia, had been diagnosed with a highly malignant osteogenic sarcoma of the left shoulder. He had received a round of aggressive chemotherapy a few days before and his mouth was a battlefield of raw ulcers, abraded mucosa, bleeding gums. As we sat down to an elaborate meal with family and a few close friends, Omar calmly produced a bottle containing some sort of a bland, soothing drink and sipped away as if it were an equally exclusively prepared gourmet meal, all the while entertaining us with his signature brilliant quips and observations. Such was his class, such his chic. My childhood friend and the current Consul General of Pakistan, Mohsin Razi and his lovely wife Sarwat were present at dinner that evening. Earlier this year, when Mohsin and Sarwat heard about Omar’s death, they rushed to offer their condolences to Kamal and Naheed, both tearing up in the car at the memory of this dinner when Omar had shown such an astonishing and calm acceptance of his condition.

Starting with the first note I received from Omar via cyberspace in the summer of 2007 which was copied to Ama, and ending with my last glimpse of him as he lay dying with his mother curled up next to him in bed, straightening his blanket, holding his hand, I was exquisitely aware of what a unique privilege it was to be witnessing this sublime relationship. Of course love is never quantifiable. In Shakespeare’s Anthony and Cleopatra, Act 1 Scene 1, Cleopatra demands to know how much Anthony loves her.

Cleo.If it be love indeed, tell me how much.

Ant.There’s beggary in the love that can be reckon’d.

Cleo.I’ll set a bourn how far to be belov’d.

Ant.Then must thou needs find out new heaven, new earth.

The friendship alone that existed between Omar and Naheed would require new heavens and new earths to accommodate it.

Arz o samaan kahaan teri wusatt ko paa sakay

Mera hee dil hai wu kay jahan tu samaan sakay

Read more »

Selfishness as the Source of Violence

By Diondra Marchus

“This great evil – where's it come from?
How'd it steal into the world?
What seed, what root did it grow from?
Who's doing this?
Who's killing us,
robbing us of life and light,
mocking us with the sight of what we mighta known?
Does our ruin benefit the Earth,
aid the grass to grow and the sun to shine?
Is this darkness in you, too?
Have you passed through this night?”

—Have You Passed Through This Night?, By Explosions in the Sky

There comes a point in every life when one makes the crushing and perplexing realization that the world is fundamentally flawed, that all of humanity recognizes the problem and agrees that it must be fixed, and that in spite of our agreement it continues to plague the Earth. The problem is violence, and though we feel victimized by it, and though we feel it is out of our control, we have no one to blame for it but ourselves.

In fact, ironically, it is our very desire for self-preservation which causes violence. The preservation of the self is dictated by human nature and society as the primary goal of every individual, and as long as this is so, we will continue to terrorize each other in defense of ourselves. Conversely, if world peace is ever to be achieved, it will require of all parties concerned a complete paradigm shift, contrary to our human nature, which decentralizes the pursuit of self-preservation.

Read more »

Make Mine a Black-and-Tan

Beer It's grown tiresome, but it still needs to be said.

The Story So Far: Very Famous Black Harvard Professor is arrested for breaking into his own Cambridge, MA house. Obama outraged. Media mayhem ensues. Cops pissed off. Tempest enters teapot. Obama invites VFBHP and cop to White House for a beer.

In other words, chillax, mofos!

Look, man, here's how it went down. Here's what Obama & Co. were thinking. What we have here, Obama thought, is the classic Town-Gown Conflict suddenly made tasty to the press corps – in part, but only in part – because this one event highlights the Great American Conflicts of rank, class and race in a single handcuff. Obama's seen this shit before, remember, both at Harvard and at the University of Chicago (the latter, a phenomenally white enclave surrounded by black Chicago slums which are currently among the most murderous of neighborhoods). This was a textbook example of how to turn a challenge into an opportunity, and – it must be said – without the cynicism that corporate or political interests tend to place upon that phrase.

But I'm not interested in the event.

I'm interested in the press's reaction. Moreover, I'm interested in, shall we say, “the press/political interface” – at this particular moment in time. Frank Rich is absolutely correct in his interpretation of Big Media's construction of this story:

[Obama] answers a single, legitimate race-based question at the end of a news conference and is roundly condemned for “stepping on his own message” about health care. It was the noisiest sector of the news media that did much of the stepping. “Health care is bad for ratings,” explained one cable anchor, Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC, with refreshing public candor. What a relief, then, to drop dreary debates about the public option and declare a national conversation about black-white fisticuffs.

What's hilarious is that even after Obama's remarkable speech at the Press Correspondents' Dinner (yes, I keep coming back to that), the media establishment, fighting for survival, continues to undermine itself. Even as veteran journalists like Mort Rosenblum write impassioned pleas for serious reportage, the monologuists in our national conversation chase headlines – rather than stories – like 3rd-graders chasing a soccer ball.

Read more »

Obama’s Secret Advice to the G.O.P.

ElephantSuicideFinal

My fellow Americans on the other side of the aisle:

Ever since my election, I’ve been watching you implode, my eyes dilated in horrified fascination (like they were glued in that Indiana Jones movie to the Nazi’s face melting into molasses).

Now I know I’m the last man on earth you want any advice from, but maybe you should consider absorbing a few choice pearls from my bipartisan heart, especially now that the only Republican leader who is still boning her own spouse, Sarah Palin, is fast losing ground among independents.

I want to speak to you honestly, clearly and candidly, with a generous measure of tolerance, totally on your own level, complete with punchy four-letter words I picked up from the Chicago streets and from Professor Rahm, so you know I’m absolutely sincere in my advice, and not towering over you from the commanding heights of my intellect or voiding over your pea-brained noggins with beefy Chicago-sized turds.

No. Not at all. You know me as a man who always gives the other fellow a fair hearing. When others engage in bickering, I advocate peace. When it comes time to protect our national interest, I’d shake a hand drenched in blood.

Read more »

Monday, July 27, 2009

The Humanists: Wes Anderson’s Rushmore (1998)

Rushmore

by Colin Marshall

Because thousands of a certain generation's cinematic lives have been changed by this film, its territory is best approached with caution. Mine, however, happens to be among those thousands, 1998 marking as it did the opening of my prime window of cultural absporpton. Cinephilic teenagers of the 1960s had The 400 Blows, Breathless, Dr. Strangelove; cinephilic teenagers of the 1970s had Harold and Maude, Chinatown, Taxi Driver; cinephilic teenagers of the 1980s had Repo Man, Blue Velvet, Stranger than Paradise; cinephilic teenagers of the 1990s had Rushmore.

The impact of Wes Anderson's second film didn't propel me immediately from the screening room to a new, theretofore unseen world illuminated by pure light cast forth by the angels of cinema. Its effects were those of a gradually-dissolving ingested substance, working only in the fullness of time. I knew I'd seen something epiphanic, but damned if I could put my finger on what or why. While it has sparked and continues to spark in young viewers as much of a fanatic enthusiasm for film, both its appreciation and its craft, as the most radical, stylistically transgressive piece of deliberate provocation, it does so within a shell of relative normality. But though translucently thin, this shell appears to have confused almost as many filmgoers as it's blindsided with slow-acting inspiration.

“You can't tell if it's a comedy, or if it's a drama, or what it is!” complained some with whom I excitedly sought to discuss the movie. While my adolescent mind couldn't counter this grievance, I now realize that coming up with a genre to fit Rushmore into is an exercise not only doomed to futility but ignorant of the very seat of the film's strength: you can't tell if it's a comedy or a drama or what because it isn't. It is, strictly speaking, a film without genre, which is to say, a film without any of the bundles of clichés that constitute the genres' membership qualifications. This must have rendered marketing a futile ordeal, which would account for the movie's unimpressive domestic box office performance. (But since genre is a labor-saving marketer's device in the first place, perhaps this is a simple case of reaping what's been sown.)

Read more »