Monday Musing: Tribute to Farrokh Bulsara

Screenhunter_28_jul_25_1824_2Farrokh Bulsara was born in 1946 in the British colony of Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania). His parents were Zoroastrians (Parsis) from India. As a boy he was sent back to India to attend boarding school in Bombay. He did very well in studies, was a competitive boxer, and also learned to play the piano–even participating in a 5-person band called The Hectics. He graduated from St. Mary’s High School, and then moved to England where he obtained a degree in Art and Graphic Design from Ealing Art College. In 1970 he joined a failing rock band in London named Smile when their lead singer quit, renaming the band in the process.

I first encountered his music when I happened to move from Pakistan to the United States in September of 1975 at age 11 for almost two years, and immediately upon my arrival was completely taken, as was all of America and much of the rest of the world at the time, by a song that Bulsara wrote and sang with his rock group. Interestingly, and though I did not know this until recently, among his important musical influences, Bulsara has cited the legendary Bollywood playback singer Lata Mangeshkar. My own infatuation with Bulsara and his music has well-outlasted his tragic death of AIDS in 1991 at the age of 45, and I remain, like many others, including, of course, Wayne and Garth, a lifelong devotee. You probably know Bulsara better as Freddie Mercury (recently voted, once again, the best rock singer of all time). The name he gave his band was Queen. And the 1975 song I mention above is, of course, “Bohemian Rhapsody” (recently voted again: best rock song of all time).

Okay, before anything else, just watch and listen to this:

While writing this short tribute I listened to many Queen songs turned up very loud on my quite powerful sound system (to the chagrin of my thin-walled upper-west-side-of-Manhattan neighbors), and as I was listening to this live version of “Under Pressure,” I found myself suddenly and shockingly but not completely unpleasantly reconnected with the remaining hormone-drenched vestiges of my teenage self, standing up (ridiculously alone!) in my living room to accompany Brian May with a spastic air guitar, then getting more and more emotional at the mostly-inscrutable-yet-movingly-poetic lyrics, until the unbearable and insane buildup when Freddie is singing “Insanity laughs, under pressure we’re breakin’…” and then by the time, a second later, when he sings “Can’t we give ourselves one more chance… Why can’t we give love that one more chance… Why can’t we give love… give love… give love… give love… give love… give love… give love… give love… give love,” I felt like I was in a trance. If you don’t believe me, try hooking up your computer to a decent sound system, and then just sit there and play the song!

By the way, during an early Queen concert Freddie’s mic stand broke in half and he continued carrying the broken half around. Later, this became a trademark style of his.

Among other things, Queen were a particularly well-educated rock band: all four members held college degrees, and as we reported here, Brian May recently turned in a Ph.D. dissertation at Imperial College in astrophysics. He defends it on August 23rd.

Freddie Mercury displayed an energy and dynamism and theatricality and showmanship in live performances which is truly awesome. Queen were the most important forerunner (and later practioners) of stadium rock, and Freddie Mercury actively engaged even large audiences and often made them participants in the music. The a capella playful vocal beginning of the video above reminds me of the immensely talented Pakistani vocalist and qawwali singer Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan who like our friend Freddie had immense vocal range and liked just playing around with his amazing voice–just because he could. Queen taylored some of their music for large stadiums, hence it is not surprising that some of their songs (“We Will Rock You,” “We Are the Champions”) have turned into worldwide sports anthems. This is from the Live Aid concert in 1985:

Freddie mercury and Montserrat Caballé live:

And, of course, Bohemian Rhapsody:

All my previous Monday Musings can be seen here.

Have a good week!



Monday, August 6, 2007

Lunar Refractions: I’ve Gone to Look for America

Oxbowlagoon00 I write you now from a sand dune in Michigan, an entirely new state for me. I’m on an oxbow-shaped lagoon near Saugatuck, and when I first heard that name the Simon and Garfunkel song America got immediately stuck in my head: “it took me four days to hitchhike from Saginaw / I’ve gone to look for America…,” just replace Saginaw with Saugatuck (something a native Michiganer would likely never do).

I suppose I’ve been looking for America since childhood, and now that I go abroad for a few weeks each summer the search has taken on new forms. When I was a kid my brother and I collected state magnets on family trips; our refrigerator became quite full, but—symptom of being born on one of the coasts—there remained huge gaps in the middle, between the parentheses of the western and eastern coasts. I now call these magnets a part of my former “checklist” approach to looking for America.

Oxbowlagoon02On my travels I’ve encountered many others who are also looking for America. A teaching assistantship at a summer arts institute brought me to this particular sand dune, and last night I met the class; during introductions one of the students, Jeong-Suk, said her name but then explained that her name (her “other” name, her “real” name now) is Christin, pronounced “Kristin.” The professor I’m working with was highly bothered by this; I see it as an understandable attempt at assimilation, and Jeong-Suk/Christin is clearly well on her way to finding her America.

Oxbowlagoon03_3It’s a lot like the quintessentially American summer camp here; much like the one I went to as a kid, but without those weird songs that I never understood until years later, when I figured out they were religious—“Morning is here, the board is spread, thanks be to God, who gives us bread…”. It had never occurred to me that saying grace before a meal had to do with divine grace. I suppose such sayings predate the addition of “under God” to our hotly contested national pledge. In any case, the search for America cannot overlook its various religions, no matter how much you might prefer it to.

After being out of the country for six weeks, on the eight-hour flight home (after entertaining the idea of a movie, but declining because I was undecided between two US- and UK productions, Blades of Glory and 28 Weeks Later) I got to thinking about just why I’d followed such a crazy itinerary this summer, London–Sisteron–Milan–Palermo–Rome–Oxford–Saugatuck. Absorbing so much in so little time is absolutely impossible. There’s always the reason of work—clients to meet with, research to do, old texts to complete and new ones to begin—but it takes more than that to get me on a plane (or six) now that massive delays and lost luggage have become the norm. Aside from visiting friends, going to their weddings, and attending an annual papermakers’ conference, I realized this search was one of the things driving me.

Oxbowlagoon01_2The bell has just rung to begin the half-hour countdown to breakfast and class. It reminds me of the oversize, wrought iron triangle that hung on our back porch, which my mother would ring to call us in from summertime evening games in neighbors’ back yards. In the Simon and Garfunkel song, arriving in Pittsburgh Paul reflects on where he’s come from: “Michigan seems like a dream to me now…”. It does to me, too. I’ve never been happier to have gone looking for—and return, however temporarily to—America.

Previous Lunar Refractions can be read here.

Is there a chemist in the house?

When Abbas offered me the keys to the liquor cabinet here, he asked that I write about science — which was just as well, because I don’t know about anything else.  I barely know anything about science, either, but perhaps what distinguishes science from other pursuits is exactly that: the average practitioner’s willingness to be overwhelmingly honest about what they know, and how tenuous a grasp they have on even that little knowledge.    When I look around at science writing, a lot of it seems to pander to my earliest ideas about science: namely, that science is a place to go for answers.  Good science writing also tells about how the answers were found, and really good science writing gives a sense of how secure (or otherwise) those answers may be, but for all that the emphasis is on answers.  To me, and I think to most working scientists, that’s largely backwards — because science as practiced is mostly about questions.

So for this month’s column and the next, I thought I would just do some thinking in public, about a problem that has come to my attention.  Not all problems are scientific in nature, that is, amenable to a solely scientific solution; but the methods and cast of thought that we associate with science can bring information to bear on at least some aspects of most problems.  Science seems to me to be necessary but not sufficient for the solution of most of the important problems facing our species.

Background: Chemists Without Borders

Chemists Without Borders began with a letter from Bego Gerber to the editor of Chem & Eng News:

Thank you for an excellent article regarding carbohydrate vaccines (C&EN,   Aug. 9, page 31). On page 35, John B. Robbins is quoted as saying that Salmonella typhi is “the best typhoid vaccine that’s ever been made …   vaccines don’t make much money. The Vi conjugate vaccine is so revolutionary, and typhoid is such a common and serious disease around the world, but no manufacturer in  the U.S. or Europe is interested in it.” Is this still true? If so, shame on us. What stand will the American Chemical Society take to catalyze implementation of such a vaccine?

Could this be our “Chemists Without Frontiers,” à la “Médicins Sans Frontières?”

Bego and co-founders Steve Chambreau and Lacy Brent are not the first to decide that doctors should not be the only profession without borders.  There are also Laywers, Teachers, Sociologists, Builders, Engineers, Clowns and I daresay a good many other Professions Without Borders.  All of them seek to do, within their own fields of expertise, something roughly on par with the mission of MSF. So really, the name of the organization largely explains what CWB are about:

Chemists Without Borders is a public benefit, non-profit, international humanitarian organization designed to alleviate human suffering through the use of proven chemical technologies and related skills. Our primary goals include, but are not limited to, providing affordable medicines and vaccines to those who need them most, supplying clean water in developing countries, facilitating sustainable energy technologies, and supporting chemistry education.

I became aware of CWB through their commitment to Open Chemistry, and then by taking part in their conference call series I learned about their interest in groundwater arsenic remediation, which is the problem I want to think about here.

The Problem: Groundwater Arsenic

Element number 33 in the periodic table, arsenic (As) is a greyish metalloid solid at room temperature.  It’s a common constituent of the earth’s crust, and is readily leached into groundwater from a variety of minerals.  It’s tasteless and odorless — and it’s both toxic and carcinogenic. The effects of chronic arsenic poisoning are complex and interact strongly with genetic and environmental factors, and (especially in the case of cancers) usually take at least 10-15 years to manifest.  Symptoms include pigment changes, hyperkeratosis and cancerous lesions of the skin, cancer of the lungs, kidneys, liver, prostate and urinary bladder, peripheral vascular degeneration (which may lead to gangrene), peripheral neurophathy (which may include partial paralysis), anemia and leukopenia.  In addition, arsenic is a teratogen, and chronic exposure of a population can lead to increased incidence of spontaneous abortion and congenital malformations.

The World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality include a provisional target of 0.01mg/l for safe drinking water.  By this criterion, and even by the earlier WHO target of 0.05 mg/l, there are dangerously contaminated groundwater sources in, inter alia, Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, China, India, Mexico, Thailand and the USA (recent review here). Of these risk areas, Bangladesh has attracted particular attention, not only because of very high arsenic levels in parts of the groundwater supply but because widespread reliance on this water supply, and the concomitant public health disaster, appears to be the direct result of overseas aid:

In the 1970s, international agencies headed by the United Nations Children’€™s Fund (UNICEF) began pumping millions of dollars of aid money into Bangladesh for tubewells to provide clean drinking water. According to the World Health Organization, the direct result has been the biggest outbreak of mass poisoning in history. Up to half the country’s tubewells, now estimated to number 10 million, are poisoned.

Tubewells are narrow bore, drilled, pump-operated wells designed to access relatively shallow aquifers; millions of these wells were dug as a response to the region’s abnormally high infant mortality rate, much of which was attributed to microbial contamination of surface water. 

In 2000, the WHO estimated that between 35 and 77 million of Bangladesh’s 125 million inhabitants were at risk from arsenic-laden water.  A 2003 paper estimated that current contamination levels could be expected to cause “600,000 cases of keratosis, 125,000 cases of skin cancer, and 3000 fatalities per year from internal cancers”, and in 2004 further studies demonstrated that a large proportion of groundwater supplies throughout the Ganga-Meghna-Brahmaputra Plain may be contaminated, putting at risk a total population of well over 450 million.  These numbers put the Asian arsenic crisis at the head of any list of public health disasters, dwarfing Bhopal or Chernobyl.

Tune in next time

In keeping with my claim that scientists tend to be overwhelmingly honest, I will now confess that not only have I run out of time, I have not finished reading for the rest of this article.  Already, however, one can see a number of questions to which various sciences can perhaps provide answers:

  •     Geology, chemistry: where does the As come from?  How much of it is there, and where is it going?  
  •     Chemistry: how can As be removed from water supplies?  
  •     Biology: is there a better way to remove As?  
  •     Chemistry, biology: would it be better to return to surface water supplies and deal with waterborne disease in other ways?  
  •     Sociology: how do we get the actual people affected to adopt and maintain various solutions?  

Next month, I’ll do my best to find answers to these, and whatever other questions occur to me along the way.  As always, please use the comments to let me know what I’ve missed or got wrong.

….

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

BUILDING SOUND

Image1_3

Elatia Harris

Keith_photo_for_website In the studio on his farm in Manchester, Michigan, Keith Hill makes musical instruments, has done for 35 years.  Until recently, most of those instruments were harpsichords played by professional musicians all over the world.  But then he began questing for the maker’s grail – a violin from his own hands to equal those of Antonio Stradivari and Giuseppe Guarneri.  It’s a long quest, and he has plenty of company.  For the secrets of the great violin makers of Cremona have, famously, never been penetrated, and the attempt to make an instrument sounding that gorgeous has been the fruitless life’s work of countless luthiers in the 250 years since Giuseppe Guarneri made his last.

How is it that Keith Hill could be the maker who gets there?  And how close has he already come?  That’s what I wanted to look into, intrigued that instruments made by some of our era’s most illustrious luthiers do not sound necessarily better than much cheaper mass-produced violins.  Why not?  When physics, mechanics and acoustics have been brought to bear on Cremona violins, and luthiers spare nothing of craft to copy them, creating instruments capable of extreme optical seduction.  And yet, what goes missing is the sound – characteristic, authoritative and ravishing.

Over several years, and more recently, over several focused conversations, Keith Hill and I have talked about the approaches that makers have taken to reclaiming the lost art.  In the world of violin making, Hill is not just a particularly fastidious maker, but a real maverick who conceives of his task differently than others, and is – to use a term that weighs heavily with him — prepared in his imagination for a different result.

EH:
What do you think happened between the time of the great makers — Amati, Stradivari, Guarneri — and the present time for their methods to be such a puzzle to modern makers?

KH: The modern frame of reference happened, and it takes some doing to know the world as a maker of the 17th century would have known it. This includes thinking about acoustics from a completely different point of view. There was a huge shift in the whole basis of scientific culture between the 17th and 18th centuries – towards observation, verifiablility and mathematical proof.  Science began to be dominated by the eye.  Before that, science was closer to what we think of as alchemy, with one favorite activity of a scientist being to draw correlations between everything in the universe.  A musical instrument was a microcosm, governed by Pythagorean ratios and proportions, and before attempting to understand the makers’ way of doing things, it’s necessary to remember that the great violins got their start in the time just before Galileo.

EH: And that the last of the great makers had died before the Enlightenment got underway?

KH: That’s right.  The instruments we’re talking about came from the workshops of three makers in Cremona, between the final years of the 16th century and the first half of the 18th century.  The first was Andrea Amati, who invented the violin as we know it, but the best of the Amati line was his grandson Nicolo, the teacher of both Antonio Stradivari and Andrea Guarneri.  Stradivari was almost 40 by the time he went out on his own in 1680. He was active for a very long time, until the late 1730’s, and extremely productive — he averaged about 25 violins a year, compared to 3 or 4 a year from a good maker today.  Stradivari’s workshop, but not his genius, passed to his two sons. Giuseppe Guarneri “del Gesu” was the grandson of Andrea – the top of the line and rather short-lived.  He died in his 40’s only a few years after Stradivari, in 1744.  So these were family businesses, with the greatest instruments produced by Antonio Stradivari and Giuseppe Guarneri in the early 1700’s.

6grid

EH: What would a violinist today be thinking about in choosing one of these instruments over another?

KH: A violinist is always going to be thinking of the best-sounding and most playable instrument he can find for the money — whatever the money. And even among the best of the best, there is something to choose.  A Guarneri “del Gesu” is about twice as loud as a Strad. It has vocal qualities, whereas a Strad has qualities that are more organ-like.  So it’s apples and oranges.  And of course these instruments don’t change hands very often.  Fritz Kreisler, Jascha Heifetz and Yehudi Menuhin played Guarneri “del Gesu” violins.  Itzak Perlman was playing a Strad in the 1970’s, but he also owns a Guarneri “del Gesu.” By the way, the term “del Gesu” comes from Giuseppe Guarneri’s personal label, which incorporated the intitials I-H-S.  It’s how you tell — from looking, that is — his violins from others of his shop.

EH: What about the differences between them from the modern maker’s point of view?

KH: It’s important to me that Amati used non-harmonic ratios – minor thirds, perfect fourths, minor sixths, and so on. Whereas Stradivari pioneered the shift to harmonic ratios and knew how to tune wood perfectly.  But it’s pretty easy on a Strad to squeak when you play.  When I discovered the connection between tuning with harmonic ratios and the ease of squeaking, and the difficulty caused by these ratios to the ease of speech of the string, I called the effect “distortion resistance.” And Guarneri worked very hard to overwhelm that, which increases the playability of his violins.

3violinists EH: It’s interesting you don’t say a thing about the differences in how these instruments appear. Is it important what a violin looks like?

KH:
No, but that’s what later makers have fixated on anyway.  The great violins do present different appearances.  An Amati is a gorgeous-looking violin.  Stradivari had a very good eye.  A Guarneri violin can show a certain indifference to craft, although that’s not always the case.  By the 1690’s, Strads had found their way to all the ports of Europe, and they are certainly beautiful-looking instruments.  Within 10 to 20 years, Stradivari’s reputation had taken hold securely, and within 100 years of that the demand had taken off.  So copies of Strads and Guarneri violins had become common by the late 18th and early 19th centuries.  If you’re copying, you’re relying on your eyes – the more exact people can see that your copy is, the better for you.  Not everyone who could afford a copy of a Strad had actually heard one played, but they’d heard of it, and knew it ought to look like a rare, fine thing. This is when a cabinet making approach began to dominate violin making, and the level of craft a maker could bring to an instrument decided its value. It’s still that way, with Strad copies taking months to make and looking very close to a real Strad costing lots of money on that basis alone.

EH:
Something is wrong with this picture…

KH: It is. This is because a violin isn’t an artifact that looks a certain way to please your eyes, and when you make one you shouldn’t be testing it with your eyes but with your ears – just as you test the worth of a recipe by taste, and not by how the dish looks when it’s presented.

EH:
But looks aside – why isn’t the whole point of all that craft to make a great-sounding violin?  One that rivals or matches the great violins in sound?

KH: If that were the whole point, it would have been done by now, and many reasons have been given by makers why their violins do not come up to that level – lack of the right woods, the right varnish, the right number of decades for their violins to age to have a shot at sounding like a Strad.  If time was what it took, Guarneri “del Gesu” violins would not have come into their own for decades after Giuseppe Guarneri died, and Strads would not have been coveted all over Europe within 10 years of Stradivari setting up his own shop.  It’s true, even a great violin has to be played-in to sound wonderful, but that can be brought about in a matter of days. We have the choice of wood the great makers had, and then some.  But we don’t even use some – like willow – that they did use.  As for varnish, it really can be a tricky affair, but myths about holy varnish should be disregarded, because the violin has to be a great-sounding violin before it is varnished.  If it isn’t, no varnish will make it so.

EH:
You sound like you had a lot of trial and error yourself.

KH:
Enough to eliminate a great many false paths.

EH:
So, if it’s not the wood, and not the varnish, and not the years, and if makers like the lady with all the machines and meters and earphones in that classic Nova episode “Secrets of the Great Violins” haven’t gotten close –

KH: That’s Carleen Hutchins.  She’s very committed to her own approach, which she believes is a scientific one, and she’s trained many students to do the work the way she does it.  The fact that she is shown on Nova in her workshop “tuning” a plate using the tone generator and wearing ear protectors says just about everything regarding her approach.  To me, the notion of building a musical instrument without the benefit of hearing is…well, what can I say?

EH: Then how do you even get on the path to go after these secrets?

Antoniostradivari KH:  By not conceiving of them as secrets, to start with. Contrary to popular opinion, there were no secrets in the musical instrument workshops of the 17th and 18th century makers. This is because everyone knew just about the same things as everyone else, and left to his own devices in the privacy of his studio each maker developed personal habits and ways of doing things that were distinctive and even unique.  A maker who had some special knack for making a wonderful sound was merely considered more talented, just like today. So the main question is, what did the best makers of the past know about how to make a wonderful sound that we don’t seem to know? To answer this question, you need to know how they thought about sound.

EH:
And you have some ideas about that…

KH: I have made some discoveries about how the great makers may have considered acoustics so as to build sound the way they did.  It takes into account a worldview that has been eclipsed, scientifically speaking, but is no less accurate now than then, when applied to the making of musical instruments. Modern science has been just about useless in that pursuit, if the idea is to make a great violin that can speak to us as the great violins of the past do.  For that, we need to go straight to what the great makers knew.

EH: Something that’s kind of mystical?

KH: No, just something about the way they saw the world.  For instance, I observed about 25 years ago that nature constructs living organisms and tunes the parts of their structure to pure musical ratios — this is what the ancient makers must have known.  Our bones, then, are tuned to pure musical ratios that are part of the harmonic series, and it is the complex of these harmonic ratios in the various bones that makes each of our voices unique. The ancient musical instrument makers then figured out how to “build” these musical ratios into all the parts of their instruments and the results were musical instruments that sound like human voices. This way of thinking is what was lost shortly after the death of Antonio Stradivari and Giuseppe Guarneri, as makers became fixated on mass production methods and lost touch with the other practices of their traditional acoustical infrastructure.

EH:
This is where there have to be similarities between your work and that of Stradivari and Guarneri – in the acoustical infrastructure.

KH:
My work is entirely based on acoustical principles, not on copying the appearances of violins that the great violinists have come to love, respect and covet.  If my violins bear any similarity to the work of Giuseppe Guarneri, it is not because I copied one of his violins, it is because, in a manner of speaking, I copied his mind-set.

 Violinlabel1_2

EH: The better to make the same discoveries he did?

KH:  Exactly. There are principles that I have discovered, learned, intuited, or received from one or two researchers in the field who had a good idea. But I base my designs mostly on my own discoveries about how the sound of the violin can be enhanced. When I discover a way to enhance the sound of my violins, I try to inspect a great antique violin to notice if that same idea was used by any of the great antique makers.  When I can observe that the great makers used that same idea in their making, I know that I have found yet another piece of the puzzle. When I put all the discoveries together in a single expression – in my design for a violin, that is — it will usually end up looking exactly like a 17th to 18th century Cremona violin.  If I am missing a piece of the puzzle, then I can see and hear and feel the differences when I compare my work directly to a great antique violin.  And the closer I get to a sound that compares with a Strad or a Guarneri “del Gesu” violin, the more obvious the perceptual “holes” become.

EH:
Why is that?

KH:
Because anytime you enhance the perception of a thing you enhance everything about it, including all its defects. Sometimes the perceptual “holes” are of such a nature that the idea, concept or principle needed the fill the hole is really elusive.  This is especially true about the violin, and it’s why the solution to the problem of how the ancient makers built sound has universally managed to elude makers, ever since the18th century.

EH
: I noticed that Richard Tognetti, the music director of the Australian Chamber Orchestra, was recently made a long term loan of a Guarneri “del Gesu” violin – the “Carrodus” – but that’s a 10.5 million dollar instrument the likes of which very few even fabulously gifted violinists will ever get to play.  Are you making instruments with them in mind?

KH: 
No. It is not enough to build something that is good enough to satisfy even a great musician because too often even the greatest musicians will be impressed and satisfied if an instrument works well enough to play music on, and sounds good enough not to annoy or irritate the sensitive ear, and is suggestive enough of good sound for them to imagine enjoying playing it again.  I asked Isaac Stern to play my first violin – not because I wanted to know what he thought of it, but because I wanted to know what I thought of it being played by him.

EH:
Okay! What did you think when you heard Isaac Stern playing your first violin?

KH:
It sounded pretty good – no thanks to the violin. We are talking here about the difference between musicianship and building sound. If you have the musicianship, you can compensate very well for a less-than instrument.  For me, that is not good enough, and if I was forced to build instruments of that calibre, I would rather do something that makes tons of money much faster than violin making.  It is only good enough to build a sound that totally inspires the souls of players and listeners.  That is my standard.  If this standard is so high that it will always be out of my reach, I can live with that and die in the process of solving the puzzle.  But both Stradivari and Guarneri knew how to consistently create instruments that inspire the souls of men, so it is not an unreachable goal.  My task is to avoid being influenced by the expectations of the culture at large – and this includes players of genius.

EH: Sounds a little lonely out there.

KH:
Sometimes I relate to that very old movie about Pasteur. Everyone who disagreed with Pasteur was utterly convinced they were doing good work, and that he was the one on the wrong track.

Keithhillviolins_3

EH: So, where are you in the quest to build that sound?

KH:
Well, you’re asking at an interesting time.  Just in the last two years my own estimation of my violins has significantly increased in proportion to how close they sound to what I’m after.  But they aren’t 100% there yet, although my last violin is especially close.  I’m not interested in showing these violins to concert artists just yet, even though I know that at this point they are better than the best 19th century violins, and better even than the second-best 18th century Italian ones.  Having the reputation of a maker who aspires to equal the great makers of Cremona does not interest me.  I have to determine for myself that my violins are indisputably among the best of the best, and when I do that, I will have built sound ready for the best players.

EH:
How easy is it to isolate what’s still missing?

KH: I listen simultaneously for many, many qualities in the tone of the violin, and I listen to assess its playability. The more you can discern these numerous criteria for judging an instrument, the better you will know which are missing from your own.  I continuously ask myself not only what is missing, but what is missing from my violins that is not missing from the greatest violins of the great period.  Right now I’m working on a component I call directness.

EH: How do you define directness?

KH:
Well, it’s the absence of indirection.  The difference between suggesting a point and making a point truthfully, with immediacy, and without regard to how it will be received. And it’s a quality that is both wide and focused.

EH:
You can tune for such a quality?

KH: What I found recently was the precise cause for that effect and I can now produce it reliably on each instrument I make.  Before that, I was working on the effect of velvetiness. 

EH:
How would you describe velvetiness?

KH: When you hear mellifluousness in a voice, what that translates to in a violin is velvetiness.  It’s the complete absence of anything harsh or grating.  It’s soft to the touch, but intense to perception. It’s like velvet in that it really calls attention to itself, and can’t be mistaken for anything else.

EH: How many qualities of this type do you listen for?

KH:
At my webpage on how to evaluate or judge violins, I have a list of criteria with 33 traits that anyone listening to a violin can learn to hear in the sound of just about any great violin.  Yet, I suspect there are more that I have yet to isolate in the sound of the antique violins.  As soon as I am aware of them I will be able to figure out exactly how to build those remaining traits into my violins.

EH:
This reminds me of the distinctions that perfumers make – they describe scent fluently in ways that most of us would never have imagined being able to apprehend it. 

KH:
If you’re talking about mastery, you can only control what you can articulate for yourself – not necessarily for others, but for yourself.  Horowitz really analyzed the business of touch – he had around 30 different touches for the piano.  He obviously didn’t think that was more than he needed.

EH: Do you think other people can learn to build their violins for these effects? 

KH:
I know they can, but they do need to have normal hearing, not less.  My recent Internet friend Pierre Leiba plays the violin and is a mechanical engineer — as a maker, he’s a neophyte.  We’ve been corresponding about an aspect of instrument making I call “area tuning.” On these first MP3 sound samples, you will first hear Pierre playing a violin he made before doing the tuning.  Next, you’ll hear him playing it in two different samples after he took it apart and tuned the wood according to the area tuning principle, but still insufficiently.  Finally, for the last two MP3 recordings, Pierre popped the violin apart and tuned the wood for more precision.

MP3 #1    MP3 #2    MP3 #3

EH: That’s an incredibly dramatic before-and-after demo.  Is there more?

KH:
Yes, here’s Pierre again – he’s playing his violin, and it’s his tuning, after spending a week refining the tuning at my suggestions. What do you think?

MP3 #4    MP3 #5

EH: Wow — that’s no accident.

KH:  No.  No accident.  And pretty soon Pierre should be able to tune wood like a real pro, rather than repeatedly popping the violin apart and going back to revise what he’s done.  The goal is to be able to bring an instrument to completion before you evaluate it. To get the result you are prepared for in your imagination every time.

EH:
Tell me about “tuning the wood.”  And more about “area tuning.”  I’ve heard you refer to these things a few times, and I think I’m getting what you mean.  But it could be I’m not the only one who has a mental picture of a violinist tuning an instrument by twirling its pegs to tighten or loosen the strings…

KH: Well, that’s not quite it. The way I teach people about how tuning works is to make an analogy to road engineering.  That is, the sound energy from the string is like a super expensive racing car that is the fastest car ever made.  The sounding surfaces of a musical instrument are like the road.  The question for the driver is: do I want to drive on a road that is full of potholes, bumps, and ruts, or, do I want to drive on a smooth uniform pavement that angles against the curves and offers no impediments or barriers to driving as fast as my car can go?  Every musical instrument begins its existence like the road with all the potholes, bumps, and ruts.  Every Stradivari violin began its existence that way. Every Guarneri violin began its existence that way.

EH:
Why?

KH: It is the nature of the materials, especially wood, that they are out of tune.  Meaning, the road is full of potholes.  The business of area tuning – and of the tuning principle specifically — is to systematically acoustically fill all the potholes, acoustically grind down all the bumps, and acoustically grade the surface to remove all the ruts.  To acoustically engineer the musical surface so that the sound energy encounters zero impediments to its motion through those materials and to make its way out into the atmosphere where the sound can be heard.  Anything that slows down this energy causes the listener’s perception of that sound to be radically reduced. 

EH: Then a maker can’t prevent that reduction by copying how a great violin looks?

KH:
When makers think they are doing something responsible by making an exact copy, they are deluding themselves and others into thinking that the end result will be of the same quality as the original.  When they assume that making iron filings dance around in patterns by adjusting the flexibility of the violin plates, as so many so-called scientific instrument makers do, they are pretending to do something significant.  The truth is, they are deceiving themselves and others by building the road and leaving it full of potholes, bumps and ruts.

EH:
You’ve met a lot of resistance to this thinking, though.

KH: Absolutely. The resistance I’ve met is because of a nasty problem caused by enhancing a sound – that everything in the sound becomes obvious to the ear.  That is, all the other acoustical defects that were hidden by the un-tuned wood are now out in the open for everyone to hear, notice, and be disgusted by. This happened to me too, when I was figuring out harpsichords, so I know how awful it feels.  But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The more purely and more carefully the wood in the violin is tuned, the more sweet, resonant, intense, brilliant, focused, expansive, and carrying its sound will be. Only the courageous instrument maker will prevail.  Though this is the point at which most makers who try area tuning revert to the safety of their old bad road building habits.  After all, who can tell that the road should have been inclined upwards into that curve to help keep the car on the road if the car can’t travel any faster than 5 miles an hour?

EH: So how does a maker know to push on with area tuning rather than push off?

KH: 
You take the attitude is that you can only fix problems in the sound that you can hear.  What you can’t hear, you can’t fix.  I want to hear everything, all the problems and all the good things.  The good things I want to keep and strengthen and the bad things I want to systematically eliminate.  And I will keep at this until I am dead.  Only the truth sets you free.  Only the truth allows you to know what not to do.

EH: I don’t want to ask you for trade secrets, but — seeing the principle, I want to talk about how it might translate directly into decisions you make at your bench. And directly into the specific sound a player would make with that violin.

KH:  Area tuning works like a stencil.  With a stencil you create the pattern you want and the stencil eliminates every other possibility for you.  The musical ratios you select for your tuning system are like the holes in the stencil.  The size of the areas to which you tune a ratio is like the size of the hole.  That is, if you want to hear lots of nasalness in the sound, you choose a larger area for the 3:2 ratio that makes the sound, or you make more than one area with the 3:2 ratio.  The stencil or pattern of ratios controls how much of such and such an overtone will be apparent, of the various harmonics you select.  So, when the violin is finally playing, the sound you hear will reflect that ratio according to how much surface area is devoted to that ratio.  In other words, the ratios you select for the tuning system will be heard in the sound in amount according to how much surface area you gave to that ratio.  It is a direct correlation.

EH:
This is wonderful of you to talk with me.  It’s what I’ve been hoping for years to make a start on understanding. I’ll be back!

KH: It is important to me that the rest of the world, and not just the aficionados of the violin, be able to comprehend the true nature of sound and all that there is in a great sound to be delighted in.  The more mystery is removed, the more wonderful the experience of listening is made because it is in the very nature of complexity that it delights the mind the more its intricacies are grasped by everyone.  Knowing about how things work only increases our feelings of wonder and awe about them, just as keeping things mysterious only causes us to argue and opinionate.  As one acoustical scientist once told me, in science we try to keep things simple…if it isn’t simple enough, we can’t study it. So maybe that is why they have failed?

Violinlabel2

WEB RESOURCES FOR THIS ARTICLE

http://www.keithhillharpsichords.com/
http://www.violins.keithhillharpsichords.com/judging_violins.html
http://www.instrumentmaking.keithhillharpsichords.com/areatuning.0.html
http://www.instrumentmaking.keithhillharpsichords.com/areatuninghints.html
http://www.violins.keithhillharpsichords.com/antiqueing_article.html
http://www.instrumentmaking.keithhillharpsichords.com/hillviolinvarnish.html
http://www.musicalratio.com/
http://marianneploger.com/

Compositionfeather

Monday, July 30, 2007

Gustav Mahler: ‘Though I sang in my chains like the sea’

Australian poet and author Peter Nicholson writes 3QD‘€™s Poetry and Culture column (see other columns here). There is an introduction to his work at peternicholson.com.au and at the NLA.

A recent performance of the Sixth Symphony at the Sydney Opera House put me in a continuing Mahler mood, as could be expected. This great work imposed its cataclysmic lurch from exaltation to vertiginous despair and its final pizzicato abandonment of hope with the usual directness. However, this time, some vitality and inwardness stayed after the performance, something that countered the tragic import of this most brutal of symphonic works.

My reactions to performances of Mahler’s music always vary. There is so much malleable psychic energy in it. Pain and beauty rear and twist in the air with never-to-be-resolved tensions. Dylan Thomas’€™ line from €˜’Fern Hill’—’€˜Though I sang in my chains like the sea’—seems true to the Mahler soundscape: bound in flesh, yearning for transcendence, alive to the beauty of the world but always aware of looming disaster, the whole threaded with nervelines of alpine respite or ominous farewell. Sometimes the endings are heroic and confident, as in the Second, Third and Eighth symphonies; at other times, as in the Sixth, the final sense is one of exhaustion. Unchained melody liberates from the sheltering sky an apparent freedom to explore the boundless world of our feelings, the Alma-inspired celebrations at the end of the first movement and the hammer blows in the final movement of the Sixth paralleling our own confrontations with fate.

Ever since I was a teenager, I have loved Mahler’€™s music. I remember being at the first Australian performance of Deryck Cooke’s performing version of the Tenth at one of the Sydney Proms, conducted by the indefatigable John Hopkins, seeing Solti take the Chicago Symphony through a chilled Ninth, hearing a grave, burnished Seventh with Dean Dixon, near the end of his life, and so much more. Always, new revelations, new orders of feeling.

The sickly young boy from Kalischt who became the director of the Vienna State Opera and universally-admired composer never had easy successes. The struggle to get through the rampant anti-Semitism of his time left markings that eventually led to transatlantic crossings. There were also his own personal tragedies to contend with—the death of his siblings and of his daughter, the diagnosis of his heart disease. Kindertotenlieder, the songs on the death of children, are a lugubrious reminder of Mahler’s personal biography. It’€™s hard not to think of Schiele’s emaciated figures when listening to them. Though Mahler was triumphant at the Opera, he was particularly vexed at Richard Strauss’ musical successes, his own being so much harder-won. Taking up with Alma Schindler, Kokoschka’s €˜bride of the wind, wasn’€™t going to lead to a settled existence either. The Mahler world: a combination of sensuality and puritanism, composed by a liberal, conducted by a martinet. What did Mahler want to be when he grew up? ‘A martyr’€™ replied the man-child. All of this can be felt in the music. Overriding all is a love of the world and a celebration of the self that is liberating, when, as in the performance of the Sixth in Sydney, the music is given its due.

Mahler’s biographer, Henry-Louis de la Grange, may have marked out the life biography comprehensively, but the spiritual biography of the music remains elusive, containing, as it does, so much contradictory and combustible emotional material. I don’€™t believe in the predictive powers of music—€”I don’€™t think Mahler foresaw the Holocaust. But I do know his music expresses our fears and joys, wonder at nature, spiritual doubts, and splendour. And his music is equal to tragedy, swooping from above, covering all in the shimmer and glint of tremolo, brass fanfare, harp glissando. The wound of life sometimes shrieks or offers praise. Suddenly, all is lost, or won. Summer marches in. Autumn prepares for final things.

Finally driven from Vienna, the Mahlers set up home in New York. A moment I should like to have witnessed. Mahler has just finished a rehearsal of the complete Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No 3 with Rachmaninov at the piano. Just as the orchestra is about to break Mahler insists on a repetition of the entire concerto. Rachmaninov fears an outbreak of ‘a taxi for the maestro’. But Mahler gets his way. Just as he makes us listen to his supersized symphonies with their Promethean heights and depths. Perhaps Mahler’s feeling for the poetic helps here, the sensitive settings of Des Knaben Wunderhorn and Rückert, a feeling that gets into all of his music. It could all be seen, and sometimes has been, as straining for significance by those who don’t like the music. When some cultural product now resembles landfill, how good to have every bar alive with energy and poetry, to find, amid today’€™s contemporary brouhaha, a gold standard for our uncertain leaps to the sublime, in which we don’€™t believe, our slippages into convenient self-approval. However, the price to be paid for this standard was Mahler’s relative unsuccess in his own life. The cult of Mahler came later with its cycles of recordings, the Ken Russell film, the festivals and scholarship. 

When some are now discontent with their first life, pursuing a second one in cyberspace, Mahler asks that we confront our first life directly, no squirming into an avatar’€™s disguise possible. But Mahler does not make it easy going for us on the journey. He insists on you considering your own seriousness, which some don’€™t want to do.

Vorbei!—€“it’€™s over—€”Gustav Klimt commented as the Mahlers left Vienna, bound for New York, the perceived cultural richness of the Sezession beginning to fragment.

But no. A faltering heartbeat. Veni creator spiritus. A drinking song of the earth’s sorrow. Resurrection. The great cyclothymic spirals of musical DNA cross, connect and part, forever trying to reconcile the fraught human condition in song, hymn and elegy.

Sir Simon Rattle conducts the end of Mahler’s Symphony No 8 with its setting from Goethe’s Faust here. The National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain is performing at the 2002 London Proms. 7′ 42”

Below the Fold: Pitching Prescriptions and Patient Empowerment

Michael Blim

An elderly couple is at the piano, the wife playing and the husband standing next to her turning the pages of the music. They have been to see their doctor. The husband has Alzheimer’s disease, and he has been prescribed Aricept. The result: he can follow a piano score and turn pages on cue.

Remarkable. For the 5 million suffering from Alzheimer’s and for the several million people who care for them, this television ad offers hope. The message is that high cognitive functioning – reading music, responding to the pianist’s behavioral cues, and turning the pages in time – is within their grasp if Alzheimer’s patients take Aricept. Lulled by a reassuring female voice, the figure of a helpful and informative doctor in a white coat seated with the patient and his spouse, a beautiful house replete with piano, and the figure of a loving couple, they forget (as I admit I do) that the people in the ad are actors. They forget that this ad is no less an act of persuasion than the Mazda “Zoom-zoom.” They forget, or are not told, that the scene is a fake and interaction is scripted. Nor are they told that the results of taking Aricept are modest, and the drug is costly.

Aricept, according to the Alzheimer’s Association, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat symptoms of mild to severe Alzheimer’s disease. “Its benefit in treating Alzheimer’s,” they write, “is also modest, often described as postponing progression for an average of six months for some, but not all, individuals.” A recent study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (June 9, 2005) showed that Aricept delayed the onset of Alzheimer’s disease for 12 months among persons already diagnosed as having mild cognitive impairment. As compared with control groups taking a placebo or vitamin E, the small advantage noted for Aricept-takers disappeared by the 3-year end of the study. The investigation was funded by the National Institute on Aging, Eisai, Aricept’s maker, and Pfizer, its promoter.

Aricept is expensive. According to Pillbot.com, a site that gathers current retail prices for drugs sold by major outlets like CVS, Rite Aid, and COSTCO, a 30-day prescription for 10 milligrams of Aricept, the usual dose, costs an average of $134, or $1608 a year. If a patient buys the same dose with a 90-day script, the cost is an average of $368, or $1272 a year.

Aricept, Nexium, Lipitor, Prevacid, Zocor, Viagra, Plavix, Pravachol, Paxil, Ambien, Celexa, Caduet. These brands are among a score or more of the drugs that are advertised during the nightly national news. Sometimes you can switch channels and find the same drug being advertised at the same time.

The pharmaceutical industry in the United States and worldwide is a big business. That’s why its critics (and now some Wall Street analysts too) call it “Big Pharma.” In the United States last year, the pharmaceutical industry grossed $275 billion. To put this figure into perspective, consider that the American people spent more on pharmaceutical drugs than they did on new cars last year.

Product “promotion” is key. No doubt you have noticed pharmaceutical representatives in your doctor’s waiting rooms. Young, clean-cut, always smiling, they are the detailers hoping to get a word in with the doctor before she sees you. Blandishments include those free samples, “starter kits,” of drugs your doctor passes on to you. Big Pharma spent $6.7 billion in 2006 on detailing, and another half a billion dollars a year advertising in professional journals. They spent $4.8 billion on consumer advertising. In all, Big Pharma spent $12 billion to push its products.

Like the old senator used to say: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money.” It is consoling perhaps to know that there are other industries –11 in fact – that spent more last year on consumer advertising than Big Pharma. They include auto producers and retailers with $20 billion each, and telecom and financial services industries between $8 and $10 billion a piece. Personal care, airlines and hotels, films, media, and restaurant industries spent around $5 billion each last year, as did advertising for non-prescription health remedies.

Against these industries, Big Pharma’s $4.8 billion spent on advertising seems positive prudent – a mere 1.8% of their American revenues, while the auto industry spent the equivalent of 10% of sales on ads.

Getting well, however, is not like buying a Chevrolet. You can’t kick the tires and road-test a drug, even if from time to time you are offered money like a cash back rebate for getting your doctor to prescribe it. Big Pharma knows that its product is unique, and that because few in the audience can understand what the drugs do and how the drugs do it, the companies must sell trust and well-being. They invite us into a world where nothing is fatal – at least not yet – and most illnesses have cures. To build trust and to offer well being, they put actors in white coats, surround actors pretending to be sick with other actors who pretend to be their spouses, children, or grandchildren. The drug world, once the actors pretending to be patients leave the doctor’s office, is a sunny, green, outdoor world. It could be Walden Pond, a corral in Kentucky blue grass country, or a suburban playground filled with beautiful children, one among them the actor portraying someone’s child or grandchild. In the drug world, there is love all around, including a helping hand extended by Big Pharma.

“Ask your doctor about….” Fill in the blank. It is almost always the cut line. And with good reason, because people do. A survey of 784 physicians reported in the 2004 Archives of Internal Medicine conducted by a team headed by Dr. Andrew Robinson found that 80% of the doctors indicated that patients had asked them for prescriptions for specific drugs by name, even though a companion study of 500 Colorado households showed that only 29% of those surveyed thought drug advertising was a good thing. Do as I say, not as I do, those households seem to be saying.

Advertising and a patient’s suggestion seem to work on doctors too. Another study reported in the April 2005 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association an experiment in which actors pretending to be fatigued were sent to 152 doctors. When they mentioned that they had heard of the antidepressant Paxil, they were five times more likely to be prescribed the drug than if they had made no mention of the drug during the office visit. As a supplemental finding, the study found that 50% of the actors were diagnosed with depression!

Pharmaceutical companies were prohibited from advertising directly to consumers until the Food and Drug Administration in 1997, during the Clinton Administration, gave them the green light. Since then, the FDA with few exceptions has given Big Pharma carte blanche. Its FDA Magazine in the July-August 2004 issue featured a glowing article on the impact of direct consumer advertising. Of the 736 doctors reported surveyed by the FDA, 53% believed that they had better discussions with their patients; 42% felt that their patients had better awareness of treatment options. The article quotes Peter Pitts, then the FDA associate commissioner for external relations: “The goal here is getting truthful, non-misleading information to consumers about safe and effective therapeutic products so they can be partners in their own health care. Better-informed consumers are empowered to choose and use the products we regulate to improve their health.” (emphasis mine)

What is the value of empowerment when one is provided a few highly selective facts in a gauzy, feel good frame? One remembers the emotion and the drug name, and probably little else. As far as those better discussions doctors say they are having, one might take this response with a grain of salt, given Dr. Jerome Groopman’s report in his new book, How Doctors Think, that physicians begin making their diagnosis within seconds of seeing their patients.

Doctors no less than their patients are being led along by Big Pharma. Research is sponsored by Big Pharma, and only now are these funding sources mentioned in scientific journals alongside findings. Conferences, seminars, calendars, pads, pens, clipboards, anatomical diagrams, plastic replicas of organs – and even the Friday afternoon staff pizza – are being paid for by Big Pharma. And doctors watch TV too.

Could we ban drug advertising to consumers once again? It would take a revolution at the FDA, an act of Congress, or both. And then, our runaway Supreme Court could outdo itself in ignoring institutional prerogatives and legislative history and proclaim drug advertising an exercise in freedom of speech.

As a practical matter, though, young people don’t even know that cigarette television advertising was banned and the rest of us probably don’t remember much about it either – save that hunky Marlboro man.

It could be done. Knowledge about our health and remedies could acquire a professional filter once again. Rather than the motivation of an emotion and a name, a higher standard of judgment could be applied as to what drugs work, and what drugs are worth the expense. Perhaps it would be a good thing as well to eliminate those junkets for doctors, the detailers’ blandishments, and all of the other inducements carefully placed in our physicians’ paths.

Evening up the odds with Big Pharma — now that could be empowerment.

Teaser Appetizer: Sally Does Yoga

I buttoned my white coat, adjusted the stethoscope around my neck, opened the door and entered the examination room.

I hadn’t seen Sally for a few years.

On this day, what I remembered of her was: a high-strung person with recalcitrant belly pains, which I had not been able to palliate, in spite of all available drugs. She suffered from irritable bowel syndrome of unusual severity, which responded neither to neglect nor therapy.

There she was: sitting on the examination table wearing a bright orange shirt, smiling under the bight fluorescent light.

I extended my hand. “How are you, Sally? How long has it been?”

Seven or eight years” she said, shaking my hand

“ Nice to see you again.” I said.

Looking at her medical chart, the last entry eight years ago showed she took four different kinds of drugs for intestinal colic relief.

“What medicines are you taking now?”

“None” She replied

“How come?” I was surprised.

“You told me to meditate and I did. My pain got better and I stopped taking pills.”

My jaw would have dropped at this miracle, if I hadn’t learned the Marcus Welby technique of suppressing astonishment.

I had not written ‘meditation’ in her chart but I had no reason to disbelieve her.

I recalled having told her to meditate, not out of conviction, but out of sheer frustration, as she had responded to none of the chemicals that I had loaded her with.

And meditation had worked! She told me that she wanted to help others and wanted to know the opportunities in the field. “Surely” she said, “ some aspect of meditation has not been exploited yet.”

Before I talk any further about Sally’s visit, I will summarize what we know about ‘meditation.’

Yogabalance1‘Meditation’ is but one of the many steps in Yoga, a metaphysical technique developed over thousands of years in ancient India. Patanjali, a sage, who probably lived around 200 BC, compressed all that was practiced and known at his time into 195 aphorisms – known as Yoga Sutra. Nothing much has changed in the essence of this philosophy and all the variations of Yoga and meditation that are popular now emanate from this original source.

Yoga philosophy says, mind exists in four states: awake, sleep, dream and a state called ‘Thuriya’ – a Sanskrit word – which simply translates into “fourth’ state, where the mind is a pure ‘consciousness and bliss’ and devoid of thoughts. The aim of Yoga – which means ‘to unite’- is to reach this fourth state of mind and be one with the ‘ultimate reality’ which they called ‘Brahman.” The practice is hard, takes many years and only a few succeed.

Patanjali describes eight steps to calm and discipline the mind to arrive at the ‘fourth state’. The commercial ‘ gurus’ emphasize usually just one of the eight steps to create their own brand of ‘Yoga’ and differentiate themselves form other competing ‘gurus.’ The eight steps are:

1. ‘Yama’ (Sanskrit): Abstain from violence, covetousness, sexual indulgence and greed. The first two steps are not different from the teachings of other religious systems, but in Yoga, this is just a prelude, a beginner’s exercise to calm the mind, which prepares the novice for next steps.

2. ‘Niyama’: Practice purity, contentment, austerity, introspection and devotion. These two steps are the most important but least popular. They also have no commercial value for entrepreneurs – no customer pays for advice to abstain from sex and greed.

3. ‘Asana’: Posture exercises to make the supple and flexible. Also called ‘Hatha Yoga’ — this is the money making venture for the Yoga entrepreneurs. The contorted bodies of leotard hugging figures makes it a visual treat on an advertisement poster. The gyms, strip mall Yoga centers and unemployed celebrities have popularized this step for weight reduction, beauty enhancement and muscle toning.

4. ‘Pranayama’: Control of breath and breathing techniques. In yoga system breath is akin to the basic life source and perfect breathing technique can restore health. Nose is the primary inlet – outlet and abdominal muscles are superior to chest muscles to for breathing action. This step is also popular with the entrepreneurs, who use variations in breathing technique to establish their superior value. Faster breathing, slower breathing, exhaling against a closed glottis (Valsalva maneuver) and use of only abdominal muscles are some of the branded methods. These techniques may have immediate perceptible effects like slowing the heart rate by Valsalva maneuver or dizziness due to hyperventilation, which may impress the gullible customer.

5. “Pratihara’: Withdrawal of mind from the sensory stimulation. Monks and sages have retreated into monasteries, forests, mountains and holy cities to get away from the mundane distractions of the daily world.

6. ‘Dharana’: Concentration on a single object. Once the practitioner is adept in the in the first five aspects, it is time to practice contemplating on a single object, which could be a sound, breath, a syllable (Mantra) or even a common object like a candle.

7. ‘Dhyana’: The practitioner with a supple body, proper breathing technique, without distractions can now sit quietly in a silent place and contemplate. She tries to ignore the constantly erupting thoughts and concentrate on a single object. With practice the meditation sessions get longer and the mind becomes more thoughtless and she may rarely slip into the next stage of bliss.

In the commercial world, where execution speed is of value, a novice is initiated into this stage without prior preparation. The benefit to the customer is weak but the revenue stream is strong, which propels the Yoga centers oversell “meditation.’

8. ‘Samadhi’: Super conscious fourth state or bliss. A miniscule number of lucky meditators finally arrive at this level. Scientists who have worked on subjects reaching this stage have quoted the feeling of subjects in this stage as rapturous, tremulous and experience unprecedented bliss. Thoughts settle into a state of pure awareness and the observer, observed and the process of observation merge into one. The experience of deep meditation has encouraged articulate writers to give it a spin and compare this state with happenings at the “quantum” level and describe intriguing similarities to the uncertainty principle and even Bell’s theorem.

Does Yoga help health and well-being? Numerous scientific studies in the last 70 years have collected evidence that the practice of Yoga affects the body in many ways. Here is the summary of some salient findings.

–Heart rate slows during peaceful meditation and accelerates in moments of ecstasy. There are stories about the adept yogis stopping the heart in trance. Studies have shown, while the pulse may not be palpable, the EKG continues to show the electric activity.

–Meditation lowers systolic blood pressure in normal or people with mild hypertension, to the extent of 25 mmHg. Combination with other relaxation techniques, like biofeedback is more effective than meditation alone and the effect disappears if meditation is discontinued.

–Many studies have shown that meditators reduce the respiration rate; oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide elimination and can sometimes suspend breathing for longer periods compared to control subjects, without ill effects.

–Muscle tension decreases and the brain electric activity (EEG) show frequent slow high amplitude alpha waves. Experienced meditators and those nearing ecstasy show bursts of faster waves rising from in the front brain. Epileptic like activity without the seizures in the temporal lobe on the side of the brain has prompted speculations that this part of the brain is the seat of religious experience.

–Adrenal hormones, lactate and cholesterol may decrease.

–Pain perception decreases and significant psychological improvements can occur in people suffering from chronic pain.

–Long-term meditators acquire a sense of equanimity, sensory detachment from the outer world and a growing sense of being a witness to their bodies.

–Controversy exists about improvement in memory, intelligence, and short-term concentration, though experienced meditators can control intrusion of irrelevant thoughts.

–Negative effects accompany positive benefits with any intervention and Yoga is no different. In a survey done in 1984 at Stanford, from 4 to 9 % long-term meditators reported adverse effects of anxiety, confusion, depression, emotional instability, frustration, suspiciousness, and withdrawal. In other studies, meditators have reported illusions, hallucinations, relapse of schizophrenia and suicidal thoughts. These effects correlate with the length and depth of mediation. The ancient texts describe Yoga path as “sharp like a razor’s edge.” For serious long-term practitioners, the tradition strongly recommends guidance of an experienced teacher.

Now, I come back to Sally. Meditation had relieved her from constant pain and drug dependence; it had given a freedom from chemical crutches. She had explored various commercial angles and had decided that writing a self – help book would have a larger market. She wanted me to co-author the book. I explained to her that, trained in the ‘scientific’ medicine, we have an acquired contempt for anything ‘eastern’ or ‘herbal” and we do not normally mention or commit such acts – that smack of quackery – in our medical practices.

“But surely you helped me and we could help others. Why would you not help?” She protested.

“It is plain prejudice, euphemistically called bias.” I said.

“ And what will be the title of your book?” I enquired.

“ Meditate, Don’t Medicate.” She announced.

Monday, July 23, 2007

The other Lonestar state

Edward B. Rackley

Lib_flagAfter a couple of rain-soaked days and nights in Monrovia, Liberia’s capital and on record as one of the world’s wettest cities, it was time to venture out for a quick run.

There is no green space in Monrovia, only piles of human waste and decades of accumulated debris from buildings rocked by fourteen years of civil conflict. The decline is accelerated by the pounding rainy seasons and years of neglect. Utterly evaporated is the Monrovia described in Graham Greene’s Journey without Maps: “a life so gay, with dancing and the cafés on the beach.” From my lodgings in a dilapidated convent near the beach, I thought I might head in that direction. I’ve always associated coastlines with escape and was needing one now.

According to local legend, the Liberian coast was an international surfing destination in the seventies and eighties. Huge swells were visible from my dank quarters on the convent’s second floor. Today the beach is a no-go area for ordinary Liberians, as the city’s criminal elements congregate there to wait for nightfall. It also happens to be chemically toxic. Monrovia’s open sewers dump their contents directly into the coastal surf and local rivers, and passing oil freighters have been discharging their bilge inside unguarded national waters for years.

The result is a noxious coastline; the city itself is close to being the foulest urban environment I’ve ever seen or smelled. The town of Kismaayo in southern Somalia wins that title hands down: an urban coastline where goat and camel herds bleat into oblivion awaiting slaughter in the chop shops on the beach. Blood and offal drain into the wet sand where vultures congregate, shuffling around in a thick cloud of flies. Sharks navigate the shallow water where the blood stream from the abattoirs meets the sea. Hundreds of Somalis wander this rancid stretch, reaching the water only to defecate in the open surf. A real inter-species beach party.

Dogs and bones

From the convent gate I run to the end of the street. It is populated by would-be mechanics and Flintstone-era cars propped up on piles of rocks. Boys roll 50 gallon oil drums around the cracked tarmac, and bony dogs stand stationary, panting in the muggy heat. A twenty-foot cinder block wall separates the end of the street from the beach, topped by coils of barbed wire. Where a steel gate had once granted access, only rusty hinges are now visible. I poke my head through and take in the northern coastline. Waves rush up to the wall; the beach has eroded away almost entirely. Teenagers, students perhaps, huddle in groups close to the wall against the strong winds. Running on the beach here is not an option.

As I linger, I recall a story about the one open grassy area in Monrovia, behind the abandoned presidential mansion. The mansion ignited in flames during the inauguration festivities in early 2006 and was never repaired. A colleague told me he used to run his dog there until a thief was electrocuted last week stealing live electrical cables from the mansion grounds. Security forces then cordoned off the area. The same thing happened at Monrovia airport when I was flying in: our flight was re-routed in order to make a daytime landing. The electrical cables serving to illuminate its landing strip had been dug up and stolen.

I turn around and head past the mechanics and into the thick of Monrovia traffic. Between the moving cars, trucks and throngs of pedestrians were dozens of shifty, ravenous canines. Not exactly menacing, they look like diseased, gaunter versions of our own dog at home, an African mut who came from nearby Togo. Among the occasional pecking/scratching chicken and the bands of street kids, I notice one dog suddenly perk up and launch into a sprint. As my gaze returns to the path before me I see a small boy holding a section of boiled cow’s spine, picked off the curb near a street side vendor.

Seeing the dog coming at him, the boy positions himself behind a burned-out vehicle carcass. He stands on tiptoe to peer over the door handle through to the other side of the vehicle, reading the dog’s next move. The dog stops and raises his head; from my vantage their eyes appear to lock. Immediately the dog lunges around the corner of the vehicle in pursuit. As I pass alongside their encounter, the boy is tightening his grip on the spinal section, the dog now a blur. I keep running, not breaking my pace. How many times has this boy fought off dogs in order to eat? How many times has this dog stolen food from a child?

Freedom and nothingness

I was last in this corner of West Africa about five years ago, when Charles Taylor was running Liberia under an iron grip of fear, loathing and frequent sprays of lead. Fighting in Sierra Leone had spilled over into southeastern Guinea where I was based, about 120km north of Monrovia—it’s a very compact neighborhood. Liberian refugees had already been camped in the area for years, surviving on handouts from aid agencies.

In an ungoverned and thickly forested corner of Guinea called the ‘Parrot’s beak’, Liberian and Salonean refugees numbered in the hundreds of thousands. The venal Guinean president-for-life, Lasana Conté, full of xenophobic ire, was on the radio daily, inciting his countrymen to ‘protect the homeland’ and to ‘deal with the foreign invasion by any means necessary’. Guinea was indeed descending into chaos, but not because of the refugee influx.

Roadblocks were everywhere, manned by armed adolescents appointed by Guinean soldiers. Refugee camps were attacked in the night; Guinean towns were sacked, eviscerated and scorched to the ground in apparent reprisal by the refugees. Eyewitnesses attested in confidence that the Guinean army was responsible for the attacks on the towns. Disgruntled and unpaid, often of the same ethnicity as the refugees, Guinean soldiers were profiting from the chaos. Unsalaried Salonean rebels used the same method, ‘Operation Pay Yourself’.

UNHCR and the handful of NGOs operating in the area prepared for Guinea’s imminent collapse and the explosion of yet another massive refugee crisis. The mire of West Africa was sucking another country down. Taylor was believed to be behind all of it.

At the height of this hot-headed xenophobia, Guinean civilians and military decided our presence was hostile because we were assisting Liberian and Salonean refugees. Under international law, refugees are entitled to relief assistance and protection, having fled civil and ethnic conflict in their own land. Local Guineans were jealous and resentful of the assistance offered the refugees. As clashes between refugees and Guinean civilians began to reach our operational base in Kissidougou, we piled in jeeps and fled northeast to Kan Kan.

Our presence was clearly no deterrent against these state-ordered pogroms and the destruction of refugee encampments. We did at least meticulously document these acts as violations of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights, for which Conté was ultimately responsible. Yet here we were, leaving the refugees to their fate. Would this be another Rwanda? No one wanted to stay to find out.

I remember standing on the street in Kan Kan along the Milo River, a tributary of the Niger, and not far from the Mali border. Kan Kan is home to the famous Malinké people, the tribe of Guinea’s most famous son, Sekou Touré, anti-colonialist militant and the country’s first president. Like Conté who overthrew him in 1984, Sekou Touré the visionary would become a paranoid, tyrannical and incontinent ruler, his socialist experiment an abject failure.

Bridge_2Kan Kan is a university town with a strong Sahelian feel, where used textbooks are sold by hawkers beneath tall palms and the few remaining colonial structures in this part of Guinea. As I walked among the dusty titles lying on the ground, I noticed a volume of Sekou Touré’s revolutionary poems, Poèmes militantes, published in Moscow in the early 1970s. The tone of the collection was a cross between Mao’s Red Book with its clunky paeans to the proletariat, and the intoxicated ramblings of the Sartrean psychoanalyst and anti-colonialist Franz Fanon. Added to the mix was a strident anti-Gaullism, full of bloodlust and probably shocking to French readers of the day. I laughed at the thought as I turned to haggle with the seller for a better price.

Monrovia abuzz

Today Conté is still in power, more venal and paranoid than ever. The country teeters on the brink. Guineans protest sporadically for reform, but without momentum or cohesive strategy. In Liberia things are much more positive, if tentative and still quite desperate. Taylor is long gone, and awaits his fate in The Hague. The current president is a former World Bank economist, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Africa’s first female head of state. She won close elections in late 2005 against world soccer star George Weah. This gives you some idea of what many Liberians think is important in a leader.

As Sirleaf steps into her new role, the tasks facing Liberia are massive—resettlement of vast numbers of displaced persons and refugees, solidification of a still-fragile peace, training and equipping armed security forces and police, a complete rebuilding of the country’s government, economy and infrastructure. Control of the diamond, timber and rubber trafficking is another task, essential to filling the national treasury. Monrovia, named after US President James Monroe, is engorged with over half the country’s population (3.2 million). 85% of Liberians are jobless; only 15% are literate.

Yet Monrovia is buzzing along. I hop in taxis and wander around comfortably, enjoying the American gangster rap blaring from storefront loudspeakers. There are no military roadblocks, and unarmed police in their NYPD blue uniforms conduct traffic and chase down road violations on foot, waving truncheons and yelling to all and sundry. The only automatic weapons or heavy artillery I’ve seen in public were at the airport. UN tanks and APCs are no longer doing patrols. Liberian refugees are slow to regain their homelands and the interior remains completely cut off from the outside world. Many fear the resulting security void when the 14,000 UN peacekeepers leave.

Liberia_coat_of_armsThe Liberian coat of arms depicts a coastal scene at sunset, where white doves fly above a three-masted schooner. On land a plough and shovel rest against a swaying palm tree. Above the image runs a phrase that, along with the ship, suggests that the idea of Liberia originated elsewhere: “The love of freedom brought us here.” Look no further than the Liberian flag, with its lone white star on a blue field and red and white stripes, to learn where the country and its founders originated.

Never colonized, Liberia was not ruled from Washington DC the way other African countries were ruled by colonial powers. Starting in the early 1820s, hundreds of freed US slaves were sent to coastal West Africa by anti-slavery societies. In 1847 they founded the continent’s oldest republic. For most of the country’s history, Liberian-Americans, descendants of the freed slaves, have ruled the country and controlled its wealth by excluding the nation’s indigenous people.

Earlier this year I wrote a piece about the need to reverse brain drain and exile if post-conflict countries like Liberia or DR Congo are to reconstitute themselves, ending decades of dependency on foreign aid. At the time, this was a counter-factual scenario, as I knew of no post-conflict country where the educated elite living abroad had actually returned to lead reconstruction and assume roles in government. Liberia today is such a place. Liberian-Americans like Johnson-Sirleaf are returning in large numbers, taking official positions and opening businesses.

How are they being received? Given Liberia’s historical tensions between the indigenous African demographic and those with historical ties to America, relations are strained. In 1980 Samuel Doe led a malicious and bloody coup against the American-Liberian leadership of William Tolbert (in whose government Sirleaf served), protesting a long history of marginalization and discrimination. A new era of just governance and ethnic non-partisanship is promised. Doe lasted a mere ten years before a long, ritualistic murder ended his rule. His trial by kangaroo court, gruesome torture sessions and ultimate execution were filmed on VHS; the tape circulated widely in West Africa throughout the 1990s.

‘Out out damned spot’

Every Liberian overthrow and assassination since that of Doe v. Tolbert in 1980 has come about through violence. Every victor has promised to restore rule of law and to correct the abuses of the former regime, often framed along ethnic lines involving American-Liberians and indigenous groups. Where political transitions frequently involve bloodshed—and there are many Liberias in Africa—I tend to frame the process in terms of laundry detergent. Don’t laugh too hard, I have good reasons.

Of the African warlords I have met in different contexts all them were driven and deluded by a savior complex. Some were politically savvy and well-educated (Jean-Pierre Bemba in DRC), others knuckle-dragging Neanderthals (Omar Jess in Somalia; Minnie Minawi in Darfur). Yet all of them spoke the language of laundry detergent: they would ‘cleanse and heal’ the nation of previous injustices and wrongheaded policies.

Laundry detergent has good explanatory power for a second reason: it’s as common and ephemeral as the dictators and warlords themselves. No need to glorify these people with a ‘savior complex’. Despite their using a shared language of restored social justice etc., none of Liberia’s coup leaders since 1980 has been able to ‘out the spot’ left by vanquished regimes. President Sirleaf seems apprised of the tidal forces behind political upheaval in Liberia’s recent history. She appointed her son as Minister of Defense. He’ll have to deal with someone’s laundry detergent dreams one day down the road.

Selected Minor Works: The Joy of Russia

Putin’s Teens Gleefully Fight Fascism

Justin E. H. Smith

What does it mean to be ‘antifascist’?  Is this position laudable by definition, or is it just as prone to sinister deformation as any other?

Here in Berlin the meaning of ‘Antifa’ appears crystal clear: it applies to the squatters of Neukölln and Friedrichshain, the pierced-faced riff-raff out to cause trouble and have fun at G8 summits, the gays and lesbians throat-kissing on the U-Bahn platforms in full sight of awkward and silenced Turkish families, the humane defenders of immigrant workers against the thuggery of former-DDR skinheads, the proud drinkers of politically correct beverages such as Afri-Cola, the jubilant blonde supporters of Brazil’s sinewy dark-skinned heroes in their World Cup match against Germany itself.  That is, German antifascists are against big capital, nationalism, racism, and the constriction of individual liberties, even where the exercise of these might offend tradition.  We can of course argue about whether these kids should really be getting away with not paying rent, and about whether the evils of McDonald’s and Coca-Cola really have much in common with the evils of Dachau and Buchenwald, but one thing is clear: as far as their view of their own national identity relative to others goes, the prevailing ethos of today’s German youth is genuinely antifascist.  Things could not be more different in Russia.

AttachapiI first came to realize that the Cold War was not at all over when, on a night train from the Russian Baltic colony of Kaliningrad to Berlin in 1999, I found myself stuck in a compartment with a drunk and obese Russian man.  At some point, my neighbor got it into his head that he would be more comfortable shirtless, thus revealing a gross collage of prison tattoos carved into his massive rolls of fat.  He and his scrawny friend with no teeth had a crate full of Ostmark beer to drink, and a bag of sausages and tomatoes.  They sang for hours what sounded like army songs, talked rudely of Russian women, and, when the little fellow dozed off momentarily, the big lug responded by vomiting out his beer and sausage and tomatoes upon the floor. 

It was at this point that I went to complain to the diminutive Polish steward, who replied sensibly that he knew better than to make trouble with a brute like the one with whom luck had stuck me for the night.  I returned to the compartment and discovered that the two friends had quarreled.  The big one had gone to throw out the paper towels with which he had sloppily attempted to clean up his mess.  It reeked, but at least he was gone.  I had an idea.  I slammed the compartment door shut and locked it.  The skinny friend signaled his approval.  We opened the window wide and did the best we could to breathe.

When the fat friend came back he was of course furious, not so much at his little mate, whose ruse he seemed to think was all in good fun, but only at me.  “FashistFashist!,” he bellowed, marching back and forth in the corridor making Hitler salutes.  “Proklyatyi nemets [Damned German], I’m gonna slit your fucking throat!”  “I’m not German,” I said, but it didn’t matter.  He grew tired, and collapsed on the floor outside the compartment.  Periodically he would get back up, grow enraged all on his own, and begin to bang on the door and shout “Fashist.”  That is an odd use of the term, I thought to myself. 

There would be no sleep that night.  When I finally stepped out into Berlin’s Ostbahnhof, within minutes I could feel my bowels starting to move.  It had been more than a week.  After a squalid, 24-hour train ride following upon a stressful eight-day stay in what remains perhaps the most Soviet city in the world, where I had been able to eat scarcely anything but white bread and potatoes, where every small-time money-changing booth is guarded by some rough goon with an automatic weapon and a black t-shirt bearing the English word ‘SECURITY’, where on the street still featuring the name of the KGB mastermind Feliks Dzerzhinsky women with fat ankles porting enormous sacks of potatoes will still avert their eyes in fear if you attempt to ask them for directions– after all of this, my sense of relief was deep and corporeal.  Even my lowly colon knew the difference between Russia and the West, yet the politicians and the analysts were carrying on as though that were all ancient history. 

I should have figured it out sooner.  A few years prior I had been the roommate, in a small German university town, of a young Russian physicist.  Yebannaya Germaniya, he would complain after the slightest frustration during his day at the university.  Mne nadoeli eti fashisty.  [Fucking Germany.  I’ve had it with these fascists.]  His principle complaints, if I recall correctly, were that the Germans’ paprika-flavored Doritos were too spicy, and that his colleagues at the lab were not interested in looking at zoophile porn on the Internet with him. 

But surely ‘fascist’ must still mean something more than that?  Apparently not, if we look to
Nashi, the latest pro-Putin youth group to emerge in recent years, for our enlightenment.

467258117_2c53832e23The word means ‘ours’, and it is in the nominative plural.  That is to say, there is more than one thing that is ‘ours’, but nowhere in the literature is a precise inventory offered.  The clean teens of Nashi are, as we learn from the ‘Ideologiia’ section of their website, strong defenders of tradition, of respect for parental and political authority, strong opponents of corrupt morality (sex, drugs, laziness), and wary watchers of the non-Russian peoples within Russia’s boundaries.  In view of all this, one might be surprised to learn that they are also the staunch opponents of something they call ‘fascism’. 

At the same site, we hear from a division of Nashi youth in Ivanovo, reporting with pride that it has succeeded in removing every last spray-painted swastika from the walls of this besieged city.  We read effusive praise for Putin’s management of the situation in Chechnya.  And we find no shortage of images of teens who most closely resemble those you might find at a Christian pop concert in Kansas (though the clothing would schedule the concert circa 1988: for all its billionaires buying up designer brands, sartorially Moscow still lags behind Wichita by at least a few decades), or maybe some fundamentalist abstinence rally, in any case an event at which the level of enthusiasm cannot be entirely explained by the sheer goodness of the thing celebrated.  Whether it is a Midwestern stadium filled with Promise Keepers or a teen pep rally orchestrated by Putin’s aides, Kraft durch Freude seems to be the guiding principle of all such events, and that is why thinking people are frightened of them.   

But what is most incongruous in the photos on Nashi’s website are the numerous signs and symbols of their pronounced commitment to antifascism, even their adoption from the hardcore German Left of the abbreviation “antifa”, as in the cutesy logo above.  Somehow, when these six letters are transliterated into Cyrillic, the word takes on a quite different meaning.  For the fascism in question is not that of immigrant-bashing skinheads, but rather that espoused by Eduard Limonov, the founder of the so-called National Bolshevik Party. 

In an earlier stage of life, Limonov was the author of a curious and occasionally touching novel with the absurdly infantile title Eto ya- Edichka! [It’s Me: Eddy!].  In it, the scarcely disguised narrator describes his years in New York in the 1970s as a political refugee from the Soviet Union.  His account of how he works his way into bed with an activist beauty from Long Island by convincing her of his proletarian cred almost rises to the level of a Bukowski, and just to see such a thing coming out of Russia in that period was at least an interesting novelty.  The novel is perhaps best remembered for the chapter in which its hero, in the aim of living life to the fullest, or something, has anal sex with a homeless man in a New York alley.  It was for this that Solzhenitsyn, once the very conscience of Russia in exile, denounced Limonov as “that little insect who writes pornography.”  One would have thought that such a candid tale of ‘70s excess would have disqualified Limonov from the role of fascist leader, but his followers seem to take it in stride, and even to celebrate their hero’s flaunting of ordinary morality.

And in any case fascism, as an actual political program, seems to have little do with the Limonov phenomenon. I sat and spoke with Limonov in Moscow in 1996.  Hoping to loosen him up a bit, I thought I would start with a few questions about New York.  I asked him if he’d been to CBGB in the club’s golden age.  He was ready to play up his own myth, and talked about the ‘70s New York music scene with astounding authenticity.   It struck me at the time –and nothing since has disconfirmed this impression— that Limonov is but a performance artist and an opportunist, who borrows some elements of his routine from early 20th-century fascist iconography, others from Trotsky, and most from Dada and punk rock. Yet the Putin regime is concerned enough about this jester to have convinced his youth cadres of the urgent need to silence him. 

Why?  Again, the answer seems to have very little to do with any real concern about the rise of fascism; indeed, that would be impossible, considering that the mission statement of Nashi describes a program that is, if not itself fascist, at least a neo-Czarist, autocratic, statist cousin of fascism. Thus in Russia we find a curious state of affairs, in which the leading fascist is a counterculture rebel, while the antifascists are the ones promoting hygiene, order, tradition, hard work, respect for elders, and all those other suspicious ends.  As reported in an informative New York Times article of July 8 (“Youth Groups Created by Kremlin Serve Putin’s Cause in the Streets”): “Nashi’s platform is defined by its unwavering devotion to Mr. Putin and by the intensity of its hostility toward his critics, including his former prime minister, Mikhail M. Kasyanov, the former chess champion Garry Kasparov and a nationalist writer, Eduard Limonov. Nashi’s members denounce the opposition leaders as fascists with a fervor that can be disquieting.”

N89ns12_2According to a 2005 report on Nashi from the National Conference on Soviet Jewry (they still exist, though these days, like the NAACP, they prefer not to spell out their acronym), the goal of the new ‘anti-fascist’ movement is to put an end to the “anti-Fatherland union of oligarchs, anti-Semites, Nazis, and liberals” (note the astounding heterogeneity of this list).  Critics of the movement, the report continues, claim its chief aim is to prevent Russian youth being infected by the liberal ideas that helped produce the Orange Revolution in neighbouring Ukraine.  Confirming the NCSJ’s reading of the Nashi phenomenon, a 2005 article in Moskovskii Komsomolets quotes a leader of Idushchie vmeste  [“Walking Together,” a pro-Putin group that preceded Nashi] who fears that  “organizations in Russia are growing, on the basis of which the U.S. will create groups analogous to Serbia’s Otpor [that is, the democratic, anti-Milosevic reform movement], Georgia’s Kmara, or Ukraine’s Pora [that is, the youth movement that helped to bring about the Orange Revolution]. These groups are Eduard Limonov’s National Bolshevik Party and Avant Garde Red Youth.”

The italics in the concluding sentence are mine, for it is here that we begin to see how little it all adds up.  Whatever Limonov is promoting, it is nothing like the liberal reformist platform of the Serbian Otpor movement.  In fact, Limonov remains a staunch defender of Serbian ultranationalism, and in 1991 was caught on video with the warlord Radovan Karadzic firing shells into Sarajevo.  When I spoke with him in 1996, this incident seemed to be shelved in his mind right alongside the encounter in the New York alley, as just another moment in his long quest to live life to the fullest.  But to the extent that he has political convictions at all, rather than just a sense of showmanship, Limonov remains a pan-Slavist and a nationalist, and has nothing at all in common with the democratic activists of whom the Putin regime is equally afraid. 

Again, Limonov is a foolish extremist, and the world is worse off with him in it, but this is not why the Nashi youth have been called into battle against him and his minions.  For them, Limonov is a threat of exactly the same caliber as Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion who founded the United Civil Front to push for true electoral democracy in Russia, or as the kids styling themselves the ‘Avant Garde Red Youth’, or as the democratic reform movements of Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia.  All of these motley groupings –some admirable, some not– have been elided under the heading of extremism, and often, however implausibly, under that of fascist extremism, on the sole basis of their opposition to the Putin regime.

Kmo_076662_00115_1mIn fact, as of October, 2006, after a hearing of the Federation Council dubbed ‘Condition and Problems of Legislative Guarantees for Combating Extremism in the Youth Sphere,’ extremism is now legally defined in Russia to include not only political violence, but, as the newspaper Kommersant reports, “any action by a radical opposition organization” (“Authorities Find Way to Fight Extremism,” October 26, 2006).   But radical opposition, as opposed to healthy democratic opposition, is nowhere clearly defined, and seems to include democratic liberalism as well as fascism.  Opposition parties of any sort are the real threat, and it just so happens that under the circumstances virtually the only opposition leaders crazy enough to continue making noise are the extremists like Limonov.  By grouping all opposition under the heading of extremism, Putin has effectively made democratic opposition impossible. 

As an American individualist, I have always been of the opinion that youth groups are, well, for kids, and in my reading of the news I am all too ready to dismiss their contribution to world history.  I did spend a year in the Cub Scouts, with a pill-popping housewife as our troop leader, who let us lounge around on the shag carpet and take turns in the vibrating egg-shaped chair as she blankly soaked up the romance of General Hospital and as her soon-to-be out-of-the-closet son tried out perfume samples on our wrists.  But after that annus mirabilis my voice began to crack and I was forced out into the harsh Hobbesean reality of the Boy Scouts, the big boys, where I was barked at without rest by a gruff Vietnam Vet with a massive tool belt who did not like the way I was pitching my tent, or something, and surrounded by crude little conscripts bearing slogans on their t-shirts such as “Kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out.”  No, it was not for me to earn an Eagle Scout badge.  But I believe it is important to attempt to understand the role of these indoctrination camps, and their counterparts elsewhere, for the formation of future political classes. 

In all honesty, I find myself far more unsettled by earnest Eagle Scouts than by the rebellious youth who venture out to an Oi! concert or an NBP rally and irresponsibly flirt with fascist iconography.  The former are bound for power, and unreflectively convinced of their inborne right to it.  They find joy in pitching their tents and tying their knots just as commanded, and they are conditioned to believe that the accomplishment of these tasks somehow reveals their enviable position in the natural hierarchy of men.  The latter know they don’t have it, and teem with an outsider anger that, helped along by a leader more mature than Limonov, can be a very creative thing.  “Strength through Joy,” went the slogan of the Nazis’ leisure camps, and it echoes wherever too much pep is exhibited for a part of life (politics, premarital abstinence, monogamy) that can at best only be a solemn duty.  “Strength through Oi!” was the title of the 1981 skinhead hardcore album compiled by Gary Bushell, playing on the fortuitous rhyme between the English word for “Freude” and the chant of choice at punk concerts frequented by UK skinheads.  The slogan dating from the 1930s is sinister; it suits a world in which I want no part.  The slogan from the 1980s is kind of funny.  I’ll take “Oi!” over “Joy!” any day, and any limonovets over any nashist.   And what about Putin and Limonov themselves?  May the devil take them, as the Russian saying goes.   

Berlin, July 17, 2007

For an extensive archive of Justin Smith’s writing, please visit www.jehsmith.com.

Monday Musing: The Grey, and the Gold

If you don’t have TiVO, get it. (I have DVR from Time Warner Cable, which is pretty much the same thing.) If you don’t even own a TV, and especially if you like to proudly announce this fact every chance you get, which is every time normal, sane people are talking about the Sopranos or whatever, get a frickin’ clue! (Do you also proudly proclaim that you only listen to NPR on the radio? And, worse, is that actually true? If so, please know that I have nothing but pity for you.) Get help. Get a life. And get a damn TV! (And make sure it’s a High Definition set, and then get a High Def cable box too–they are usually free.) There is so much great stuff on TV these days, it’s almost unbelievable.

Case in point: the craziest, most astoundingly compelling nature documentary I’ve ever seen, Ultimate Enemies. (And, no, I do not just watch documentaries; I am equally addicted to CSI: New York, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, Boston Legal, Top Chef, and Pimp My Ride. So what? And I haven’t even mentioned Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, without whom life would be basically incomprehensible!) I have shown this documentary to various people at my house over the last six months or so (I had recorded it from the National Geographic channel one night pretty randomly to watch the next day during dinner). No one that I’ve shown it to has been less than hypnotically spell-bound by it, so far. The film, by the husband-and-wife team of Dereck and Beverly Joubert, documents the relationship between a pride of lions and a herd of elephants, both of which frequent the same watering hole in Botswana. Thinking about it a little bit, I have identified five main things that combine to make this film so mesmerizing, and I’ll say a bit about each below.

*****************

1.  The Subject Matter

Screenhunter_22_jul_22_2144Okay, here’s the story: a group of adolescent lions reaches an age when they are no longer welcome in their own pride, and are forced to wander west across hostile terrain in Botswana until they reach a watering hole. Tired and hungry, they find that there is not much in the way of prey there, but at least there is water. Then the herd of elephants comes to drink. Now, everyone knows that elephants cannot be hunted by lions. They are just too big. If the lions are kings, then elephants must be emperors. But are they? In their desperate hunger, the lions prove otherwise. Unbelievably, they learn to kill elephants, and they do it methodically and brutally and mercilessly. For example, early on they discover that a mother elephant’s first instinct is to protect her youngest calf, so while one or two lions harass the youngest, the rest go after the second-youngest. By the end, the oldest lioness (who weighs maybe 400 pounds) develops such delusional bravado that she jumps onto the back of a six-ton bull elephant (12,000 pounds!) from a tree and attempts to wrestle him to the ground. Alone! It is an insane moment.

The story of this battle of skill vs. sheer size, speed vs. sheer strength, desperate aggression vs. calm defense, etc., makes for irresistible drama.

2.  The Photography

DarkhyIf images of the immensely graceful and noble movement of a lion do not evoke deep feelings of simultaneous awe and fear in you, maybe you haven’t ever been near a real lion. And the photography in this movie is so beautiful and so artfully composed and edited that the dangers feel immediately present. Some of the scenes of death are so elegiacally shot that their poignancy has more than once moistened the eyes of the more tender-hearted of my visiting viewers.

3.  The Poetry and Writing

Here’s where things go totally mad: the narrative is almost indistinguishably interspersed with poetry written by Ian McCullum and Dereck Joubert. I’m not sure whether to call the poems good or bad, but they work in a weird way. They lack clear meaning and instead are just suggestive of grand themes and ancient rivalries, sometimes in a completely over-the-top way. They are portentous and ominous in tone, and they combine with the fearsome footage to produce a remarkable emotional effect. It is difficult for me to describe this intertwining of poetry and poetic writing, so I simply adduce an example of it here, from near the beginning of the film:

Africa comes at you from both sides.
It is a golden ray of light,
And a dark sloping shadow.
It has the power to abandon pretenses,
And the humor to play with your body.

Did no one tell you
That you belong to the hungry belly?

The fractured group of lions is swamped because of their weakness as a working unit. And the hyenas have sensed something: their lack of confidence. Right now, the young nomadic group could break up and scatter into the wind as lost individuals, but the large lioness who so often takes the lead, starts to greet and reassure the others. As she does so, she fixes the group together in a social bond, and they become one: at last, a pride of lions.

But one day, through the haze of failure in this desolate landscape, the large lioness sees signs:

The tracks of which gods are those, walking inside me,
Are they from the fire, or the flood?
Are they the ones who wait for me?
And is this my map of blood?
Is this my destiny?

They have arrived. After a journey through some of the hardest country in Botswana: paradise. And this time, they don’t seem to care if their arrival sends shock waves around them, this time perhaps they have come too far to give up.

See what I’m talking about? No? Just hold on, I think you will…

4.  The Narration

Now imagine the example of writing I gave in the previous section being read by one of the richest, most dramatic voices in the world, one that is so sensuous that to just passively let it wash over one produces the feeling that one has been intimately caressed: the voice of Jeremy Irons. His timing is unhurried; his cadence, perfect. It is an extraordinary performance, and I’ve never heard anything like it in a documentary, ever, and very little like it elsewhere.

5.  The Music

Last, but by no means least, the big, symphonic music is expertly orchestrated to add yet more dramatic flair to what is already an almost unbearably thick atmosphere. The results are, well… judge for yourself: click here to see a video of the part that I have transcribed in section three above. You will have to enter “Ultimate Enemies” in the “Search All Video” box, and then click Go. Then click on the first video (uppermost and leftmost). Go ahead, do have a look now.

*****************

And here is just a bit more to tease you, about the part when the lions arrive at the watering hole and tensions with the elephant herd first begin to rise (play the video and read along, if you like):

There is a behavior emerging that could be new, or an echo from the past. It could be a remnant of a time when mammoths may have ruled the Earth but still fought for their lives against the stabbing fangs of sabre-toothed cats.

Today, the battle is flaring up again. Ancient behavior or simple opportunism? It’s impossible to tell, but these two rivals are like two unstoppable forces of nature, careering through the universe towards the inevitable collision.

The males know it. The old bulls look down at these stubborn cats and test their will. They aren’t going anywhere. They are the owners here. And what the young nomads see is the beginning of a storm brewing in this show of defiance between these enemies. The ultimate of enemies: the largest, and the fiercest; the grey, and the gold.

To buy a DVD or videocassette of the full program, click here.

Read an article by Richard B. Woodward about Dereck and Beverly Joubert and their amazing films in Outside magazine here.

All my previous Monday Musings can be seen here.

Have a good week!

Monday, July 16, 2007

Among the inert gases lowest on the Periodic Table of Elements is love

Being inert love rarely bonds, requiring the meeting of two specific individuals, their union instigated by a certain kind of conversation and formalized, typically in the sterility of a bedroom, though there are no shortage of alternate venues. 

Neon makes light, so does krypton, argon can be used in welding, xenon prompts a strobe light’s twitching, radon is an old cancer cure, helium is helium, and love produces a dense, slow burning fuel, which, depending on its application and external conditions, can keep two people together for around thirty years, often many more.

Many believe this fuel eases and answers humankind’s truest need, the need for a convincing impression of security. Love is marketed as a cure for a 20-somethings’ inability to feel comfortable in his or her skin and the missing ingredient between warring societies. Love is everywhere, an invisible odorless small part of the air, easy to isolate and sprinkle onto guitar chords and the welcoming ceremonies of visiting dignitaries.

Love’s pervasive presence is regularly mistaken as being indicative of how easy making the gas bond should be (guns are as good, if not better, at providing the impression of security). Bodies agree in few places. Words have as many options for connecting. Two people assume a compromising position that best enables these connections. The position is an achy one and requires much maintenance. The dense gas surrounds them, flows between them, begins to bond, holds.

No mechanism exists to measure with any certainty whether a human life is more significant than a styrofoam cup or the animals preceding apes. A coil fashioned from all the earth’s elements spins forward and around from earth’s beginning to earth’s end and bonded love is a crook in this coil.

Preventing More Lal Masjids

by Pervez Hoodbhoy

[Editor’s note: Lal Masjid means “Red Mosque” in Urdu. More background info on the siege from the New York Times here. And see also Dr. Hoodbhoy’s prophetic essay related to the Lal Masjid in Islamabad, from just two months ago, right here at 3QD.]

HoodbhoyMany well-known Pakistani political commentators seem bent upon trivializing Lal Masjid. Although the mosque’s bloody siege has now entered into its fifth day, for them the comic sight of the bearded Maulana Abdul Aziz fleeing in a burqa is proof that this episode was mere puppet theatre. They say it was enacted by hidden hands within the government, expressly created to distract attention away from General Musharraf’s mounting problems, as well as to prove to his supporters in Washington that he remains the last bulwark against Islamic extremism. The writers conclude that this is a contrived problem, not a real one. They are dead wrong. Lal Masjid underscores the danger of runaway religious radicalism in Pakistan. It calls for urgent and wide-ranging action.

That the crisis could have been averted is beyond doubt. The Lal Masjid militants were given a free hand by the government to kidnap and intimidate. For months, under the nose of Pakistan’s super-vigilant intelligence agencies, large quantities of arms and fuel were smuggled inside to create a fearsome fortress in the heart of the nation’s capital. Even after Jamia Hafsa students went on their violent rampages in February 2007, no attempt was made to cut off the electricity, gas, phone, or website – or even to shut down their illegal FM radio station. Operating as a parallel government, the mullah duo, Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi and Maulana Abdul Aziz, ran their own Islamic court. They received the Saudi Arabian ambassador on the mosque premises, and negotiated with the Chinese ambassador for the release of his country’s kidnapped nationals. But for the outrage expressed by China, Pakistan’s all-weather ally, the status quo would have continued.

For a state that has not shied from using even artillery and airpower on its citizens, the softness on the mullahs was astonishing. Even as the writ of the state was being openly defied, the chief negotiator appointed by Musharraf, Chaudhry Shujaat Husain, described the burqa brigade militants as “our daughters” with whom negotiations would continue and against whom “no operation could be contemplated”.

But this still does not prove that the fanatics were deliberately set up, or that radicalism and extremism is a fringe phenomenon. The Lal Masjid mullahs, even as they directed kidnappings and vigilante squads, continued to lead thousands during Friday prayers. Uncounted thousands of other radically charged mullahs daily berate captive audiences about immoralities in society and dangle promises of heaven for the pious.

What explains the explosive growth of this phenomenon?

Imperial America’s policies in the Muslim world are usually held to blame. But its brutalities elsewhere have been far greater. In tiny Vietnam, the Americans had killed more than one million people. Nevertheless, the Vietnamese did not invest in explosive vests and belts. Today if one could wipe America off the map of the world with a wet cloth, mullah-led fanaticism will not disappear. I have often asked those of our students at Quaid-e-Azam University who toe the Lal Masjid line why, if they are so concerned about the fate of Muslims, they did not join the many demonstrations organized by their professors in 2003/4 against the immoral US invasion of Iraq. The question leaves them unfazed. For them the greater sin is for women to walk around bare faced, or the very notion that they could be considered the equal of men.

Extremism is often claimed to be the consequence of poverty. But deprivation and suffering do not, by themselves, lead to radicalism. People in Pakistan’s tribal areas, now under the grip of the Taliban, have never led more than a subsistence existence. Building more roads, supplying electricity and making schools – if the Taliban allow – is a great idea. But it will have little impact upon militancy.

Lack of educational opportunity is also not a sufficient cause. It is a shame that less than 65% of Pakistani children have schools to go to, and only 3% of the eligible population goes to universities. But these are improvements over 30 years ago when terrorism was not an issue. More importantly, violent extremism has jumped the educational divide. The 911 hijackers and the Glasgow airport doctors were highly educated men and were supported in spirit by thousands of similarly educated Muslims in Pakistan and the world at large. It is not clear to me whether persons with degrees are relatively more or less susceptible to extremist versions of Islam.

The above, as I have argued, are insufficient causes although they are significant as contributory reasons. There are more compelling explanations: the official sponsorship of jihad by the Pakistani establishment in earlier times; the poison injected into students through their textbooks; and the fantastic growth of madrassas across Pakistan.

But most of all, it has been the cowardly deference of Pakistani leaders to blackmail by mullahs. Their instinctive response has been to seek appeasement. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had suddenly turned Islamic in his final days as he made a desperate, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to save his government and life. A fearful Benazir Bhutto made no attempt to challenge the horrific Hudood and blasphemy laws during her premierships. And Nawaz Sharif went a step further by attempting to bring the Shariah to Pakistan.

Such slavish kow-towing had powerful consequences. The crimes of mullahs, because they are committed in the name of Islam, go unpunished today. The situation in Pakistan’s tribal areas is dire and deteriorating. Inspired by the fiery rhetoric from mosques, fanatics murder doctors and health workers administering polio shots. They blow up video shops and girls schools, kill barbers who shave beards, stone alleged adulterers to death, and destroy billboards with women’s faces. No one is caught or punished. Pakistan’s civil society has chosen to remain largely silent, unmoved by this barbarism.

This silence has allowed tribal extremism to migrate effortlessly into the cities. Except for the posh areas of the largest metropolises, it is now increasingly difficult for a woman to walk bare-faced through most city bazaars. Reflections of Jamia Hafsa can be found in every public university of Pakistan. Here, as elsewhere, a sustained campaign of proselytizing and intimidation is showing results. In fact, it would do little harm to rename my university, now a city of walking tents, as Jamia Quaid-e-Azam.

On April 12, to terrify the last few hold-outs, the Lal Masjid mullahs declared in their FM radio broadcast that Quaid-e-Azam University had turned into a brothel. They warned that Jamia Hafsa girls could throw acid on the faces of those female university students who refuse to cover their faces. There should have been instant outrage. Instead, fear and caution prevailed. The university administration was silent, as was the university’s chancellor, General Musharraf. A university-wide meeting of about 200 students and teachers, held in the physics department, eventually concluded with a condemnation of the mullahs threat and a demand for their removal as head clerics of a government-funded mosque. But student opinion on burqas was split: many felt that although the mullahs had gone a tad too far, covering of the face was indeed properly Islamic and needed enforcement. Twenty years ago this would have been a minority opinion.

The Lal Masjid crisis is a direct consequence of the ambivalence of General Musharraf’s regime towards Islamic militancy. In part it comes from fear and follows the tradition of appeasement. Another part comes from the confusion of whether to cultivate the Taliban – who can help keep Indian influence out of Afghanistan – or whether to fight them. One grieves for the officers and jawans killed in the on-going battle with fanatics. It must feel especially terrible to be killed by one’s former friends and allies.

What should the government do after the guns stop firing and the hostages are out, whether dead or alive? At least two immediate actions are needed.

First, those who publicly preach hatred in mosques and call for violence against the citizens of Pakistan should be denied the opportunity to do so. The government should announce that any citizen who hears such sermons should record them, and lodge a charge in the nearest designated complaint office. The guilty should be dealt with severely under the law. In the tribal areas, using force if necessary, the dozens of currently operating illegal FM radio stations should be closed down. Run by mullahs bitterly hostile to each other on doctrinal or personal grounds, they incite bitter tribal and sectarian wars.

Second, one must not minimize the danger posed by madrassas. It is not just their gun-toting militants, but the climate of intolerance they create in society. Where and when necessary, and after sufficient warning, they must be shut down. Establishment of new madrassas must be strictly limited. Apologists say that only 5-10 percent of madrassas breed militancy, and thus dismiss this as a fringe phenomenon. But if the number of Pakistani madrassas is 20,000 (give or take a few thousand; nobody knows for sure) this amounts to 1000-2000. Although all are not equally lethal, this is surely a lot of dangerous fringe.

The government’s madrassa reform program has fallen flat on its face, and future efforts will do no better. It was absurd to have assumed that introducing computers or teaching English could have transformed the character of madrassa education away from brain-washing and rote memorization towards logical behaviour and critical thinking. Did the adeptness with which Lal Masjid managed its website really bring it into the 21’st century? Madrassas are religious institutions; they cannot be changed into normal schools. It is time to give up wasting money and effort in attempting to reform them and, instead, to radically improve the public education system and make it a viable alternative.

The Lal Masjid battle is part of the wider civil war within the Islamic world waged by totalitarian forces that seek redemption through violence. Their cancerous radicalism pits Muslims against Muslims, and the world at large. It is only peripherally directed against the excesses of the corrupt ruling establishment, or inspired by issues of justice and equity.

Note that the Lal Masjid ideologues – and others of their ilk – do not rouse their followers to action on matters of poverty, unemployment, poor access to justice, lack of educational opportunities, corruption within the army and bureaucracy, or the sufferings of peasants and workers. Instead their actions are concentrated entirely on improving morality, where morality is interpreted almost exclusively in relation to women and perceived Western cultural invasion. They do not consider as immoral such things as exploiting workers, cheating customers, bribing officials, beating their wives, not paying taxes, or breaking traffic rules. Their interpretation of religion leads to bizarre failures in logic, moral reasoning, and appreciation of human life.

The author is chairman and professor at the Department of Physics, Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Why the Right of Return Matters to Palestinians

Attilmap_2_2My father’s family is from a Palestinian town named Atteel that lies a few kilometers north of the West Bank city of Tulkarem. In 1948, as Zionist gangs set about ethnically cleansing most of Palestine, they did not succeed in eradicating our village. Today, the town lies in the West Bank, just east of the Green Line—the virtual separation line between the West Bank and “Israel proper”. Some of Atteel’s agricultural land was not as lucky—it fell on the other side of the partition and now forms part of the state of Israel. My grandfather had orange groves there that went to Israel, and are now owned by the Jewish National Fund, and can only be given to Jews. Any person claiming to be Jewish from anywhere in the world can travel to Israel, receive an Israeli passport and be given that land by the Israeli government at a subsidized price. Meanwhile, my cousins and I, some of whom live meters away from that land are not even allowed to set foot on it. Such is real estate in “The Only Democracy in the Middle East.”

Whenever peace is discussed, the majority of Israelis and westerners (and many Arabs) automatically assume that in order for there to be peace, the Palestinians need to give up their right of return. Israel has to remain a Jewish state, they argue, and giving Palestinians a right to return would mean no more Jewish majority, which would bring about a system of governance not based on religious exclusivity. It always amuses me when people make this argument with a straight face. Instead of ethnic cleansing and expulsion—an unquestionable evil—being used as an argument against a religiously exclusive racist state, the presence of the religiously exclusive racist state is used as an excuse for the propagation of ethnic cleansing and expulsion.

The problem that any secular or humanist (or even rational) person would have with the idea of a religious state is that it is a recipe for disaster, conflict and oppression. Never in history has a religious state not led to massive bloodshed. In Israel, this is obviously true: to set up a Jewish state in a land that was predominantly non-Jewish, the Zionist movement’s terrorist gangs had to undertake an enormous premeditated program of ethnic cleansing that murdered thousands and displaced almost a million Palestinians from their homes, for no reason other than that they believed in the wrong god. Israel then destroyed their homes (and some 400 of their villages) and denied them their right to return to them. Ilan Pappe has recently published a book detailing and documenting the elaborate nature of these crimes, how their planning started in the late 1930’s and how cynical and ruthless their execution was.

That monstrous crime against humanity had to be carried out in order to establish a religiously exclusive state should give us pause to think about the desirability of having any religiously-exclusive state, especially in a place as religiously diverse as historic Palestine, and especially considering that this state has not stopped expanding its territory until today, as can be attested by the increasing building of religiously-exclusive colonies in the West Bank. Instead, many people are hypocritical and racist enough to state that this crime needs to be continued, with millions denied their right to return, in order to save the existence of this religiously-exclusive racist state.

That the right of return is legal is not something even worth arguing, it is fully and comprehensively established in international law and UN resolutions. That it is necessary for many Palestinians to return to their home can be seen from the terrible conditions in which many refugees live in countries surrounding Palestine. Getting these lands back will be what these people need to lift them out of the horrible poverty of exile in which they have lived for 60 years. These vital uncontroversial issues are not the points I want to make today. Even if one were to ignore them, the right of return remains vital, and we as Palestinians should continue to cling to this inalienable right after almost 60 years, since it is the only commendable and honorable thing to do, and it is the only path to achieve a true and comprehensive peace.

In my case, I would be lying if I said I needed these orange groves. My grandfather has 56 descendants spread out all over the world, and splitting these lands is unlikely to give any of us a large amount of land or money. Yet that does not in any way diminish my determination to fight until my last day for these lands, and all my cousins all over the world think similarly. In order to understand this “unreasonable” demagogical clinging to old pieces of land, it might be instructive to contrast it with another famous case of someone “unreasonably” refusing to give up something which a racist authority had told them they were not entitled to.

Rosa20parks When Rosa Parks got on a bus in Montgomery and was asked to move to the back of the bus, she refused. It was an honorable stance in the face of incredible racism. This, as is well known, led to an invigoration of the civil rights movement and mobilized the masses to the streets until they were victorious and segregation was abolished all over the south.

After abolishing segregation, Rosa Parks may have never taken a bus, or sat in the front of it. Her descendants may never think about where they sit when they board a bus, if they ever take one. Everyone would agree that the problem with segregation is not with the mere act of sitting in the front of a bus, it is about living in a society that bans people from sitting in the front of the bus based on their race. This is equally a problem for someone who takes the bus every day and someone who never takes it.

The same people who tell me I am being unreasonable clinging on to my grandfather’s land, should surely have told Rosa Parks that she was unreasonable clinging on to the seat in the front of the bus. After all, a lot of protests, riots, clashes and lynchings resulted from the civil rights movement, surely, it would’ve been better for the sake of “peace” for Rosa Parks to have compromised and moved to the back of the bus. Similarly, a lot of resistance, fighting and murder resulted from Palestinians not giving up their right of return and it would’ve been better for the sake of “peace” for Palestinians to have compromised and forgotten their homes and lands. This, of course, is equally nonsensical in both cases.

However, most people who tell me to forget my land in Palestine would never be caught dead saying Rosa Parks was unreasonable. But the blatant hypocrisy is still lost on them. Why is it that in one case, blacks should not give up a seat on a bus because of their race, while Palestinians should give up their own lands, homes and villages on which they and their ancestors have lived for millennia because of their religion (or lack thereof)?

The way to end racial conflict in the American South was not for Rosa Parks and blacks to give up their rights to the front of the bus and ‘let everyone live in peace’, but by ending the system that denies someone the right to sit in a certain part of a bus depending on their skin color. Similarly, peace in Palestine will not come when Palestinians give up their right to own a piece of land because of the religion to which they were born; but rather, when we abolish the system that assigns plots of lands, houses and villages to people based on what version of god they believe in.

I will never consider there to be peace in Palestine so long as I can visit my grandfather’s house in Atteel and look a few kilometers west to see my land that I can not visit, own, or sell. The day I can reclaim that land, I will visit it once, savor the feeling, and the very next day, I’ll sell my share of it to the highest bidder regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity, and donate the money to an educational institute that will teach the children of Palestine, regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity about the importance of equality and justice, about Rosa Parks, and about how peace could never be achieved on the basis of racist exclusion, whether it be from the front of a bus or from an orange grove.

Monday, July 9, 2007

Dispatches: How to Park a Car in Downtown New York City

Propositions:

1) If you’re only staying for an evening, a weekend or until early the next morning, it’ll be a piece of cake.  Simply arrive in town around 5:45pm.  There are many “No Parking M-F 8am-6pm” places all over New York.  Just park and you’re good for the night or the whole weekend.  For instance, Soho has a wealth of these spots open every night and all weekend on its north-south streets, Mercer, Greene, Wooster, etc.  Get there as they turn over.  The next morning, leave before eight and there you have it.  If you want to park for longer…

2) Here’s where it gets a little complex.  You need to deal with one of the local practices that make New York New York: alternate side parking, the system in which you can’t park on most residential streets for an hour and a half one or two times per week.  During this time the street cleaning vehicle makes its slow, rolling pass, spraying and brushing.  You’re supposed to move your car and come back when the time’s up, but that would be way too cavalier a way to treat one of your most prized possessions: your spot.  What actually happens is this: you get in your car and sit there for sixty to ninety minutes, moving into the middle of the street when the street cleaning truck comes by, and guarding against parking tickets by being in your vehicle (you’re actively standing, not passively parked).  Some people sleep, some drink coffee, some read the paper, neighbors get out and shoot the breeze. 

3)  If you’re in an alternate-side spot the first thing to do in the morning is call 311 (the NYC information hotline, a super-cool Bloomberg brainchild).  A recorded message will say: “Alternate side parking regulations are in effect today… and tomorrow.”  This is crucial because you might be able do something else or sleep a lot longer if they are suspended for a holiday or something.  But more likely, they’re not.  So go find a spot.

4) A good working knowledge of the streets and what times the street cleaning occurs helps.  For instance:  the alternate-side spaces on Rivington are a nicely timed 8-9:30am street cleaning, beginning just as the 8am-6pm’s expire.  They are also well policed by an old crew of regulars.  They keep things fairly orderly, and they will stand outside their cars and commiserate with you about a ticket received at 9:31am the other week.  The far East Village has a lot of 11-12:30pm spaces in case you’re stuck around that time.  Park Slope and Dumbo both have only once-a-week street cleaning spots, for some unknown reason (all those yoga moms got organized and lobbied the city?).  Just park and ride.  Over time, you develop a mental map associating blocks and times.  If such a map exists on the internet, please tell me about it!

5) It is good to have fallbacks in case your usual block is full.  I recommend driving over to Ninth Street Coffee (on 9th and C) to caffeinate and strategize.  Also, the two-hour meters on Chrystie or on LaGuardia can buy you needed time.  I have a secret spot near a police station where no one gives tickets because they assume the cars all belong to cops.  I almost want to tell you where it is.  But if you’re really stuck, here’s a tip: drive all the way east on Houston Street, and turn right as if you were getting on to the FDR.  On the right, you’ll see a bunch of street-cleaning spots, not often filled.  It’s a long walk back to civilization, but you’ll be parked.

6) Often, a well-meaning person takes it upon himself (always it’s a man) to direct traffic once the street-cleaning Zamboni comes by, after which there’s always a slightly mad slow-motion scramble to retake your spot before a nest-invading passing car does.  After that, it’s back to waiting.  I bring my laptop and occasionally type up something, or if there’s a wireless network available, Google myself or whatever.  It surprising how much work you can get done.  As a matter of fact, I’m sitting in a vehicle right now, on the corner of Mott and Spring at 10:37am on Monday. 

7) Crime: basically, don’t drive a Honda.  They are the most often jacked, because their locks are about as Mickey Mouse as locks come (just jam a screwdriver in and away you go), and because there are so many that chop shops prefer them.  Also, don’t leave anything, like laptops, in your trunk.  I’ve never had a break-in, but my friend with a Honda had her laptop stolen out of her trunk.

Inferences:

1) It turns out that parking a car on the street in New York isn’t that hard, but it requires an annoying time investment two mornings a week.  It also requires some perseverance and the ability to keep your head under pressure: after that cleaning vehicle goes by, there is a dash to get back in place, and the easily rattled can be outfought musical-chairs style.  It’s not exactly Hard Knock University, but it is a moment in which you need to assert yourself with some discernable form of gusto.

2) If you can share the burden with someone else, the price of having a car in the city becomes a pretty manageable one ninety-minute session per week.  And having the car is great: you won’t even notice that you went from Red Hook to the Navy Yard to the L.E.S. to Greenpoint in one night, journeys that would total about three hours by subway and bus. 

3) I wonder if there are bosses who force their interns to sit in their cars for them during street-cleaning time.  I must admit, I have had fantasies about just such an arrangement.  (Though I suppose rich people shell out for a garage.)  Would that be disgusting and elitist and cross the line between work work and domestic work, like when bosses make their assistants pick up their dry-cleaning?  Probably.

4) This whole ritual can be a little monotonous, but has one major benefit: it forces you to look at the street and the people on it.  Many small epiphanies are had here: how beautiful the variety of people is, how funny their morning moods, how interesting all the plants on that balcony you never noticed.  Right now, Laura from the deli is sweeping the sidewalk, the Italians are opening up their cafes.  A Hummer pulled up behind me, then got tired of waiting or something, and gave up his spot, which was taken by a more patient man in a Bronx sweatshirt driving a van with a ladder on top.  A young woman crossed the street just now, looking somewhat blank.  Now here comes another, smiling broadly and beautifully as she steps back to allow a truck its rightful right of way, one of those rock-forward-rock-back-to-the-curb manuevers.  Now she’s crossing, looking straight into my face to check for oncoming traffic.  I smile.  She increases her smile briefly to acknowledge my witnessing her little move a second ago.  A bearded man with friendly eyes, crossing the other way, looks at her too, then at me.  He smiles.

Street Parking and Love:

1) The difficulties posed by street parking can be shared, but the car will be ticketed, booted, and finally towed unless they are shared with someone who has some baseline level of responsibility, competence, and common sense.  Do these not seem the very same qualities useful but not always present in girlfriends and boyfriends?  Let this suggest a litmus test.  Whether or not someone can handle street cleaning together with you is a good indicator of how able they are to perform shared endeavors, hopefully somewhat reliably and in good humor.  Think about the person you’re with or want to be with.  Can you imagine sharing the parking of a vehicle in New York with them?  Could they handle it?  Could you?  Would they want to?  Would you?  And, maybe, let that separate the flings from the real things.

Competition in science: too much of a good thing.

In the post that triggered this month’s offering from me, political blogger Digby is actually talking about the corporate-welfare state known as this here USofA, but it doesn’t take much to aim the same screed at the modern practice of science (my text in blue):

The entire enterprise is designed as an exercise in conformity in which those most eager to reinforce the corporate ethos existing infrastructure and prevailing dogmas, rise to the top and enforce it these things even more rigidly. (Which is understandable. Having been through the “boot-camp” that beat every original thought and idea out of their heads until they don’t even know they once had them, the next generation of bosses PIs are always ready to give it even harder to those coming up behind them, if only to justify their own acquiescence to such humiliation.) And anyone who complains is reminded of that inspiring war cry of American liberty: “you can always quit.”

Except, of course, most of us really can’t and they know it. You can’t go without health insurance and you can’t afford to take a chance on a new job that might not work out because there just isn’t much room to fail in our society. It takes a very brave person to put their own and their family’s well being at risk when the consequences of failure are so high. Most people make the rational decision to stick with the soul destroying job, answer to a boss that treats them like a lackey and live a life of quiet desperation because to do otherwise would be irresponsible.

Identical objections might be raised to this characterization of modern science as might be raised to the same as a description of the USA: it’s hyperbole, overstatement, it ignores the many bosses/PIs who treat their employees well and the many people who do live their dreams and so on and on. That’s all true, and I’d probably just eat a bullet if it weren’t. But still, given the usual caveats about generalizations, I think Digby’s remarks hold up pretty well whichever target you choose. Digby goes on to say:

Doesn’t that work out nicely for the corporate owners of America, eh?

But the thing is, in science, I don’t believe it works out well for anyone. Being a postdoc myself, that’s the first point of view I see; and the life of quiet desperation is not actually an option for postdocs.  Sooner or later, you pretty much have to either make a jump for the bottom rung of the faculty ladder (at which point the majority are rejected), or leave academia.  You’re expected, by the time you have a couple of postdocs under your belt, to have scrambled into a faculty slot (or tried and failed to do so, in which case you don’t count, loser) — there’s something wrong with you if you haven’t.

There used to be a position called something like “research officer”, which was a bit like an assistant/tech position but required a PhD and, accordingly, paid better. Those postions were good for postdocs who decided they didn’t actually want to be “promoted” away from the bench — and as far as I can tell, they have been phased out almost completely, because most PIs would prefer to pay a technician than fork out for the extra skill without also having a “tenure” carrot to dangle. (Of course, it’s actually the “you can always quit” stick that most of ’em are unwilling to be without.) You might, after a postdoc or two, get a position as a research assistant/tech, if you’re willing to take yet another pay cut — sometimes people do that in order to spend more time with young families and keep that all-important health insurance. (You’ll have to deal with the perception that you’re only doing it because you’re not good enough to go on in academia proper; this may or may not hurt your tender feelings but it will make a lot of PIs reluctant to hire you.) And, well, that’s about it — your other options are outside of academic research.

In fact, the majority of science PhDs do pursue non-traditional careers; from the National Postdoc Association‘s postdoc factsheet:

In 2003, among S&E doctorate degree holders who received their degree 4–6 years previously, 19.8% were in tenure-track or tenured positions at 4-year institutions of higher education (engineering 16.3%; life sciences 18.0%; physical sciences 16.7%; social sciences 30.8%).

The share of recent doctorate holders hired into full-time faculty positions fell from 74% to 44% from 1972 to 2003. At research universities the decline was from 60% to 31%. Conversely, the overall share of recent S&E doctorate holders who reported being in postdoc positions rose from 13% to 34% overall and from 22% to 48% at research universities.

At research universities, faculty-level jobs lacking the possibility of tenure have risen from 55% of new hires in 1989 to 70% in 2003.

So much for the cannon-fodder; what about the brass? Surely the system works to the advantage of the “corporate owners” in science — PIs and up?   Don’t they get the best product at the lowest price, a benefit which naturally accrues to the public whose taxes are funding them?  In a nutshell: no.

SalaryFirst of all, “ain’t competition grand?” is the sweatshop owner’s credo, and while scientists (especially postdocs) are not working in cramped, sweltering, dangerous third-world factories, they are being squeezed pretty hard in some ways.  In 2005, the Sigma Xi research society published the results of an extensive survey of US postdocs which found that postdoc salaries did not compare well with overall US census data for the comparable age group (28-37; see graph). This gets worse if you consider that the average self-reported working week was 51 hours, for an hourly wage of about $14.  Bear in mind that the average time spent in a doctoral degree is 8 years and the average age of degree award is 33 ; the opportunity cost of the postdoc path is immense and essentially unrecoverable.  Factor in a roughly 1 in 5 chance of making tenure, as above, and it’s not hard to see why surveyed postdocs reported job dissatisfaction at twice the rate of science/engineering PhDs in general (22% vs 11%) (figures from the factsheet and survey again).  Complaints ranged from conflict with mentors to low remuneration, and frustrated expectation — the considerable likelihood of never obtaining a PI position — was identified as a potential root cause of much of the dissatisfaction.

Pause here to consider the plight of — to strain the metaphor — the sweatshop overseers, PIs.  A modern PI is expected to be a researcher, a manager and team leader and a teacher all in one.  That’s three jobs being crammed into one worklife.  The selection process for advancement focuses obsessively on research metrics (specifically, a track record in winning competitive grants), and neither management nor teaching are formally taught in the majority of graduate and post-graduate programs.  So you have people being expected to excel at two jobs for which they have only whatever on-the-job training they’ve been lucky enough to pick up while being judged on their success at a third job in an ever-more-competitive environment.  They are not much better off than their underlings in many ways, and the same effects of pressure on performance might be expected to obtain.

Secondly, what the “owners” in a competitive system get is not cream skimmed off the top but whatever “rises”, and that’s not always so wholesome.  A PubMed search on research misconduct returns more than 3100 hits, about 1000 published in the last five years, ~1700 in the ten years before that and ~400 between 1979 and 1990 (though PubMed records date back to the 60’s).  It’s important to note that misconduct does not only refer to famous, out-and-out fraudsters like Hwang Woo-Suk.  The HHS Office of Research Integrity defines misconduct according to what’s known as the FFP rule: Fabrication (making data up), Falsification (altering data) and Plagiarism, but evidence suggests that these most serious offenses represent only the tip of the iceberg.

A recent survey asked more than 3400 NIH-funded scientists about a variety of unethical behaviours, ranging from FFP to inadequate record-keeping.  While fewer than 2% of respondents admitted to FFP-level offences, more than 10 percent admitted to each of: overlooking others’ use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data; changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source; withholding details of methods or results in papers or proposals; inadequate or inappropriate research design; dropping observations or data points on the basis of a “gut feeling that they were inaccurate”; and inadequate record keeping. Fully one in three admitted to having enaged in at least one of the ten worst behaviours (so judged by six ORI compliance officers) in the last three years.  A series of focus-group interviews with working scientists identified a wide range of similar non-FFP behaviours that the authors dubbed “normal misbehaviour” — low-key, everyday misdemeanors that study author Brian Martinson describes as “more corrosive than explosive”, but no less damaging for that.

These “normal misbehaviours” were explicitly linked to job pressure, the familiar “publish or perish” motto:

The pressure to produce… is associated with a number of behaviors that do not quite reach the threshold of FFP but nevertheless are regarded by scientists as misconduct. The problems mentioned by members of our focus groups included: manipulation of the review system, (improper) control of research by funders, difficulties in assigning authorship, exploitation of junior colleagues, unreported conflicts of interest, the theft of ideas from conference papers and grant proposals, publishing the same thing twice (or more), withholding of data, and ignoring teaching responsibilities.

In a recent Nature misconduct special, Jim Giles put it this way:

Take one prestigious laboratory. Add some pressing grant deadlines and a dash of apprehension about whether the applications will succeed. Throw in an overworked lab head, a gang of competitive postdocs and some shoddy record-keeping. Finally, insert a cynical scientist with a feeling that he or she is owed glory. It sounds hellish, but elements of this workplace will be familiar to many researchers. And that’s worrying, as such an environment is, according to sociologists, the most fertile breeding ground for research misconduct.

Research misconduct has also been linked to perceived unfair treatment: researchers, like anyone, are more likely to cheat the system, the more they feel that they have been unjustly treated by that system. Martinson et. al found correlations between the likelihood of unethical behaviours (as described above) and perceptions of both procedural (“the game is rigged”, “the old boys’ network controls everything”) and distributive (“too much is expected of me”, “I don’t get the respect or remuneration I deserve”) injustice.

My point in all of this is that sweatshops rarely produce quality products — they focus on quantity and churn out crap.   A reasonable level of fair competition might select the best and brightest, but unfettered competition is rarely fair, and unfair competition is a poor selection method since it favors those who benefit from the unfairness.  Under pressure and in the face of perceived injustice, people turn to ways of coping that do not improve the quality of their work.  They find ways to manipulate the reward system; they cut corners, they cheat, they slack off; they turn resentful and throw sand in the gears.  This may not have grave long-term consequences for the body of scientific knowledge, since science is largely self-correcting: errors that matter will eventually be found out.  Nonetheless, all of these “sweatshop factors” have immediate and obvious consequences for the efficiency of the scientific endeavour.

Brian Martinson, quoted in a number of interviews about his work, says:

Competition and privatization are the great American way, but we’ve not stopped to ask ourselves whether we may have engendered a level of competition in science that has some dysfunctional consequences.

I believe we have done exactly that.

….

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

 

White Girl in the Promised Land

Elatia Harris    

Last Monday my colleague Michael Blim wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision of a few days earlier – Parents v. Seattle Schools – which would start to expunge any consideration of race from the way our children were assigned to public schools no sooner than many of us were firing up our barbecues for the 4th of July. Would we, the People, be too beguiled watching the flames leap to notice the Orwellian turn the Court had just taken?  I live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where outrage trumps barbecue any day of the week, so Justice Roberts got his work noticed here.  Read all about it in Michael’s post, which attracted a sufficient diversity of comments to utterly enlarge my notion of the 3QD readership.  And to confirm what I, a vintage Mid-century Southern white, have all my life seen exquisitely demonstrated – that plenty of people park their brains in a sub-basement before they think, and talk, about race.  In that plenteous number, a plurality of our Supreme Court judges might now be included; if so, they are more dangerous than the others, than all the others combined.

That race is an enduringly difficult subject may be the very reason why the Roberts Court drop-kicked it from the law of the land, as that law applies to school children.  One famous response, after all, to a refractory problem is to declare it a non-problem, so that no solution need be sought, still less found.  It’s a perversion of math, where changing a thorny problem to a problem that’s already been solved is as good as a solution — is a solution.  Gamesmanship and its sophistries pervade Parents v. Seattle Schools, as Michael has shown, never more than in the deeply artificial contrasting of “social engineering” with its false opposite, “individual responsibility.”

Does the Roberts Court imagine we are living in post-racist times?  Probably not, but by disingenuously transferring to the individual – the individual black child, that is – the entire burden of gaining not just opportunity, but access to opportunity, the Court implies one of two readings – either that it believes being poor and black is no different than being comfortable and white, or that it’s so different as to be an incontrovertible disadvantage, one that intelligent taxpayers will triage their way away from. To make no legal distinctions between black children who grow up with the stresses of poverty and white children who live in privilege is to make the law a guarantor of that privilege. Trust me on this one, for I can remember when the law was exactly that.

In a Large Southern City Which Shall be Nameless

A century before I was born in a large Southern city which shall be nameless, my mother’s family left Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where until the Civil War they raised cotton. Their house and everything in it had been garrisoned by Union soldiers before the war’s end, so when the family left, they left with nothing, and I was almost grown-up before I understood that that was as it should have been. Heading west, they joined a cousin in a not-so-distant state, a Methodist minister who wrote them there was pretty good cotton land to be had thereabouts. They got back on their feet – farming, ranching, banking.  There was, briefly, prosperity – my grandmother had a white Shetland pony, and was the fanciest little girl she knew – and then the Depression, which put paid to any notion of a real comeback.

A Southern family with a plantation background is a family keenly aware of dispossession, of what it is to be on the wrong side of history. This is different from an awareness that one’s ancestors were participants in and beneficiaries of a crime so vast and systematic that one’s nation is rocking from it still.  I cannot say that in childhood I found “plantation tales” charming and innocent, but the full horror of them was not yet available to me.  Here’s one.  When in 1860 my great-grandmother, Eleanor W., turned 6 years old, she was presented with her sixth slave, having already been given one for each previous year of her life.  Like little Eleanor, the slaves were children.

Coming along a century later, should I have felt personal guilt for this?  Well, it didn’t make me proud.  But my imagination, including my moral imagination, was affected by this story in a way that I have the sense to be grateful for.  I can only have first heard it in the spirit it was told – by my grandmother, little Eleanor’s daughter, owner of the white pony — as a testament to the lost paradise of plantation life.  It would be dense years of child-time before I could judge my grandmother for reckoning up the family’s glories this way, years more before I could understand the link between her own disappointments and her luscious memories of the subjugation of others.

You Look Like a Sweet Little Girl, But —

Sometime before I was 10, I spent a very dark summer.  That is, the summer was bright and I was dark from the sun. The photos show me looking fat and deeply tanned, with my dark hair gathered tight into a high braided ponytail.  I don’t understand the tan – then as now, my preferred summer activities were reading, writing and painting in the air-conditioning. I hated the heat, but I must have been out of doors more than I thought.

There was a party for a little girl I barely knew, at a country club totally off the screen of my club-shunning parents.  I had been made fully aware, though, that if we had been country club people — which we were not — this club was downmarket from where we would have wanted to be. The party was over, my mother was late picking me up, and I sat in the too-decorous front room overlooking the golf course, waiting for her.

I had a long wait.  My mother’s habitual lateness was inexplicable, incalculable on any particular occasion, and I may have given the appearance of settling in for the afternoon.  A woman in a pale blue dress with pearls and hose and high, high heels clicked out of an almost hidden door to look at me, again and again and again. She pressed her hands together as if doing isometrics to lift her breasts. I suppose that she was the manager’s secretary, psyching herself up to deal with a troublesome eventuality – me.

Finally resolved to do what she must, she strode towards me, chin lowered, hands fisted, wearing a sickly smile.

“You look like a sweet little girl,” she said to me.  “But I need to know – are you a white girl?”

The sound I had been waiting for, my mother’s wheels crushing the gravel of the driveway, delivered me from any necessity to reply. Too bad the lady couldn’t get a good look at Mother, I remember thinking — Mother, who was tall, blue-eyed, almost blonde, and beautiful enough that she commanded deference.  I knew what would have happened to me, had I lacked the right answer in this country club where people like me  — my people — never even wanted to belong: I would have been directed to wait outside, almost certainly at the back entrance, in the 100-degree heat that covered the city like a tight lid.  I would not have had the same right to tolerable shelter that a white girl had, and no blue-eyed avenger would have come early or late for me.

As may be imagined, over the years I have considered this occasion differently.  How complicit with the club lady was I?  Would I — who was plenty mouthy — have found my tongue, if my mother had come later still?  As I write this, I understand yet one more thing that was hidden from me then. The way the club lady fidgeted and flexed and left her office to look at me many times – until now, I have recalled that as guilty behavior: the lady had something ugly to say to me, and she didn’t want to do it.  It is far more likely, however, that she was showing herself to me so that I’d be gone at the very sight of her, as a black child would have been cued to be gone.  Important to her, too, would have been that club members coming and going would have seen not just me – a non-member to say the very least – but the brass, vigilant and battle-ready to shoo me.  The lady was intimidating me; white beneath my tan, I had no reason to know it.

Half a Decade after Rosa Parks

Integration wasn’t a cookie-cutter that re-contoured the nation all at once, as anyone who was present and paying attention in the late civil rights era knows.  So it was that, about five years after Rosa Parks refused to relinquish her seat, the odd bus-driver could still have it his way.  Legally?  No indeed — but there were bus-sized time warps, tiny fiefdoms, where that didn’t make a bit of difference.  And once more, my tan was taking me places.

Every Saturday for years, I went to an art class that lasted for three hours at a museum about a mile away from home.  It was heaven.  Believing that the bus was not an entirely salubrious environment, my mother normally drove me, and it was on one of the very few days that she did not that I was ordered by the bus driver to unseat myself, and get to the back of the bus.

It was crushing.  I hadn’t been asked if I were a white girl first, just ordered to the back of the bus.  I didn’t know the law, only that I was the daughter of a lawyer, and you did not treat me that way.  More than at any other time in my life, before or since, I knew the pain and rage of being othered – and it wasn’t even for real.  Nevertheless, as a demonstration of beastly unfairness – including the kind I bought into without thinking – it was colossally instructive.  You did not treat me that way, you did not treat anyone that way.

Furious, furious child of educated, cultured people, I glared at the driver.  I did not then, nor would I for a few more years, know of Rosa Parks – what had she to do with me?  Because I could, I hurried off the bus.  It had not been taking me anyplace I had to go, only somewhere I wanted to go.  Had there been a black person on board, that person would have known to remind the driver about the law.  In those dangerous days, however, when the law was not widely perceived as the guarantor of the rights of black people to inhabit the same space as whites, a black person might or might not have spoken up.  Certainly the smattering of whites riding that mile with me let the opportunity pass. 

I think if any among them had been 100% certain I belonged with them, somebody would have vouched for me.  She’s white, Mister, that somebody would have said to the driver, leave her be.  And I would have ridden on to my art class – outraged for sure, but the teachable moment just might have passed. 

How many more years would it take before bullying a black child on a bus in a white neighborhood ceased to happen in my Southern city?  I don’t know for a certainty if that many years have yet passed.  Even when the law is highly specific about treatment that is not legal, it is less specific about treatment that is not right. And, in creating room for wrongs that are no longer illegal, the Roberts Court, under the smug guise of even-handedness, has just opened the gate to violations – violations mainly of the rights of children – that only moral repugnance can now prevent.  However, less than 150 years after my great-grandmother, little Eleanor W., came into her sixth personal child slave, I am one of those who stand unconvinced that moral repugnance is, or has ever been, enough.

Mid-Century Whispers

White Southerners of my generation – Justice Roberts’s generation – who grew up talking about civil rights at home are numerous, but I am not one of them.  My parents were Democrats, not activists, they had no black friends, and the hugely divisive issues of the day were not table talk in our house.  I will never know, in their own words, what they thought about the end of segregation in the public schools.  Was it a good thing?  If so, then for whom — for every member of society?  I have to face that the straight answer from them might have been No.  But the imagined answer I can tease out in the form of inference from the very things I did not hear them say, from the very things I was forbidden by them to say.

Many whites my age remember truculent whispers behind closed doors – their parents, talking over the end of the world if the schools were integrated.  And after the schools fell – then what?  Whisper, whisper, whisper.  I never heard any of that at home.  If I had wanted to talk that way about black people being a threat, or needing to be kept down, or if I had wanted to use the N-word, that would have earned me a serious rebuke. My father, who would die before the civil rights movement bore fruit in our city, was adamant that no such words find a safe harbor in his home. 

More than I wanted anything, I wanted to please my father, so the casually hateful utterances about black people that my peers paid no penalty for went unsaid by me – and to an astounding degree given the regnant culture – unthought by me.  I did this for love of my father, not for the abstraction of social justice, and came later to understand that he had done as he did for love of me.  As a young adult, I asked my mother how it was that he had been so far ahead of the pack in this one area, this refusal of racism, when our entire culture encouraged it.  Mother looked a little strange and quieted down. He did not refuse racism, she finally told me, he refused to pass it on.

Orwell wrote of needful things that are lost in a generation’s time – they fall out of use and are gone for good.  My father would have known the exact several lines, and may have believed that one generation was also enough time for the permanent banishing of hideous habits of mind – although that would have been naive.  While he was ashamed of his racism, Mother told me, and knew it was wrong, he could change only his mind, not his heart.  So, like nearly everyone, my father had to struggle to be good in ways that went against the grain.  And like some people, he was in a key area of life – the commitment not to model prejudice for the rising generation – successful in his struggle. 

The Fountains

In a department store, I used to see something I never saw at school — two drinking fountains about six feet apart, one for whites and one for “coloreds.” The signs letting you know which one to queue up at were just overhead, the letters large enough to be read from the far end of the floor.  My school didn’t need two fountains, for there were no black children there, and no black teachers.

But what if a black child had wanted to drink at the fountain in my school? Not the water fountain but the real fountain – the well-supplied classrooms, the skilled patient teachers, and the general atmosphere of application and order in which a child thirsty for knowledge will flourish.  Yes, what if black children needed some of that? 

Living in an all-white world, I reached an embarrassing age before I wondered about these things.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Black children lived and went to school in a neighborhood far across town, and I was perfectly untroubled by the notion that they might be given a different school experience than I, if only because the notion did not yet exist.  True, I had been hit over the head by some Black Like Me moments during precisely the years that John Howard Griffin was writing his historic book, but it was a long road from a few astonishing pseudo-racial incidents to the realization that just across town from me, black children were having bad days in bad schools for lack of the very resources that made my own school days fairly pleasant and supremely fruitful.

And another thing I didn’t know then, and would not know for many years, was that some of those black kids in bad schools were my cousins.

The View from Behind the Courthouse

My brother, like our father a lawyer in the large Southern city which shall be nameless, occasionally takes a brownbag lunch to an area behind the courthouse.  There are benches, a view of a fork in the river, and it’s very pleasant because the eye can travel far.  He’s not the only one who likes it there. One day he got talking with a man at the other end of the bench from him.  My brother is gregarious, and easily clicks with people.  At the end of the lunch hour, he and the other guy, a black man who did business downtown, traded cards. On the card of his new friend, my brother saw our mother’s maiden name, a very unusual one.

“Let me guess,” my brother, who knew what he was getting into, said to the man.  “You must be the great-grandson of Byron S.”

“How did you know?”

“Because I am too.”

They shook hands, they made plans – my brother figures they were both kind of psyched, although it was of course very awkward.  It was also high time, my brother was thinking, as possibly was his newly discovered cousin.  So, these being enlightened times, it was all going to be all right.

That was more than ten years ago, and the two have not met again.

Byron S.

Our maternal great-grandfather, Byron S., was a banker and a two-family man.  The husband of Eleanor W.,  he had with her four children who lived past childhood, my grandmother of the white pony among them.  With another woman, a black woman who lived across town, he had many more.  This does not make him an unusual sort of Southern white man, but I didn’t know that when I first found out about it.  About it. 

This story — which is how I came to have a large black family whom I’ve never met, just as they have me — is the subject of a fiction I’m writing, so I will not write about it here.  I don’t want to meet these black descendants of Byron S. as a writer going after material. And how could I be other?  No, I want to write the thing and meet them afterwards.  And tell them truthfully, I made it all up – almost.

I do not know what they might want with me.  But they already know my first name, Elatia – it comes from very far back in my mother’s family, and there have been black Elatias too.  I mustn’t assume their curiosity about the white descendants of Byron S. is urgent.  But at the time there was a pitched battle to integrate the public schools, it probably occurred to them that the white descendants of Byron S. were holding on pretty hard to their better deal, and that only the law could or did take it from them.

MLK & Me

Much of the rhetoric of the civil rights era tends to be heard an ugly and inaccurate way. As if whites were feasting, and blacks wanted only that they should divide up their food into decent portions for everyone. The last sentence in the paragraph above reflects this thinking, although I wrote it with a subtext – whenever there are two opposed sides tussling for anything, somebody comes off with less of that thing. Hence the total absurdity of Solomon offering to cut the baby in half – not only will there be no baby, there will be a lesser half.  Over and over and over again, we need to be shown not to divide up that baby.  To see that society can only go forward as one, and that anything else is carnage.

The failure of many white people I have over the decades observed to understand  “I Have a Dream” is still striking, even as we approach the 39th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King.  Some people think it’s all about blacks rising up to claim their place at the table, elbowing whom they must.  Others regard the notion of brotherhood as no more than something achieved when whites hand over what is, after all, theirs to hand over – the bounteous gift of equality before the law.  “I Have a Dream” does not concern itself only with benefits to black people, however, nor does it detail sacrifices from whites.

Reading it, one sees that it is a moral vision of an entirely different order.  The words are both too familiar and too little understood, and the point is in any case a cumulative one that quoting a line here and there will not support. “I Have a Dream” does indeed speak of freedom for black people – freedom to do what had not been done before.  Less emphatically though no less clearly, it speaks of freedom for white people – freedom from the corrosive burden of racial hatred.   People who know what that burden is, and yet do not bear it anymore, will appreciate what Martin Luther King had to offer whites. People who do not know what that burden is have already appreciated the offer — they are living in the Promised Land.

I cannot believe that the Roberts Court has laid aside the struggle for equal opportunity at the public school level because it believes the struggle has been a success, such a brilliant success that it is like Nietzsche’s good thing that ends by overcoming itself.  Nor can I believe that they understand the Promised Land as such a selective place – like a top, top school that only the most individually responsible kids can or should enter.  What I suspect is that they believe no worse result for society will attach to dismantling school integration than to enforcing it, and that if they’re right about that, tax money and effort will have been saved. If they’re wrong about it — well, they must be comfortable with the risk.  And they say they are not social engineers.

Monday, July 2, 2007

Ocracoke Post: On the AFI Top 100 Films of All Time Ever

Were you paying attention when CBS broadcast the American Film Institute’s Tenth Annual “100 Years, 100 Movies,” a list of the Top 100 American Movies Ever Made? If you missed it or the ensuing critical flap, the two lists are side by side here at the Wikipedia. Part of the idea was to compare how this year’s list would stack up against the AFI list from ten years ago. You wouldn’t expect Citizen Kane to vanish suddenly from the Top 100, but there have been some pretty good films made in the last ten years, from The Big Lebowski (denied!) to the Lord of the Rings (#50) series. Don’t worry, I’m not writing this to complain about the AFI choices, while clutching my goatee and watching my battered copy of Last Year at Marienbad frame by frame again. Even if AFI did put three Spielberg films ahead of Double Indemnity last time, the world probably won’t end. (How Toy Story got on the new list is a mystery for the ages, but then again how can you complain about the addition of Sullivan’s Travels?) I just want to add a few titles from the last ten years that didn’t appear on the show. These are great movies, most by great living directors. Some of these films get the respect they deserve and some are great or very good films that don’t. I’ve listed nine films here so that you can provide 3QD with the tenth film in the last ten years overlooked by the AFI.

Deconstructing Harry (1997) or Celebrity (1998)Celeb
So you don’t like Woody Allen’s late style. I feel sorry for you. Stop confusing the man with the artist. Go back to Allen and appreciate him while he’s still around. In Celebrity, you can watch Kenneth Branagh try to be Woody Allen, and the ever-astounding Charlize Theron puts in an extraordinary performance as a pretty messed up model.

The Game (1997) or, yes, I’m sorry, but Panic Room (2002)
David Fincher’s take on the thriller genre in The Game is a paranoiac’s dream. It’s difficult to describe why this movie is so much fun, but it is. Sean Penn buys his brother, Michael Douglas, a very special “experience” for his birthday. Panic Room inspires nothing like the emotion promised by the title in most people I know, but they’re just wrong. Great performances from already classic Jodie Foster and the soon-to-be classic Forrest Whitaker.

Lost Highway (1997)
David Lynch is so scary. I don’t even ever want to watch this movie again. Considered a dud by many, Lost Highway is actually completely terrifying and weird. It has perhaps the scariest lines of dialog in movie history. Something to the effect of: I’ve been in your house. In fact, I’m there right now. Ugh. My skin is crawling just thinking about this movie, let’s move on.

The Big Lebowski (1998) or The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001)
At least the AFI put Fargo on their last list, but dropped it this time around. To quote Roger Ebert: “What? No Fargo?” To have Jaws, E.T., Raiders, Private Ryan, Schindler, and so forth all securely fastened to the current list is fine I gThman_who_wasnt_there_11uess, but if those choices meant excluding the Coens altogether, that is simply “laughable, man, bush league psycho-out stuff,” as Jesus Quintana once put it. Of course, I’m biased: a book I wrote with a friend on Lebowski has just been published by the British Film Institute. (The Barbican in London is showing a wonderful double bill of The Big Sleep and The Big Lebowski with our Introduction on July 15). You know what, though? At the risk of blasphemy: The Man Who Wasn’t There might be even better than Lebowski. It’s an extraordinary period piece crime genre bender and philosophical investigation of the basic noir tenets laid down by Double Indemnity. The Coens even filmed the execution scene that Billy Wilder notoriously shot at great expense but left out of the final cut.

Rushmore (1998)
This movie has probably influenced more younger writers than most living novelists and was largely responsible for the much-deserved Bill Murray rennaissance. Don’t mess with the love-life of a high school kid who knows how to train bees, I think that’s the basic message of the film.

Made (2001)
I know few people who have even heard about this hilarious mock-mob movie from Jon Favreau (who wrote Swingers), starring Favreau and Vince Vaughn, with great appearances by Peter Falk and the artist formerly known as P. Diddy. Basically it’s a story of two wanna-be gangers from L.A. who go to New York and get themselves into terrible trouble with real mobsters. If you like to laugh and especially if you love the mob genre this movie is a lesser-known gem.

Donnie Darko (2001)
Probably you are already a rabid fan of Donnie Darko or else you will never care. Supernatural giant bunny rabbits, circular time, Patrick Swayze as a pervert, and terrific scenes from life in an American high school circa 1980s.

Inside Man (2006)Photo_07_hires_3
Speaking of late styles, I love the movies Spike Lee is making these days, from subdued and classy thrillers like Clockers and Inside Man to the documentary experience of When the Levees Broke. Inside Man is just a damn-good suspense film with fine performances from Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster, about a bank heist in which the money in the vault isn’t actually the main prize.

A Scanner Darkly (2006)
I hear no end of complaints about this fine movie. I can’t imagine why. Richard Linklater gets fabulous performances from the out-of-favor crowd, Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey, Jr., and Winona Ryder, as well as another terrific strange version of the hardy perennial Woody Harrelson. The special effects thing, developed for Waking Life (also used in those Charles Schawb investment commercials), is a digitized painterly version of reality that is half-human and half-illustration or something like that. But Linklater’s greatest accomplishment is getting the dialog of Philip K. Dick, a great writer who had no idea how humans talk to each other, to sound hyper-realistic.

Below the Fold: The New Plessy versus Ferguson and White Privilege

Michael Blim

There is something odious about privilege. In this case, white privilege.

On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled in Parents Involved in Community Schools versus Seattle School District No.1 that using race as the sole criterion for assigning children to one elementary school or another violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the plurality of the Court set down their ruling is stark terms:

“Accepting racial balancing as a compelling state interest would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to our repeated recognition that ‘at the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual, or national class.’”

The racial classification of students in creating diverse public schools, Roberts argued, violates the landmark Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) decision to require school districts, as the Court put it, “to achieve a system of determining admission to public schools on a nonracial basis.” (emphasis added by Roberts) Fifty-odd years of race-conscious remedies to provide African-Americans with equal educational opportunity, other than in cases of legislated de jure school segregation, have infringed upon the rights of each child to equal treatment under the law, whether he/she is black or white.

To mark the destruction of precedent, announce the end of an era spent searching for remedies to the historical disadvantages heaped on African-Americans during slavery and after, and perhaps to create himself a memorable, quotable line for the seven o’clock news, Roberts concluded his opinion for the Court with this exhortation: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race.”

In other words, just say no.

Justice John Paul Stevens, 87 years old, member of the Court for 32 years, and its elder statesman, spotted the slight of hand right away. How could Brown, a decision to remedy state discrimination against African-Americans, now be used against them in their quest for equal educational opportunity?

Justice Stevens put it this way:
“There is a cruel irony in THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s reliance on our decision in Brown versus the Board of Education. The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: ‘Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin.’ This sentence reminds me of Anatole France’s observation: ‘The majestic equality of the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.’ THE CHIEF JUSTICE fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools. In this and other ways THE CHIEF JUSTICE rewrites the history of one of this Court’s most important decisions.”

Once more, as in Plessy versus Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court has used the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment against African-Americans for whom it was written and designed to protect.

Privileged people never see the connection between their power and the powerlessness of others. One could say charitably that it is too threatening to their virtue. One could also say less charitably that many just don’t care. It is a liability to care or to assume responsibility. It tarnishes their self-justification. It picks at the myths that they carefully pin like manifestos on the murals of public life.

So, as Justice Stevens noted, Robeerts et.al. traduced Brown to make new law. In fact, this decision is Plessy versus Ferguson in a rather shabby and ignoble Brown versus Board disguise. The only problem they might have with Plessy is that the Court at least recognized the intent of the 14th Amendment as a pledge to blacks as a disadvantaged class and as a guarantee of “absolute equality of the two races before the law,” while ruling that it was never intended to abolish the social distinctions between blacks and whites. If states wanted to create race-segregated public transportations, schools, and other public places, they could do so. The black plaintiffs, the Court argued, were unwarranted in believing that segregation “stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority.” Moreover, the Plessy Court believed, the plaintiffs assume “that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the races…. Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences…”

The Plessy Court concluded: “If the civil and political rights of both races be equal one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane…”

Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas do not wish to recognize African-Americans as a class, and do not interpret the 14th Amendment as an explicit guarantee of African-American rights as a class in light of the historic deprival of their rights in slavery. Instead they construe the 14th Amendment solely as a guarantee of each person’s right to equal protection under the law. Thus, in the case before them, if a school district prefers a black child for admission to a public school because it seeks to integrate schools racially by administrative action, or in other instances seeks to re-assign black and white students to prevent their social isolation in all black schools, or seeks to create diverse student bodies under the belief that all students would benefit from the experience, the Court finds these kinds of actions impermissible. They violate the right of a white child to have access to educational resources that she or he seeks to enjoy because he or she is white.

It is a cleaner kill of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection for African-Americans than was Plessy. African-Americans are no longer an historically disadvantaged group who lived almost 350 years as slaves and in renewed bondage under Jim Crow laws. After 388 years in America, only a minority of African-Americans since the mid-1960s have begun to live lives blessed by some measure of equal opportunity. For this Court, they have become individuals who happen to be black, one of a potentially infinite set of characteristics that defines each of them in distinctive ways. As such, their rights are no more important than those of any other persons.

Justice Thomas argues that the Constitution must be color-blind. “We are not social engineers… the Court does not sit to create an ‘inclusive society’ or to solve the problems of ‘troubled inner city schooling.’” Just as the majority in Plessy, he rejects the notion that African-Americans acquire a badge of inferiority when isolated from whites. In words that directly recall Plessy, he concludes that the Court cannot permit “measures to keep the races together and proscribe measures to keep the races apart.” He concludes: “the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race.”

Thomas takes Justice Harlan of the Plessy Court as his patron for a color-blind Constitution, quoting from Harlan’s Plessy dissent a rather odd declaration that he evidently finds supportive of his position. Justice Harlan in his peroration for a color-blind society says:

“The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. (words in italics omitted by Thomas)

This is an extraordinary comment to solicit an endorsement from Thomas. Here is Harlan, an apologist for white supremacy, denying disingenuously white dominance. Just as he refuses to recognize organized white rule, he refuses to acknowledge that African-Americans in 1896 were a caste. Color-blindness by Harlan is used here not simply as a dashing defense of individual equality before the law. In the context, it is an explicit rejection of the special status of African-Americans in the law, which even the Plessy majority accepted.

Justice Thomas and his colleagues follow Harlan’s reasoning precisely. Harlan’s white supremacist views are ignored doubtless as a recognition of the ignorance of the time.

Can Thomas and the other three justices be adjudged any less ignorant of their times? Can they be unaware of the desperate status of African-Americans today? Are they aware that as late as 1998, African-American family income was 49% of white income, and their net worth was 18% that of whites? Do they believe that 40 years of limited progress is enough compensation for 388 years of slavery and racism?

White privilege doesn’t allow these facts to come into evidence. After all, isn’t each African-American, and each American family for that matter, happy and healthy, or unhappy and unhealthy in its own way? To be so colorblind is to be so privileged that even facts are no enemy of your theory. You can actually deprive African-Americans of their rights again by ruling out of order any showing of their abundant economic and social inequality, and declare them theoretically equal in the eyes of the law.

This is the rhetorical trick of this insidious ruling.

Moreover, better to do it once and for all with a smashing opinion such as this one. Else, as Justice Roberts warned (and quoted above), people will start demanding racial proportionality throughout American life. That would put a bit of a crimp in the collar of white privilege.

In the case decided last Thursday, precedents didn’t matter. They stood Brown on its head. They converted the equal protection clause into another relatively harmless libertarian individual guarantee.

Characteristic of the far right wing in this period, they fall in with Margaret Thatcher: There is no society; there are only individuals. So use the law to strip out social missions from our institutions. Make the courts and the state simply night watchmen, there to protect property and haul off malefactors. In a game where whites start out more equal than others, if you are white, you have to like your odds.

And there is no telling what more this Court can do to pave your way.

3QD Interviews Craig Mello, Medicine Nobel Laureate

Harvey David Preisler died of cancer six years ago. He was a well-known scientist and cancer researcher himself. He was also my sister Azra's husband, and she wrote this about him here at 3QD:

Screenhunter_1_9Harvey grew up in Brooklyn and obtained his medical degree from the University of Rochester. He trained in Medicine at New York Hospitals, Cornell Medical Center, and in Medical Oncology at the National Cancer Institute. At the time of his death, he was the Director of the Cancer Institute at Rush University in Chicago and the Principal Investigator of a ten million dollar grant from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to study and treat acute myeloid leukemias (AML), in addition to several other large grants which funded his research laboratory with approximately 25 scientists entirely devoted to basic and molecular research. He published extensively including more than 350 full-length papers in peer reviewed journals, 50 books and/or book chapters and approximately 400 abstracts.

A year after his death, my sister started an annual lecture in Harvey's memory which is usually delivered by a distinguished scientist or other intellectual. The first Harvey Preisler Memorial Lecture was given by Dr. Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus as the infectious agent responsible for AIDS. This year, the lecture featured the most-recent winner of the Nobel prize in Medicine, Dr. Craig Mello, codiscoverer of RNAi.

Screenhunter_27_jun_30_1321Dr. Mello grew up in the Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C. and graduated from Fairfax Highschool there. He went to Brown for college and later got a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He then also worked as a postdoctoral fellow with Dr. James Priess at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washinton. Dr. Mello now runs his own lab at the University of Massachusetts at Worcester. This is from Wikipedia:

In 2006, Mello and Fire received the Nobel Prize for work that began in 1998, when Mello and Fire along with their colleagues (SiQun Xu, Mary Montgomery, Stephen Kostas, Sam Driver) published a paper in the journal Nature detailing how tiny snippets of RNA fool the cell into destroying the gene's messenger RNA (mRNA) before it can produce a protein – effectively shutting specific genes down.

In the annual Howard Hughes Medical Institute Scientific Meeting held on November 13, 2006 in Ashburn, Virginia, Dr. Mello recounted the phone call that he received announcing that he had won the prize. He recalls that it was shortly after 4:30 am and he had just finished checking on his daughter, and returned to his bedroom. The phone rang (or rather the green light was blinking) and his wife told him not to answer, as it was a crank call. Upon questioning his wife, she revealed that it had rung while he was out of the room and someone was playing a bad joke on them by saying that he had won the Nobel prize. When he told her that they were actually announcing the Nobel prize winners on this very day, he said “her jaw dropped.” He answered the phone, and the voice on the other end told him to get dressed, and that in half an hour his life was about to change.

The Nobel citation, issued by Sweden's Karolinska Institute, said: “This year's Nobel Laureates have discovered a fundamental mechanism for controlling the flow of genetic information.”

[Photo shows Dr. Mello with Azra and Harvey's daughter, Sheherzad Preisler.]

Just before his lecture, I had a chance to sit down in his office with Dr. Mello and speak to him about his work. On behalf of 3QD and our readers, I would like to thank Dr. Mello for making the time to explain his discovery in some detail. Asad Raza videographed our conversation:

Baseball, Apple Pie, and Bathtub Gin

by Beth Ann Bovino

A sailing trip touring the Croatian islands in the Adriatic Sea began with a gift from family. The skipper, a Slovenian man, brought out a 2 liter soda bottle to celebrate our sail, saying “it was made by his cousin”. The label and color of the drink seemed like we were being served some Canada Dry. It was wine, and not bad at that. What began the journey lasted through the trip. We finished the wine, and turned to much stronger stuff. (I’m not sure which cousin made this one.) It was a bottle of clear liquid with some kind of twig in it, probably to try and cover the taste. Upon each harbor reached, and we traveled to many, we would take another swig.

The last night culminated with the purchase of some local wine. On the street, a guy was selling glasses of white and red, a 2 kunas each. We asked for a bottle. He gave our group samples, and asked for about 35 kunas or 7 euros, no negotiation. The ‘wine’ tasted like gasoline with a hint of apple. We walked off with our purchase and celebrated the find.

While savoring the wretched drink, the question became ‘what are we drinking?’ The answer, ‘Moonshine, of course.’

What is moonshine? What makes it legal here, if, indeed, it is? How is it made and what can it do besides taste really bad and get you drunk?

Moonshine, also called white lightning, bathtub gin, is homemade fermented alcohol, usually whiskey or rum. Moonshine is a word-wide phenomenon and is made in secret, to avoid high taxes or outright bans on the stuff. In most countries, it’s illegal.

In France, moonshining was tolerated up to the late 50’s, since having an ancestor who fought in Napoleon’s armies gave you the right. The right can no longer be transferred to the descendents.

In the Republic of Macedonia, moonshine is legal, and remains the liquor of choice, at leastaccording to wikipedia. In Russia and Poland it is illegal to manufacture moonshine, but the law against it is rarely enforced. A Polish woman I met told me about helping her granddad siphon off the flow at the age of 10, and recalled how her parents always had the a few bottles around to hand out as gifts or favors. She said back then, under Soviet rule, food rations were used to make the stuff; it was usually overlooked by the state. Home distilling is legal in Slovenia, a rare occurrence.

In the United States, it’s pretty clear-cut. It is illegal to make, sell, distribute, or be in possession of moonshine. However, like baseball and apple pie, most agree that it will always be around. It is tied to U.S. history in many ways. From the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 to the Prohibition Era distillers and, now, the backwoods stills of Appalachia.

Shortly after the Revolution, the United States was struggling to pay for the expense of the long war. The solution was to tax whiskey. The American people, who had just gone to war to fight oppressive British taxes, were angry. The tax on whiskey incited the Whiskey Rebellion among frontier farmers in 1794. The rebellion was crushed, so many just built their own distillers to make their own, ignoring the federal tax.

Later on, states banned alcohol sales and consumption, encouraged moonshine. In 1920, nationwide Prohibition went into effect, to the boon of moonshiners. Suddenly, no legal alcohol was available, and the demand for moonshine shot through the roof. Easily able to increase their profits with losing business, moonshiners switched to cheaper, sugar-based or watered-down moonshine. Organized crime blossomed as speakeasies opened in every city.

When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, the market for moonshine grew thin. Later, cheaper, easily available, legal alcohol cut into business. Although moonshine continued to be a problem for federal authorities into the 1960s and ’70s, today, very few illegal alcohol cases are heard in the courts. In 1970, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms seized 5,228 stills, but from 1990 to 1995, only two stills were seized.

The law also chased down bootleggers, the smugglers who transport it and sell it. The name came from tall riding boots, where they would hide their product. Later, they raced cars packed with moonshine at night to avoid the police. They learned to drastically increase the horsepower of their vehicles to outrun the authorities. This created a culture of car lovers in the southern United States that eventually grew into the popular NASCAR racing series. The winner of the first ever NASCAR race, Glenn Dunnaway, had used the same car to make a bootleg run just a week earlier.

What about homebrewed beer and amateur winemaking? Since these activities are different from distilling alcohol, they were made legal in the 1970s. However, they can only be done in small quantities. So if you’re supplying half the bars in town with your “homebrew,” you might run into a few problems with the Feds. However, home distilling is definitely illegal in any amount. Since it’s too easy to make a mistake and create a harmful product, permits and licenses are required to ensure safety. That and the Feds want to get their tax money.

It’s All in the Mash

Crockpotstill_4

Corn is commonly used, though alcohol can actually be distilled from almost any kind of grain. http://www.unm.edu/~skolman/moonshine/history1.html Moonshiners during the Prohibition started using white sugar instead of corn meal to increase their profits, and the earliest makers supposedly used rye or barley.

The recipe for moonshine is simple:

corn meal

sugar

yeast

water

Sometimes, other ingredients are included to add flavor or ‘kick’. Once you make the mixture, called mash, you heat it for a bit of time in a still. The “Alaskan Bootleggers Bible” (Happy Mountain Publications, 2000) shows a number of stills, including the ‘two-dollar” still, using a crock pot and milk bottle.

“Drink Up, Before It Gets Dark”

Besides the several years it could land you in jail, (it could land you 5 years for moonshining, 15 years for money-laundering) what makes moonshine different from the whisky you find on the shelf at a liquor store? Aside from the obvious differences between something made in a sanitized production facility and something made at night in the woods, the primary difference is aging. When whisky comes out of the still, it looks like water. Moonshiners bottle it and sell it just like that (moonshiners’ code “It’s for selling, not drinking”). Commercial alcohols are aged for years in charred oak barrels, which gives them an amber or golden color to them. It also mellows the harsh taste. There’s no such mellowing with moonshine, which is why it has such “kick.”

There are a few other reasons why drinking moonshine can be risky. Since the whole point of making moonshine is to avoid the law, no FDA inspectors will be stopping by the backwoods at night still to check if moonshiners had wash their hands, and no one will be able ensure that all the ingredients are safe. It is not uncommon for insects or small animals to fall into the mash while it’s fermenting.

While a few furry creatures added to the mix wouldn’t likely kill anyone, you might have heard stories about people drinking moonshine and going blind — or even dying. These stories are true. During Prohibition, thousands of people died from drinking bad moonshine. I finished the sailing trip with both eyes intact. Though, one toast was “Drink up, before it gets dark!’

There isn’t anything inherently dangerous about moonshine when made properly. It is very strong alcohol with a very hard taste, or “kick,” because it hasn’t been aged. However, some distillers realized that part of the appeal of moonshine was that “kick” and experimented with different ingredients to add more kick to the drink, many poisonous, including manure, embalming fluid, bleach, rubbing alcohol and even paint thinner. Occasionally moonshine was deliberately mixed with industrial alcohol-containing products, including methanol and other substances to produce denatured alcohol. Results are toxic, with methanol easily capable of causing blindness and death.

Besides poisonous ingredients, there are other manufacturing mistakes can poison moonshine. For example, only one pass through the still may not be enough to remove all the impurities from the alcohol and create a safe batch. If the still is too hot, more than alcohol can boil off and ultimately condense — meaning more than alcohol makes it into the finished product. Either can result in a poisonous drink. While it seems exciting to try (I was fascinated by the booze and I own a crockpot), chances are you end up with pure poison. Moonshiners often die young. If they don’t go blind, or the Feds get them. Better to just walk down to your corner-store for that bottle of Jack Daniels and soda.