~ Archive for abinazirStories ~

Danny Hillis and Robert Thurman in conversation: Science, Religion and Ethics

1

I just got back from a talk with Robert Thurman and Danny Hillis at the Skirball Center here in Los Angeles. It was about religion, science and ethics, bringing together Danny’s viewpoint as a scientist and Robert’s viewpoint as a Buddhist scholar. Basically the equivalent of crack cocaine for my brain.

Thurman is the leading Tibetan Buddhist in America, a professor of religion at Columbia and buddy of the Dalai Lama. He’s just one seriously cool guy – take my word for it.

Danny Hillis is a genius. For me, the idea of genius isn’t just about being smart and having the intellectual horsepower. It’s about generativity, about making things. Well, in his spare time, Danny Hillis created the 10,000 year clock to illustrate his concept of ‘the long now’ – the idea that it’s a good idea to lead our lives now as if we’re having impact way beyond our own lives and that of our children. Hence, ‘long now’.

He’s also made a computer out of tinkertoys and been a Disney Imagineer and a zillion other things. I’d never met Danny in person, and the one thing that I noticed is that this guy is massive. He’s got these meaty bear paws, is at least 6’3”, and has the biggest head I’ve seen on a person. In fact, you could easily fit two of my heads inside his. All them neurons need a home, I tell ya.

But enough introduction. The conversation started civilly enough. Thurman talked about the 3 jewels (or refuges, or rattanas) of Buddhism: the Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha. Roughly speaking, that’s the teacher, the teachings, and the community.

Hillis then chimed in saying that science essentially has the equivalent. The teacher is nature itself, and the almost mystical ability of mathematics to model, explain and predict the world.

The teachings are the body of knowledge accumulated by many teachers. Each individual teaching is like a brick in a castle. Every once in a while, a teacher brings together a few bricks in a way to really enhance the edifice and create a whole new structure for insight – for example, when James Clerk Maxwell created the four equations of electromagnetism out of theretofore disparate fields of knowledge.

And then there is the practice of the community, which, like religion, has its own dogma – double-blind studies, peer review, reproducibility of results. Hillis emphasized that the dogma is there mostly in service of being careful to avoid the mistakes of the past.

By now a lively repartee was developing between Hillis and Thurman. And I’ve got to tell you: Robert Thurman is one funny dude. He was cracking jokes the whole time, and at least at one point, he made Danny Hillis lose it – tears, couldn’t talk, couldn’t breathe, the works. If you ever get a chance to see Thurman live, you should. The man’s a riot.

But I digress. Thurman picked up the thread at this point and talked about how the Dalai Lama has spent the last 20 years talking to scientists. He really likes science! Little known fact is that when Tenzin Gyatso, the current Dalai Lama, was a young man in India, he used to repair people’s Swiss watches for fun. Apparently Tenzin, like Danny, is an inveterate tinkerer.

In fact, Buddhism is simply about seeing reality as it is, which is why the Dalai Lama is so fond of science. All the Buddha ever did was to see reality, and to report that it was all right (as Thurman put it, cracking up the auditorium). “It’s fine!” he said, and proceeded to report that to all comers. When humans can understand reality, they release suffering. This can only be done by understanding yourself; otherwise you’re pretty much stuck.

At this point, Thurman shared one of his stories with us. In one of his earlier incarnations as a young bodhisattva, the Buddha decides to use his yogic powers and ascend to Heaven to have a chat with god. So he finds Brahma, who asks him imperiously whether he has an appointment.

Ah, no, not really, just kinda hanging out, ascending to the heavens, no biggie, I can always come back.

Alright, you can stay, says Brahma. What do you want?

Nothing. Just wanted to ask you why you created the world and how it all works.

At this point, Brahma starts just yammering away, saying some pretty official-sounding boilerplate, and then sending the bodhisattva back. The somewhat baffled young man starts to make his way out, but right outside the palace gate Brahma stops him.

“Okay, look, I know you just heard me say all that stuff, but I’m in my court, and it’s important to maintain appearances there, y’know? The fact is, I have no idea where it all came from and I have no idea how it works. I didn’t make it! It was here when I got here. I just happened to be the first one to get here.

“Then all the other people arrive, the thousands of mini-gods, and they see me here and think I’m in charge. For a while I tried to disabuse them, but then I realized it was totally futile, and I was provoking a crisis of confidence. Hence, the bluster you just heard.

He sizes up the young bodhisattva, then continues: “Now you look like the kind of person who’s going to be a buddha, which means that you will figure it all out eventually. When you do, I want you to come up her and tell me how it all works, and tell those humans down there that it’s not all my fault when things go wrong.”

This was all prelude to the idea that the Buddha was actually a scientist – someone with an unwavering dedication to seeing reality.

At this point, Danny Hillis brings up the topic that became the center point of the night’s friendly sparring: “Can you prove reincarnation?”

The doctrine of reincarnation maintains that your soul never expires, and that you have had thousands upon millions of lives preceding this one, and just as many to come (which is different from ‘reintarnation’, which maintains that you will come back in the next life as a hillbilly).

You have to understand that, to Buddhists, this is a foundational belief. It’s presupposed so deeply that it’s not even a topic of debate. But it’s clearly something that Danny couldn’t countenance (and frankly, I’m not crazy about it either).

But Thurman was armed: supposedly a Prof. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia had done some studies 40-50 years ago with thousands of cases of reincarnation. I checked the reference, and it’s true: Stevenson was the head of the UVA Dept of Psychiatry for over 30 years and wrote hundreds of papers documenting some persuasive cases of potential reincarnation. Check out his Wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

Thurman then talked about how the doctrine of emptiness, or shunyata, is the central tenet of Buddhism. Shunyata is a difficult concept – one that Buddhist monks may take a lifetime to grasp fully. So if you don’t get it right away, rest easy. The basic idea is that things have no essence that’s separate from other things; the existence of everything is relational. Emptiness is not the same as nothingness; it’s about things having no essential self (or anatta).

Hillis agreed with this notion and with the futility of names and labels in general. He picked up a plastic bottle, “this particular solution to Schroedinger’s equation at this moment in time,” and pointed out that you could call this any number of things and it wouldn’t be any one of them.

Thurman is a disarmingly formidable debater because he’s such a deep-down Buddhist that he’s not even attached to the most fundamental tenets of the religion. When Danny Hillis said that he found it hard to believe the whole notion of incarnation, Thurman quipped back, “I only half-believe in it myself!”

He even recounted a story about a meeting between Carl Sagan and the Dalai Lama. Sagan poses to the Dalai Lama, “What if science incontrovertibly disproved the idea of reincarnation? What would you do then?” Apparently without missing a beat, the Lama replies, “I will stop believing in it!” The lightness with which Buddhists – even the biggest Buddhist of them all – hold their beliefs demonstrates to me their true adherence to non-attachment.

This is when the debate got interesting. Hillis said that in science, we can measure things: action potentials, mass, brain activity, etc. This whole ‘soul’ entity was simply not measurable; and besides that, what was the mechanism by which the soul traveled?

At this point, Thurman, who is obviously well-read in science, countered that in physics, you can’t really measure things anyway: “Schroedinger’s cat – how heavy is that?” One more hearty audience chuckle scored for the professor. I don’t believe Thurman fully grasped the idea of uncertainty – the impossibility of pinning down both the momentum and position of an elementary particle – so he was using a pop-science formulation to get back at Danny (who was prepared to catch the slip, by the way). But I did laugh.

Now it was time for Danny to challenge Thurman. He said, what if artificial intelligence progressed so far as to create sentient beings – would you then say that those beings had a soul? “Sure!” replies Thurman. Buddhism has no problem with that.

At this point, the conversation moved to the idea of death, and by extension, nothing. Thurman said that in Buddhism, you can’t have nothing. That means that there is no such thing as absolute nothing – there is always something there, which is the ground of being. The Buddhist argument for this was convoluted and subtle, and frankly, you’re going to have to ask Bob about it. But this is a point on which Hillis wholeheartedly agreed: even the ‘total void’ of space constantly has particles being created and annihilated. Indeed, one can experimentally measure the existence of these virtual particles in vacuum through the Casimir-Polder effect. Wild and crazy stuff.

The title of the discussion was ‘Science, Religion and Ethics’, so Hillis touched upon the subject. He and Thurman called ethics “being in the long now” – the idea of taking the course of action that makes the most sense in the very long run. Hillis extends this idea to several generations past one’s own children – witness the 10,000-year clock and his work with the Long Now Foundation. Thurman, with the Buddhist view, has all of eternity in mind.

They talked about a lot more, and Thurman cracked us up several more times with Star Trek jokes and irreverent comments. He even had a moment of righteous indignation when talking about war and leaders who lead us into war, and how humans, in their extreme cleverness, have now made war obsolete. War is impossible, since it’s impossible to win! For elaboration of this concept, he referred us to Jonathan Schell’s The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People.

I leave you with Thurman’s epilogue, which he called his ‘consolation prize.’ He admitted that after 45 years of studying all this stuff, this night, as he was talking to us, he was still far from enlightened (and his wife and kids can attest to that). However, Buddhism says that someday, we will all achieve buddhahood. It may take longer for some, less for others. But once you’ve achieved buddhahood and ultimate enlightenment, that insight penetrates all of time, all the way to the past, to the present day. So “we will all enjoy this evening together as nirvana retroactively.”

By that token, nirvana is now, as soon as you realize that it’s now. Enjoy this perfect moment.

Beijing 2008: Cultural, Culinary and Linguistic (Mis)Adventures

1

Around January of this year, my friend Randall and I started to discuss the possibility of visiting China for the Beijing 2008 Olympics. Randall had been taking Chinese lessons for some time, and I was itching for an excuse to start them myself. After some back-and-forthing over phone and email, we carpe’d the diem on February 27, when Randall purchased a brace of plane tickets to the Imperial City. Alea iacta est — the die is cast; can’t go back. We would arrive in Beijing on Sunday, August 3, five days before the opening ceremonies of the Games of the 29th Olympiad.

Before I launch into the story, you should recognize that neither Randall nor I is a rabid sports fan. In fact, we couldn’t be bothered about organized sports at all. Our interest was in seeing China, breathing its air (occasionally), eating its food, practicing its language, and witnessing the spectacle of the games up close. And if we caught an event or two, even better.

Having attended the Games in Athens in 2004, I just wanted to marinate in the unique atmosphere the Olympics create: revelry and friendly competition between all nations; being amidst some of the most talented, hard-working, accomplished young folks on the planet; witnessing the spectacle of human achievement; seeing which country’s fans got wasted the most. Athens was an amazing experience, and I was eager to repeat it Beijing-style. As it turns out, Athens also became the touchstone by which Beijing would be judged, as Greece and China went about hosting the world’s biggest party in dramatically different ways.

Incheon our way to Beijing

If for some reason the story of our trip were to be read in Mrs Golding’s English class, she’d say that our stopover at Seoul/Incheon International Airport was an example of foreshadowing. Why? Seoul was awarded the hosting of the 1988 Olympics. At the time, Korea was at best a developing nation, their most visible product being Hyundai cars, famous for being a tin can on four wheels. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has a slightly mischievous habit of awarding the Games to countries that have a vision of being ready for it but aren’t quite yet. This corresponds roughly to the management technique of holding your employees to a higher standard than they hold themselves, and thereby propelling them to greater heights of achievement, hoping they can make it. Hence, the Olympics as catalyst for bringing Korea into the modern age.

Twenty years on, it would seem as if the gambit worked. Samsung and LG are world-renowned brands, Hyundai makes some of the most reliable cars on the planet (with a new 375-horsepower luxury model that just came out stateside), and Korea is officially the most connected country on Earth, with more broadband connections per capita than anywhere else (and a videogame-obsessed populace that has professional leagues). We did not get a chance to head into town, but we did get to hang out at the airport’s Cultural Experience Zone, which I’m sure is just as good. I mean, look at the sign! And the traditionally-dressed lady!

Having an authentic Korean experience

Moreover, I can tell you that the airport was a gleaming, spotless piece of work — a hell of a lot nicer and user-friendlier than any Heathrow, Kennedy, or Frankfurt am Main. Free internet access, excellent food at the restaurants, and seats comfortable to sleep on took the sting out of our long layovers, making them almost pleasant.

Also, a quick thank-you note to Korean Airlines for providing the best flight experience in recent memory. The entertainment system was excellent, allowing me to catch up on my summer movies (Kung Fu Panda, Smart People and Iron Man). The authentic Korean food was downright edible, the seats were napworthy, and the flight attendants way cute.

As a reminder of our destination, we were sharing our flight with the Polish handball team. These lankily muscular, handsome fellows were all clad in bright-red Polska-emblazoned uniforms — which made them particularly easy to spot when they made up half the population of the smoking room in the airport.

Asserting hegemony over the food chain, or eating random stuff we probably shouldn’t

Randall and I made a pact at the beginning of the trip to eat at least one item that we’ve never eaten before every day. This proved to be really, really easy to do — the adventurousness of our palate and utter disregard for gastrointestinal comfort were the only limits.

Our Lonely Planet guide provided an appetizing description of Wangfujing snack street, just off the main Wangfujing shopping drag, with its street vendors of skewers of various tasty meats, fruits and desserts. So we were off. We walked around in the sweltering 36C (97F) heat, checking out all these skewers piled up on top of each other, without a whole lot of refrigeration in sight. And the crazy thing was, the locals were buying this stuff by the dozen. There was the familiar — pork, chicken, squid. There was the out-of-the-ordinary — chicken hearts, kidneys, crabs, funny little fish. And then there was the exotic — seahorses, starfish, cicada larvae, and scorpions. Not just scorpions, mind you, but live scorpions. When you flicked the skewer, the scorpions wiggled. Freaky-neat.

cimg1543

At this point, any sensible human being would go, “Wow, that’s really cool,” and, it being the very first day of the trip, proceed to get a coconut and some fried rice, and sit down for a facsimile of a normal meal to ease himself into this strange land. Which is why we ordered the fresh scorpion. The vendor dunked them in reassuringly hot oil, fried the bugs and handed them to us. We each ate two, which provided us with enough proof of concept: scorpions are rich, and like cricket or bee, taste like greasy fries.

Our culinary guide for the first evening was our Harvard dorm-mate Wei, who graciously hosted us at his super-nice pad in what we found out later was the best area in town. Namely, the Chaoyang district, prime expat hangout. He took us to a Sichuan spot that same night, a stone’s throw from the pad, on Chunxiu Lu. Here, he introduced us to the concept of shuizhuyu (roughly pronounced shoe-ay joo yu) — literally, water-boiled fish. Except that the fish — the whole fish, and nothing but the fish — is really boiled in a vast vat of oil, along with a bunch of veggies, spices, onions, whole garlic cloves and blazing-hot spices, all served in a bigass platter. The oil is infused with four-alarm chili peppers and black peppercorns that make your mouth numb, or ma. Hence the term mala, ‘numb and spicy’, the hallmark of Sichuan cuisine. For some strange reason, this Sichuan speciality, common as corn over there, is hard to come by in U.S. restaurants. In any case, the fish was delectable, and we had the dish a few more times over the course of our visit. Note: your wimpy American innards will probably react violently to this lively concoction for the succeeding 2-3 days (the term volcanic comes to mind), but you should be fine after that. Maybe.

On a side note, over our travels, I found that eating the food nibble-by-nibble with chopsticks allowed us to appreciate and savor it better. It also slows down the rate of food consumption since you can only stuff your face so fast with two sticks (especially if you happen to be a clumsy white dude). Physiologists believe that the satiety signal the gastrointestinal tract sends to the brain telling it “you’ve devoured enough calories to fuel two marathons; stop already” comes from the duodenum. Food takes about 15 minutes to get to the duodenum, so if you eat food that’s too rich too fast — eminently achievable with the use of fork, knife and spoon, which are like power tools compared to chopsticks — you run the risk of overshooting the satiety signal’s calorie limit. If you do this chronically, you end up with a nation of fat people (e.g. the US). Chinese people seem predominantly slim (for now) in spite of their greasy cuisine, and I’m thinking it has to do with their tendency to walk and bike around, the still-low prevalence of Western-style junk food, their reverence for mealtimes — and the Chopstick Factor. Move over, French Paradox.  You heard it here first.

Back to the food. A brief primer on Chinese cuisine: As would be expected of a nation as vast as the US and four times as populous, there’s quite a variety of food in China. Northern (e.g. Beijing) cuisine tends to be fried and salty. Southern (Cantonese) cuisine is more intricate and flavorful, the haute-cuisine of the land, reserving the right to make fun of the rest. Uighur (pronounced WE-gur) is Muslim cuisine — lamb- and beef-intensive and pork-free. Western (Sichuan) cuisine is spicy as hell, and Eastern (Shanghai) cuisine is obsessed with pickling things. A Chinese saying encapsulates it thus: dong suan, xi la, nan tian, bei xian (East sour, West spicy, South sweet, North salty).

Every restaurant we visited handed us a novel-length menu, replete with full-color photos of every item, and the (occasionally) useful English description. Strange and borderline contraband delicacies abounded — abalone, giant whelk, shark’s fin soup, sea cucumber. I’ve never seen so many over-$100 menu items anywhere before (some of them up to $500). Where do these items come from, why are they so pricey, and who eats them? Sea cucumbers are sea-floor creatures, and they’re caught with bottom-dragging nets, which wantonly destroy entire habitats at a time. And fishermen kill whole sharks, magnificent top predators of the sea, just to harvest a stringy, cartilaginous fin. These and other items like tiger penis, which don’t necessarily taste all that good, achieved delicacy status through their supposed aphrodisiac power (NB: There is no food item with a scientifically documented aphrodisiac effect except alcohol and maaaybe chocolate). Also, affluence requires signs to display it, and these restaurants oblige the rising class of conspicuous consumers. I had heard about how demands for exotic foods endanger many a species and habitat, but to see it happening so casually on every street corner was sobering.

Meanwhile, our mission to gleefully blaze through as many species of flora and fauna possible continued unabated. We had a dark green, broccoli-esque vegetable we couldn’t finish because it was too bitter, which we later found was ‘bitter gourd’ (surprise!). The cold sliced donkey tasted pretty much like roast beef, the fried soft-shell crab was too greasy, the giant black snails were passable, thousand-year egg was harmless, the fried honeybees tasted pretty much like the scorpion, and the rats of the sky (i.e. fried pigeon) we did not try. Rounding out the list is garlic shoots (yum), dragonfruit (double yum), bai jiu liquor (vile), turtle ‘edge’ (flavorless cartilage), rice-stuffed lotus root (excellent), and smoked bamboo. And of course, fried ‘crap’. Not just crap, but catty crap. One restaurant had it on the menu, and how could we resist? Said crap was brought to our table for inspection, alive and flopping in a bucket, before meeting its shuizhuyu fate. Now that’s freshness.

We\'d like that fried, please

Two culinary experiences are de rigueur in Beijing: hotpot and roast duck. For the latter, our good man Wei took us to King Duck, one of the best duck spots in town. Here, they elevated the serving of roast duck to a near art form: the white-clad chef brought a whole duck to our table and proceeded to precision-carve the large pieces of meat, then to slice up the chunks in a sushi-intricate way and lay them on a platter. They give you thin pancakes, scallions and sweet hoisin sauce so you can make a Peking duck burrito with the whole thing and scarf it down. The skin is the most prized part of the duck, so don’t even think about removing it, health nut.

At a hotpot restaurant, you order a vat of base broth — we encountered mild, spicy, and tomato-infused — and then dunk various meats and veggies into it once it starts boiling on the gas burner at your table. The meat slices take mere seconds to cook, so you just dunk-and-nosh. It’s great fun and very tasty, and the resulting combo broth at the end, containing the essence of all the animals and vegetables who took a boiling swim in it, is quite flavorful.

For your reference in case you’re headed to Beijing, some of the good places we ate at:

– Feiteng Yuxiang Sichuan Restaurant, on Chunxiu Lu just south of Dongzhimenwai Dajie; super authentic with VIP booths and yards of beer, Chaoyang District

– South Beauty (also Sichuan food), 2nd floor of west wing of China World Trade Center, Chaoyang District

– Three Guizhou Men, Chaoyang District (order the braised pork)

These places are totally posh, and still no meal will ever cost more than $25. Unless you choose to drink yourself to oblivion, in which case it’ll cost $30 plus hangover tax the next day.

Aoyun hui! – or, oh yeah hey, that whole Olympics thing

The Olympics were the original pretext for getting us out to China, and I can say with certainty that they did actually happen. End of story.

Beijing the city

Beijing (bei, north, jing, capital) is an impressive city. Seat of the Chinese empire for over 2000 years, it’s worth a visit any time of year. And it’s simply vast – over 16,000 square kilometers. Tourist venues abound, and despite its size, quaint attractions can be found nestled in various corners … uh, what’s that? You want to hear about the Olympics? I can’t just say “well, you saw it on TV already” and leave it at that? Awright, fine, I was just pulling your leg. Quaint and nestled in the same sentence should have tipped you off.

From your man on the ground

So let me tell you all about aoyun hui (roughly, ‘awe yoon hway’, Olympics). My primary impression of the organizers was that they were trying to seem welcoming while being paranoid at the same time. You already got a feeling of that with the news reports of all the unsubstantiated terrorist threats, and the government reaction to the protests along the path of the torch relay. As you may imagine, being nasty and nice at the same time is a tough act.

This attitude was in direct contrast to the overwhelmingly welcoming (yet still circumspect) attitude of the Greeks four years ago. Whereas in Athens, there were central places to congregate, meet fans from other countries, swap stories and tickets and bump into athletes, there was no such thing in Beijing. The so-called Olympic Green — a vast, barren, concrete-and-asphalt complex containing most of the sports venues as well as the Athlete’s Village — seemed deliberately designed to discourage congregation of people for fun. Aside from a few outdoor TV screens showing Team China, there wasn’t anywhere to hang out. And you could only get into the whole complex if you had a ticket for an event happening that selfsame day. This was unfortunate, because a lot of fans felt exiled from the games they traveled thousands of miles to see.

Carrying the torch

But security had to come first. Before entering a venue, you were thoroughly frisked by a smiley-faced, white-gloved volunteer. And even if you had a credentialed pass to get into, say, the tennis venue, and you happened to be one of the co-organizers of the event (such as the American lady we had dinner with one night), there was still was a chance you couldn’t get in. There were these green-clad soldier-dudes all over the place, looking stern, solemn and not a day over 17. Presumably, they were there to make me feel safe –that’s nice. But I did have a vision of them springing into action to take down that lone hippie who’d yell “Free Tibet!” or “Go Falun Gong!” Ah, the joys of totalitarian states.

To say the Chinese went above and beyond the call of duty to stage these Games would be an understatement. They went all out. The $40-45 billion budget for these Olympics dwarfs the piddling $13 billion spent on Athens (which nearly bankrupted Greece). The beautiful, gleaming, hypermodern venues; the beautiful, gleaming, hypermodern subway; the fleet of gleaming, beautiful black Audi A6’s dedicated to shuttling around athletes and officials; the explosion of more fireworks than all the previous 28 Olympiads combined; and an opening ceremony so over-the-top as to defy description — no expense was spared.

And yet, as a visitor, I felt strangely cold. There is a difference between being officially welcoming, by playing the Beijing Welcomes You song incessantly over the radio, and actually making people feel welcome. And the Beijing metropolis, with all the poor people and beggars expelled to the provinces, factories shut down, half the cars banned and rain controlled by rockets, felt like the World’s Largest Potemkin Village. Whom they thought they had fooled is anyone’s guess. Countless jumbo blue walls all over the city carried the Beijing 2008 motto, “One world, One dream” in umpteen languages. But you couldn’t help but wonder whether Tibetans, human rights activists, or even you, casual Western tourist with ideas of your own that just may be at odds with those of the Chinese government, were part of this One World.

To be fair, yes, there were volunteers, and I can believe the official count of 100,000. They were on practically every Beijing street corner, sitting on a tiny stool and wearing the trademark red volunteer armband. Except that hardly any of them spoke English. Or could provide useful information about the neighborhood, even when asked in (admittedly choppy) Chinese. The smiley blue-and-white shirted official volunteers in venue booths did speak English and were more helpful. But in 30+ of such booths visited, not a single one could produce a schedule of the events. No schedule! Anywhere! Just guess where things are happening when, head out, and good luck with tickets (NB: full schedules were available online, just no printed ones to carry).

Few tickets, many fans

Speaking of tickets, they were scarce. The journalists with the credentials and the stacks of tickets handed to them beforehand can’t tell you that, but this here Man on the Ground can. Granted, we could have put more effort into ticket acquisition, and ultimately did find some enterprising young folks who had them at reasonable rates. But there was no official route for ticket acquisition, since all 6 quidzillion tickets had technically sold out before the Games ever started. This was baffling in light of seeing most venues 40-70% empty once you were inside. We did go to a couple of scalper’s markets right outside the venues to see if we could score, and we did. However, the mostly Chinese scalpers were asking for exorbitant prices — sometimes marked up 300 times the ticket price. My guess is that they were hoping that the silly rich Westerners would be so eager to see the events that they would cough up any amount of money. One scalper memorably demanded $147 (1000 RMB) for a $5 handball ticket at 2.30pm — when the game had already started at 2!

Now if you were a rabid enough fan, cough up you did. Gymnastics and swimming were going for legendary prices, and a friend felt lucky to score gymnastics tix for $200 each. Again, the normal fans without connections or unlimited cash — the backpackers, the youngsters, the oldsters, the families whose last name wasn’t Gates, Buffett, or Walton — were left high and dry, such as the mother outside the Green holding up a sign saying she needed a swimming ticket to see her daughter compete.

In the end, we did see some events, and it’s always fun to see how the fans from the various countries behave. Most had learned how to cheer in Chinese — Idali jiayou! (”Go Italy!”). And so did we, letting out hearty war-whoops of Meiguo jiayou! when American boxer Raynell Williams took to the canvas. Of course, the fastest way to get a hearty chuckle out of a Beijinger was to wave your little Chinese flag and say Zhongguo jiayou! (jung-guo ja-yo) and let them marvel at the spectacle of a white dude attempting Mandarin. Giving directions to the Mongolians from Ulaan Baataar was a highlight, as was meeting the Thai boxing fans dressed in full traditional regalia. (picture)

Thailand jiayou! (with my good man Dwayne)

Heineken Holland House was another highlight, home base for the Dutch fans and a well-oiled nightly party machine. Ah, how I missed it from Athens — so glad to see you guys again! The solidarity, unbridled delight and raucousness of the Dutch fans and their nightly celebration of their successful Olympians was a joy to behold and something the Americans could well emulate at future games (ya hear, Budweiser?). Particularly refreshing were the impromptu regular appearances of Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of Holland, chatting with the fans, fielding questions and having pictures taken with him, with no intermediaries, handlers, bodyguards or velvet rope in sight.

Jan Peter Balkenende in the H-House

Unfortunately, these parties were shut down at 2am by Chinese edict (although, mysteriously enough, the ones next door at Club Bud went till 5am). Officially, no bar was allowed to serve alcohol within a 2km radius of a venue, and all revelry was to stop by 2. Luckily, this is not what actually came to pass, and most late-night venues continued to be late-night venues. Still, when you go to a country you just know if they’re party people. Greeks are party people — heck, they probably invented the party. Italians are party people. Iranians are party people. The Spanish, Irish and Dutch are definitely party people. On the other hand, Americans are not party people (how many cities in the US can you stay out in past 2am?). Too damn hardworking for their own good. The Chinese are party people — it’s just that Communist is the wrong kind of party.

There’s gold in them thar random sports

During our time in the apartment, we caught some of the Olympic action on one of the 14 state TV channels (which are actually pretty good). Just like in the US, the action was focused on the homeboys and homegirls — Chinese athletes kicking several metric tons of ass in weightlifting, boxing, judo, gymnastics, shooting, archery, rowing, and fencing. Waitasec, let me re-read that part — Shooting? Archery? Rowing? Fencing? Yes, the highfalutin’ Euro sports put in there just the way Baron Pierre de Coubertin wanted them became the medal fields for the host country to reap.

The cognitive dissonance resolves itself once you realize that this is the end result of the policy of juguo, or ‘whole nation’. Starting in 1979, the government would screen young hopefuls, and if they fit the biometric parameters, would employ them as athletes, completely controlling their careers. (Amusing sidenote: Olympic light-flyweight gold medal boxer Zhou Shiming was initially disqualified by this process because his reach wan’t long enough, but they snuck him past the inspectors somehow.) To this observer, the state-funded factory farming of medals seems strangely at odds with the Olympic spirit and a pretty honest display of some inferiority complex the government seems to have. And somehow a bunch of metal discs strung on a ribbon are going to make up for that? Even in China, on the website of the state-run news agency Xinhua, this appropriation of massive resources to the cause of jingoism has been called “profligate” and “extremely unfair.” So, organizer dudes — are the Olympics a platform for promoting international friendship, or a stage for displaying China’s nascent supremacy? You sure got us confused. In the meantime — zhongguo jiayou!

Then again, perhaps it makes sense not to take the Olympics too seriously. Founded by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the modern Olympics started as a plaything of the European aristocracy and continues to be so to this day, giving otherwise unemployed people like Prince Albert of Monaco something to do. Political displays are no stranger to the Games (Berlin 1936, Munich 1972, Moscow 1980, Los Angeles 1984). And what was most on display in Beijing was money, money, money: Lenovo, Audi, China Telecom, McDonald’s, Coke. The fact that the last two companies are in the business of making people fat and unhealthy with tasty poison is irrelevant to the sporting event.

So, as long as you take the Olympics for exactly what it is — big money supporting a big sporting event with its attendant corruption and scandal, and the host country given a chance to showboat — you can enjoy it plenty. Start hearkening back to some true spirit of the Games, which arguably never existed, and it becomes less fun. Buddy, this is the true spirit of the Games.

Death Race 2008, or a Beijing cab ride

Cab rides in every city offer singular insight into the local culture.  First off, you need to know that Beijing cabs are dirt cheap.  The initial charge is 10 yuan ($1.47), which is sufficient for most short hops.  20 yuan means you traveled far, and almost no cab ride will exceed 30 yuan.

I had heard alarming things about driving in China, but was pleasantly surprised to find that, aside from some stylistic differences, it wasn’t so bad in Beijing (more reason to worry in the provinces, apparently).  The miracle was that you had cyclists, pedestrians and cars all sharing the streets at their own pace, weaving into each other while seemingly oblivious to one another, with nary an accident was to be seen.  The first dozen times that our cab driver would drive enthusiastically into a thicket of street-crossing pedestrians, I gasped in horror, thinking surely blood will be on our hands.  On right-hand turns, cabbies had no compunctions about ramming straight through the one-foot gap between walking couples — so not Santa Monica (but very New York). They also had no problem nearly broadsiding each other on left turns.  No right of way here; only get your way.  In spite of it all, the accidents we dreaded never happened, and we lived to tell.

Sightseeing and, um, culture

Let the record show that Sir Randall and I started this trip with sterling intentions. We invested time and money in learning Chinese beforehand. We agreed to sample the cuisine liberally and without prejudice, gastric turmoil be damned. We resolved to meet the natives, to attempt earnestly to communicate in their tongue, and to get a true feel for the Middle Kingdom.

Let the record also show that somewhere along the line, this noble resolve started to fray. And then gradually erode. And then come tumbling down in a vast landslide of crude jokes, shameless ethnocentrism, body noises and good ol’ American ignorance. Who knew that beneath the well-meaning façade of a brace of well-educated would-be cultural attaches lurked Beavis and Butthead, quietly awaiting their turn in the sun to crack a fart joke.  Preferably in a temple.

This first trip to East Asia made me just realize just how much I was a product of my culture. As an Iranian, I’m still steeped in an Indo-European heritage shared from the banks of the Ganges all the way to California. As an American and Westerner, I’m heir to the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions. None of this has a toehold in China, leaving me without a frame of reference. And this is after studying Chinese philosophy for over a decade. The writing is all squiggles I couldn’t make out or somehow fudge. A strange homogeneity seemed to reign over the populace, above and beyond the influence of Communism. As the saying goes, “The bird that sticks its head out of the bushes gets shot.” Saving face seemed to take precedence over rationality. I was delighted, baffled, delighted again, confused, then just accepting — yurp, this here place sure’s different. Still, it was the first time that I couldn’t wait to get back home from a trip. Sometimes you just need things to make sense around you again.

And so the sightseeing was different. When I went to see the Parthenon, it was a religious experience. After studying it for so long, being on a first-name basis with Kallikrates and Phidias, knocking back ouzo with them, here it was, a monument to beauty, time, and the human mind. Were the palaces in the Forbidden City any less? Was the Summer Palace complex not an order of magnitude more majestic than Versailles? But this here yankee wasn’t equipped to get it yet. So I tacitly acknowledge the greatness of all that we saw, knowing that as my Chinese improves and with it, my understanding of this rich culture, I will get it.

In the meantime, the Forbidden City is awe-inspiring. And the city-sized (no joke) Summer Palace probably impressed and intimidated any visiting dignitary with its gleefully brazen display of imperial wealth and power. The Lama Temple had a giant 55ft (18m) Maitreya Buddha carved out of a single piece of sandalwood — very cool. The Temple of Heaven, where emperors made offerings to ensure a good harvest, was beautifully serene, and the Great Wall was one impressive beast. I finally understood what they meant by “I climbed the Great Wall” — in places, the Wall goes up at a 45 degree angle, and you almost have to rappel down.

It was a Wall, and it was indeed Great

Engrish Anguish

With the darn buildings out of the way, let’s get to the interesting stuff — namely, signs in mangled English, or Engrish, as we hereby dub the new language (e.g. ‘crap’ as in the menu above). The Engrish ranged from the discrepant (funny), misguided (very funny), absurd (hilarious) to nonsensical (no longer funny — see section on Bob Mankoff in New Yorker Conference article below). Right here are some of the choice morsels from the hundreds of candidates that we saw. No Roman characters in China would escape the dread clutches of Engrish, oh no.

Coffee cop Engrish

Well. That cleared up everything.

But perilous hills are the best kind!

Of course, we retaliated for the Engrish by savaging the Chinese language whenever we attempted to use it. One of the reasons why Chinese is such a challenge to a Westerner is because of tones. Here’s the story: each Chinese syllable, represented by a character, is made up of an initial consonant and a final vowel — an initial and a final for short. So you can’t have a consonant at the end of a syllable (with the exception of nasalized -n or -ng, as in chang). Ma is allowed; mad is not. You figure there are 20-30 each of initial and final sounds, giving you a repertoire of 800 possible words. This clearly isn’t enough to encode a full language, so you create diversity by adding a melodic element, or tone. With 5 tones (flat, up, down-up, down and short-neutral), you have now increased the repertoire of syllables to 4000 or so. Combine syllables in pairs, and now you can generate enough symbolic diversity to code for all the stuff in your environment without too much overlap.

Don\'t a softie -- keep \'em lofty

But overlap still happens, and because of the limited coding potential of the initial-final system, there’s a lot more overlap than alphabetic languages, which have essentially infinite coding capacity. And yet, English has tons of overlap, too, and most of us can figure out from context whether whether we want to play a set of tennis, we’re all set for the evening, we need a set of silverware or we just had a broken bone set.

The problem is that the Western ear uses tones to encode for other things like mood and mode. Am I feeling lighthearted? Am I asking a question? My tones go up and down accordingly. And if I was talking at a Chinese friend’s family dinner, I may have just told him that his horse (ma, 3rd tone, down-up) is an excellent cook instead of his mother (ma, 1st tone, flat). Which I’m sure I did countless times on this trip.

The picture below illlustrates the point: four (si) sounds like death (also si, but different tone).  In Hong Kong, they’re way superstitious about such things, so there is no 4th, 14th or 24th floor.  Most Beijing buildings have a 4th floor, but ours was built by a Hong Kong company — hence the omissions.

What are they missing for?  Oh crap, I said it again...

And then there are the characters. There is no alphabet; each character is unique. The average Chinese person knows about 4000 of them. There is a bit of a phonetic and logical element to each character, which I’m not going to get into here, but the only real way to be able to pronounce a character is to know it beforehand. If you haven’t seen it before, you’re basically screwed. Then there’s the simplified character set, in use in mainland China, and the more complex traditional character set, in use in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. And then there’s the cursive handwritten script, which looks significantly different from its printed counterpart. All in all, this is a lot of information and complexity to handle. Apparently it takes a schoolkid a good 5 years to master all these elements. I am in awe any time someone can speak, read and write this language with effortless ease. I’ll be able to do it better someday, but for now, it all seems miraculous.

Transliteration frustration

One thing that I did not understand before starting my Chinese lessons was this: why does the transliteration of Chinese words into English sound different than the way they look?  Why is ‘Wang’ really ‘Wong’, and ‘Mao Zedong’ really ‘Mao Tsedong’?  Presumably, you turned it into English so you could actually read it.  Why not write it the way you want it pronounced?

Turns out that this is because what we’re looking at is basically a transliteration (or romanization) system, namely pinyin.  And the letters, which look like our own, may as well be Cyrillic or Arabic, because there is no one-to-one correspondence between pinyin letters and English sounds.  The pinyin C, for example, is tsCao is pronounced tsaoZ is like dz.  And there’s no a priori way for you to know that.  The very common surname Wang is pronounced more like wong, which is why you see both spellings Stateside.

All cheekiness aside, this was one of my most enlightening trips. China has an ancient, venerable, deep, and challenging culture, well worth studying and understanding. People, countless numbers of people, waves of people, moutains of people, so many people that the entire population of the US is a rounding error in the number of Chinese people (0.3 billion vs 1.3 billion), all of them living, loving, eating, working and somehow getting by, is a wonder to behold. And should even a fraction of them succeed in their seeming quest to become more like meat-eating, fuel-burning, all-consuming Americans, boy is Planet Earth in for a ride. In any case, I encourage all of my readers to learn Chinese. It’s fun and useful to speak the language of your future boss.

The New Yorker Conference 2008: A Hail of Big Ideas

1

Last year was the first time The New Yorker magazine organized a conference around innovators. At first, I was a bit skeptical, especially since the whole affair lasted just a day and cost a pretty penny and a half. But over the weeks, as every issue of the magazine teased me with yet another brilliant speaker eager to share presto-neato ideas with the world, I decided to plunk down — to find that it was sold out. I had already bought my plane ticket to New York City, so I flew in anyway and spent some quality time with friends. Of course, not before making a quasi-valiant effort at socially engineering my way into the conference — le système D, as the wily French put it.  But pan out it did not, leaving me resolved that this business of being shut out of overpriced conferences will never happen again.

So when the 2008 edition of the conference was announced, I made a big sticky note of the date and time online registration opened, and hopped on it mere seconds after the e-doors opened at 9.00am PST on February 6, 2008. This time the conference cost two pretty pennies, but clearly that was not going to deter this here man on a mission. I was in, baby, in. Later I was informed by one of the kind organizers that I was the very first registrant. Zealotry = results.

Fast forward to the morning of Thursday, May 8. I arrived by cab on a rainy New York morning before the whimsically imposing InterActive Corp (IAC) Headquarters building by the Chelsea Piers. The first impression I got of this building was of a giant wedding cake, with a lot of reflective meringue frosting, if that makes any sense. The swoopy lines and curvilinear facade practically scream “Frank Gehry was here.” And the frosted glass with the transparent bands makes it look like the entire building is wearing sunglasses. And as we all know, people and buildings who wear sunglasses are cool. Even without that, the IAC building is pretty damn cool. Amazing what you can build these days with a spare billion or two.Large meringue cake wearing sunglasses

Keynote address: Malcolm Gladwell and the mismatch problem

The interior was aesthetically pleasing and superbly well laid-out I’m sure, but at this point the 7.50am priorities of my brain had decided to ignore everything except what was on the delectable breakfast spread just inside the front entrance. Afterwards, body sated and lizard brain pacified on bagels, lox, juice and fruit, I stationed myself third row center for the keynote speaker, Malcolm Gladwell, who was to discuss the mismatch problem — a preview of his upcoming book on how to hire the right person for the job.

To motivate his discussion, Malcolm introduced the combine, the recruiting protocol from professional sports. Combines bring together every eligible athlete and the most senior talent scouts from every professional team for a multi-day battery of testing — sprints, endurance tests, intelligence quizzes, cookie baking contests, the usual. As it turns out, the results have a poor correlation with the promise of the athletes it selects. As an example, Malcolm mentioned that in the most recent NBA draft, the top 3 scorers in the combine either didn’t make the NBA or didn’t get to play much at all. Conversely, two of the top three rookies in the NBA this year performed mediocrely (or worse) at the combine — 62/81 for Greg Odin and 21/81 for Al Horford. In the National Football League, the Wunderlich test, an intelligence test administered to all prospective quarterbacks, performs even worse. The 7 worst scorers on this test (amongst whom Dan Marino and Terry Bradshaw) outperformed the 7 best scorers by miles (which is thousands of yards).

And so you have the mismatch problem: tests that evaluate the wrong competencies for the task at hand. Malcolm also discussed mismatch issues in credentialing teachers, training cops, politicians, airline pilots and physicians.

From my own experience (see post below on ‘Why you should not go to medical school’), I can tell you that the pre-medical training that undergraduates are obligated to follow has next to no bearing on what they will do in medical school, which in turn has limited bearing upon actual medical practice. What premeds learn in organic chemistry, classical mechanics and advanced mathematics they are likely never to use — not even once — in the course of a non-academic medical career. These take up valuable semesters that a premed could be spending learning something about epidemiology — real diseases requiring real solutions — or even practicing patience and compassion through public service.

But I digress. Malcolm concluded his talk with two reasons why it’s time to get rid of the combine: hard, objective, seemingly clear statistics and numbers don’t seem to account for uncertainty when it comes to hiring people (because even without beards and wool sweaters, people are inherently fuzzy); and with rising standards, the complexity of such decision-making is increasing.

Before I continue with the next speaker, a note about the backdrop of the conference: the 120-ft (36m) by 11ft (3.3m) IAC Video Wall, ‘the largest high-resolution screen in the world’. If Oscar Wilde was correct in his assessment that nothing succeeds like excess — hello success. For all of you guys out there who boast of your 60-inch flatscreen TV or whatnot, allow me to put this into perspective: this is a 1440-inch flatscreen (technically 1446, since it’s measured diagonally). Consider your monitor ego pummeled.

Gavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, was next. He may be the most charismatic individual I’ve encountered in person. Tall (6′3″ at least) with bright blue eyes, politician-perfect sleek hair and chiseled features, the guy is unreasonably good-looking. The way he holds his body, waves his hands and broadcasts his voice was oratorical in the grand Caeser-like tradition, as if addressing the whole Coliseum, even though we were just a few feet away from him. The man knows how to project, and he has conviction in his voice. Look for him in an upcoming gubernatorial, senatorial or presidential campaign — the boy is good.

Newsom also knows the power of the Big Idea, and he’s had some decent ones so far. He’s taken recycling in San Francisco from 20% to 50% to 72%, and talked about “giving incentive to people to do the right thing.” He’s banned plastic bags in the city, is phasing out plastic bottles, and wants to institute mandatory composting. “More politicians need to screw up,” he exhorted, encouraging his peers to take more risks and “fail forward fast” without letting the fear of media reprisal to hold them back. He talked about the creation of ‘green-collar jobs’, creating the country’s largest alternative fuel fleet in San Francisco (plug-in hybrids?), and replacing the payroll tax with a carbon footprint tax. Altogether, he cuts a visionary, dynamic, yet pragmatic figure who gets real results (and landslide re-election numbers — 72% for his last run). To all his detractors who say he’s full of air or too slick, I present to you Exhibit A, the tires on my Trek road bike: full of air and slick, and also efficient, fast, and pretty much good for you. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Andy Stern, President of SEIU

If you ever want to make me sweat at a speaking engagement, why don’t you schedule me after one of the most eloquent writers of the day, followed by a preposterously telegenic, charismatic politician — and make me speak about labor unions. Well, that’s what Andy Stern did, and the man held his own quite well. He’s the President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and a seriously progressive thinker and doer.

I liked his framework of “3 major economic revolutions.” First, the agrarian one, took 3000 years, taking us from hunter-gatherer societies to settled farming ones. Next came the industrial revolution, which took about 300 years, moving the economic base to cities. And finally came the information revolution, moving the means of production from muscle to mind, from national to international. This one has taken a mere 30 years to change everything.

Since the subtitle of the conference was ‘voices from the near future’, Andy gave us a little preview of coming distractions:

– He declared employee-provided health insurance obsolete. In a global marketplace, you can’t have competitive products if you’re tacking on them the exorbitant price of healthcare when other countries aren’t doing that.

– Job-based pensions need to go. Witness the crippling of the American automotive industry.

–Pay will move to a merit- and performance-based system, especially in executive compensation.

Linda Avey & Anne Wojcicki, 23andMe.com

Here’s a cool idea I’m sure some of you have had ever since the human genome was first sequenced: sequence me! That’s what Linda and Anne have come up with — well, almost. The cost of sequencing all 3 billion base pairs in your no doubt fantastically interesting genome (”Omigod, my DNA spells GAG! And TAG! And GAGA! And my homeobox sequence is so much cooler than yours”) is still prohibitively high (on the order of $30k-$300K, or approximately 8 euro these days), so these cats do not sequence your entire genome. They’re way too smart for that. Instead, they chop up your DNA specimen (sent to them via spit sample in sleek tube) and then run it over a chip with over half a million different DNA sequences on it.  A sequence on the chip lights up when one of of your DNA bits sticks to it, and then a scanner can read it and enter the data into a computadora. Voila, now you know one of your SNPs — a single nucleotide polymorphism, which is a fancy way of saying one point at which your DNA is unique (a big deal, since we’re all >99.8% similar).

Okay, so far so good. Any lab monkey can do that. But now these guys have your DNA sequence and they hook it into a continuously updated database of genetic information. So whenever a new gene is discovered, a genetic disease figured out or some random factoid found out about your molecular instruction manual, you get an update. And you can noodle on your own Personal Genome Account and explore your genome, finally figuring out whether to thank mommy or daddy for your genius, charm and premature balding.

Well, not quite, since our genetic knowledge isn’t quite so advanced as to be able to nail down one SNP as responsible for one trait. Moreover, macroscopic traits (e.g. red hair, tall stature, inordinate fondness for pork rinds) tend to be multifactorial, so it’s going to be some more years before we figure out how genotype leads to phenotype. In the meantime, for a mere $1000, this is the ultimate gift for the man who has everything.

Must say that the whole venture seemed a bit far out, with a fuzzy business model at best and dubious sustainable competitive advantage (i.e. relatively easy to duplicate what they do). So how did it get funded? A clue was offered to me by one of my fellow attendees: apparently Anne Wojcicki, the younger of the 23andMe duo, last year married the World’s Most Eligible Bachelor — a certain Sergey Brin, cofounder of Google. I’ll let your unbridled speculation take over from there.

Eric Haseltine on new ways to fight bad guys

From the moment he starts talking, you know this guy’s brilliant — rapid delivery, quick sharp gestures, wide open eyes. Tall, slim, bald and 50ish, Haseltine’s a former Imagineer at Disney, he later became the Director of Research at the slightly less secretive National Security Agency, and then got other jobs about which he couldn’t tell us much. Which may explain why he only gestured and nodded during his talk.

Nah, talk he did. Haseltine opened with a reference to James Bond, that bulwark to all anti-Western baddies: “You know that guy who has all the gadgets in the James Bond movies? What’s his name, ‘Q’? Well, I’m Q.”

With some very clever slides, he demonstrated his point that the US intelligence community is like an elephant trying to fight swarms of mosquitoes. In response to the mosquito threat, the intelligence community decided to become an even better elephant — bigger ears, tusks, snout — whereas what it should have done is become a different kind of organism entirely. Like a mosquito-eating wasp, for example.

Haseltine highlighted the ascendancy of ideas over bits of data, and how outgunned we are in that domain by the likes of Bin Laden who successfully capture the hearts and minds of youth at an impressionable age. He was about to tell us how this approach can be used against the likes of Al Qaeda — and then went strangely silent again. “But get me drunk over lunch, and I’ll spill the beans. Just don’t tell my boss.” Never underestimate the power of Bud Lite.

Yoky Matsuoka: Neurobotics

The young director of the Neurobotics Lab at the University of Washington and a 2007 MacArthur Fellow, Yoky delivered the talk with the highest gee-whiz factor of the conference. I was so rapt that I barely took any notes. As its name implies, neurobotics is the marriage of robotics to neuroscience, allowing you to make prosthetics that are controlled by your own nervous system.

Yoky’s big project is the anatomical hand. Even the best robotic hands have rigid palms, which is not the way the human hand is designed. So she designed a robotic hand that closely mimics all the bones and joints in a real hand. The result is a hand with surprisingly lifelike motion and vast capability. It’s really uncanny to watch it actuated; you may want to go check it out on The New Yorker main site, where all the talks are posted.

The other idea she put forth was that of wearable sensors which track your nerve firing patterns. Say you’re hitting a golf ball, and you shank it. With the sensors, you can figure out the pattern of muscle contractions that led to said shank. That way, next time you’re on the golf course, you know exactly which muscle to blame when you shank it again (”Damn teres minor!”), thereby sparing your 5-iron from being bent into pretzel shape. Told you it was useful.

Amy Smith: Humanitarian engineering

Amy opened her talk with a clever little gambit: “How many of you had breakfast today?” A certain number of hands went up. “Okay, how many of you prepared your own breakfast?” Fewer hands stayed up (and by fewer I mean zero). “How many of you raised the grain that went into your breakfast? Walked 3 miles each way to a waterhole to bring water for your breakfast?” Yes, slackers all of us. We just moseyed over to the buffet. But, BUT — had we been given the option to go into the predawn light and the fresh morning air to gather the ingredients for our breakfast; to thresh the corn with our own hands and boil the well-water with the firewood we ourselves gathered; in short, to commune with nature and feel integrated into the cycle of life — we would probably still have taken the option to attack the bagels and lox at the buffet. Not to mention the grapefruit juice. Damn that stuff was good.

Boorishness aside, Amy showed us some cheap simple gadgets for making the hard life easier. The round plastic corn-thresher was incredibly easy to use and very cheap to produce. The charcoal briquet maker was also a hit, making cooking fuel more accessible and reducing the amount of soot villagers had to inhale.  Amy has invented many such low-cost, high-impact devices: a grain-grinding hammermill, an incubator that works without electricity, and a water-purification device amongst them.

The ‘living on $2 a day’ exercise that Amy assigns to her students was also a nice brain-tickle. Even if you only think about it for a few minutes instead of actually trying to live it for 10 days, the tradeoff between time and money in your life becomes immediately obvious. It also becomes easy to understand why poor people tend to stay poor when so much of their time is devoted to sustenance-related activities.

Michael Novogratz, finance honcho

I had never heard of Mr Novogratz before his talk. But let the record show that he is a sharp dresser. Then again, all of these finance moguls are sharp dressers — how can you not be when you can throw thousands of bucks at an outfit?

So allow me this opportunity to digress into a rant on men’s clothing. I don’t care how much you drop on your suit, mister — whatever you do, it’s still just a suit, and it’s still boring. And how are they different from each other anyway? Oh, right — lapel width. Wow. There’s a renegade for ya. Number of buttons. Look, we’ve got a rebel here with four-button suit — everybody take cover! Double-breasted vs. single-breasted — silly nomenclature for a silly style. And all these vestigial, perfectly useless (or at least poorly designed) features: buttons that don’t work (on the cuffs), pockets that are difficult to reach (designed for your daily commute on a horse), vents that don’t vent, buttonholes that aren’t holes (on the lapel), and general discomfort all around. And a shirt collar — what the heck’s that good for besides digging into your flesh and restricting bloodflow to your noggin? And don’t even get me started on ties — the single most ridiculous accessory known to mankind, a self-inflicted noose and interloper into your dinner dish. And the crazy part is that guys wear those ass tails on their necks and actually think they’re cool. Some future generation will see our insistent folly the same way we see those guys in the Rembrandt paintings with the bigass floofy collars around their necks that keep them from seeing their own feet (and other important body parts). Oh, and next time you’re examined by a doc who’s wearing a tie, ask him how many times he’s ever washed it. And how many patients he’s seen while wearing it.  The answer should be sobering.

Returning to our esteemed speakers and their ideas. Novogratz is a president of the Fortress Investment Group, “a global alternative-asset firm with over $40 billion of capital under management”, and was at Goldman Sachs for eleven years. He opened with this question about our current state of economic affairs: “Why did we get here?”

He started his story with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. He called this the beginning of globalization, with 400 million new economic players joining in the game from Eastern Europe, India and China. In 2003-04, globalization really heats up, and there is an unbroken rise in productivity from March ‘03 to August ‘07. Such productivity surges “end in revolution”, he remarked, because gains tend to accrue to the top of the pyramid, not to the bottom.

This was the most fascinating part of his talk: US individual incomes by percentile. To be at the 50th percentile of annual income in the US, you have to make $43,000. The 80th percentile is at $75,000. 95th percentile is $175,000, 99th percentile $750,000, 99.9th percentile $2.2m, and 99.99th percentile is $13m of annual income. At the 99.99th percentile — that means, at the level where your income is at the top 0.01% of the population — your wealth is accruing at a rate of 23% annually. To bring that into perspective, consider that the 23% increase equals $3.0 million in numerical terms — or $800,000 more than the piddling 99.9th percentilers make per year. Even at the very top, the wealth disparity is increasing at a fabulous rate.

Finally, Novogratz pointed out a megatrend worth pointing out: the US will become less and less economically relevant every year. This follows fairly logically from the fantastic growth in such places as India, China, Russia and the Gulf States, but as an American, it’s always hard to imagine losing our privileged place in the world. It’s happening now, so we may as well get used to the idea.

Robert Mankoff, cartoon editor of The New Yorker

This may have been the most fun talk of them all, partially because of Mankoff’s puckish sense of humor and because of the sample cartoons he put up, which I cannot reproduce for you here. But yes — not only is Mankoff funny in person, but he also takes humor quite seriously, if you know what I mean. He’s been participating in the University of Michigan’s Humor at Michigan program since 2004, exploring the social, cognitive and emotional aspects of humor. And he had the graphs to show for it.

One graph showed four straight lines of increasing slope fanning out from the origin. This was the ‘degrees of humor’ diagram. The lowest slope line was ‘close to normal’. A cartoon along this line would likely not elicit a chuckle, since, well, it’s too close to normal. The next line up is humor, within the realm of reality. Something here is discrepant, but still plausible, so we laugh. The next line up is absurdity (”The cop told me I was driving over 65 miles an hour.  I told him I’m not driving that long” — Steven Wright), which can still be funny. And beyond that, we get nonsense (”Mack chop egg bolt dry”), which is no longer funny.

Mankoff also touched upon two central elements of humor. “Humor involves diminishing things,” he said, and to illustrate his point, he showed a picture of Michelangelo’s David (not funny) followed by a cartoon of ‘Fat David’ (funny! — guess you had to be there). The other element of humor is incongruity — setting up the expectations of your audience, then thwarting it. I remember Edward de Bono talking about this in his seminal work Lateral Thinking. Laughter happens when you’re merrily chugging along from Point A, expecting to arrive at Point B any second now — and then you’re yanked via the unseen hand of humor to Point C, clearly not in Kansas anymore, and look back on Point B and have the insight, “Ah, I see how it’s possible to end up here!” Hilarity ensues. Case in point: Man walks into a bar. He says, “Ouch!” Point A is man walking into bar, Point B is to hear some standard bar joke, Point C is ‘ouch’, and the insight is that ‘walking into a bar’ is a pun. Almost any joke can be deconstructed this way, and rendered equally unfunny, so you really don’t have to try this at home. Jokes are like frogs — you dissect them, they die.

Paco Underhill, retail anthropologist

I had never met a black phalarope, xebu or retail anthropologist before, and this conference rectified one of those shortcomings.  And it’s quite possible that Paco Underhill is more interesting than that xebu or phalarope.  This is because he’s the author of Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping, and he’s studied the habits of Homo shopaholicus well.

Before launching into his rant on how poorly airports are designed, Paco discussed general trends in environmental design.  Visual language is evolving faster than verbal language nowadays, and it is being created by the dude in front of the CAD/CAM screen who is under 30 (while most of us are not).  The retail environment is also largely owned and designed by men, but women are expected to participate in it.  Also a curious point about real vs. perceived time in retail environments: people will inflate by 50% the amount of time they spend in a store.  Kind of like they do when they’re hypnotized.

One of the big shortcomings of airports, Paco remarked, was that we tend to build the physical infrastructure first, then overlay the information structure on top of it.  In a very information-intensive place like an airport, that can yield frustrating results.  For example, how many times have you gotten past security and walked up and down the terminal trying to find out which gate your flight departs from?  Clearly the designers of the building did not have in mind that actual travelers would be using this terminal.  How about putting gate information right outside so we see it as we drive?  Or right at the security checkpoint before getting into the terminal?  I have yet to encounter that in my travels.

Paco advocated studying what people actually do in an airport (apparently 50%+ use the bathroom and just about as many shop) and make the design amenable to those activities.  Profitability should then be commensurate with amenability.  The Underhill formula for good airport design, then, is something like Good Airport = physical design + information structure + operations.  He claimed that the new Terminal 3 at Beijing Airport built for the Olympics absolutely nails this.  Having flown out of there to Shanghai not too long ago, I can verify that not only is it a visually impressive structure, but my experience there in finding what I needed to find and getting where I needed to get (except for the part where the overly paranoid security automatons put my luggage through X-ray 3 times and confiscated my sunscreen because is was a 125ml container instead of a 100ml one) were quite pleasant.

Jane McGonigal: Saving the world through game design

Jane McGonigal is way cute.  With that out of the way, I can now tell you about her completely outrageous, brilliant gaming projects.  She opened her talk by positing that the historical function of games has been to solve a social problem and alleviate suffering.  For example, Herodotus mentions the 18yr Lydian famine and how people passed the time in the midst of crisis by playing games.  This has come all the way to today, where Massively Multiplayer (MMP) games such as World of Warcraft take up on average 24hrs/wk of those with enough cognitive surplus to engage in them.

She also discussed the economics of engagement and four components of happiness: satisfying work to do; experiencing being good at something; spending time with people we like; and being part of something bigger than ourselves.  Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) fulfill these criteria.  The last one she did was World Without Oil, which had 1500 worldwide participants imagining the first 32 weeks of a global oil crisis, and blogging about it.  The result, besides being just fun, was to raise consciousness about a potentially imminent crisis.

Her next project, created in the run-up to the (then) upcoming Beijing Olympics, was The Lost Ring, an elaborate mythopoeic conceit around the origins of the Olympic Games.  “The greatest mystery the world has ever known becomes the adventure of a lifetime,” intones the supremely well-produced 2-min trailer on the site, promoting an aura of secrecy and global intrigue.  And global it is, with 8 correspondents in multiple languages and an English-accented faux professor of Olympian history leading the participants to clues.  The game has wound down as of this post-Beijing writing, but you can still check out the site, which remains mighty cool.

Fareed Zakaria: The Post-American World

Apparently, Fareed’s a lot more popular than I gave him credit for, in part due to his frequent appearances on The Daily Show.  Not having a TV, I couldn’t tell ya.  What I can tell you is that he’s one suave dude.  He discussed some of the ideas in his book, The Post-American World, about how America is becoming less relevant on the planet.  Not necessarily because of the oft-cited trope of American decline, but rather because of the rise of so many other peoples: the Middle East (witness Dubai), India, China, and South East Asia.  He also had a couple of great lines, which I hope the Democrats put to good use: “John McCain has drunk the Neocon Kool-Aid… He’s doubling down on every bad bet George W. Bush has ever made.”

These were some of the best speakers and most stimulating ideas from the event.  If you have the time to make the conference next year, it’s well worth your while, and I hope to catch up with you there.

“Can I help?”: A Sojourn in Cambridge

1

Here’s a little something I wrote about Cambridge when I first got there. May you find it enlightening and amusing.

“A late welcome from the banks (and BoGs) of the Cam”

It is a Sunday morning here in Cambridge, with an absurdly forceful wind
whipping through town, ripping off tree branches, launching horizontal
raindrops at pedestrians at relativistic speeds and making cyclists ride at
oblique angles just to maintain balance. It’s been nearly three weeks
since I arrived here, having left on a Sunday afternoon to arrive at the
Monday morning opening ceremonies of my course with 150lb of luggage in
tow. Just days before, I had been told by the course assistant director
that ‘There’s no reason for you to show up before October 5′, only to be
informed the next day that orientation begins October 7. As it turns out
there were many reasons to be present before the 5th — somewhat symbolic
of the slapdash nature of this course, as it is the first time it’s being
done. More on that later.

It is just after brunch at the Caius College (pronounced ‘keys’) dining hall,
which comprised two fried eggs, a croissant, a bowl of yoghurt, a glass of
Minute Maid orange juice, canned pear tomatoes and beans, and a raft of
bacon and sausage and hash browns which I dodged — all notable because
they form the essence of the Full English Breakfast experience. I’m
sitting here in the computer room, in the basement of the Caius College
Library, right next to the Senate House. The latter is a rectangular
building in the grand neoclassical style, where the Praelectors of the
various colleges lead their graduating gowned flocks to receive their degrees,
each college marching in the order of their founding (Caius is fourth,
after Peterhouse, Clare College and Pembroke College). But, pray tell, where is the
Senate House — or, more specifically, what street is it on? The answer
can initiate you into the some of the folly and madness that is Cambridge
(and, ultimately, England).
You see, the Senate House is technically on King’s Parade (not King’s
Parade Street — just King’s Parade), on what I think of as the main
Cambridge U drag. Except that the northern edge of it starts being called
Trinity St. But the southern edge tends toward Trumpington St. What you
start to notice is that over the course of 500 yards, this street changes
names 4 times: St John’s St, Trinity St, King’s Parade, Trumpington St,
Trumpington Rd (see
 http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?…), and it’s
not the only street that does this. So, even armed with an address such as
‘6 Trumpington St’, you can have a hell of a time finding a place, because
you are never really sure which street you’re standing on unless you
already know the town well. Add to that the capricious nature of numbering
houses (sometimes alternating even and odd on opposite street sides,
sometimes not) and the sporadic presence of street signs, and every new
address becomes a new adventure.
But these names are old, old, and going against 750 years of history
around these parts remains a losing proposition. And, until the 19th
century, the Colleges had hegemony over the town, to the extent of setting
prices for such things as bread and ale. So the little stretch of street
in front of Trinity College will be called Trinity Street, and 50 meters
up, in front of St John’s College it’s St John’s St, hallelujah and amen.
And to put in perspective how old Cambridge is, just think of this: when
Sir Isaac Newton, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematicks, was writing his
Principia Mathematica, Cambridge was already older than Harvard is now.
Got it? Good.

“Keep that bike off the pavement, mate”

In the battle against archaic addressing, your best weapon (save
memorizing — oops, I mean memorising — the damn map) is speed. And that
is achieved through the humble bicycle. Even beyond the spire- and
cornice-lined streets, it’s the preponderance of bicycles that struck me
most upon first arriving here. Every bicycle rack, street sign, and
building wall is festooned with metal and rubber, spoke and mudguard, three
or four deep. There being at least three times as many cycles here as
there are things to fasten them to, most of the two-wheeled conveyances are
freestanding, leaning against a wall (which, by the way, would NEVER happen
in Boston — the bikes would simply vanish). Almost all streets are marked with cycle paths, even one-way
ones having a little bike lane going the opposite way. And, at the top of
every hour, as lectures let out, a stream of pedalers floods every street
even more than before. Students, professors, fellows, rich people, poor
people — everyone cycles. Those who have children of their own wear
helmets; the rest (85+%) meander blissfully bareheaded. In sheer volume,
Amsterdam ain’t got nothin’ on this town when it comes to bikes (NB: I
have since been to Amsterdam, and I sit corrected. Still — whole lotta
bikes.)
And so, wishing to be part of the wheeled and mobile masses, on my second
day here, I set out on a bike hunt. You will be shocked to find that I
bought the first bike that I found at the first bike shop that I visited
(those who know me well realize the improbability of such an event). There
it was: a Trek 700 hybrid, fully tricked out in the Cambridge Urban
Geriatric package — mud guards front and back, front and back lights
(required), rear rack (for passengers), chain guard (to save your trouser
cuffs — key!) and the all-important front basket. An older gentleman had
customized his bike for commuting, found that his knees couldn’t take the
strain, and returned it less than a week after its purchase. I immediately
recognized how much time and money I’d have to spend to get a bare-bones
bike to have all these accoutrements, and how I could never get them for a
mere

Travels in Red America

7

About a month ago, I had the opportunity to visit parts of the US that I had not seen before. Having lived mostly in Boston and Southern California, I had left the vast middle portion of the country unexplored. So I welcomed the mission to get some work done in San Antonio, Dallas, Ft Worth, St Louis and Cleveland. The cities were lovely: San Antonio’s Riverfront eating/shopping district was quite charming even late on a sleepy Monday night; Dallas had an upstart, upwardly mobile feel to it with a very lively youth culture (and exceptionally welcoming people); and St Louis seemed to have much more to commend it than just a big ol’ arch. I was particularly gratified that in my 24-hr sojourn in St Louis, I very nearly got caught in a hailstorm of 2-inch ice pellets and a tornado. To this here left- and right-coaster, that was as quintessentially Midwestern an experience as having an earthquake and brushfire would be to Joe Sixpack visiting LA for a day from Kansas City.
Although my time to roam amongst the natives was limited, I thought that a scan of the area radio stations from the comfort of my rental car would be a step towards capturing the local zeitgeist. And so, armed with the craftily-named ‘Scan’ button of the radio, I listened. The very first station that tuned in caught a female voice singing the chorus of a song: ‘God is with us.’ The second station was talk, not music, and sounded like a speech or a sermon — something about Michael looking across the water to see Jesus walking on it. The next one was a Christian rock station. Of the seven or so stations that I scanned before settling on some classical music, four were broadcasting either Christian music or preaching. Now an evangelical radio station per se is not anomalous, but what struck me was the preponderance of such formats in these markets. Clearly all these stations have an audience to make them economically sustainable. Although my survey was informal, you would never get such a high percentage of Christian stations in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston or San Francisco. I’d even argue that there isn’t a total of 4 such stations on the FM dial in any one of those markets.
OK, so what? In my last blog entry, I talked about my surprise at finding out about the vastness of the evangelical book market. And these travels along the highways of Middle America, where billboards urge passersby to accept Christ as their savior at a weekend-long revivalist retreat, confirmed my suspicion of the existence of an America with which I am less familiar: what the journalists have been calling ‘Red America’, after the infamous map of the 2000 Presidential election showing the states voting for Gore in blue (mostly seaboard states) and those voting for Bush in red (the inland states). The designation ‘Red America’ is particularly ironic, since the color red has historically carried strong anti-American connotations: first symbolizing the perceived Native American threat (the ‘red man’) to homesteaders in the nation’s earlier years; and then standing in for Communism (the ‘Red Menace’) from the early twentieth century till 1989 (and today to some extent).
This evening I had the privilege of seeing Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, give a speech at the United Methodist Church in Venice, CA. He was his usual self-deprecatingly funny self, opening with: “All these years in public service have worn me down. I started out being 6′2″, and now look where I am.” Although me may stand a mere 5 feet tall, his persona and charisma more than filled the room. He talked about many subjects, including his forays into Red America along his cross-country drive from Cambridge, MA to Berkeley, CA with his eldest son. At the roadside diners, he would sometimes be approached by locals (”because I looked peculiar”), who would engage him in discussion with a “You’re a Democrat, aren’t you?,” to which he would respond, “Yes, and I’m proud to be one.” After the native would proclaim himself/herself a Republican, Reich would ask why he/she would vote for Bush. According to Reich, the near-unanimous response in all of these states was “because he’s honest” (which elicited audible groans from the Venice audience). After Reich presents his interlocutor with a few incontrovertible counterexamples to this trope, the native changes his tune and says, “Well, it’s really because he’s so folksy.” Aaaah. So that’s it — somehow W’s good ol’ boy talk and broken English conveys to these Reds that he’s one of them, in spite of his blue-blood pedigree and life of perpetual privilege. The surprising and even encouraging part of Reich’s report was that, after only 3 or 4 minutes of presenting some simple facts about the current administration’s record, many of those he spoke to were quite willing to admit, “Well, y’know, maybe I won’t be voting for him after all.”
All of this brings me to this question: Is America really as divided as the red-blue map would make us think it is? Reich would have us reconsider that, and there’s evidence to support that. You can see the red-blue map from the 2000 election at this site  http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/…). If you scroll down further, you will see another quite ingenious (and utterly logical) map that colors each state in a blend of blue and red in its proportion of Democratic and Republican votes cast in the 2000 elections. What this map shows is that almost all of America, with the exception of a handful of stronghold states (CA, IL, NY, MA, RI, HI for the blues; ID, NB, WY, UT for the reds) is more or less the same shade of purple. So perhaps there are more of the 40% self-identified evangelical Christians in those red states, who may identify with the Bush born-again persona and some its attendant dogmatism, and maybe they did vote for him in the 2000 elections in greater proportion. But in the end, we all want to be able to stand tall as Americans and be proud of the values of freedom, tolerance and high-mindedness that has made this country great, prosperous and a model of hope. And all Americans are smart enough to know that no amount of folksiness can ever make up for a compromise of those values, or being worse off then they were four years ago, or the threat of being drafted to an unjustified war, or having their sons and daughters come back from halfway across the globe in a body bag. Reich’s note of pragmatic optimism, echoing that of Clinton in his BEA speech three weeks ago, resonates with me. The American people have consistently chosen and will choose unity, democracy still works, and we’re gonna be alright. Now get out there and get the word out.

Meanderings Amongst Words: Book Expo America, Chicago, 2-5 June 2004

7

People have brought to my attention that my blog here has been gathering e-dust, languishing in the vast underworld of unheralded, undersubscribed blogs. It ain’t for lack of material — lord knows all kinds of zany things have been happening. So, best to write up the events of last week before they get corrupted and ultimately deleted by the editorial caprices of that gentle tyrant, memory.

I spent the better part of this past week at Book Expo America in Chicago  http://www.bookexpoamerica.com). I arrived in the Windy City — so-called apparently because of its fickle political affiliations and not the hearty sweep of air through its skyscraper-fortified corridors — on a Tuesday night, and through some strange convergence of fate, all of my housing options with friends fell through at once. This gave me a prime excuse for slumming it, so I ensconced myself at a Lincoln Park hostel full of foreign travelers unwilling to call it a night, ever. Although getting to bed at 3am was consistent with my usual sleep time minus West Coast jet lag, it did not make for a pleasant rousing at the butt-crack of dawn to get to my writer’s conference at McCormick Place, Chicago’s gleaming behemoth of a convention center just south of the Loop. The Writer’s Conference, sponsored by Writer’s Digest — separate and not related to the main Expo, lest you think that your $149 will grant you the privilege of wandering onto the convention floor, ha — was a full day of talks and workshops on how to get published. Almost every attendee was a first-time author; I’d peg their average age at 45 and say 60% were female. They were there to soak in the advice of the sages on ‘Writing the Popular Novel’, finding an agent, ‘The Best Way to Create a Non-Fiction Book Proposal’, ‘Writing the Breakout Novel’, creating a marketing plan, etc. My favorite part was the Pitch Slam Breakout, when everyone had 30 seconds to pitch his/her nonfiction book before a panel of three highly experienced agents and editors — Michael Larsen, of the Larsen-Pomada Agency, Jonathan Malysiak of Dearborn Trade Publishing, and Bethany Brown of Sourcebooks. It was a miniature parade of dreams, with each would-be author condensing years of thoughts, experiences, ideas and life lived into half a minute of plea and proclamation before a three judges and a hundred fellow dreamers. The fascinating diversity of the proposals was only outdone by the repsonses of the panelists. Right after every pitch, each one got the microphone and commented on the viability of the project, how best to market it, what angles to explore etc. Remarkably all three panelists paid full attention and gave cogent, constructive and gracious commentary to every one of the 40+ presenters — quite a feat. Their real-time analysis evinced that these people really know books and readers. I was there, so I tried my hand at pitching my non-fiction self-help proposal. The feedback from the panel and audience was quite positive — precisely the fuel I needed to propel my writing for the next three months.

The final talk of the day was also memorable. Heather Sellers, a willowy young writer and English professor from Hope College, spoke with mellifluous voice and heartfelt reason on ‘Page after Page: Six Ways to Go Home Writing.’ Her six principles made all kinds of sense, and her exhortative yet caring delivery made her suggestions mom-irresistible. After all, I am writing in this blog after a three-month hiatus, am I not? I bet everyone else in the room wanted to give her a hug afterwards, too, so here’s a remote control hug from my keyboard — mmhmm, there. (And if you want to know what the ‘Six Ways’ are, write me and I’ll tell you.)

After that talk I sought out Michael Larsen, the panelist whom I hadn’t had a chance to thank after the pitch slam, and as we spoke and exited McCormick Place, we ended up sharing a cab to the Miracle Mile area of Chicago. I’ve got to tell you: this man is good. Even after the barrage of pitches and a procession of prospective authors buttonholing him about this and that for hours, he still questioned me with genuine interest, listened to everything I had to say, and was incredibly gracious while still challenging my half-baked notions. I have met and heard of others who are phenomenally good with people — Bill Clinton comes to mind — and Michael is certainly one of them.

Of course, Bill was to make an appearance of his own. Thursday’s main event was the keynote address on ‘My Life’, the autobiography of William Jefferson Clinton. I had never seen him speak live, and this was quite a treat. In customary Bill fashion, he was 45min late to appear, but in customary Bill fashion he was brilliant, so we immediately forgave him the peccadillo. Sonny Mehta, the patriarch of Alfred A. Knopf — the ne plus ultra and toniest of the tony publishing houses — delivered a rousing hagiographical introduction whose structure seemed to follow a point-by-point comparison of the most glowing aspects of Clinton’s legacy with the current President’s most dubious accomplishments. Even though W. was never mentioned by name, you could almost hear the hissing sound of hot air escaping from his carnival balloon persona with each invisible Sonny Mehta verbal stab — “[Clinton] presided over the period of greatest economic expansion in American history,” pffffffffft… “went from record budget deficits to record surpluses” pfffffffffffffft… “was an agent for peace” pffffffffttt.

But back to Bill. Yes, everything that you have heard and suspected is true. Clinton’s a phenomenal public speaker, and within the first ten syllables he had connected personally to even that camera-toting neck-craner 300 feet away in the far back row (I should know — that was me). Even though the audience was about 4500 strong, with camera crews and Secret Service men littering the landscape, he was able to address you and you alone, as if it were all a fireside chat between old friends. Talked about the process of writing the book (20 notebooks written in longhand and transcribed by an assistant); the gambits with his editor Robert Gottlieb (he tried to sneak in “Robert Gottlieb is the greatest editor in the world”; Gottlieb cut it “but with some reluctance”); growing up in Arkansas in the pre-GI Bill era, where the gas station attendant was likely to be as smart as your doctor, making for an interesting childhood; his family of gifted storytellers, “poor white folk who didn’t have a racist bone in their bodies”; his wife (“my Senator”); and yes, politics. He was particularly evenhanded and non-vindictive towards his loyal opposition, urging us to think of them not in terms of their being good or bad people, but of being right or wrong — Bush was merely “fulfilling his campaign promises.” He ended the speech with an invigorating message of optimism, tacitly acknowledging our troubled times by drawing parallels between now and other eras of turmoil and divisiveness, reassuring us that at these historical inflection points, “Americans have always chosen greater unity.” I interpreted that all as meaning “Don’t worry; the Bushies will lose,” and left the speech with a big smile on my face.

Of course the main event on the convention floor had yet to happen. Once I stood before the vast and particolored array of booths on Friday morning, it was with a mixture of awe and bewilderment that I uttered the syllable immortalized by that arch-thespian and bard of Western Civilization, Keanu Reeves: “Whoa.” Where do I start? I decided that the beginning was a good place to start, and I designated the real estate under my feet at that moment as ‘The Beginning.’ This was going to go well.

It’s fair to say that in the first day of the Expo, I was exposed to more information than your average medieval man dealt with in a lifetime. Hundreds of publishers hawking their wares, the more prominent, well-heeled ones closer to the main entrance, the name recognition factor dropping as you move to the back of the convention floor — the domain of the independent presses, offbeat products, solo visionaries and just plain zealots. Hierarchy and means were also displayed through carpeting, as you unconsciously sped up when your tired feet hit the nanometer-thick quartz covering (ow), while finding yourself lingering a little bit longer on the superplush shag with extra-squishy foam of Bantam Doubleday (mmmmmm). Marketing managers hawk their wares, give away sample copies, posters, toys, pens, plush animals — anything to get your attention and achieve salience amidst this vast sea of printed word. Meetings with buyers happen a hundred all at once (one Canadian buyer told me she had 14 meetings on that first day) while agents and booksellers trudge around lopsided, adding yet another publisher’s catalog to their bursting bag of goodies. My mission was mostly exploratory — finding out how the industry works, what its social customs are, deal structure, proper channels of information, etiquette, protocol, form. Thou shalt not submit a Proposal unsolicited, unless a publisher explicitly says they art cool with that. Thou shalt have an Agent, for thou shalt thusly distinguish thyself from the masses with unpolished words unworthy of Dissemination. Thine Book Proposal shall follow the Proper and Accepted format or shall be consigned to the Black Hole of Rejection, whence not even its cries of neglect will ever be heard again by the Literate Living.

Lots of great books, people, conversations. Surprised by the preponderance of Christian presses, and how well they do. Did you know that Gary Chapman’s Five Love Languages series has sold 2.5 million copies? Oy. And then there’s the ubiquitous LaHaye/Jenkins Left Behind series — cover of Newsweek two weeks ago. How can a book sell 60 million copies in my supposed country, and I know not one person who has read it? (See discussion on ‘Red and Blue America’ in the next blog installment). I did not attend any of the author luncheons, where for a mere 30 beans, you got to hang with the likes of Terry Gross, Tom Wolfe, Maureen Dowd and David Sedaris. My good man Baratunde Thurston ‘99, comedian and writer whom I had the good fortune of bumping into (check out http://www.baratunde.com for his latest shenanigans), had the pleasure of munching lunch with P.J. O’Rourke before ever knowing how much they would like each other — lucky dawg. Mega-, mini- and quasi-celebrities abounded, of course — Marilu Henner and Gene Hackman were looking sharp, and that dude in the cab line who looked like chef/author Tony Bourdain actually was Tony Bourdain. Who knew. In any case, the sheer amount of stuff going on made it absolutely imperative that I clone myself, stat. I can see a phalanx of a dozen mes (that would be the plural for ‘me’), ripping down the aisles simultaneously, devouring all data in their path with the efficiency of a locust swarm. That would be a lot of underwear I’d have to pack for the next trip for all twelve of us, though.

Which brings me to the next section. Scored scores of freebies. I love you, Andrews & McMeel — not just because you brought Bill Watterson’s Calvin & Hobbes to the world, but also because of the ‘Open Your Mind, Open Your Life’ and ‘Sex Game (for mature audiences only)’ decks of cards, which will no doubt make me a more enlightened, hornier person. Thank you Picador, who gave me two copies of one of my favorite books of recent memory, which shall remain nameless lest prospective gift recipients think I have spent any less on them than the cover price suggests. My favorite book title would have to be How to Clone the Perfect Blonde, by Sue Nelson and Richard Hollingham. At first your friendly neighborhood arch-skeptic dismissed the book out of hand. But when a quick browse yielded concise, coherent explanations of such concepts as general relativity and reverse time travel according to Kurt G

Castes in the Bhagavad Gita

1

Friday night I attended a talk by Chris Chapple (pronounced like ‘chapel’), professor of theology at Loyola Marymount University, on the Bhagavad Gita. I’ve just started reading the Bhagavad Gita, half out of pique, since TS Eliot has this habit of referencing it gratuitously in his work and I’ve been re-reading some of his stuff lately, half out of complementarity, since along with the Tao Te Ching it is one of the main texts of Eastern philosophy, and half out of morbid curiosity since I’d never gotten around to reading it. And yes, Mr or Ms Smartypants, I’m fully aware that three halves make for one and a half, and one and a half of everything makes for a fuller life, and I like it better that way; thanks for noticing. Anyway. One cool thing about the Gita — basically a conversation between Arjuna, the super-warrior wracked by guilt and indecision before the imminent bloodshed of his kinsmen, and Krishna, his charioteer/advisor, who is really an avatar (earthly incarnation) of the powerful god Vishnu — is that it makes for a powerfully dramatic story. And, in the conversation between Arjuna and Krishna/Vishnu, a great deal of wisdom is passed along, much of it in the vein of Lao-Tse and the Tao. But every once in a while, something like this creeps in:

Krishna: If I did not continue to work untiringly as I did, mankind would still follow me, no matter where I led them. Suppose I were to stop? They would all be lost. The result would be caste-mixture and universal destruction (italics mine). Bhagavad Gita, Ch 3

So ‘universal destruction’ and ‘caste mixture’ are uttered in the same breath here. OK, so maybe this is just an aberration, they’re not really serious, right?

We know what fate falls/ On families broken:/ The rites are forgotten,/ Vice rots the remnant/ Defiling their women,/ And from their corruption/ Comes mixing of castes:/ The curse of confusion/ Degrades the victims/ And damns the destroyers. (Ch 1)

Well. Glad we made that one clear. I’m only up to Chapter 4, and there have already been 4-5 mentions of how caste-mixing is the ultimate evil, almost as bad as deep-fried chocolate bars or voting Republican. Could it be that this book of scripture — as influential in India as the gospel of Hinduism as the Bible is to an American audience — could have perpetuated the hereditary Indian caste system for centuries while holding back the development of egalitarianism even to this day? Could it be that the priesthood, the Brahmins, the members of the highest caste and the only ones capable of writing, conveniently slipped in these oppressive clauses in the otherwise transcendent, timeless narrative of the Gita? I’ll read more before I decide, but in the meantime I refer you to my particular translation, published by Barnes & Noble, which is not only quite easy to read but also has a magnificent introduction by Aldous Huxley, who not coincidentally, names the escapist drug in the epochal Brave New World after Indra the thunder-god’s favorite hallucinogen — soma.

Affluence as blessing and disease; tipping in the USA

0

Recently I spent a weekend in Las Vegas, and before I go on any further, let’s go through all the possible nicknames for that town and get it out of our system: Lost Wages, Sin City, Lust Vegas, The Meadows (you’d think ‘vegas’ would be Spanish for ‘arid lifeless desert’, but it’s not), insert your favorite nickname here. Now every time I go there I have a blast, as long as I limit my sojourn to 48hrs or less (and even then, I need to undergo a full mind-and-body disinfectant scrubbing before I’m fit to re-enter proper society, but that’s a story for a different late Sunday night). A particularly surreal moment occurred when I was in the poker room of the Mandalay Bay casino, overlooking the sports book. There, amidst the solid burghers and dedicated hedonists betting on ace-king or Dudley’s Dignity the harness-racing horse, two monitors were turned to CNN, which just happened to be showing an undercover special on trafficking and prostitution of minors in Romania. The contrast between this industrial-strength dose of reality and the foam upon the foam that Vegas rests on was sobering. Of course, both scenarios are real, in the sense that they are both occurring and constitute economic activity. However, I will hazard to say that the Americans in that poker room were experiencing a higher standard of living than the hapless Romanian abductees. The US is a remarkably affluent society, as even its poorest members enjoy a remarkable degree of abundance. Merriam-Webster online weighs in on the word thus  www.m-w.com):

affluence, n. 1 a : an abundant flow or supply : PROFUSION b : abundance of property : WEALTH

But let us abstain from conjecture and refer to the facts instead: per annum, the average American consumes 7960 kg of oil equivalent and 730 pounds of paper; use 484,000 gallons of water; own 844 TV sets and 774 vehicles per 1000 people; and consumes 269 pounds of meat (compare these figures to those for China: 880, 73, 116,000, 292, 16 and 104, respectively). (Source: National Geographic, 3/04, p 91). From this and anecdotal evidence (I’m living in Santa Monica, CA now — enough said), we will conclude that there is much abbondanza in our fine country. But abundance, a complicated boon like all others, has its side effects. Too much of it can make you ill or just plain kill you. Back to Merriam-Webster:

disease, n. : 1 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning : SICKNESS, MALADY
2 : a harmful development (as in a social institution)

To me, ‘dis-ease’ implies an absence of ease — something absolutely ubiquitous in our hyper-affluent society even under the most cursory scrutiny. Too much food and leisure results in large paunches, sluggish bodies and clogged arteries, antitheses of ease if they ever existed. Traffic, overcrowding, pollution, time pressure, and covetousness compromise mental ease. Affluence means distancing oneself from the ‘real’ preoccupations of sustenance (finding food, shelter, clothing) and instead getting embroiled in monitoring our body fat percentage, following fashion, and losing a month’s salary at the roulette table. It means affliction with diseases like depression, anxiety, bulimia, anorexia and fibromyalgia which did not exist for 99.8% of recorded human history.

Let me make clear that I am not advocating some kind of atavism (although in the old days, the physical requirements of daily sustenance had some stress-relieving effects that desk jobs don’t provide), and Hobbes’ point about ancient man’s life being ‘nasty, brutish and short’ is probably true. Nor am I a fan of austerity — the greatest act of worship is in acknowledging and celebrating the bounty of the earth. However, it would seem that too much of a good thing ceases being a good thing. Affluence can make you sick. Yet, perversely, that same affluence has managed to procure the salves against these maladies — bypass surgery and simvastatin, credit cards and equity loans, psychiatrists and Zoloft — such that we can mollify their symptoms for three quarters of a century before succumbing to the cumulus of decay.

But fret not, my dear readers, for there is a solution. It’s called yoga.

What is cool?

2

For some reason this popped into my head while dining on pansit, a filipino dish. Perhaps it was something in a Time magazine article on John Kerry, which made me wonder. Now normally these thoughts go unacknowledged and experience their own exponential decay, with no herald of their birth nor record of their demise. But now I have a blog, which is precisely for this kind of fleeting thought-form to have its moment of exposure to retinas not my own. Of course, dear reader, now you get impatient — ‘Which thought, for godssakes?’ Ah yes. I was thinking what constitutes ‘cool’ and ‘coolness’. Such a bandied-about term, and one that at best has a Justice Felix Frankfurter definition to it (”I know it when I see it”). In fact there was a good part of one Simpsons episode devoted to deftly defining ‘cool’ (or at least demonstrating its undefinability). So, in the fine tradition of the reductionist, I will say that coolness is a mix of several components. Tolerance is one of them — to ‘be cool about something’ means that you do not bludgeon it with your judgment. A corollary to that is imperturbability — if you are cool, you tend not to get too riled up, emotional, defensive about things. But the mix of imperturbable and tolerant merely makes for mellow; there must be other factors involved. Edginess and an independent spirit certainly qualify, as does a tendency to care for others (although I would argue altruism is not a requirement of cool, but an adjunct). Talent is good. Egolessness is good, although there are some industrial-strength braggarts out there who love themselves so much, we sometimes find ourselves swept into their world and find them undeniably cool (e.g. Muhammad Ali). I think if I were to pick one characteristic to round out what makes cool, it would be competence. Without manifestation, talent means little and fails to communicate itself. So, until the next revision, here are the x-y-z axes of cool, the Holy Trinity of Tolerance, Imperturbability, and Competence.
Question for follow-up: Which other countries and linguistic traditions have an equivalent word for ‘cool’? How many of them have appropriated it from America? Is ‘cool’ an American concept at its heart?

Masses rejoice: my first blog!

3

Hey there, boys and girls. I suppose you can now welcome me to the digital age, and to this populist phenomenon called the blog. I’m not quite sure what its purpose is, and I’m even less sure why I signed up for it. But I suppose the self-aggrandizement associated with having a law.harvard.edu blog is just too juicy to resist. I’ve just returned from a class at Yoga Works (led by the infamous Vinnie Marino), and I feel as if my whole body has been pulled through the eye of a needle. Now does that tentatively qualify me for admission to heaven, or do I have to do it all again when I’m rich while riding a camel? All you New Testament scholars out there kindly clarify.

So I would surmise that part of the function of this whole blog thing, besides self-indulgence (duh), is to provide a forum for all the heretofore voiceless individuals to express themselves publicly, sans censorship or fear of reprisal. That’s nice, but taken to its theoretical limit, reading other people’s blogs would require several lifetimes, and so if enough people blog, blogs simply become reduced to fancy electronic diaries that can vanish in the blink of a server that the world can peek into if it had time. It follows that some blogs are more equal than others, and some convergence has to occur as certain prominent blogs get more readership than others (the 80/20 rule again, manifesting itself once again in the context of a network). So, with any luck, my blog will be one of the ignored ones, and my miscellaneous incendiary ramblings will go unnoticed by the objects of my disaffection, and I will have an excuse to exercise the writing muscle, which shall soon become the source of my vast income and impending immortality, hallelujah and amen.

This is already more fun than I thought.
Cheers for now
AB

Log in
Protected by AkismetBlog with WordPress