Hi all!
Yep, I'm alive and well. This is just to update that as I've gotten married, it seems my thoughts have shifted from those of the perplexed single (gone, but not forgotten), to that of human-rationality arbiter. If you're interested, I've picked this up on my new(ish) blog:
http://factpinions.wordpress.com
Same guy, different focus. Hope you enjoy both!
RT
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Thoughts @ 31
Turned 31 a couple hours ago. Some nice plans for the b-day: a show - one of 4 in a week(!), a planned "craaaazy" afterparty.. rehearsals, friends, music. stuff I like.
Had written a post on my 30th which I'd evidently forgot to publish (a little late now, so.. never mind), but in it I tried to describe major changes from the previous year, or just stuff that was on my mind at the time. Let's have a go this time round! So:
The first major change this year was the regular exposure to what had previously been relegated to a status worse than "false" - it had been plain uninteresting to me: religion. Nope, still the same atheist I've been for a while now, but found religious people, as well as the bible, interesting, for the first time. This through a group of friends who meet round the "parshat shavua" once a week, which I stumbled on pretty much by chance. Rather than being the pathetic-bachelor club I suspected it would be, all awkward and transparent, it proved to be a remarkably varied, interesting and intelligent group of people.
So first of all, I was making new friends. This on its own was a novelty because, though I hadn't thought about it, my core group of friends had remained staunchly rooted in my high-school years and my musical exploits. That was it. So the dynamics of becoming friends when you're older, more self-aware and more self-defined, proved interesting on their own. Won't bore with details.
The second aspect of these meetings, as I mentioned, was that religion as such suddenly became interesting. For one thing, just the wildly varying shades of observance and strictness, a terrific quality in Jerusalem, was fascinating. People modern in every way but...; people who look more closed but are actually budding open-ists; and of course people who just genuinely are who they are, different from me in some ways and so similar in others. Combined with this culture of ours, this man-made tradition that for me contains so many clues, pointing at a melting pot of historical circumstance, human psychology, economics, politics and, well, more human psychology, it becomes quite fascinating. The religious text we cover each week with tremendous variety in approach and appraisal, is in itself fascinating for its own circumstance and, yes, its constant drawing power. So that's one thing that's changed.
What's stayed largely the same is the existential realization that hit me so strongly just one year and two days ago. What are we doing here and, more importantly, what am I going to do about, remain in one way or another a preoccupation informing a lot of my perceptions of this world and my life. I'm fascinated by people, what drives them, their follies and their genius; but in all this I still can't formulate a cut-and-dry path that feels right for me.
Something that emerged a little more strongly this year was the focus on the individualistic (as opposed to the universalit) viewpoint. Anyone who tries to hammer out a single, one-size-fits-all doctrine for living - or what is "right" - will earn my immediate suspicion. We are all different people, with very different needs and even basic characteristics. There are totally different mentalities, interests and perceptions amongst people. The breakdown in cultural narratives (believe it or not, I'm not a sociology major), something that always felt a little bit of a shame, now seems more inevitable and plain sensible in today's world. Like it or not, we're no longer the small, nomadic tribes we once were. In fact, every nation on earth has gotten a little too big to be held together by cross-cultural dogma.
I don't say this angrily or with a chip on my shoulder. I'm not trying to violently tear down anything. I personally am not in any way a misanthrope - on the contrary, outside of some private music, pretty much all my lasting, deep enjoyment or contentment comes from people. So it pains me a little when these statements get pigeonholed and somehow make me out as a contrarian, rebel or heretic. I'm just saying - blind beliefs don't work for me. I'm trying to improve our collective future just as much as any socially-minded believer might, in saying these beliefs have to be tailor made. I'll cringe as much as anyone at the shallow, materialistic mentality so often on display (anyone seen the tv-series "Mechubarot"? kvetch kvetch kvetch! geez, when did whine replace personality?) but I'm a firm individualist.
Relationships? Mmm.. Had a few nice shorts, but if we're talking about thoughts and realizations, let's see... what's new, what's new.. Nothing, I think. Just as mystified as ever. Probably a bit more confused, if anything. No sweeping statements or ideas to be made this time around.
And another random update for posterity - this year got me more intellectually interested in trying to characterize and correct the tremendous amounts of plain bull in common economic, social and political thinking. I'm not talking about our leaders - everyone knows what they're full of. I'm talking about regular, otherwise intelligent people: I'm plain bewildered by all the hip-shooting, snap judgment, opinion-as-fact, dramatics-as-evidence, revisionism for its own sake, conservatism for its own sake, and willful ignorance of counterarguments that I come across in ordinary, web-bourne and face-to-face conversation. It's like "reasoning" isn't even in the lexicon...
Mood-wise it's been up and down, but at the end of the day, I'm still more up than down. Thank ? for small pleasures. ;)
Had written a post on my 30th which I'd evidently forgot to publish (a little late now, so.. never mind), but in it I tried to describe major changes from the previous year, or just stuff that was on my mind at the time. Let's have a go this time round! So:
The first major change this year was the regular exposure to what had previously been relegated to a status worse than "false" - it had been plain uninteresting to me: religion. Nope, still the same atheist I've been for a while now, but found religious people, as well as the bible, interesting, for the first time. This through a group of friends who meet round the "parshat shavua" once a week, which I stumbled on pretty much by chance. Rather than being the pathetic-bachelor club I suspected it would be, all awkward and transparent, it proved to be a remarkably varied, interesting and intelligent group of people.
So first of all, I was making new friends. This on its own was a novelty because, though I hadn't thought about it, my core group of friends had remained staunchly rooted in my high-school years and my musical exploits. That was it. So the dynamics of becoming friends when you're older, more self-aware and more self-defined, proved interesting on their own. Won't bore with details.
The second aspect of these meetings, as I mentioned, was that religion as such suddenly became interesting. For one thing, just the wildly varying shades of observance and strictness, a terrific quality in Jerusalem, was fascinating. People modern in every way but...; people who look more closed but are actually budding open-ists; and of course people who just genuinely are who they are, different from me in some ways and so similar in others. Combined with this culture of ours, this man-made tradition that for me contains so many clues, pointing at a melting pot of historical circumstance, human psychology, economics, politics and, well, more human psychology, it becomes quite fascinating. The religious text we cover each week with tremendous variety in approach and appraisal, is in itself fascinating for its own circumstance and, yes, its constant drawing power. So that's one thing that's changed.
What's stayed largely the same is the existential realization that hit me so strongly just one year and two days ago. What are we doing here and, more importantly, what am I going to do about, remain in one way or another a preoccupation informing a lot of my perceptions of this world and my life. I'm fascinated by people, what drives them, their follies and their genius; but in all this I still can't formulate a cut-and-dry path that feels right for me.
Something that emerged a little more strongly this year was the focus on the individualistic (as opposed to the universalit) viewpoint. Anyone who tries to hammer out a single, one-size-fits-all doctrine for living - or what is "right" - will earn my immediate suspicion. We are all different people, with very different needs and even basic characteristics. There are totally different mentalities, interests and perceptions amongst people. The breakdown in cultural narratives (believe it or not, I'm not a sociology major), something that always felt a little bit of a shame, now seems more inevitable and plain sensible in today's world. Like it or not, we're no longer the small, nomadic tribes we once were. In fact, every nation on earth has gotten a little too big to be held together by cross-cultural dogma.
I don't say this angrily or with a chip on my shoulder. I'm not trying to violently tear down anything. I personally am not in any way a misanthrope - on the contrary, outside of some private music, pretty much all my lasting, deep enjoyment or contentment comes from people. So it pains me a little when these statements get pigeonholed and somehow make me out as a contrarian, rebel or heretic. I'm just saying - blind beliefs don't work for me. I'm trying to improve our collective future just as much as any socially-minded believer might, in saying these beliefs have to be tailor made. I'll cringe as much as anyone at the shallow, materialistic mentality so often on display (anyone seen the tv-series "Mechubarot"? kvetch kvetch kvetch! geez, when did whine replace personality?) but I'm a firm individualist.
Relationships? Mmm.. Had a few nice shorts, but if we're talking about thoughts and realizations, let's see... what's new, what's new.. Nothing, I think. Just as mystified as ever. Probably a bit more confused, if anything. No sweeping statements or ideas to be made this time around.
And another random update for posterity - this year got me more intellectually interested in trying to characterize and correct the tremendous amounts of plain bull in common economic, social and political thinking. I'm not talking about our leaders - everyone knows what they're full of. I'm talking about regular, otherwise intelligent people: I'm plain bewildered by all the hip-shooting, snap judgment, opinion-as-fact, dramatics-as-evidence, revisionism for its own sake, conservatism for its own sake, and willful ignorance of counterarguments that I come across in ordinary, web-bourne and face-to-face conversation. It's like "reasoning" isn't even in the lexicon...
Mood-wise it's been up and down, but at the end of the day, I'm still more up than down. Thank ? for small pleasures. ;)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Jerusalem Elections - A Test of Rationality (please vote!)
Resident Traveler's definition of campaigning: the process of a party or candidate disseminating the lies they think will get them the most votes.
While this is true of all political campaigns, none have exemplified this more than the Porush campaign. His numerous lame attempts to buy votes through hollow verbiage is a test of basic rationality I pray we don't fail.
The Porush campaign has been nothing short of an insult to intelligence. Putting a little santa-claus image of him is entirely beneath the adult, voting population. Promising thousands of jobs - which is as simple as designing a poster that says "thousands of new jobs!" and then posting them all over town, with no accountability - is no less an insult. It's tempting to run myself, just say I can draw up posters of "Free jacuzzis for all Jerusalem residents!" or "100,001 residents will return".
While Barkat has quietely been doing things to better the face of this city, the Porush campaign pulls out every kind of fallacious argument, effectively saying, "the people are stupid - they'll buy this crap". If he wins, it means we've failed this test. Please vote!
While this is true of all political campaigns, none have exemplified this more than the Porush campaign. His numerous lame attempts to buy votes through hollow verbiage is a test of basic rationality I pray we don't fail.
The Porush campaign has been nothing short of an insult to intelligence. Putting a little santa-claus image of him is entirely beneath the adult, voting population. Promising thousands of jobs - which is as simple as designing a poster that says "thousands of new jobs!" and then posting them all over town, with no accountability - is no less an insult. It's tempting to run myself, just say I can draw up posters of "Free jacuzzis for all Jerusalem residents!" or "100,001 residents will return".
While Barkat has quietely been doing things to better the face of this city, the Porush campaign pulls out every kind of fallacious argument, effectively saying, "the people are stupid - they'll buy this crap". If he wins, it means we've failed this test. Please vote!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
About me #3: Romance Is in the Mundane
["About me" posts, despite their name, are meant to have some relevancy to the reader as well. you can see my introduction to them here, though this now reads to me as somewhat out of date and borderline naive. But hey, tradition is tradition, right?]
A few days ago, I was sitting at a cafe1 and suddenly found myself in the throws of the aforementioned existential angst (just the angst, though - not the sweaty bit. :) ). Then, outside, a young woman walked by on the street2. Moderately attractive. Warm face, energetic gait.
As she passed by, for a split second, she gave me a wide smile - or so I thought. Her face quickly fell back to normal walking-down-the-street blank look. She must have mistaken me for someone else, or seen a passing acquaintance of hers behind me. Still, the effects on me were surprisingly powerful - in that split second, my heart swelled. I felt elated. It was amazing to me how one stranger's smile could snap me so quickly and easily out of what can only be described as a proper, 17th-century-philosopher-with-an-abusive-upbringing-and- undetermined-substance-abuse-problem style bout of depression.
This got me wondering. For one thing, it certainly gave kind of a ridiculous air to the mood I was in. There I was, allegedly grappling with all these difficult questions, feeling downcast, and one stranger's glance pops me right out of it!3 But this was more than just simple excitement at attention. It was exciting because it was unprompted. Her intent, in fact, had little to with it - as became clear a second later. It was a slight gesture that came about for no apparent reason, but it was glorious. There's a pattern here with me - I love the unprompted, small gesture. It's genuine.
I love spontaneous goofiness - as much as I love momentary impatience for it. Because, again, it's genuine. It isn't contrived. This comes across in other facets as well. Not long ago, I was in an unsure dating phase with someone. I was having a good time with her, but wasn't quite sure whether it could go anywhere. There would often be a somewhat formal air to the proceedings, and the conversation would hover around the obvious. The breakthrough moment came, ironically, when she revealed her doubts, as did I. That was the moment we both felt far more intimate, again - because voicing one's concerns is undoubtedly real. And there's something quite romantic about two people at that level of comfort with each other.
Let me spin this the other way: I've noticed I have a really hard time with planned events. I find the notion of a planned holiday, for example, quite stressful, because so much is at stake! It seems to me almost doomed to failure because we pin so many hopes on them, they can't possibly live up to the expectations! Same with weddings, parties etc. I'm not trying to say by any stretch that I don't enjoy planned events, occasions or travel; only that when I do, it's almost invariably not their planned aspects that I've enjoyed. It's the small stories that mean so much to me. Every wedding has had it's kooky little story, far removed from the official proceedings. Every trip abroad gave more insight at the trucker's stop than at the tourist attraction. and it's often the least planned events that turn out fun, because everyone has to improvise. It's real. It's not a preplanned Kodak Moment.
So I often find myself moved - truly moved, I'm not exaggerating - by the mundane. Not in the tree hugging way. I don't mean admiring the beauty of nature or the miracle of birth etc. - not that there's anything wrong with that.. - but simply appreciating small human moments. The idea of this person giving a total stranger a glance, practically moved me to tears. Meeting someone simply, falling in love with them simply, the notion of 90% of your time together being fairly routine - I actually find all that terribly romantic. I think not having some teriffic story about how you met, is just as good a story as a "good" one.
The other day, I was moved by the fact that a group of my close friends were genuinely excited to watch a film widely considered to be the worst of all time. It spoke volumes to me. I felt so fortunate to have friends like that, that are aware of - and actively voice - the absurdities of life, and are quite happy to swim within them. Obviously, there's no end to the examples but.. you get the idea.
The simplest definition I've heard for happiness is perceived reality minus expectation. When the latter is sky-high, it's going to be awfully difficult to be happy. I feel the film and television industries have really set the bar high for us. The one-upmanship in creating the most incredible on-screen action/suspense/extreme and, especially, romantic moments have made it so easy to (dis)miss the gems going on in our day-to-day lives.
I know he meant something else entirely, but when Ian Brown sang "Keep what you've got / by giving it all away", I like to think he wasn't talking about possessions, but rather about lofty expectations.
1 Yes, they actually have those in Jerusalem! In fact, we've got lots of them! Let it never be said this blog is without its educational merit. ;)
2 Some of you may be thinking, "really? Jerusalem actually has cafes with stylish full-glass walls facing the street? Not the gaudy styled ones, but the ones actually done in good taste? Isn't that too.. I don't know.. cosmopolitan for Jerusalem?" Well, yes we do and no it isn't, I'm glad you asked (thought?). Reputation aside, Jerusalem has some pretty cool nightlife (is my point).
3 DISCLAIMER - I'm a pretty normal guy. Really. This was just the sort of blue mood we all get from time to time. Don't want to be giving off the impression like I'm some manic depressive or anything..
A few days ago, I was sitting at a cafe1 and suddenly found myself in the throws of the aforementioned existential angst (just the angst, though - not the sweaty bit. :) ). Then, outside, a young woman walked by on the street2. Moderately attractive. Warm face, energetic gait.
As she passed by, for a split second, she gave me a wide smile - or so I thought. Her face quickly fell back to normal walking-down-the-street blank look. She must have mistaken me for someone else, or seen a passing acquaintance of hers behind me. Still, the effects on me were surprisingly powerful - in that split second, my heart swelled. I felt elated. It was amazing to me how one stranger's smile could snap me so quickly and easily out of what can only be described as a proper, 17th-century-philosopher-with-an-abusive-upbringing-and- undetermined-substance-abuse-problem style bout of depression.
This got me wondering. For one thing, it certainly gave kind of a ridiculous air to the mood I was in. There I was, allegedly grappling with all these difficult questions, feeling downcast, and one stranger's glance pops me right out of it!3 But this was more than just simple excitement at attention. It was exciting because it was unprompted. Her intent, in fact, had little to with it - as became clear a second later. It was a slight gesture that came about for no apparent reason, but it was glorious. There's a pattern here with me - I love the unprompted, small gesture. It's genuine.
I love spontaneous goofiness - as much as I love momentary impatience for it. Because, again, it's genuine. It isn't contrived. This comes across in other facets as well. Not long ago, I was in an unsure dating phase with someone. I was having a good time with her, but wasn't quite sure whether it could go anywhere. There would often be a somewhat formal air to the proceedings, and the conversation would hover around the obvious. The breakthrough moment came, ironically, when she revealed her doubts, as did I. That was the moment we both felt far more intimate, again - because voicing one's concerns is undoubtedly real. And there's something quite romantic about two people at that level of comfort with each other.
Let me spin this the other way: I've noticed I have a really hard time with planned events. I find the notion of a planned holiday, for example, quite stressful, because so much is at stake! It seems to me almost doomed to failure because we pin so many hopes on them, they can't possibly live up to the expectations! Same with weddings, parties etc. I'm not trying to say by any stretch that I don't enjoy planned events, occasions or travel; only that when I do, it's almost invariably not their planned aspects that I've enjoyed. It's the small stories that mean so much to me. Every wedding has had it's kooky little story, far removed from the official proceedings. Every trip abroad gave more insight at the trucker's stop than at the tourist attraction. and it's often the least planned events that turn out fun, because everyone has to improvise. It's real. It's not a preplanned Kodak Moment.
So I often find myself moved - truly moved, I'm not exaggerating - by the mundane. Not in the tree hugging way. I don't mean admiring the beauty of nature or the miracle of birth etc. - not that there's anything wrong with that.. - but simply appreciating small human moments. The idea of this person giving a total stranger a glance, practically moved me to tears. Meeting someone simply, falling in love with them simply, the notion of 90% of your time together being fairly routine - I actually find all that terribly romantic. I think not having some teriffic story about how you met, is just as good a story as a "good" one.
The other day, I was moved by the fact that a group of my close friends were genuinely excited to watch a film widely considered to be the worst of all time. It spoke volumes to me. I felt so fortunate to have friends like that, that are aware of - and actively voice - the absurdities of life, and are quite happy to swim within them. Obviously, there's no end to the examples but.. you get the idea.
The simplest definition I've heard for happiness is perceived reality minus expectation. When the latter is sky-high, it's going to be awfully difficult to be happy. I feel the film and television industries have really set the bar high for us. The one-upmanship in creating the most incredible on-screen action/suspense/extreme and, especially, romantic moments have made it so easy to (dis)miss the gems going on in our day-to-day lives.
I know he meant something else entirely, but when Ian Brown sang "Keep what you've got / by giving it all away", I like to think he wasn't talking about possessions, but rather about lofty expectations.
1 Yes, they actually have those in Jerusalem! In fact, we've got lots of them! Let it never be said this blog is without its educational merit. ;)
2 Some of you may be thinking, "really? Jerusalem actually has cafes with stylish full-glass walls facing the street? Not the gaudy styled ones, but the ones actually done in good taste? Isn't that too.. I don't know.. cosmopolitan for Jerusalem?" Well, yes we do and no it isn't, I'm glad you asked (thought?). Reputation aside, Jerusalem has some pretty cool nightlife (is my point).
3 DISCLAIMER - I'm a pretty normal guy. Really. This was just the sort of blue mood we all get from time to time. Don't want to be giving off the impression like I'm some manic depressive or anything..
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
"Considered Selling Your Apartment?" Asked the Devil..
I rent an apartment in Jerusalem. Came home today to find this letter (in Hebrew) on my door handle:
"Dear bla bla,
have you considered selling your apartment? We [are thieving bastards who want to make a killing off your already overpriced apartment, and] would be happy to help you. After years on the rise, real estate prices have reached an unprecedented peak [allowing your greed to far outstrip what you actually need to return your original investment and make a comfortable living]. The recovery from recession; the booming economy [which hasn't raised real wages by even one seventh of the rise in Jerusalem apartment prices over the last 2 years]; stronger European currencies against the Dollar; purchase of apartments by diaspora Jewry - all these have contributed to the sharp climb in prices we are witnessing.
Our market analysis shows us that this is the time for you to optimally realize your assets and sell your apartment during a period of record prices. [..] We specialize in [the non-crap areas of Jerusalem, soon to be another Manhattan.]
We would be happy to visit your apartment, offer a price estimate [..] survey recently sold apartments in the area [and contribute to an additional, artificial increase of real-estate pricing by encouraging you and other homeowners to sell for much more than you might have otherwise. In a sense, we're "unionizing" home owners to take maximum advantage of the psychological element of these soaring prices, which is great for our real estate agency and terrible for the forever non-"unionized", individual renter] and help sell your apartment for maximum price [which we helped raise by encouraging greed through letters such as these.]
Love, hugs and kisses,
bla bla Real Estate Agency"
Jerusalem municipality: BUILD BUILD BUILD*. This can't go on.
*as in, approve building plots.
(P.S.
This is not in any way an endorsement of socialism over capitalism, nor a call for market intervention. It merely represents my distaste for what I consider (justifiably legal) greed.)
"Dear bla bla,
have you considered selling your apartment? We [are thieving bastards who want to make a killing off your already overpriced apartment, and] would be happy to help you. After years on the rise, real estate prices have reached an unprecedented peak [allowing your greed to far outstrip what you actually need to return your original investment and make a comfortable living]. The recovery from recession; the booming economy [which hasn't raised real wages by even one seventh of the rise in Jerusalem apartment prices over the last 2 years]; stronger European currencies against the Dollar; purchase of apartments by diaspora Jewry - all these have contributed to the sharp climb in prices we are witnessing.
Our market analysis shows us that this is the time for you to optimally realize your assets and sell your apartment during a period of record prices. [..] We specialize in [the non-crap areas of Jerusalem, soon to be another Manhattan.]
We would be happy to visit your apartment, offer a price estimate [..] survey recently sold apartments in the area [and contribute to an additional, artificial increase of real-estate pricing by encouraging you and other homeowners to sell for much more than you might have otherwise. In a sense, we're "unionizing" home owners to take maximum advantage of the psychological element of these soaring prices, which is great for our real estate agency and terrible for the forever non-"unionized", individual renter] and help sell your apartment for maximum price [which we helped raise by encouraging greed through letters such as these.]
Love, hugs and kisses,
bla bla Real Estate Agency"
Jerusalem municipality: BUILD BUILD BUILD*. This can't go on.
*as in, approve building plots.
(P.S.
This is not in any way an endorsement of socialism over capitalism, nor a call for market intervention. It merely represents my distaste for what I consider (justifiably legal) greed.)
Sunday, February 03, 2008
In Praise of (Single) Womankind
This isn't going to be some feminist manifesto, nor some teenage-y "grrrls do it better" populist blather. It won't be in praise of any "innate" multitasking abilities at child-rearing or home keeping (it's not anyway), emotional depth, ability for compassion, "fairer sex" theories etc. The fact of the matter is, I haven't lived with you, nor been in a long-term relationship with you. I'm going to write from the only angle I have - that of perennial single-guy.
This can be saddening and disheartening at times. But only now am I finally settling down to realize that through it all, even with the disappointments and perplexing acts of self-contradiction, irrationality and occasional cruelty, it's always been fun. It's always been thrilling to get the attention from those of you that have given it. Even when it's felt badly mismatched - and I've gotten pretty good at weeding those out beforehand - It's always been interesting. I say this at eye level, not cynically and not arrogantly: thank you. Besides music, I know of nothing else nearly as life-affirming.
Keep driving me nuts. I'm open.
This can be saddening and disheartening at times. But only now am I finally settling down to realize that through it all, even with the disappointments and perplexing acts of self-contradiction, irrationality and occasional cruelty, it's always been fun. It's always been thrilling to get the attention from those of you that have given it. Even when it's felt badly mismatched - and I've gotten pretty good at weeding those out beforehand - It's always been interesting. I say this at eye level, not cynically and not arrogantly: thank you. Besides music, I know of nothing else nearly as life-affirming.
Keep driving me nuts. I'm open.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Why I Support the Anti-Smoking Law with Every Fiber of My Being
The new, tougher smoking law that has gone into effect recently is completely justified. Not everyone seems to agree on this, though*.
The naysayers generally fall into two groups:
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.(clap, clap.) Good for you. (clap clap.)
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument? I mean, is that question supposed to conversely insinuate that by justifying the legality of food they've somehow proved it's OK to smoke in someone's face?? it makes me want to answer back with convenient, ridiculously over-simplistic analogies of my own: "Adolf Hitler was bad for a lot of people's health - I suppose you would've supported him!"
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
** not that it's a popularity contest. Even if there were a majority of smokers, it still wouldn't entitle them to inconvenience and possibly harm the health of others with no good purpose.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
When god created humans, and with them the innate desire to socialize in a dimly-lit space after a hard day's work, he/she didn't create said space full of cigarette smoke.
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument?
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
Which brings me to the first group. They seem to have garnered a fair bit of support. On the face of it, there's a certain neat logic to it: allow nightspot owners to choose for themselves what sort of business they'll have. Non-smokers will be able to choose to go to non-smoking venues, while smokers could still enjoy themselves in smoking establishments.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Dirty Hypocrites
It's been ages, I know. Lots going on, so I'll just quickly point out one peeve and leave it at that:
I live in Jerusalem, and I happen to like this city. Lots of my friends do too. But we all know plenty of people who don't, which is fine. I can even see why they don't - it just doesn't bother me as much.
Every year on Jerusalem Day, and several times in between, an article comes out with doomsday predictions for the non-haredi 20- and 30-year-olds of this city. Haredis pouring in, young "talents" leaving, no employment etc. This is legitimate subject matter for an article, but what always gets me is the hypocrisy of the talkbackers: with each new damning article, dozens of bozos go online with responses titled "dirty city", alluding to Jerusalem's allegedly filthy streets, under anonymous pen-names indicating they're from Tel Aviv.
And I ask: have these morons ever been to the entire half of their own city known as South Tel Aviv? This large area contains unique mixtures of organic and non-organic substances, the odor of which could bring a hardcore New Yorker to his knees. We're talking about streets that make Gotham City look like Toronto. To tell the truth, I find parts of south Tel Aviv quite charming in a grotty, nahlaot kind of way, but I'll never accuse Jerusalem of being particularly filthy after seeing/smelling that.
Jerusalem's got tons of problems - the municipality first among them - but let's refrain from gloating at one of Israel's truly special cities for gloating's sake.
P.S. Unbelievable! The day after I post this, another article comes out (Hebrew, article titled "Jerusalem of Ugliness").
I live in Jerusalem, and I happen to like this city. Lots of my friends do too. But we all know plenty of people who don't, which is fine. I can even see why they don't - it just doesn't bother me as much.
Every year on Jerusalem Day, and several times in between, an article comes out with doomsday predictions for the non-haredi 20- and 30-year-olds of this city. Haredis pouring in, young "talents" leaving, no employment etc. This is legitimate subject matter for an article, but what always gets me is the hypocrisy of the talkbackers: with each new damning article, dozens of bozos go online with responses titled "dirty city", alluding to Jerusalem's allegedly filthy streets, under anonymous pen-names indicating they're from Tel Aviv.
And I ask: have these morons ever been to the entire half of their own city known as South Tel Aviv? This large area contains unique mixtures of organic and non-organic substances, the odor of which could bring a hardcore New Yorker to his knees. We're talking about streets that make Gotham City look like Toronto. To tell the truth, I find parts of south Tel Aviv quite charming in a grotty, nahlaot kind of way, but I'll never accuse Jerusalem of being particularly filthy after seeing/smelling that.
Jerusalem's got tons of problems - the municipality first among them - but let's refrain from gloating at one of Israel's truly special cities for gloating's sake.
P.S. Unbelievable! The day after I post this, another article comes out (Hebrew, article titled "Jerusalem of Ugliness").
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Why I Went to the Demonstration: Hubris
It was enough to stand in line for a bus at the Jerusalem Central Bus Station to see how wide the spectrum of people was for the demonstration on Thursday. In the long queue for Tel Aviv, an obvious old-school Jerusalem-intelligentsia left-winger was having a low-level argument with a family of settlers, even as they were headed to the exact same rally. No point in specifying types: everyone was represented.
I consider myself a somewhat intelligent person, and I'm not normally one to go for mass rallies, typically over-politicized and dumbed-down for the perennially underestimated "masses". Indeed, the demo on Thursday had several predictable detractions to it - first and foremost the shameless attempts by various political parties to claim ownership over the cause at hand. Several giant banners, splashed with the usual political sloganeering, were raised above the crowd. Also, while most of the speakers maintained a surprisingly respectful tone towards the protesters' intelligence, the cheesy Galgalatz pop-shmaltz of the musical interludes occasionally made me question what I was doing there. Adding insult to injury, Israel's favorite goat-voiced Lennon-wannabee, who had not served in the army, sang at a rally largely protesting the shameful preparation and direction of the IDF by the current administration.
But I was not there for any political reason. The two main (interconnected) arguments I had heard for not going concerned the inherent watering-down of the message at a mass rally, and the claim that forcing our Prime Minister to resign immediately may not be the best course of action at the moment, rocking-the-boat-wise.
I was well aware of both those points when I went. But after some deliberation, I reached the conclusion that by that same last point, I had to go - the alternative was worse. I knew few if any of the speakers would be speaking for me. I also knew factions across the political spectrum had all sorts of irrelevant personal and, of course, political axes to grind with Olmert and Defense Minister Peretz. But I went for one reason: not going would be an expression of apathy towards the incredible hubris of Olmert and Peretz. And that I couldn't live with.
No country deserves such shamelessly opportunistic "leaders". If it were the only bad move Peretz ever made, that he did not voluntarily refuse the position of Defense Minister due to utter lack of compatibility would be enough for me to brand him unfit for politics for life. And Olmert - well, where do I begin? Long story short, I watched him badly mismanage and spinelessly sell short my hometown of Jerusalem during his period as mayor. Surrounded by empty-rhetoric politicians, Olmert really takes the cake. During last elections, well before he had so many opportunities to screw up, and facing nothing but bad options, I knew one thing: there was no way I'd ever vote for that man. After the war, both men's desperate attempts to shun responsibility and keep their seats was sickening to me.
Not going would have meant I don't oppose these people - their conduct and their values, as leaders - to the core; and I most certainly do. On a larger scale, not going would be an indication to our leaders that Israel's citizens are not watching, do not care, and/or might even forgive their conduct. This had very little to do with politics. It has to do with leadership, and we currently have none.
I consider myself a somewhat intelligent person, and I'm not normally one to go for mass rallies, typically over-politicized and dumbed-down for the perennially underestimated "masses". Indeed, the demo on Thursday had several predictable detractions to it - first and foremost the shameless attempts by various political parties to claim ownership over the cause at hand. Several giant banners, splashed with the usual political sloganeering, were raised above the crowd. Also, while most of the speakers maintained a surprisingly respectful tone towards the protesters' intelligence, the cheesy Galgalatz pop-shmaltz of the musical interludes occasionally made me question what I was doing there. Adding insult to injury, Israel's favorite goat-voiced Lennon-wannabee, who had not served in the army, sang at a rally largely protesting the shameful preparation and direction of the IDF by the current administration.
But I was not there for any political reason. The two main (interconnected) arguments I had heard for not going concerned the inherent watering-down of the message at a mass rally, and the claim that forcing our Prime Minister to resign immediately may not be the best course of action at the moment, rocking-the-boat-wise.
I was well aware of both those points when I went. But after some deliberation, I reached the conclusion that by that same last point, I had to go - the alternative was worse. I knew few if any of the speakers would be speaking for me. I also knew factions across the political spectrum had all sorts of irrelevant personal and, of course, political axes to grind with Olmert and Defense Minister Peretz. But I went for one reason: not going would be an expression of apathy towards the incredible hubris of Olmert and Peretz. And that I couldn't live with.
No country deserves such shamelessly opportunistic "leaders". If it were the only bad move Peretz ever made, that he did not voluntarily refuse the position of Defense Minister due to utter lack of compatibility would be enough for me to brand him unfit for politics for life. And Olmert - well, where do I begin? Long story short, I watched him badly mismanage and spinelessly sell short my hometown of Jerusalem during his period as mayor. Surrounded by empty-rhetoric politicians, Olmert really takes the cake. During last elections, well before he had so many opportunities to screw up, and facing nothing but bad options, I knew one thing: there was no way I'd ever vote for that man. After the war, both men's desperate attempts to shun responsibility and keep their seats was sickening to me.
Not going would have meant I don't oppose these people - their conduct and their values, as leaders - to the core; and I most certainly do. On a larger scale, not going would be an indication to our leaders that Israel's citizens are not watching, do not care, and/or might even forgive their conduct. This had very little to do with politics. It has to do with leadership, and we currently have none.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Israeli Disease
(warning - rant coming up)
A friend of mine was kind enough to fly me on a business trip with him once. We were going to have a stopover in Europe, and I wanted to duck into the city for something. I was certain I could do it and come back in time for the connecting flight. He wasn't too thrilled about my plan, but I kept pressing - "It'll work out, c'mon!".
He then asked me The Question - the one question Israelis avoid bringing up, or even contemplating privately, ever:
This is really a simple question. I couldn't word it any more simply. It means exactly what it says, and doesn't insinuate anything beyond. To an Israeli, however, this question is negative thinking at best, an out-and-out accusation at worst. "What do you mean 'what happens if it doesn't work out'? what, you don't trust me? nothing will go wrong!". And that's exactly it - to an Israeli, nothing will ever go wrong. It's an amazing, widespread delirium. If you don't live in Israel, you may think I'm exaggerating; but if you do, this should sound pretty familiar - it's the Israeli Disease.
While completely detached from reality, the Israeli Disease has its (few) advantages - this eternal optimism is behind our renowned ability to improvise, to miraculously create a solution out of thin air at the last second. It can also be said to be the result of a traditionally more cohesive, trusting society. However, its main problem is that it entails the wholesale sidestepping of consequences to one's actions. Everything will work out because "somehow, it always does", and the results - well, we see the results every day: in the news, and all around us.
Ahh, we lucky Israelis. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we allow ourselves to ask for any favor, big or small, damned the consequences. For the same reason exactly, warranties are nice pieces of paper that give an American-esque aura to a purchase or a service, but not much else. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we can build a rail system and then discover later the rails don't fit the cars. We can build event halls with floors that cave in, not to mention bridges. Since nothing will ever go wrong, government ministries and municipalities needn't concern themselves too much with, say, doing anything. The expression "cover for me" should be in the national anthem.
The Israeli Disease is responsible for us finding ourselves, again and again, up s#!t creek without a paddle. We see our politicians spreading promises left and right with no hope of fulfilling them, blabbing to the press, groping subordinates and taking bribes with no thought of consequence; we see wars fought under the assumption that winning them is somehow an ingrained Israeli "trait"; we see social security messing up, hospitals messing up, the police messing up, the army messing up, companies messing up, drivers messing up. As a good friend pointed out once, the common line you'll hear from a reckless driver - "haven't been killed yet!" - applies to every single person who has, one second before the crash.
So if you're Israeli, by birth or by symptom: please, stop and think. Ask yourself what happens if it doesn't work out exactly the way you planned*. By doing this you're not paranoid or self-defeating, you're merely being smart. By all means, go ahead with your plan, just remember it's only that- not a certainty.
As for my plan? As soon as my friend asked The Question, I dropped it. And surprise surprise: turned out there was no way in hell I could've pulled it off.
* if there even was a plan; "assumed" might be more appropriate.
A friend of mine was kind enough to fly me on a business trip with him once. We were going to have a stopover in Europe, and I wanted to duck into the city for something. I was certain I could do it and come back in time for the connecting flight. He wasn't too thrilled about my plan, but I kept pressing - "It'll work out, c'mon!".
He then asked me The Question - the one question Israelis avoid bringing up, or even contemplating privately, ever:
What happens if it doesn't work out?
This is really a simple question. I couldn't word it any more simply. It means exactly what it says, and doesn't insinuate anything beyond. To an Israeli, however, this question is negative thinking at best, an out-and-out accusation at worst. "What do you mean 'what happens if it doesn't work out'? what, you don't trust me? nothing will go wrong!". And that's exactly it - to an Israeli, nothing will ever go wrong. It's an amazing, widespread delirium. If you don't live in Israel, you may think I'm exaggerating; but if you do, this should sound pretty familiar - it's the Israeli Disease.
While completely detached from reality, the Israeli Disease has its (few) advantages - this eternal optimism is behind our renowned ability to improvise, to miraculously create a solution out of thin air at the last second. It can also be said to be the result of a traditionally more cohesive, trusting society. However, its main problem is that it entails the wholesale sidestepping of consequences to one's actions. Everything will work out because "somehow, it always does", and the results - well, we see the results every day: in the news, and all around us.
Ahh, we lucky Israelis. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we allow ourselves to ask for any favor, big or small, damned the consequences. For the same reason exactly, warranties are nice pieces of paper that give an American-esque aura to a purchase or a service, but not much else. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we can build a rail system and then discover later the rails don't fit the cars. We can build event halls with floors that cave in, not to mention bridges. Since nothing will ever go wrong, government ministries and municipalities needn't concern themselves too much with, say, doing anything. The expression "cover for me" should be in the national anthem.
The Israeli Disease is responsible for us finding ourselves, again and again, up s#!t creek without a paddle. We see our politicians spreading promises left and right with no hope of fulfilling them, blabbing to the press, groping subordinates and taking bribes with no thought of consequence; we see wars fought under the assumption that winning them is somehow an ingrained Israeli "trait"; we see social security messing up, hospitals messing up, the police messing up, the army messing up, companies messing up, drivers messing up. As a good friend pointed out once, the common line you'll hear from a reckless driver - "haven't been killed yet!" - applies to every single person who has, one second before the crash.
So if you're Israeli, by birth or by symptom: please, stop and think. Ask yourself what happens if it doesn't work out exactly the way you planned*. By doing this you're not paranoid or self-defeating, you're merely being smart. By all means, go ahead with your plan, just remember it's only that- not a certainty.
As for my plan? As soon as my friend asked The Question, I dropped it. And surprise surprise: turned out there was no way in hell I could've pulled it off.
* if there even was a plan; "assumed" might be more appropriate.
Monday, January 08, 2007
About Me #2 - A College-Educated, Taxpaying Punk
["About me" posts, despite their name, are meant to have some relevancy to the reader as well. See my introduction to them here.]
I'm a punk. No, I've never worn a torn shirt with safety pins, nor contemplated a mohawk (and not just because I couldn't grow one if I tried). I've got a college degree. I didn't grow up "on the streets". I haven't touched a single (non-musical) drug in my life. I've never smashed a beer bottle in the street. Musically, alongside rock, I've played folk songs, disco and Mizrahi. I've covered the Sex Pistols, and I've covered the Beatles; I've covered Simon & Garfunkel and Nirvana. I pay my taxes. My police record is clean. I'm nearly ten years past my teens. I've worked at the same institution (in different capacities) for 6 years now. Rest assured these are all irrelevant to the subject at hand - I am, undoubtedly, 200%, a punk.
The word "punk" has gathered an incredible mishmash of meanings. For many, the image that still comes to mind is that of thuggery - ratty clothes, "fuck-you" attitude, outspokenness, smashing things, crudeness. "Punk politics" has come to include a grab bag of causes, from anti-authoritarianism to veganism to anarchism to fascism to extreme left-wing politics. So first of all, I have to clarify: I'm not talking about punk the musical form, nor the "fashion", nor the politics of punk. I'm talking about punk as a way of life; the ideology of punk.(1)
The pervasive, mostly negative image of "punks" I mentioned above, stems primarily from the more visible sections of its audience, rather than from most of its original musical founders - especially those in the US. To avoid a laborious history lesson, just take it from me: in 1975-77, when punk was still in its infancy, the only things the so-called "punks" in the States had in common were lots of energy and a critical thought process.
So what is the ideology of punk? Punk ideology combines anti-dogmatism with a simple imperative: think. As Jello Biafra, singer of the great Dead Kennedys, put so succinctly: "punk ain't no religious cult - punk means thinking for yourself". It discourages preconception - don't automatically reject an idea simply because it seems out of left field. Always question, but stay balanced. Don't automatically go with "the majority", nor be a reactionary for its own sake. A punk tries as much as possible to simply remove the common wisdom from the equation. Punks have a healthy disregard for norms and empty rhetoric as any kind of indication of "worth". Rather, they'll try to deconstruct a situation and put it back together themselves. If the conclusions coincide with extant norms, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. Needless to say, they will often fall somewhere in between.
Despite its uneven implementation among punks, punk ideology tries to avoid being auto-rejectionist. If someone doesn't agree with you, he/she is not "the enemy". By all means try to convince by way of rational explanation, but certainly don't catalog and otherwise reject out of hand the validity of others' opinions. Punk is not relativist, though. A common trapping of the aforementioned rejection-of-the-assumed is that it can lead to a paralysis of self-doubt. But the punk outlook is a positivist one: it encourages action, and it encourages forming a well-considered opinion. Yes, always be open to criticism of your opinion, be willing to revise, update or replace it entirely if need be, but first make sure you have one, and know why you do.
The next obvious question is why use the term "punk" and not just, say, "thoughtful person"? Without making an overly restrictive generalization, it's because punk ideology has one added tendency that's not intrinsic to a thoughtful person: the desire to simplify. This comes across in punk as the musical genre, but also as a way to make choices in life. A punk will look for a simpler way to do things, and appreciate functionality and practicality. It doesn't mean he/she is trying to live like a monk, nor that he/she must be free of any guilty pleasures; but by and large, the ornate, the overpriced and the extravagant are instinctively off-putting to a punk. This is why you will see some punks choose to live communally, shunting the job-car-house-family track(2), and why you will see a tendency towards simplicity and directness in the music. But this criteria is actually fairly flexible - one needn't be resistant to economic or social status advancement to be a punk; he/she should only not see them as the prime measures of "success" in life.
Last but not least, punk ideology requires being a civil human being. As Ian Mackaye, one of the first to actually sing and speak about these issues, said in an interview recently: "When I play music, there is no code of behavior beyond general humanitarian [values-R.T.]: you don't attack, assault people, or be ugly or intolerant.. but that would be the same if I invited anyone to my house for dinner, too."(3)
(1) I'm not trying to create an artificial split between punk the music and punk the ideology. Needless to say, punk began as a musical movement. But its ideology existed right from the start, and permeated the music in both its composition and its subject matter.
(2) Again, this too comes across in the music - see my mention of the brilliant economy of a certain punk band in an earlier post. This is also the principle driving many of the political strains mentioned above - anti-consumerism, environmental concerns and social justice - though the dogmatism that often accompanies them defeats the very purpose of punk as I see it..
(3) Available here. Be warned - while Mackaye shines (as usual), the interviewer doesn't really "get it".
I'm a punk. No, I've never worn a torn shirt with safety pins, nor contemplated a mohawk (and not just because I couldn't grow one if I tried). I've got a college degree. I didn't grow up "on the streets". I haven't touched a single (non-musical) drug in my life. I've never smashed a beer bottle in the street. Musically, alongside rock, I've played folk songs, disco and Mizrahi. I've covered the Sex Pistols, and I've covered the Beatles; I've covered Simon & Garfunkel and Nirvana. I pay my taxes. My police record is clean. I'm nearly ten years past my teens. I've worked at the same institution (in different capacities) for 6 years now. Rest assured these are all irrelevant to the subject at hand - I am, undoubtedly, 200%, a punk.
The word "punk" has gathered an incredible mishmash of meanings. For many, the image that still comes to mind is that of thuggery - ratty clothes, "fuck-you" attitude, outspokenness, smashing things, crudeness. "Punk politics" has come to include a grab bag of causes, from anti-authoritarianism to veganism to anarchism to fascism to extreme left-wing politics. So first of all, I have to clarify: I'm not talking about punk the musical form, nor the "fashion", nor the politics of punk. I'm talking about punk as a way of life; the ideology of punk.(1)
The pervasive, mostly negative image of "punks" I mentioned above, stems primarily from the more visible sections of its audience, rather than from most of its original musical founders - especially those in the US. To avoid a laborious history lesson, just take it from me: in 1975-77, when punk was still in its infancy, the only things the so-called "punks" in the States had in common were lots of energy and a critical thought process.
So what is the ideology of punk? Punk ideology combines anti-dogmatism with a simple imperative: think. As Jello Biafra, singer of the great Dead Kennedys, put so succinctly: "punk ain't no religious cult - punk means thinking for yourself". It discourages preconception - don't automatically reject an idea simply because it seems out of left field. Always question, but stay balanced. Don't automatically go with "the majority", nor be a reactionary for its own sake. A punk tries as much as possible to simply remove the common wisdom from the equation. Punks have a healthy disregard for norms and empty rhetoric as any kind of indication of "worth". Rather, they'll try to deconstruct a situation and put it back together themselves. If the conclusions coincide with extant norms, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. Needless to say, they will often fall somewhere in between.
Despite its uneven implementation among punks, punk ideology tries to avoid being auto-rejectionist. If someone doesn't agree with you, he/she is not "the enemy". By all means try to convince by way of rational explanation, but certainly don't catalog and otherwise reject out of hand the validity of others' opinions. Punk is not relativist, though. A common trapping of the aforementioned rejection-of-the-assumed is that it can lead to a paralysis of self-doubt. But the punk outlook is a positivist one: it encourages action, and it encourages forming a well-considered opinion. Yes, always be open to criticism of your opinion, be willing to revise, update or replace it entirely if need be, but first make sure you have one, and know why you do.
The next obvious question is why use the term "punk" and not just, say, "thoughtful person"? Without making an overly restrictive generalization, it's because punk ideology has one added tendency that's not intrinsic to a thoughtful person: the desire to simplify. This comes across in punk as the musical genre, but also as a way to make choices in life. A punk will look for a simpler way to do things, and appreciate functionality and practicality. It doesn't mean he/she is trying to live like a monk, nor that he/she must be free of any guilty pleasures; but by and large, the ornate, the overpriced and the extravagant are instinctively off-putting to a punk. This is why you will see some punks choose to live communally, shunting the job-car-house-family track(2), and why you will see a tendency towards simplicity and directness in the music. But this criteria is actually fairly flexible - one needn't be resistant to economic or social status advancement to be a punk; he/she should only not see them as the prime measures of "success" in life.
Last but not least, punk ideology requires being a civil human being. As Ian Mackaye, one of the first to actually sing and speak about these issues, said in an interview recently: "When I play music, there is no code of behavior beyond general humanitarian [values-R.T.]: you don't attack, assault people, or be ugly or intolerant.. but that would be the same if I invited anyone to my house for dinner, too."(3)
(1) I'm not trying to create an artificial split between punk the music and punk the ideology. Needless to say, punk began as a musical movement. But its ideology existed right from the start, and permeated the music in both its composition and its subject matter.
(2) Again, this too comes across in the music - see my mention of the brilliant economy of a certain punk band in an earlier post. This is also the principle driving many of the political strains mentioned above - anti-consumerism, environmental concerns and social justice - though the dogmatism that often accompanies them defeats the very purpose of punk as I see it..
(3) Available here. Be warned - while Mackaye shines (as usual), the interviewer doesn't really "get it".
Friday, December 22, 2006
About Me #1: Love
["About me" posts, despite their name, are meant to have some relevancy to the reader as well. See my introduction to them here.]
Yet another unexpected twist.. this was not what I had prepared as the first "about me" post, but regular readers (all, like, two of you) already know my best-laid plans consistently seem to combust before they've ever been made. In this case, I'll even say what triggered the sudden switcheroo: I was dumped today, though in rather frustrating, "you're basically great in every way. Goodbye" style. Liked her, too, dammit. So yes, I'm going to write some of my thoughts about love, no less - in hindsight, the best first "about me" I could have (not) planned for..
Up until not too long ago, I was in a fairly bad mental trap where relationships were concerned: For one thing, they were few and far between; consequently, this made being in one all the more fateful to me. Both combined - it's sort of a chicken and egg situation - meant that every new potential "match" underwent severe scrutiny for the extra long haul.. i.e. "is this the person I would want to be with? Do I really want to compromise? it's my friggin life we're talking about here.." I was ratcheting up cons faster than I could type the word "pro". I'm oversimplifying tremendously here, and doing myself something of an injustice, but overall I would have to admit I may have been a little trigger-happy on the ol' "abort" button. The basic outlook was as much testing her as just trying to enjoy time spent with her. I was disproportionally focusing on all the ways she differed from what I thought I knew I needed. Sounds long-winded, but read that last sentence again - if you're single and wondering why, I'll bet at least some of it applies to you as well!
Anyway, a series of events I won't go into, combined with some unlikely but gradual maturation, has brought me to (what I'd like to think is) a (healthy?) new attitude on the whole issue of relationships, what makes us tick, etc:
First of all, I'm a romantic at heart - I believe that true love exists. I don't, though, believe in a shopping-list of traits that make up the person who is somehow "right for me". I've dropped that one altogether. I believe everything you go through in life, including relations but not limited to them, changes you and (usually) brings you closer to a phase that's right for you. At different stages along the way, you're open to different types of people - all, of course, on their own journeys - with whom you're receptive and capable of real love. These changes are different from person to person and, more importantly, you can't know when you've hit the right phase for which person, nor how to induce or prolong it. When we're there we're there, and we won't know until we see its results in hindsight. Am I essentially talking about maturity here? yes, but not only. It's your maturity and your experiences that make you receptive enough for true love. Or if you prefer, it is all about maturity, but experiences help to build it.
Two important qualifications: this is still a two-way street. Whatever phase you're in, you still have to find someone who'se there as well, which is what makes it so evasive to many of us. Also, I'm not sidestepping the vitally important issue of physical attraction. If anything, I think physical attraction is the only glue that can sustain a relationship, especially in its early stages when a couple are still getting to know each other. Talk is nice but, you know, come on... ;)
Now, I know this is all a little unclear, so here are some of the ramifications of what I'm saying, that might help make it a little more tangible:
a) There's no "The right person for me", there's being in the right place for this person. love has as much to do with where you are as it does with the other person. You have to be receptive to it, and if you're not there, you're not there. It explains those situations when you wonder what's wrong with you: you think someone's a really teriffic person, charming, funny, engaging, smart, mature, exciting, responsible, good-hearted, whatever you like - elastic - yet the spark just isn't there. You're not (necessarily) a bad person for it.
b) Don't think in terms of trait checklists. Give him/her a real chance even if they seem very different to you on paper. You don't ever fully know who'se right for you. You don't know where you are on this route, so yes, go with your instincts, but be flexible with what you've been so sure is or is not acceptable. what you "need" in the other person is dynamic, changing as you do. Also, a lot of the stuff you're looking for in a meaningful relationship can only come out/be built over time. That really sucks - especially for us impatient guys - but it's true.
c) This isn't be-all and end-all. Noone's getting married. (Yet.)
d) Don't moan and groan about your "failed" relationships and stinging break-ups. In most cases they've taught you something, they've made you more mature. It was something you had to go through and, like I mentioned above, you'll only realize later how or why.
I'm aware this is all something of a leap of faith, that I can't prove any of it, but then that's what love is all about anyway. If you still believe it's out there, take this post as some friendly advice from a fellow romantic.
Yet another unexpected twist.. this was not what I had prepared as the first "about me" post, but regular readers (all, like, two of you) already know my best-laid plans consistently seem to combust before they've ever been made. In this case, I'll even say what triggered the sudden switcheroo: I was dumped today, though in rather frustrating, "you're basically great in every way. Goodbye" style. Liked her, too, dammit. So yes, I'm going to write some of my thoughts about love, no less - in hindsight, the best first "about me" I could have (not) planned for..
Up until not too long ago, I was in a fairly bad mental trap where relationships were concerned: For one thing, they were few and far between; consequently, this made being in one all the more fateful to me. Both combined - it's sort of a chicken and egg situation - meant that every new potential "match" underwent severe scrutiny for the extra long haul.. i.e. "is this the person I would want to be with? Do I really want to compromise? it's my friggin life we're talking about here.." I was ratcheting up cons faster than I could type the word "pro". I'm oversimplifying tremendously here, and doing myself something of an injustice, but overall I would have to admit I may have been a little trigger-happy on the ol' "abort" button. The basic outlook was as much testing her as just trying to enjoy time spent with her. I was disproportionally focusing on all the ways she differed from what I thought I knew I needed. Sounds long-winded, but read that last sentence again - if you're single and wondering why, I'll bet at least some of it applies to you as well!
Anyway, a series of events I won't go into, combined with some unlikely but gradual maturation, has brought me to (what I'd like to think is) a (healthy?) new attitude on the whole issue of relationships, what makes us tick, etc:
First of all, I'm a romantic at heart - I believe that true love exists. I don't, though, believe in a shopping-list of traits that make up the person who is somehow "right for me". I've dropped that one altogether. I believe everything you go through in life, including relations but not limited to them, changes you and (usually) brings you closer to a phase that's right for you. At different stages along the way, you're open to different types of people - all, of course, on their own journeys - with whom you're receptive and capable of real love. These changes are different from person to person and, more importantly, you can't know when you've hit the right phase for which person, nor how to induce or prolong it. When we're there we're there, and we won't know until we see its results in hindsight. Am I essentially talking about maturity here? yes, but not only. It's your maturity and your experiences that make you receptive enough for true love. Or if you prefer, it is all about maturity, but experiences help to build it.
Two important qualifications: this is still a two-way street. Whatever phase you're in, you still have to find someone who'se there as well, which is what makes it so evasive to many of us. Also, I'm not sidestepping the vitally important issue of physical attraction. If anything, I think physical attraction is the only glue that can sustain a relationship, especially in its early stages when a couple are still getting to know each other. Talk is nice but, you know, come on... ;)
Now, I know this is all a little unclear, so here are some of the ramifications of what I'm saying, that might help make it a little more tangible:
a) There's no "The right person for me", there's being in the right place for this person. love has as much to do with where you are as it does with the other person. You have to be receptive to it, and if you're not there, you're not there. It explains those situations when you wonder what's wrong with you: you think someone's a really teriffic person, charming, funny, engaging, smart, mature, exciting, responsible, good-hearted, whatever you like - elastic - yet the spark just isn't there. You're not (necessarily) a bad person for it.
b) Don't think in terms of trait checklists. Give him/her a real chance even if they seem very different to you on paper. You don't ever fully know who'se right for you. You don't know where you are on this route, so yes, go with your instincts, but be flexible with what you've been so sure is or is not acceptable. what you "need" in the other person is dynamic, changing as you do. Also, a lot of the stuff you're looking for in a meaningful relationship can only come out/be built over time. That really sucks - especially for us impatient guys - but it's true.
c) This isn't be-all and end-all. Noone's getting married. (Yet.)
d) Don't moan and groan about your "failed" relationships and stinging break-ups. In most cases they've taught you something, they've made you more mature. It was something you had to go through and, like I mentioned above, you'll only realize later how or why.
I'm aware this is all something of a leap of faith, that I can't prove any of it, but then that's what love is all about anyway. If you still believe it's out there, take this post as some friendly advice from a fellow romantic.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Me? Blog?
It's gotten a hold of me! AHHH! get it off!
I'm 27 (in 2006), single, male, Jewish, am relatively not messed up by organized theologies or crashing, failed relationships (by which I mean there haven't been any), am completely incapable of bullshitting. You'll probably see that here. Love music of the more independent rock variety, and play in several bands. I find partisanship and deceitfulness to be the dumbest, most confounding signs of our time, am essentially an optimist, get excited about down-to-earth people, ideas and art, have a nasty lazy streak sometimes and am not as self-confident as these last few sentences would have you believe. But yeah, I guess I'm ok.
I've had an uneasy relationship with online interaction simulators/enhancers/userpers for a while... For example, I couldn't stomach the idea of online dating services - and I've stuck to that doctrine to this very day! - even at my loneliest. It just seemed like a final concede of defeat. And worse, it seemed to say our lives have gotten the best of us. That we're really too busy to get out there and meet in person, our standards are too high, let's now meet online where we can get loads of information on each other and make sure we're juuust the right temperature before we pop the potato out of the microwave.. It made perfect sense. it was clean, scientific and pragmatic. It was depressing. It meant no old-fashioned romance in my book, and that's what I couldn't take. Every day not succuming online dating sites, I'm quite proud of myself.
And blogging - what was that all about? What induced people to write all their personal crap? It seemed like the same sad story.. For me, stepping away from the screen and out of your house was and is the only reality. Not that I do it often enough, but I enjoy it through and through when I do. All the witty comments in the world, even when coming from very real people, can't hold a candle to meeting them! So why? why?
Here's the real, unexciting reason: I found that I have an unexplained tendency to spill every once in a while. I'd figure I ought to write an old friend in the States, ponder how there's nothing to say ("there's never anything to say!"), start writing whatever's in my head, and find a twisted, sprawling letter half an hour later. And I'd go back and look at it. And I'd see that it was good - not the writing ("uch! this could be worded SO much better! damn 'send' button") - but my feeling after writing it. Anecdotes would pile up, thoughts - some temporary and some reconsidered and revised to the point of doctrine - I had to write something. So here it is.
But people, I ask only one thing: sitting at home reading blogs can be fun/interesting/informative, but don't let it get a hold of you. Get out there and LIVE, BABY! This comes from el numero uno wild child on the block, I assure you all...
No idea what direction this blog will take - political, personal, romantic whining, music adulation, Fugazi call-to-arms - but heeere we go!
I'm 27 (in 2006), single, male, Jewish, am relatively not messed up by organized theologies or crashing, failed relationships (by which I mean there haven't been any), am completely incapable of bullshitting. You'll probably see that here. Love music of the more independent rock variety, and play in several bands. I find partisanship and deceitfulness to be the dumbest, most confounding signs of our time, am essentially an optimist, get excited about down-to-earth people, ideas and art, have a nasty lazy streak sometimes and am not as self-confident as these last few sentences would have you believe. But yeah, I guess I'm ok.
I've had an uneasy relationship with online interaction simulators/enhancers/userpers for a while... For example, I couldn't stomach the idea of online dating services - and I've stuck to that doctrine to this very day! - even at my loneliest. It just seemed like a final concede of defeat. And worse, it seemed to say our lives have gotten the best of us. That we're really too busy to get out there and meet in person, our standards are too high, let's now meet online where we can get loads of information on each other and make sure we're juuust the right temperature before we pop the potato out of the microwave.. It made perfect sense. it was clean, scientific and pragmatic. It was depressing. It meant no old-fashioned romance in my book, and that's what I couldn't take. Every day not succuming online dating sites, I'm quite proud of myself.
And blogging - what was that all about? What induced people to write all their personal crap? It seemed like the same sad story.. For me, stepping away from the screen and out of your house was and is the only reality. Not that I do it often enough, but I enjoy it through and through when I do. All the witty comments in the world, even when coming from very real people, can't hold a candle to meeting them! So why? why?
Here's the real, unexciting reason: I found that I have an unexplained tendency to spill every once in a while. I'd figure I ought to write an old friend in the States, ponder how there's nothing to say ("there's never anything to say!"), start writing whatever's in my head, and find a twisted, sprawling letter half an hour later. And I'd go back and look at it. And I'd see that it was good - not the writing ("uch! this could be worded SO much better! damn 'send' button") - but my feeling after writing it. Anecdotes would pile up, thoughts - some temporary and some reconsidered and revised to the point of doctrine - I had to write something. So here it is.
But people, I ask only one thing: sitting at home reading blogs can be fun/interesting/informative, but don't let it get a hold of you. Get out there and LIVE, BABY! This comes from el numero uno wild child on the block, I assure you all...
No idea what direction this blog will take - political, personal, romantic whining, music adulation, Fugazi call-to-arms - but heeere we go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)