OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
I still have to watch Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism : A Love Story. To prepare myself for his latest offering, I went back to the catalogue and watched Bowling for Columbine (2002). It made me laugh and cry all at the same time. But this time I noticed something interesting about the movie that I never considered important before: It was rated "R." The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said it deserved an "R" rating because it contained "Language and Some Disturbing Images." That piqued my interest. Then I noticed that Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) and Capitalism : A Love Story also were rated "R."
I recognized at once that the MPAA does not like Michael Moore. Bowling for Columbine did not even remotely deserve an "R" rating. Its "disturbing images" were no more than stock news footage showing gun violence in America and abroad. There was no bloodshed. By the MPAA's reasoning, virtually every nightly newscast in the United States should be rated "R" for "some disturbing images." So should almost every National Geographic Channel documentary and World War II show. And the "language" that earned the movie an "R" was this: A single use of the word "fuck" by Marilyn Manson during an interview about violence in American society. I could make only one conclusion from this: The MPAA did not like Moore's "provocative message" about American society, so they "pulled power on him" by slapping an "R" on his movie.
It is no small thing for the MPAA to dish out "R" ratings. "R" ratings reduce a movie's potential audience by up to 83%. They dramatically weaken its chances to speak to millions. As a documentary, the movie intended to reach a broad audience base. By all objective measures, the movie's content should not have warranted an "R." But the MPAA obviously felt uncomfortable with Moore's message, so they took action to automatically minimize its potential impact. The MPAA projects "authority" by vindicating "American values," like obedience, patriotism and respect for social hierarchies in an unequal commercial system. Michael Moore wages war against those values in every movie he makes. It is no surprise that the MPAA--as a corporate entity--jumped at the chance to take petty revenge against Moore. Michael Moore is a corporation's worst nightmare. He is the archetypal populist gadfly. He speaks all the words corporations try to suppress. What better way to stymie the gadfly than by restricting the number of people who can hear his words?
Michael Moore is a controversial figure. People either love him or hate him. Anyone with a trace of conservative blood generally detests him with homicidal passion. Moore haters say he "distorts the truth," "gets his facts wrong," and "sensationalizes issues," all while "being rude" and "intruding on people's privacy." Many say he "just lies."
But Michael Moore never intrudes on anyone who doesn't deserve to be pilloried. He "fights the power" in the purest sense. He only castigates those who use power over those who do not. He does not ridicule the weak. He is not afraid to call powerful people on their hypocrisies, nor is he afraid to uncover the injustices that poison American life. Naturally his targets resent his efforts; the truth always hurts. Typically, his targets respond that he only tells "half the story" and "says things inaccurately." Still, Moore's impact flows from his conceptual strength. His messages are effective because they broadly contrast principle with practice. That effectiveness does not depend on rigorous accuracy. As long as the basic ideas work, so does the film.
Power does not like exposure. The MPAA is an institution of power. It is only natural that the MPAA would use its institutional authority to strike at Michael Moore. After all, Michael Moore exposes and embarrasses power in every movie he makes. But why is the MPAA so powerful? Why is it so arbitrary? It is not a governmental institution. If it were, it could never pass judgment on artistic works consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Only State actors must abide by the Constitution. Private actors--like the MPAA--can ignore it all they want. In essence, then, the MPAA is nothing more than a collection of powerful private individuals who get to pass judgment on artistic works for any reason they want. And they don't even need to explain why they judge as they do. Unlike judicial officers, they don't even need to reference laws and precedents to support their conclusion. They can just say: "I gave it an 'R' because I didn't like it and I think I heard the word 'shit' in it."
So why do filmmakers submit to the MPAA's ratings? Simple: Movies must have ratings to enter mainstream distribution. Without a rating, no commercial movie theater will show a film; it will be doomed to arthouses and college campuses. This might satisfy fringe directors and hardcore artists. But most artists want as many people as possible to hear their messages. The only way to really "spread the word" is to obtain mainstream distribution. And the only way to do that is to submit to the MPAA's asinine review board. That is why every director struggles to appease the MPAA's private censors. Even then, if the MPAA board does not like the director or his message, it will find reasons to restrict his audience with a harsher rating. That is what happened to Michael Moore.
I think this is really shameful. In essence, the MPAA channels artistic expression in this country to conform with the authority-serving values of a private committee. Artists willingly pay tribute to those values because they want to reach the broadest possible audience. And in some cases, the committee will do its best to restrict a filmmaker's audience no matter what the filmmaker concedes. Again, this is what happened to Michael Moore. The committee simply does not like his messages, so it branded his movies with "R" ratings to prevent more people from seeing them. Only bias and prejudice can explain why Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 received "R" ratings. A documentary that shows mildly violent stock news footage and broadcasts one expletive should not be deemed "unsuitable" for people under age 17.
I really don't think Michael Moore cares whether the MPAA rates his movies. He is going to say what he wants to say no matter what. He knows many people will categorically oppose him simply because he is Michael Moore. Yet I find it despicable that the MPAA can dare to call a movie "restricted" when it merely collages images that we see on television news broadcasts every night. American life, I suppose, is rated "R," too. Or maybe "NC-17" would be more like it.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
LEARNING SOCIAL REALITY THROUGH THE NEW YORK SUBWAY SYSTEM
A REFLECTION
I first moved to New York in 1996. Almost at once, I fell in love with the subway system. I loved the idea that you could get virtually anywhere in town from anywhere else in town. At first, I struggled to learn all the color-coded lines and their destinations. I did not dare to leave Manhattan. As an 18-year-old whipper snapper at Columbia University, I was told that going above 120th Street would get you killed. So would going to Brooklyn, The Bronx or Queens. Not coincidentally, Columbia seemed to insulate itself from the "natives" outside by demarcating its property with massive stone walls studded with guarded steel gates.
In hindsight, the racial implications inherent in this "advice" seem both shocking and absurd. Yet as a freshman in New York, I believed that the city was a "dangerous place." That contributed to its magical charm, at least for me. In 1996, Giuliani had only been in power for two years. New York still seemed thrillingly nasty compared to my sleepy suburban homestead in Connecticut. I gobbled it up. For me, riding the subway was like a second university education. I learned New York by riding the trains--and by watching the people on them.
It took me a while to escape the xenophobic prejudices we learned during Orientation Week at Columbia. But I remember one day before Christmas Break in December 1996 I decided to "risk my life" by riding the "N" train beyond Manhattan. I rode all the way to Coney Island.
It was a dark, forbidding winter night. I sat alone in the car, gazing wide-eyed at the passing stations. Very few people boarded or left the train. I kept thinking: "OK, I haven't been mugged yet; and I'm tough because I'm in Brooklyn now!" Then the train popped above ground. It was the first time I had ever been on a subway with elevated tracks. Many New York lines run above ground, but this was my "first time" on an El. At this point, I felt pretty cool. I just looked out over the Brooklyn night with Manhattan glittering in the distance. Yet at the same time, I felt as if danger could strike at any moment. That was what I loved about New York: I relished it because it was so smelly, so nasty, so abnormal, so dangerous, so unlike everything I had been raised in. But that's what made it beautiful.
I made it all the way to Coney Island without dying. No one even threatened to kill me. After I got there, I walked around the decaying train station near the shuttered amusement park. I felt like I had stepped back into the movie "Once Upon a Time in America." I suddenly remembered a scene from that movie in which the young gangsters locked a treasure in a strongbox on Coney Island. The storefronts looked like they hadn't been renovated since the 1920s. I went to a little fudge shop in the station and bought a big block of vanilla fudge for $1.00. "How cool is this?" I thought. The station smelled like urine mixed with disinfectant. After about 25 minutes, I got back on the train and headed back to Manhattan.
I survived Brooklyn. I was a New York veteran now, unlike all those cowards who stayed holed up in their Columbia dorm rooms.
Within 90 minutes, of course, I was holed up in my Columbia dorm room.
I recount this story because it was an early voyage in my lifelong love affair with New York and its subways. Over the years, I ventured out into the city more and more. I wanted to see all the places that tourists didn't see. I wanted to see the "most dangerous" parts of town, not the prettiest ones. I rode the trains for 8 hours at a time, stopping to take walks along the way. Eventually, I started bringing a camera on my trips. I snapped hundreds of shots. Thankfully, I still have them all. It's only been a decade since I took those pictures. Yet the New York in those pictures no longer exists. Things change fast around here, even without terrorist attacks.
I don't take pictures around town anymore. But I still know the subway system inside and out. I even know its history. The subway system has evolved over time, just like America's economic system. When the first subway opened in 1904, it was a private enterprise. The city had nothing to do with it. A private corporation called "Interborough Rapid Transit Co." (the "IRT") built all the lines and stations that now bear "numbers" rather than "letters." Back in those days, they referred to the train by the line it traveled. For example, it wasn't the "1 Train;" it was "The IRT Broadway/7th Avenue Local." It wasn't the "4 Train;" it was "The IRT Lexington Avenue Express/Jerome Avenue Line." Now, if I need to ride uptown on the West Side, I joke with my friends that I'm "taking the IRT." I like old stuff.
Hundreds of immigrants died building IRT tunnels and structures. The IRT opened during the golden age of capitalism; and the IRT got the job done. But true to capitalism's spirit, the IRT soon faced a private competitor: Brooklyn Mass Transit Co. (the "BMT"). The BMT built numerous lines throughout Brooklyn and Queens, siphoning off riders from the IRT. Price wars ensued.
With the Great Depression, however, the private companies could not continue operating without government aid. The city increasingly subsidized the IRT and BMT. In the mid-1930s, with New Deal funding, it even opened up its own subway system: The "Independent Subway" (the "IND"). Soon thereafter, the private subway companies folded. By the 1940s, the city took over from the private companies and began running their systems. In the case of New York City subways, capitalism did not work. The government took over, and--truth be told--it has done a very good job managing mass transit.
In a way, the fall of private subways in New York mirrors the New Deal that swept the country under FDR. Government got involved for the better. And it proved that government solutions sometimes work very well, despite all the whining from free market apologists. The sky did not fall when the city took over the subway system. Nor did it fall when government began regulating the securities markets.
Today, you can still learn a lot by riding around on the New York subway. You can see social reality at work, along with all the maddening inequality that comes with life in a big American city. New York--like America--is splintered along economic, ethnic and social lines. Blacks live in poor neighborhoods in the Outer Boroughs; affluent whites live in premiere Manhattan areas. Yet every neighborhood has a subway station. You can tell whether you're in a rich neighborhood by looking at the station and how many people get on the train. Stations with lots of paying riders get overhauls. They get new stairways, new elevators, new tiling, new lighting and new tracks. But poor stations with few paying riders rot away; they look like they are caught in a time warp. You know the neighborhood is bad when there are crumbling platform edges, decrepit columns, bad signs, dingy light fixtures and a bad PA system. This is classic American inequality. And it's all right there to see on the New York subway.
I also discovered that the MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) publishes a "Ridership Table" detailing how many riders patronize each of the system's 468 stations. A quick glance at the figures confirms the inequality that simple observation reveals when traveling over the rails in New York. You can also see who lives where, and why some stations have many more paying riders than others. By studying these numbers, you can see demographic shifts at work. See http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub_07.htm.
Consider the BMT Canarsie Line, AKA the "L Train." This train runs along 14th Street in Manhattan, then goes under the East River and into Brooklyn. Right across the river is a neighborhood called Williamsburg. The "L Train" conveniently stops right in the heart of the neighborhood at a station called "Bedford Avenue." Until the 1990s, Williamsburg was a largely Hispanic, working class district with a significant industrial base. As rents in Manhattan increased under Giuliani, however, many white Bohemians and young professionals fled across the river. They settled in Williamsburg. In the last 15 years, rents in Williamsburg have ballooned beyond all recognition. It is a "hip" and "trendy" place to be. Wine bars and vintage clothing shops have displaced textile factories. The MTA's ridership report confirms this demographic shift. In 2007, more than 5,600,000 people boarded trains at Bedford Avenue, far more than any other station along the "L Line" in Brooklyn.
Williamsburg's well-paid colonists can afford the fare. That explains why residents further along the "L Line" do not use stations nearly as much as those around Bedford Avenue. The "L Line" travels deep into Brooklyn and its allegedly "bad neighborhoods" like East New York and Brownsville. Leaving aside the question whether these neighborhoods are "bad," the MTA Ridership Report shows one thing: Not many people use the subway in these neighborhoods compared to the folks in Williamsburg. Consider the dilapidated "L Train" station at Bushwick Avenue-Aberdeen Street. Here, only 315,000 people boarded trains in 2007, even though it's only a short hop from Williamsburg.
Why the discrepancy? Simple: New York neighborhoods are segregated. Five and half million people could pay $2.00 a ride at Bedford Avenue in 2007, yet only 315,000 could do so at Bushwick Avenue. Two dollars might seem insigificant, but for people in Brownsville, it's a considerable expense. Other factors explain the discrepancy, too. Many people ride the subway to get to and from work every day. In Brownsville, unemployment is extremely high; there is no need for unemployed people to ride the train into the city. No one used the Bushwick Avenue station in 2007 because most people in the area are so poor that they could not afford the (then) $2.00 fare and because they had no jobs requiring subway transit. It is an economically depressed area. It is also largely African-American, and the crime rate is much higher than in more prosperous districts.
Just ride the New York subway and study ridership data to understand social realities in New York. Overall, New York is an extremely wealthy city. It generates phenomenal wealth. Rents in Manhattan are dizzyingly high. Yet just a few yards from luxury condos stand destitute housing projects teeming with unemployed, desperate people. You do not even have to go above ground to know that there are haves and have-nots in New York. Just ride a subway line and note the crumbling stations where no one seems to be waiting for a train. Then look at the ridership report and put the pieces together for yourself.
We hear that the gap between rich and poor is growing in this country. In New York, it has been obvious for a very long time. I saw it the moment I started riding trains around town. And it's only getting worse.
Monday, October 12, 2009
RECRUIT OR HIRE? WHEN DID PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT BECOME A MILITARY CAMPAIGN?
AN ESSAY
Our language is organic. Words that meant something 50 years ago mean something completely different today. Even words that meant something 10 years might have changed. "Gay" and "epic" come to mind. So does "fail." All this interests me because it shows that language is never static. I might complain when words degenerate or mutate because I became accustomed to their older usages. But words change by nature. Language evolves much more quickly than we do. In many ways, we should be thankful for that.
But many linguistic changes deserve condemnation. In particular, I do not like changes that weaken a word's impact or meekly skirt a concept without piercing its heart. Euphemisms fall into this category. To say "collateral damage" when you mean "bombs veered off target and killed 42 children," you are not conveying reality with your language. Put simply, euphemisms reveal discomfort with language. They also reveal a discomfort with the truth, to the extent that we can all agree that something happened at a certain time and place. When a speaker resorts to euphemism, he fears what will happen if he uses truthful language. Euphemism, then, sacrifices linguistic accuracy for the speaker's comfort. In the end, everyone loses; only historians and investigators will find the truth behind meek language.
Euphemisms are not the only linguistic dilutions that obscure truth. In recent years, a nauseating "corporate" language has developed that not only obscures truth, but also fundamentally betrays traditional etymological meaning. This development coincides with rising corporate influence on American government, as well as the hypnotic "career myth" that permeates modern American society. Corporations wield far more power than they like to admit. And they do not just wield economic and social power. Through language, they wield a power over meaning that transcends generations.
In the movie "Into the Wild," the main character is a wanderer who rejects a "traditional approach" to life by venturing into the wilderness. Along the way, an old man encounters him. The old man says something like: "Son, you're 23 years old. Don't you think you should start thinking about getting a job and making something in this life?" The young man responds: "I think the whole modern notion of a career is a 20th Century invention. I choose not to partake in it."
What an interesting line. It matches my view that corporate power in America increased at the same time Americans convinced themselves that "careers were essential" to individual happiness. The wanderer in "Into the Wild" correctly observed that the meaning of the word "career" fundamentally changed in the mid-20th Century. Before 1950, very few people went to college to prepare for a "career" at a private corporation. Instead, they got a basic education and went to work for small businesses (if they lived in cities) or in agriculture (if they lived in the country). A tiny minority went on to college and entered learned professions.
After 1950, however, more and more people abandoned those "old ways" and began following a new paradigm: Go to college, get a job at a private corporation, make lots of money, buy a home live in the suburbs, raise a family and live in relative comfort until pension and death. This was a new life path in 1950. Yet it took hold very quickly; it completely altered America's social landscape. And as more and more people embraced this lifestyle, America's private corporations assumed their commanding influence in American life. Corporations generated the wealth that propelled this new lifestyle. Without them, it would all fall apart.
Against this background, it should come as no surprise that corporations began wielding more power after 1950 than they did before. As America's overall lifestyle changed, so did its habits. Since 1950, the United States has become a voraciously consumer society. Americans spend more money than they have, and that is just the way corporations (and banks) like it. All the while, they depend on private employment with corporations to sustain the money flow necessary to buy all the wonderful things consumer culture has to offer. It is an endless, spiritually vacuous cycle. At the same time, corporations rake in all the profits. They bombard the airwaves with advertising. They speak all the words. And Americans have listened for about 60 years straight. It is no wonder that corporations have assumed power: They have a captive audience that wants to buy all the things they sell.
But I am not writing about advertising or commercial power today. I am writing about language. To illustrate just how much corporate "culture" has infiltrated American life, consider two words: Recruit and hire.
Today, corporations proudly talk about their "recruiting efforts." In 1920, employers used to say: "Doggone it, Joe, we need to hire someone to replace the cashier who quit last week." Now, they say: "Call up the recruiting agency. We need to recruit someone to assume the junior sales associate position following the previous junior sales associate's withdrawal due to personal pressure." In both instances, the employers want to do the same thing: To find a person to do a job for pay. In 1920, the employer says "hire." In 2009, he says "recruit." Why the change? Shouldn't different words have different meanings?
Of course they should. Strictly viewed, "recruit" and "hire" are not synonyms. They are not the same as "crimson" and "red." They involve fundamentally different concepts. "Recruit," for instance, has a genuinely military connotation. The word stems from the Latin "recrescere," meaning to "grow again." According to Webster, the transitive verb "recruit" means: "1. To raise or strengthen (an army, navy, etc.) by enlisting personnel; 2. To enlist personnel into an army or navy; 3. (a) To enlist (new members), as for a party or organization; (b) To hire or engage the services of a person." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th Ed.). The dictionary defines the intransitive verb "recruit" to mean: "To enlist new personnel, especially for a military force." Id.
In this light, what does "recruit" have to do with private employment? A quick look at the dictionary shows that "recruit" has an almost universally military meaning. It involves "enlisting personnel" for military purposes. Only Meaning 3(b) hints that it might involve private employment. In that meaning, we see a link to the old concept "hire." There is a distinction between "hire" and "recruit." The distinction is a military one. Our language delineates between military "regrowth" and private "hiring."
Yet private corporations have co-opted the verb "to recruit." They like to say "recruit" rather than hire. Why? Is private employment a military campaign? Armies recruit when they suffer casualties in battle. Do private corporations fight battles and incur losses? Certainly not. But this example precisely illustrates how private corporations have infiltrated and plundered the English language. "Recruit" no longer has a distinctly military connotation. Now, it is nothing more than "hiring."
On the other hand, corporations have also stolen another military word in order to describe resignations and firing: "Attrition." The military justifies "recruitment" when "attrition" thins out the ranks. Corporations "recruit" when "attrition" results in open job spots. In the military, "attrition" means guys got their heads blown off and need to be replaced. In private corporations, "attrition" means some guy got up from his desk at the insurance company and said: "Fuck you, I'm outta here." He, too, must be replaced. So the corporation "recruits" a replacement.
What about "hiring?" Why is "hire" insufficient for private corporations? In my view, "hiring" much better describes what private corporations do to replenish their work forces than "recruit." "Hire" is a pure English word with Germanic roots. It is related to the Dutch word "huur" and the German "heuern." Both kindred words mean to "rent out" in a commercial setting. They do not involve the military, nor do they involve "regrowth." No, "hiring" is a commercial word, and it has always been a commercial word. It is only fitting that corporations--as the ultimate commercial actors--should use commercial words to describe their activities. The dictionary defines "to hire" as: "1. To get the services of a person or the use of a thing in return for payment; employ or engage; 2. To give the use of a thing or the services of a person in return for payment." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th Ed.).
What could be clearer than that? "Getting someone's services for payment" or "employing" them: That's hiring. That's what corporations do. So why must corporations say "recruit" when they mean "hire?" No matter how intensely corporations might pursue "market success," they do not wage military campaigns and they do not suffer casualties in battle. They have no right to use the specialized word "recruit" to describe their purely commercial quest to obtain people's services for a paycheck. The army "recruits" at the "recruiting station." Corporations "hire" at their "offices." There is a distinction in the language that should remain intact.
In my view, corporations have corrupted the word "recruit" and robbed its unique meaning in English. They have succeeded. They hold much more power than Americans care to admit. After all, corporations represent the pathway to "career" and all the miraculous consumer goods that flow from a career's cumulative paychecks.
Most Americans could care less whether corporations commandeer the English language. They just want the paycheck. They don't care whether they are "recruited" or "hired."
I care. I think deeply about language and its transmutations. It saddens me when powerful interests can change our language at will. But I am not normal.
Our language is organic. Words that meant something 50 years ago mean something completely different today. Even words that meant something 10 years might have changed. "Gay" and "epic" come to mind. So does "fail." All this interests me because it shows that language is never static. I might complain when words degenerate or mutate because I became accustomed to their older usages. But words change by nature. Language evolves much more quickly than we do. In many ways, we should be thankful for that.
But many linguistic changes deserve condemnation. In particular, I do not like changes that weaken a word's impact or meekly skirt a concept without piercing its heart. Euphemisms fall into this category. To say "collateral damage" when you mean "bombs veered off target and killed 42 children," you are not conveying reality with your language. Put simply, euphemisms reveal discomfort with language. They also reveal a discomfort with the truth, to the extent that we can all agree that something happened at a certain time and place. When a speaker resorts to euphemism, he fears what will happen if he uses truthful language. Euphemism, then, sacrifices linguistic accuracy for the speaker's comfort. In the end, everyone loses; only historians and investigators will find the truth behind meek language.
Euphemisms are not the only linguistic dilutions that obscure truth. In recent years, a nauseating "corporate" language has developed that not only obscures truth, but also fundamentally betrays traditional etymological meaning. This development coincides with rising corporate influence on American government, as well as the hypnotic "career myth" that permeates modern American society. Corporations wield far more power than they like to admit. And they do not just wield economic and social power. Through language, they wield a power over meaning that transcends generations.
In the movie "Into the Wild," the main character is a wanderer who rejects a "traditional approach" to life by venturing into the wilderness. Along the way, an old man encounters him. The old man says something like: "Son, you're 23 years old. Don't you think you should start thinking about getting a job and making something in this life?" The young man responds: "I think the whole modern notion of a career is a 20th Century invention. I choose not to partake in it."
What an interesting line. It matches my view that corporate power in America increased at the same time Americans convinced themselves that "careers were essential" to individual happiness. The wanderer in "Into the Wild" correctly observed that the meaning of the word "career" fundamentally changed in the mid-20th Century. Before 1950, very few people went to college to prepare for a "career" at a private corporation. Instead, they got a basic education and went to work for small businesses (if they lived in cities) or in agriculture (if they lived in the country). A tiny minority went on to college and entered learned professions.
After 1950, however, more and more people abandoned those "old ways" and began following a new paradigm: Go to college, get a job at a private corporation, make lots of money, buy a home live in the suburbs, raise a family and live in relative comfort until pension and death. This was a new life path in 1950. Yet it took hold very quickly; it completely altered America's social landscape. And as more and more people embraced this lifestyle, America's private corporations assumed their commanding influence in American life. Corporations generated the wealth that propelled this new lifestyle. Without them, it would all fall apart.
Against this background, it should come as no surprise that corporations began wielding more power after 1950 than they did before. As America's overall lifestyle changed, so did its habits. Since 1950, the United States has become a voraciously consumer society. Americans spend more money than they have, and that is just the way corporations (and banks) like it. All the while, they depend on private employment with corporations to sustain the money flow necessary to buy all the wonderful things consumer culture has to offer. It is an endless, spiritually vacuous cycle. At the same time, corporations rake in all the profits. They bombard the airwaves with advertising. They speak all the words. And Americans have listened for about 60 years straight. It is no wonder that corporations have assumed power: They have a captive audience that wants to buy all the things they sell.
But I am not writing about advertising or commercial power today. I am writing about language. To illustrate just how much corporate "culture" has infiltrated American life, consider two words: Recruit and hire.
Today, corporations proudly talk about their "recruiting efforts." In 1920, employers used to say: "Doggone it, Joe, we need to hire someone to replace the cashier who quit last week." Now, they say: "Call up the recruiting agency. We need to recruit someone to assume the junior sales associate position following the previous junior sales associate's withdrawal due to personal pressure." In both instances, the employers want to do the same thing: To find a person to do a job for pay. In 1920, the employer says "hire." In 2009, he says "recruit." Why the change? Shouldn't different words have different meanings?
Of course they should. Strictly viewed, "recruit" and "hire" are not synonyms. They are not the same as "crimson" and "red." They involve fundamentally different concepts. "Recruit," for instance, has a genuinely military connotation. The word stems from the Latin "recrescere," meaning to "grow again." According to Webster, the transitive verb "recruit" means: "1. To raise or strengthen (an army, navy, etc.) by enlisting personnel; 2. To enlist personnel into an army or navy; 3. (a) To enlist (new members), as for a party or organization; (b) To hire or engage the services of a person." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th Ed.). The dictionary defines the intransitive verb "recruit" to mean: "To enlist new personnel, especially for a military force." Id.
In this light, what does "recruit" have to do with private employment? A quick look at the dictionary shows that "recruit" has an almost universally military meaning. It involves "enlisting personnel" for military purposes. Only Meaning 3(b) hints that it might involve private employment. In that meaning, we see a link to the old concept "hire." There is a distinction between "hire" and "recruit." The distinction is a military one. Our language delineates between military "regrowth" and private "hiring."
Yet private corporations have co-opted the verb "to recruit." They like to say "recruit" rather than hire. Why? Is private employment a military campaign? Armies recruit when they suffer casualties in battle. Do private corporations fight battles and incur losses? Certainly not. But this example precisely illustrates how private corporations have infiltrated and plundered the English language. "Recruit" no longer has a distinctly military connotation. Now, it is nothing more than "hiring."
On the other hand, corporations have also stolen another military word in order to describe resignations and firing: "Attrition." The military justifies "recruitment" when "attrition" thins out the ranks. Corporations "recruit" when "attrition" results in open job spots. In the military, "attrition" means guys got their heads blown off and need to be replaced. In private corporations, "attrition" means some guy got up from his desk at the insurance company and said: "Fuck you, I'm outta here." He, too, must be replaced. So the corporation "recruits" a replacement.
What about "hiring?" Why is "hire" insufficient for private corporations? In my view, "hiring" much better describes what private corporations do to replenish their work forces than "recruit." "Hire" is a pure English word with Germanic roots. It is related to the Dutch word "huur" and the German "heuern." Both kindred words mean to "rent out" in a commercial setting. They do not involve the military, nor do they involve "regrowth." No, "hiring" is a commercial word, and it has always been a commercial word. It is only fitting that corporations--as the ultimate commercial actors--should use commercial words to describe their activities. The dictionary defines "to hire" as: "1. To get the services of a person or the use of a thing in return for payment; employ or engage; 2. To give the use of a thing or the services of a person in return for payment." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th Ed.).
What could be clearer than that? "Getting someone's services for payment" or "employing" them: That's hiring. That's what corporations do. So why must corporations say "recruit" when they mean "hire?" No matter how intensely corporations might pursue "market success," they do not wage military campaigns and they do not suffer casualties in battle. They have no right to use the specialized word "recruit" to describe their purely commercial quest to obtain people's services for a paycheck. The army "recruits" at the "recruiting station." Corporations "hire" at their "offices." There is a distinction in the language that should remain intact.
In my view, corporations have corrupted the word "recruit" and robbed its unique meaning in English. They have succeeded. They hold much more power than Americans care to admit. After all, corporations represent the pathway to "career" and all the miraculous consumer goods that flow from a career's cumulative paychecks.
Most Americans could care less whether corporations commandeer the English language. They just want the paycheck. They don't care whether they are "recruited" or "hired."
I care. I think deeply about language and its transmutations. It saddens me when powerful interests can change our language at will. But I am not normal.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
OBAMA DESERVED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS
By : Ms. Charlene E. Everson, Chairperson, The Obama Fan Club of Greater Tuscaloosa; Democrat; Believer in Miracles; High School Graduate.
President Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday, and for good reason. Despite Mr. Obama's repeated successes over the past nine months, many critics say that he has "not done enough" to warrant the coveted international award. They say he has not had enough time to amass the achievements necessary to deserve it.
We strongly disagree. Mr. Obama's achievements speak for themselves. The committee presented the Peace Prize to Mr. Obama not only because he ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and convinced Osama bin Laden to open fast food restaurants (featuring trademark Tali-Shakes and al-Sadr Sandwiches at 5000 US locations), but also because he perfected a cold fusion procedure that solved the world's energy crisis overnight. Mr. Obama is not just a concerned politician; he is a first-rate scientist, ethicist and humanitarian. The Nobel Committee considered all his strengths before it awarded him the prize. It was neither hasty nor careless.
Mr. Obama deserved this prize. Since January 20, 2009, Mr. Obama has achieved monumental advances in many fields. He walked on water on March 14, prompting ecstatic international celebrations. He healed incurable cancer victims on June 2 by touching their heads and earnestly repeating: "Together, we can." And on July 7, he traveled to Zaire, where he both stopped the war between rival militias and magically caused 600000 tons of food to appear. This immediately ended the famine plaguing Central Africa. Mr. Obama's compassionate efforts to help the sick and the hungry clearly warrant his consideration for the Prize.
Mr. Obama is not just a great President. He is a miracle worker. His miracles offer change we can believe in. Bullets fired in his direction veer off target. He can survive plane crashes and raging infernos. He can fall 1000 feet and survive. Not even earthquakes can stop him from bringing hope and relief to every corner of the globe, including Armenia and Turkey. True to his campaign promises, he has stopped all hatred and racism worldwide. Former enemies are now lovers, whether gay or straight. He has saved people from volcanic eruptions, discovered an AIDS vaccine and punished ruthless criminals who mistreat livestock. In a word, Mr. Obama respects all life, not just human life. That commitment to life won the Committee's praise.
In addition to all these achievements, Mr. Obama has brought love and happiness to everyone on earth. Since taking office, violent crime has ceased worldwide. No one has committed suicide because everyone feels that life is worth living again. Sales for prescription antidepressants have completely stopped. Put simply, now that Mr. Obama is the American President, everyone on earth is happy. Before he took office, Mr. Obama said the world could be a better place, and so it is. Thank you, Mr. President.
Obama has done all this in nine months. Imagine what he will do in four years. Never has a Nobel Peace Prize been more deserved. We salute the Nobel Committee for recognizing Barrack Hussein Obama, the Savior of the World.
Friday, October 9, 2009
FROM SLAVERY TO THE WHITE HOUSE : ANCESTRY AND AMERICAN HISTORY
AN ESSAY
Recently, the New York Times ran an article about Michelle Obama's ancestry. See N.Y. Times, October 7, 2008, In First Lady's Roots, A Complex Path from Slavery. Thanks to a genealogist's work, we see deeply into Mrs. Obama's family history. And in that history, we see the classic identity problems that plague all Americans, not just African-Americans.
All Americans face monumental identity questions. There are few countries on earth with populations as culturally and ethincally diverse as those in the United States. Americans living today draw on millennia of formerly disparate social, religious, linguistic and racial traditions. Some Americans are less "intermingled" than others. But over time, "intermingling" is inevitable. If a group has been in this country for a long time, it has likely "intermingled" with some other group. Even English settlers in the 17th Century intermingled with Native tribes. As the article observes, these "liaisons" simply vanish as times passes and memories fade. Family history does that. Once a relative in an older generation dies, it is unlikely that many people will remember him or her. That makes the genealogist's job much more difficult.
But in fairness, African-Americans face a much more difficult identity inquiry than European descendants. After all, every African-American (except recent African immigrants) can trace some roots to slavery. It is wrong to think that African-Americans are "purely" or even "largely" African. Quite the contrary, African-Americans are generally far more "American" than Johnny-come-lately European immigrants. And hauntingly, the evil of slavery is literally inscribed in every African-American's family tree. European slave owners routinely took sexual liberties with their African "property" over the centuries. This "forced intermingling" makes African-American genealogies both extremely perplexing and interesting at the same time. Additionally, many African-Americans intermingled with Native populations during the 18th and 19th Centuries, adding another layer of ancestral traditions to an already complicated history.
Michelle Obama's story reveals all these disparate influences at work. A slave owner raped one of her maternal ancestors, who gave birth to several "mulatto" children. One of the ancestor's forebears, in turn, was named "Powhatan Morehead." That is undeniably a Native American name. Because the family lived in Georgia at the time, we can assume he was probably a Cherokee or a Seminole. No matter his true identity, it lives on in Michelle Obama. And there is no shortage of irony in the notion that oppressed slaves and persecuted Native Americans contributed DNA that ultimately found its way into the same White House that once regarded them as subhuman.
I am glad the Times drew attention to Michelle Obama's ancestry. In recent years, I have taken a very strong interest in ancestry because I think it helps me understand who I am and why I think and feel the way I do. I also think it is important because it helps us all better understand America's immensely troubled history. The Times article also wisely notes that Michelle Obama--as an African-American--has many "white strands" in her ancestry. Perhaps the Times thinks that most readers do not know that this is virtually universal among African-Americans. The chilling truth is that "African-Americans" are really not as "black" as most European descendants believe. Even "really black" people like Chris Rock and Morgan Freeman can prove something like 30% European roots. That means that the average African-American represents the generational result of centuries of both slavery and sexual exploitation. I would have been happier if the Times noted these discomforting facts in stronger terms. But I was glad they at least hinted at them.
From an ancestral perspective, African-Americans are completely unique. Their family trees reveal European, Native American and even Hispanic influences. They have generally lived in North America longer than most European immigrant groups; most large European immigrant groups only began landing here in the 1840s. When it comes to ancestry in America, time matters. The fact is that African-Americans have had more time to intermingle--both voluntarily and involuntarily--with every other racial group in North America. That makes modern-day African-Americans unique.
That is not to say that European descendants are not unique. But most "whites" in America--as intermingled as they may be with one another--draw from similar ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. I am a "white" American. To some degree, I am "intermingled." Yet I am remarkably "homogeneous," at least when compared to Michelle Obama's ancestry. Every one of my ancestors came from Northern Europe. They have always been Protestant, fair-skinned, fair-haired and they always spoke Germanic languages (German, English and Dutch). There was no obvious sexual exploitation along the way, nor was anyone ever "owned" in my family tree. For better or worse, my family tree shows me that my ancestors "stayed with their own." And that is typical in American history: Integration generally has only occurred in scandalous circumstances. My great-grandmother burned love letters intended to reach my grandmother. Why? Because the suitor was Catholic.
Ancestry always fascinates me. It implicates both my passion for history and for self-knowledge. When we understand ancestry, we place ourselves in a historical continuum that makes sense. It helps us understand our desires, likes, dislikes, passions and aversions. On a larger scales, it helps us orient ourselves in this country, and to see whether we've remained true to what "always mattered" to our relatives. Yes, we are all "unique individuals." But we cannot escape our family roots. They will always shape us, no matter how much we fight them or reject them. And they also help us make educated guesses about people's values. If we know someone comes from an Italian-Irish Catholic background, we can be pretty sure that they will think differently than a person with Swedish Protestant ancestry. That might be prejudice, but it is entirely reasonable.
In Michelle Obama's case, ancestry does more than help us understand values. It gives an insight into America's complex identity issues. In many ways, studying African-Americans means studying American history. Virtually every key event in American history has somehow involved African-Americans. Our soul as a Nation rises and falls depending upon how we treat them. After all, we are supposedly a Nation of principles. When our principles only apply to whites, it renders our entire national experiment an embarrassment.
Recently, the New York Times ran an article about Michelle Obama's ancestry. See N.Y. Times, October 7, 2008, In First Lady's Roots, A Complex Path from Slavery. Thanks to a genealogist's work, we see deeply into Mrs. Obama's family history. And in that history, we see the classic identity problems that plague all Americans, not just African-Americans.
All Americans face monumental identity questions. There are few countries on earth with populations as culturally and ethincally diverse as those in the United States. Americans living today draw on millennia of formerly disparate social, religious, linguistic and racial traditions. Some Americans are less "intermingled" than others. But over time, "intermingling" is inevitable. If a group has been in this country for a long time, it has likely "intermingled" with some other group. Even English settlers in the 17th Century intermingled with Native tribes. As the article observes, these "liaisons" simply vanish as times passes and memories fade. Family history does that. Once a relative in an older generation dies, it is unlikely that many people will remember him or her. That makes the genealogist's job much more difficult.
But in fairness, African-Americans face a much more difficult identity inquiry than European descendants. After all, every African-American (except recent African immigrants) can trace some roots to slavery. It is wrong to think that African-Americans are "purely" or even "largely" African. Quite the contrary, African-Americans are generally far more "American" than Johnny-come-lately European immigrants. And hauntingly, the evil of slavery is literally inscribed in every African-American's family tree. European slave owners routinely took sexual liberties with their African "property" over the centuries. This "forced intermingling" makes African-American genealogies both extremely perplexing and interesting at the same time. Additionally, many African-Americans intermingled with Native populations during the 18th and 19th Centuries, adding another layer of ancestral traditions to an already complicated history.
Michelle Obama's story reveals all these disparate influences at work. A slave owner raped one of her maternal ancestors, who gave birth to several "mulatto" children. One of the ancestor's forebears, in turn, was named "Powhatan Morehead." That is undeniably a Native American name. Because the family lived in Georgia at the time, we can assume he was probably a Cherokee or a Seminole. No matter his true identity, it lives on in Michelle Obama. And there is no shortage of irony in the notion that oppressed slaves and persecuted Native Americans contributed DNA that ultimately found its way into the same White House that once regarded them as subhuman.
I am glad the Times drew attention to Michelle Obama's ancestry. In recent years, I have taken a very strong interest in ancestry because I think it helps me understand who I am and why I think and feel the way I do. I also think it is important because it helps us all better understand America's immensely troubled history. The Times article also wisely notes that Michelle Obama--as an African-American--has many "white strands" in her ancestry. Perhaps the Times thinks that most readers do not know that this is virtually universal among African-Americans. The chilling truth is that "African-Americans" are really not as "black" as most European descendants believe. Even "really black" people like Chris Rock and Morgan Freeman can prove something like 30% European roots. That means that the average African-American represents the generational result of centuries of both slavery and sexual exploitation. I would have been happier if the Times noted these discomforting facts in stronger terms. But I was glad they at least hinted at them.
From an ancestral perspective, African-Americans are completely unique. Their family trees reveal European, Native American and even Hispanic influences. They have generally lived in North America longer than most European immigrant groups; most large European immigrant groups only began landing here in the 1840s. When it comes to ancestry in America, time matters. The fact is that African-Americans have had more time to intermingle--both voluntarily and involuntarily--with every other racial group in North America. That makes modern-day African-Americans unique.
That is not to say that European descendants are not unique. But most "whites" in America--as intermingled as they may be with one another--draw from similar ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. I am a "white" American. To some degree, I am "intermingled." Yet I am remarkably "homogeneous," at least when compared to Michelle Obama's ancestry. Every one of my ancestors came from Northern Europe. They have always been Protestant, fair-skinned, fair-haired and they always spoke Germanic languages (German, English and Dutch). There was no obvious sexual exploitation along the way, nor was anyone ever "owned" in my family tree. For better or worse, my family tree shows me that my ancestors "stayed with their own." And that is typical in American history: Integration generally has only occurred in scandalous circumstances. My great-grandmother burned love letters intended to reach my grandmother. Why? Because the suitor was Catholic.
Ancestry always fascinates me. It implicates both my passion for history and for self-knowledge. When we understand ancestry, we place ourselves in a historical continuum that makes sense. It helps us understand our desires, likes, dislikes, passions and aversions. On a larger scales, it helps us orient ourselves in this country, and to see whether we've remained true to what "always mattered" to our relatives. Yes, we are all "unique individuals." But we cannot escape our family roots. They will always shape us, no matter how much we fight them or reject them. And they also help us make educated guesses about people's values. If we know someone comes from an Italian-Irish Catholic background, we can be pretty sure that they will think differently than a person with Swedish Protestant ancestry. That might be prejudice, but it is entirely reasonable.
In Michelle Obama's case, ancestry does more than help us understand values. It gives an insight into America's complex identity issues. In many ways, studying African-Americans means studying American history. Virtually every key event in American history has somehow involved African-Americans. Our soul as a Nation rises and falls depending upon how we treat them. After all, we are supposedly a Nation of principles. When our principles only apply to whites, it renders our entire national experiment an embarrassment.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
A THERAPEUTIC POST, AND A WORD ABOUT "REASONABLENESS"
A REFLECTION
I'm really in no emotional condition to write. This is not a confession; I just want to say how I feel now so I can remember it later. It helps me when I express what's going on inside my head. During easier times, I can write almost endlessly because I can focus. These days, however, I can barely concentrate. I mentioned last week that I have been going through hard times because my life partner began suffering from a mental illness. It got so bad that he had to go to the hospital to "rest." I have no idea how long he will stay there.
I have never endured a situation like this. We have lived together for nearly ten years; it is jarring to know he is no longer in the house. Worse, I am tormented by the thought that he is not the person I knew. When I speak to him on the phone, it is clear that his illness has overtaken his mind. It breaks my heart and drains my own energy. In addition, I have no idea what the future holds. It is mentally taxing to deal with uncertainty about important things. I am tired all day long. My mind cannot follow anything for more than a few minutes. I am not doing well.
All this trouble started more than two years ago. My partner's mental illness represents the culmination of pressures that began when he suffered a freak burn accident in 2007. I typically do not talk about personal things like this, but now I see no reason to hold back. It helps me sort out my own difficulties when I put them in a chronology. I still cling to logic when it comes to understanding historical events that have an effect on me. I have a good memory and I put it to use.
Let's start with the injury. My partner suffered a devastating burn on his right arm in a health club steam room. No one really knows how it happened; he went into shock almost immediately after it happened. He always tells the same story: He was walking into the steam room when a burst of steam came from his right side, scalding him. He immediately left the steam room, where an employee saw him and remarked: "Oh my God, your arm!" Soon thereafter, he fainted. An ambulance took him to the emergency room. A few hours later, Chicago's best burn trauma unit admitted him for treatment. To make a long story short, he stayed in the hospital for 35 days, endured several skin graft surgeries, suffered two heart attacks and an induced coma.
Upon his release, he was essentially a broken man. His right arm was permanently disfigured. He could still use it for most things, but he did not dare show it in public. To save his arm, doctors had to shear skin off his legs to patch onto the wound. He bears those scars, too. Within a few months, he began slipping into deep depression. He did not get out of bed all day. And he continued to suffer pain in his arm. He took addictive opiate pain-killers to manage it.
All the while, I cared for him. I did the shopping. I did the errands. I took him to appointments and made phone calls. I managed the medications and dealt with the doctors. I provided comfort and sat by the bed when I had to. I tried to work for the first few months after he left the hospital. But he got so lonely and depressed while I was away that I genuinely feared for his life. So I decided to suspend my career to care for him. During that I time, I started writing this blog. Yet during the same time, I have had the much greater responsibility to care for him. In consequence, I, too, have scarcely known rest since 2007.
We tried to sue the health club that caused the injury. But whenever my partner talked about what happened, he fell deeper into depression. Lawyers think it's easy for injured people to relive the worst day in their lives over and over again; it isn't. Worse, we discovered that the health club did not maintain liability insurance on its land, so it would be extremely difficult to recover any money on his behalf without a knock-down, drag-out fight that likely would have driven him over the emotional edge. Our lawyers refused to continue representing us when they found the club had no insurance. Legally and morally, our lawyers held the high ground: No one deserves to enter a business establishment and walk out with a life-threatening burn injury. Numerous legal theories supported our position, from negligence to strict products liability. From a theoretical perspective, we should have won some compensation for him.
But we didn't. No matter how many legal advantages we had, the lawyers got cold feet as soon as they learned there was no insurance involved. Five other lawyers had the same reaction: "Oooh, no insurance! Sorry, I can't help you."
In personal injury cases, liability insurance companies ensure that defendants do not go bankrupt when accidents happen on their land. The insurance company pays for the defense and pays any judgments against the defendants. This protects the defendants' own assets from seizure. Insurance companies also speed things along relatively fast; and that makes everyone happy, including the injured person's lawyers. An insurance company will settle a case against its client quite readily if there are strong facts from which to imply negligence. The defendant just goes along with the program: After all, it is not his money at stake. By contrast, when a defendant does not have insurance, he will fight to the end because it is his money.
That was the situation we faced. And our lawyers bailed out the moment they discovered that they would have to fight for years for potentially no reward. Neither justice nor legal principle spurred them to action. Unless a case could quickly pay out, it was not worth taking. For these lawyers, cases were little more than investments. It did not matter that my partner suffered outrageous injustice due to the health club's negligence: There was not a quick, ready profit to be made on his case, so no lawyer pursued it. Ironically, the health club saved itself by acting irresponsibly: It did not have liability insurance.
Naturally, this result only deepened my resentment toward lawyers and their profession. It reaffirmed that justice does not motivate lawyers. Only potential profits interest them. If a case involves justice and profits, that will get them off their seats. But if it involves justice and no profit, forget it.
But I wonder what would have happened even if the case went forward. How could anyone put a dollar value on my partner's injury? How could money compensate him for the agony he suffered? How could any check restore his scorched arm, or make him whole from the misery and pain he endured in the hospital? I saw his pain up close and personal. I saw him scream at night. I saw him unconscious and hooked up to a ventilator. I saw him cry out in fear as they wheeled him off for yet another surgery. I saw him with a trach tube down his throat and unable to speak. I saw him sweat through his clothes and lie helpless in the bed with his bloody arm in a splint. I had to cut off his shirts with a knife and sponge him dry. I saw him fall into depression and now into mania. What money could make all this "disappear?" What does money have to do with all this?
All these experiences made me question the law. From the law's perspective, money "recompenses" negligently-caused injury. Yet I know from experience that money would have done nothing to recompense my partner's plight, nor would have made his life "all better." Worse, I saw that the law condescends when it comes to monetary awards for injury. Suppose, for instance, that a jury evaluated my partner's pain, suffering and emotional turmoil and concluded that the health club's negligence caused it. Let's say it awarded him $5,000,000. That's all well and good. But under a doctrine called "remittitur," the judge could say: "That's unreasonable. He's only getting $500,000."
Think about how insulting that is. It's one thing to put a dollar amount on physical suffering, disfigurement, permanent injury and even death. It's quite another to claim that one amount is "reasonable" over another. My experience with life-altering injuries convinced me that the law is stupid. After all, what does a judge know about what injured people really suffer? And how can he say with any authority what someone's pain is "worth," let alone whether the amount is "reasonable?"
This example illustrates my deep resentment toward all "objective standards" in the law. Judges always speak in "reasonable" terms: "Reasonable time," "reasonable care," "reasonable regard," "reasonable amount," "reasonable certainty." They think they refer to some magical standard when they use the word "reasonable." In fact, they refer only to their own, value-laden judgments concerning particular conduct in particular circumstances. Judges, after all, come from a distinct social class with distinct ideas about money, punctuality, relationships and "responsibility." They probably never suffered life-altering injuries. If they object to a monetary amount as "excessive" from their perspective, they call it "unreasonable." Yet who are they to quantify another human being's suffering?
Let a judge's wife suffer the same agony that my partner suffered. Then he can tell me what amount would "reasonably" compensate her for it.
I'm really in no emotional condition to write. This is not a confession; I just want to say how I feel now so I can remember it later. It helps me when I express what's going on inside my head. During easier times, I can write almost endlessly because I can focus. These days, however, I can barely concentrate. I mentioned last week that I have been going through hard times because my life partner began suffering from a mental illness. It got so bad that he had to go to the hospital to "rest." I have no idea how long he will stay there.
I have never endured a situation like this. We have lived together for nearly ten years; it is jarring to know he is no longer in the house. Worse, I am tormented by the thought that he is not the person I knew. When I speak to him on the phone, it is clear that his illness has overtaken his mind. It breaks my heart and drains my own energy. In addition, I have no idea what the future holds. It is mentally taxing to deal with uncertainty about important things. I am tired all day long. My mind cannot follow anything for more than a few minutes. I am not doing well.
All this trouble started more than two years ago. My partner's mental illness represents the culmination of pressures that began when he suffered a freak burn accident in 2007. I typically do not talk about personal things like this, but now I see no reason to hold back. It helps me sort out my own difficulties when I put them in a chronology. I still cling to logic when it comes to understanding historical events that have an effect on me. I have a good memory and I put it to use.
Let's start with the injury. My partner suffered a devastating burn on his right arm in a health club steam room. No one really knows how it happened; he went into shock almost immediately after it happened. He always tells the same story: He was walking into the steam room when a burst of steam came from his right side, scalding him. He immediately left the steam room, where an employee saw him and remarked: "Oh my God, your arm!" Soon thereafter, he fainted. An ambulance took him to the emergency room. A few hours later, Chicago's best burn trauma unit admitted him for treatment. To make a long story short, he stayed in the hospital for 35 days, endured several skin graft surgeries, suffered two heart attacks and an induced coma.
Upon his release, he was essentially a broken man. His right arm was permanently disfigured. He could still use it for most things, but he did not dare show it in public. To save his arm, doctors had to shear skin off his legs to patch onto the wound. He bears those scars, too. Within a few months, he began slipping into deep depression. He did not get out of bed all day. And he continued to suffer pain in his arm. He took addictive opiate pain-killers to manage it.
All the while, I cared for him. I did the shopping. I did the errands. I took him to appointments and made phone calls. I managed the medications and dealt with the doctors. I provided comfort and sat by the bed when I had to. I tried to work for the first few months after he left the hospital. But he got so lonely and depressed while I was away that I genuinely feared for his life. So I decided to suspend my career to care for him. During that I time, I started writing this blog. Yet during the same time, I have had the much greater responsibility to care for him. In consequence, I, too, have scarcely known rest since 2007.
We tried to sue the health club that caused the injury. But whenever my partner talked about what happened, he fell deeper into depression. Lawyers think it's easy for injured people to relive the worst day in their lives over and over again; it isn't. Worse, we discovered that the health club did not maintain liability insurance on its land, so it would be extremely difficult to recover any money on his behalf without a knock-down, drag-out fight that likely would have driven him over the emotional edge. Our lawyers refused to continue representing us when they found the club had no insurance. Legally and morally, our lawyers held the high ground: No one deserves to enter a business establishment and walk out with a life-threatening burn injury. Numerous legal theories supported our position, from negligence to strict products liability. From a theoretical perspective, we should have won some compensation for him.
But we didn't. No matter how many legal advantages we had, the lawyers got cold feet as soon as they learned there was no insurance involved. Five other lawyers had the same reaction: "Oooh, no insurance! Sorry, I can't help you."
In personal injury cases, liability insurance companies ensure that defendants do not go bankrupt when accidents happen on their land. The insurance company pays for the defense and pays any judgments against the defendants. This protects the defendants' own assets from seizure. Insurance companies also speed things along relatively fast; and that makes everyone happy, including the injured person's lawyers. An insurance company will settle a case against its client quite readily if there are strong facts from which to imply negligence. The defendant just goes along with the program: After all, it is not his money at stake. By contrast, when a defendant does not have insurance, he will fight to the end because it is his money.
That was the situation we faced. And our lawyers bailed out the moment they discovered that they would have to fight for years for potentially no reward. Neither justice nor legal principle spurred them to action. Unless a case could quickly pay out, it was not worth taking. For these lawyers, cases were little more than investments. It did not matter that my partner suffered outrageous injustice due to the health club's negligence: There was not a quick, ready profit to be made on his case, so no lawyer pursued it. Ironically, the health club saved itself by acting irresponsibly: It did not have liability insurance.
Naturally, this result only deepened my resentment toward lawyers and their profession. It reaffirmed that justice does not motivate lawyers. Only potential profits interest them. If a case involves justice and profits, that will get them off their seats. But if it involves justice and no profit, forget it.
But I wonder what would have happened even if the case went forward. How could anyone put a dollar value on my partner's injury? How could money compensate him for the agony he suffered? How could any check restore his scorched arm, or make him whole from the misery and pain he endured in the hospital? I saw his pain up close and personal. I saw him scream at night. I saw him unconscious and hooked up to a ventilator. I saw him cry out in fear as they wheeled him off for yet another surgery. I saw him with a trach tube down his throat and unable to speak. I saw him sweat through his clothes and lie helpless in the bed with his bloody arm in a splint. I had to cut off his shirts with a knife and sponge him dry. I saw him fall into depression and now into mania. What money could make all this "disappear?" What does money have to do with all this?
All these experiences made me question the law. From the law's perspective, money "recompenses" negligently-caused injury. Yet I know from experience that money would have done nothing to recompense my partner's plight, nor would have made his life "all better." Worse, I saw that the law condescends when it comes to monetary awards for injury. Suppose, for instance, that a jury evaluated my partner's pain, suffering and emotional turmoil and concluded that the health club's negligence caused it. Let's say it awarded him $5,000,000. That's all well and good. But under a doctrine called "remittitur," the judge could say: "That's unreasonable. He's only getting $500,000."
Think about how insulting that is. It's one thing to put a dollar amount on physical suffering, disfigurement, permanent injury and even death. It's quite another to claim that one amount is "reasonable" over another. My experience with life-altering injuries convinced me that the law is stupid. After all, what does a judge know about what injured people really suffer? And how can he say with any authority what someone's pain is "worth," let alone whether the amount is "reasonable?"
This example illustrates my deep resentment toward all "objective standards" in the law. Judges always speak in "reasonable" terms: "Reasonable time," "reasonable care," "reasonable regard," "reasonable amount," "reasonable certainty." They think they refer to some magical standard when they use the word "reasonable." In fact, they refer only to their own, value-laden judgments concerning particular conduct in particular circumstances. Judges, after all, come from a distinct social class with distinct ideas about money, punctuality, relationships and "responsibility." They probably never suffered life-altering injuries. If they object to a monetary amount as "excessive" from their perspective, they call it "unreasonable." Yet who are they to quantify another human being's suffering?
Let a judge's wife suffer the same agony that my partner suffered. Then he can tell me what amount would "reasonably" compensate her for it.
Monday, October 5, 2009
CONTRACTS ARE CONTRACTS, SUPREME COURT RULES
NEWS FLASH
WASHINGTON, D.C.--Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer has just learned that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that "a contract is a contract" in the much-followed case Gaffaello Mutual Equity Partners LLP v. Marquez, No. 08-9851. Scholars and lawyers alike have reacted with surprise to the Court's decision. "We expected a narrower ruling," said Mr. Thomas J. Knickerbocker, Esq., partner at New York's Knickerbocker, Chance & Willoughby LLC, a prominent Wall Street law firm. "We thought the Court would be more straightforward. But it simply said 'a contract is a contract.' This is a complicated idea. It is hard for both lawyers and the public to understand."
Today's ruling has broad implications for the business community. It also represents a milestone in legal reasoning and rhetoric. The case arises from a dispute between a janitor, Mr. Rodolfo G. Marquez, of Grand Concourse, The Bronx, and Gaffaello Mutual Equity Partners, a large Wall Street investment house handling more than $45,000,000,000 in assets.
According to filings and the Court's decision, Mr. Marquez orally agreed to "use best efforts" to "satisfactorily" clean every toilet located at Gaffello's office building in downtown Manhattan. In return, an unnamed agent acting for the investment house promised to pay Mr. Marquez $40 per day "until told otherwise" and "subject to all reasonable alterations by promisor." The agent allegedly also told Mr. Marquez that he had "to supply his own materials" and he had to "wipe all shit and piss from all affected toilet facilities to the satisfaction of any Gaffaello director to the extent permitted by applicable law." Mr. Marquez allegedly acquiesced to Gaffaello's terms. He further acquiesced to Gaffaello's demand that he "waive all remedies, at law or equity, or at common justice, for any alleged breach of aforesaid agreement, be it oral or in writing."
Mr. Marquez immediately went to work. Both employees and officers found Mr. Marquez' work excellent. According to one Vice President in the Appropriations Department: "I've never seen a cleaner shitter. That muchacho sure knows what the fuck he's doing." Around the same time, an authorized Gaffaello budget deputy presented a written contract to Mr. Marquez. The written contract included all the terms to which he orally agreed, as well as a clause that imposed a duty on Mr. Marquez to "act in good faith in the performance hereof; but such duty shall not extend to promisor, Gaffaello Mutual Equity Partners LLP; and it is further agreed, covenanted and promised that promisee , Mr. Rodolfo G. Marquez, shall have no right of action, cause of action or any other legal, equitable, natural or other remedy, either now or hereafter, today or tomorrow--or forever--for promisor's wanton or negligent failure, refusal, or decision not to use good faith in the execution, performance, observation or fulfillment of the mutual covenants set forth in this, the Master Contract for the Performance of Toilet Cleaning Services, notwithstanding all oral assertions to the contrary hereof, so help him God."
Mr. Marquez signed the contract, even though he did not read English. According to a Gaffaello witness, he said: "I understand it."
For two months, Mr. Marquez dutifully upheld his end of the bargain. He cleaned 4000 toilets, scrubbed 50,000 square feet of tile bathroom flooring every night and purified 4000 toilet stalls. In the process, he overcame horrific sights and odors. He worked at least 12 hours each day. He received $31.02 for his first day's work less taxes, fees and Social Security contributions. Although he was not eligible for Gaffaello's health coverage plan, he nevertheless paid toward it because he could not understand his paycheck statement. Over the next week, Gaffaello began paying Mr. Marquez a dollar less each day. Beginning the second week, it began subtracting two dollars per day from his daily check. After reducing his daily wage to $3.29, Gaffaello stopped paying Mr. Marquez at all. Instead, it sent a junior supply clerk to inform him that "he would be paid later."
Trusting that Gaffaello would honor the contract they signed, Mr. Marquez continued working. Eventually, however, Mr. Marquez gave up. He allegedly told a Gaffaello employee that he "could not continue working without pay" and that he "had a family to feed." In response, the employee said: "You can't leave. You promised to use best efforts and to act in good faith under this contract until told otherwise." Mr. Marquez said "they could sue him." With that, he walked off the job.
Gaffaello did sue him. Within two days, it served papers on Mr. Marquez and haled him into the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of contract. Although the trial judge wondered why the dispute fell under Federal jurisdiction, Gaffaello's legal team presented evidence to show that Gaffaello was a Delaware limited liability partnership, while Mr. Marquez was a New York resident. It also showed that the contract between Gaffaello and Mr. Marquez "represented a lucrative business relationship implicating more than $75,000 in janitorial services." These facts, according to established Federal law, warranted Federal court jurisdiction. Mr. Marquez, who could barely speak English, let alone understand an argument involving Federal diversity jurisdiction, said nothing in response.
Gaffaello demanded a fast track trial. The trial judge--A. Harry Peters--had no sympathy for a recent immigrant like Mr. Marquez because President George H.W. Bush appointed him to the bench. He quickly surveyed the evidence and found that Mr. Marquez breached the contract. In a detailed opinion, the trial judge wrote: "Mr. Marquez knowingly and voluntarily assumed the obligations set forth in the contract he signed with Gaffaello. It is not for courts to pass upon the providence or fairness of written agreements between mature business actors. Rather, we must merely apply relevant law to resolve any allegation that one party breached the terms upon which they mutually agreed. Under law, we assume all terms to be valid and voluntary. In this case, Mr. Marquez has no answer to contradict the assertion that he walked off a job he contractually agreed to perform. He says he left because Gaffaello did not pay him, but that is not technically true. Gaffaello said it would 'pay him later.' This does not mean it 'did not pay' him. Gaffaello never breached the contract. Only Mr. Marquez did. Furthermore, Mr. Marquez promised to use best efforts and to comply with the contract in good faith. By walking off the job without notice or cause, he violated both obligations. In sum, Mr. Marquez breached the contract. I order him to return to work immediately, or to pay Gaffaello the reasonable value of his lost services, in an amount not less than $75,000.01."
Mr. Marquez appealed the trial court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. His case attracted notice from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, and their lawyers hastened to his cause. They argued that the contract was invalid because it was "unconscionable" and because no contract may bind a man to work in the United States. The three-judge panel--including two Clinton appointees--agreed. They said: "We find the contract by and between Gaffaello Mutual Equity Partners LLP and Mr. Rodolfo G. Marquez unconscionable as a matter of law. We find every argument to the contrary unconvincing. No matter what anyone says about our country or its free enterprise spirit, we refuse to entertain appellees' contention that the United States Constitution guarantees the 'unlimited freedom to bargain for employment terms.' This agreement verifiably 'shocks the conscience.' We cannot permit the contract to stand, no matter how 'voluntary' it may have been at signing. Appellees' conduct in this case borders on the sadistic. Judgment reversed."
Judge Ferguson H. Klosterbach, George W. Bush's lone appointee on the appellate panel, dissented. He wrote: "I think the trial judge was right. A contract is a contract. Mr. Marquez breached it. He is also an immigrant."
Dissatisfied with the Second Circuit's reasoning, Gaffaello applied to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. In its brief, Gaffaello phrased the case as follows: "This is a case about the freedom to contract. It is not about fairness. It is about a willful contract breacher who did not do what he promised to do." In response, Mr. Marquez' lawyers said: "This is not a case about the freedom to contract. This is a case about unfairness and injustice. This is a case about a powerful company forcing one-sided terms upon a powerless immigrant. If this Court has a shred of decency and compassion, it will affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the Court's opinion to a packed house. In a calm, steady voice, he began: "Our free market economy values fairness. But it values contracts more. In our view, contracts are contracts. Promises are promises. When commercial actors make promises, we do not excuse them lightly for failing to adhere to their commitments. This case involves promises and contracts. No matter how 'unfair' or 'unjust' those promises may seem in hindsight, we refuse to second-guess reasonable commercial actors who voluntarily make commitments. Contrary to Respondents' contention, this Court has no power to rule on 'elementary justice.' This Court applies the law. And the law in this case has a simple answer: Contracts are contracts.
"Our common law values contracts. Commerce prospers when commercial men feel assured that others will fulfill their commitments. That is why courts in our system rarely allow litigants to escape voluntary contractual obligations. True, contractual obligations only arise to the extent that parties make them freely. But there is no evidence in this case that Mr. Marquez faced 'coercion' to bargain with Gaffaello. He agreed to act in good faith, to waive his remedies and to use 'best efforts' while cleaning every toilet at Gaffaello's downtown facility 'until told otherwise.' At the same time, Gaffaello freely and voluntarily agreed to pay Mr. Marquez $40 per day 'subject to all reasonable alterations.' Mr. Marquez says that Gaffaello did not pay him. But the record clearly shows that it did. The fact that Gaffaello slowly decreased Mr. Marquez' daily wage did not change the contract. In fact, Gaffaello had every right to make 'reasonable alterations' to Mr. Marquez' pay. Mr. Marquez acquiesced to this term when he signed the contract. And--unlike Mr. Marquez--Gaffaello had no obligation to perform the contract in good faith. If Gaffaello somehow acted in bad faith, that was a risk Mr. Marquez knowingly and voluntarily assumed when he signed the contract. It is not for us to question these private contractual relations.
"We hold as a matter of constitutional law that contracts are contracts. Neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature has power to retroactively invalidate private contractual terms concerning legal subject matter. We are neither philosophers nor moralists. We are legal technicians. We do not interfere with private bargains, nor do we save private individuals from their improvident business decisions. No matter how 'shocking' the terms may have been in Mr. Marquez' case, we are not fairness referees. We simply look to the contract and the circumstances to determine whether both parties freely and voluntarily assumed their duties. If we determine that they did, our inquiry ends. If we scrutinized every private bargain for terms we considered 'unfair' or 'oppressive,' we would undermine the spirit of private enterprise that drives our free market system. We are not paternalistic. We trust the market. We do not second-guess it.
"This is not new law. Our courts have held that 'contracts are contracts' for centuries. Even our English forebears so held. In the case Coxwell v. Bainbridge (King's Bench 1612), Lord Chief Justice Coke stated the basic principle that we continue to follow today: "Hath the yeoman signed the Pact of Free Wille as aforesaid? Say he the Parchmente be void for offending that Certaine Spiritte or Ghoste of Justice that doth dwell at the Hearte of all the dealings of Menne? What of it? This Courte judgeth not for Justice nor Rightte, but for Lawe. Promise a Manne he shall builde a Bridge o'er the Thames for a threepence in Two Days' Tyme, so he must, so long he have said so of Free Minde. I be of mind that pacta sunt servanda. It be of no Moment what the bound Manne saith. The Lawe doth presume a Manne do a Thinge with Free Minde. Comes now no Evidence or Witnesse thereagainst, it being a Cleare Thinge, et.c., what be left for a Court to say? Let Menne bargainne as they please. What they say be no Matter for the Lawe, but that the Lawe allow it.'
"We could not agree more. We find that Mr. Marquez knowingly and voluntarily assumed the obligations set forth in his contract with Gaffaello. We express no judgment on the 'fairness' or 'equity' of that contract. We refuse to entertain the Respondents' invitation to sit as a permanent referee for contractual fairness. Such a role would contravene our duty to apply the law and to defend private autonomy in a free market system. Judgment REVERSED. This case is REMANDED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with an order to issue judgment against Respondent consistent with this opinion.
"It is so ordered."
Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined the Chief Justice's opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent. In it, he blamed the majority for "enshrining unfairness" and "exulting the powerful over the powerless." He concluded as follows: "The Constitution imposes limits upon the freedom to contract when contract terms offend our most basic sense of justice."
In a separate concurrence, Justice Scalia responded to Justice Stevens' dissent: "Justice Stevens once again proves his unrivaled ability to put his head up his dumb wrinkled ass. L0s3r, pwned!!!!"
Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer is pleased to see that both collegiality and prudence are alive and well at the Supreme Court as it begins its new session.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
FLAG-BURNING AND NATIONALISM : WHOSE FLAG IS BETTER?
A REFLECTION
Flag-burning is an interesting subject. So are flags. The first thing I notice when I get back to the States from a long trip to Germany is that there are flags all over the place. In Berlin, you only see flags on the Bundestag building, and that's understandable because it's the seat of government. But private citizens don't fly German flags over their homes, businesses don't drape them over their lobbies, people don't sticker them to their cars and they certainly don't wear flag lapel pins, even the newscasters.
By contrast, it seems that flags are everywhere in the United States. From the moment you step off the plane you see flags. There are flags hanging everywhere at the airport. You can buy little flags at the gift shop, people wear flag T-shirts and even the Dunkin Donuts shop sports a flag, since it is very patriotic to buy pastries and coffee. Outside the airport, there are even more flags. You can't drive through many suburban neighborhoods without seeing flags in windows, flags on poles on lawns, and, if you go inside a house, flags on quilts and blankets, or flags in picture frames. If you get a cocktail at a bar, you might find a paper-flag toothpick in it. Car dealers fly enormous flags over their parking lots. So do amusement parks and waterslides. In New York, every commercial building has a flag in it. Every apartment building I've ever lived in has had a flag in the lobby. I don't know how paying rent to a private landlord (who probably hates taxes) is patriotic, but what do I know?
America is unabashedly nationalistic. It doesn't like flag-burning because it loves flags. Many Americans attach mythical status to their flag. Personally, I don't like unchecked nationalism. I think it's fine to be proud of your country, but I don't feel the need to blare it by displaying flags and shouting down those who burn them. Not only that, but Americans don't really object to flag-burning "in the abstract." You can burn an Afghani or Russian flag and no one would give a fart. No, Americans don't like American flag-burning. So it's more a selective objection than a principled one.
Congress criminalized American flag-burning in the late 1980s. In a brave moment, the Supreme Court invalidated that law. But many saw the same case as a betrayal and reviled the Supreme Court for deciding it. Trouble is, we have a little thing called the "First Amendment" which guarantees "free speech." I think flag-burning is speech. You might hate what the speaker believes, but I think he has a right to say it without being jailed.
Beyond that, I find America's obsession with flags very disturbing. Relentless nationalism is dangerous, pure and simple. If anyone knows that, it's the Germans. That's why they aren't so zealous about flying flags all over the place anymore. 50 million dead worldwide (including genocide) convinced Germany that blind patriotism really wasn't a healthy prescription for anyone, including themselves.
I have difficulty according blind respect to any symbol. True, the American flag has long stood as a symbol for democracy, freedom and self-government. But sadly our Nation often falls short on its promises. As a "world leader," it often comes across as intransigent and churlish, not compassionate or principled. If people burn the American flag, they probably object to some perceived injustice America has committed. In my view, it makes no sense to categorically condemn flag-burning without at least acknowledging what the speaker means to say. Perhaps America truly has done something blameworthy. If we are committed to our principles, shouldn't we want to rectify a bad situation rather than ignore it?
This is the trouble with nationalism: It prevents people from rationally considering divergent opinions, even if they voice legitimate objections. From a nationalist's perspective, there is the "American way" or there is "no way." But life is never so simple. Still, America's love affair with flags all too often reveals that many Americans believe exactly that. In my view, simple-mindedness is not something to be proud of. It is just foolish. And it stifles rational dialogue that could lead to progress.
Flag-burning is an interesting subject. So are flags. The first thing I notice when I get back to the States from a long trip to Germany is that there are flags all over the place. In Berlin, you only see flags on the Bundestag building, and that's understandable because it's the seat of government. But private citizens don't fly German flags over their homes, businesses don't drape them over their lobbies, people don't sticker them to their cars and they certainly don't wear flag lapel pins, even the newscasters.
By contrast, it seems that flags are everywhere in the United States. From the moment you step off the plane you see flags. There are flags hanging everywhere at the airport. You can buy little flags at the gift shop, people wear flag T-shirts and even the Dunkin Donuts shop sports a flag, since it is very patriotic to buy pastries and coffee. Outside the airport, there are even more flags. You can't drive through many suburban neighborhoods without seeing flags in windows, flags on poles on lawns, and, if you go inside a house, flags on quilts and blankets, or flags in picture frames. If you get a cocktail at a bar, you might find a paper-flag toothpick in it. Car dealers fly enormous flags over their parking lots. So do amusement parks and waterslides. In New York, every commercial building has a flag in it. Every apartment building I've ever lived in has had a flag in the lobby. I don't know how paying rent to a private landlord (who probably hates taxes) is patriotic, but what do I know?
America is unabashedly nationalistic. It doesn't like flag-burning because it loves flags. Many Americans attach mythical status to their flag. Personally, I don't like unchecked nationalism. I think it's fine to be proud of your country, but I don't feel the need to blare it by displaying flags and shouting down those who burn them. Not only that, but Americans don't really object to flag-burning "in the abstract." You can burn an Afghani or Russian flag and no one would give a fart. No, Americans don't like American flag-burning. So it's more a selective objection than a principled one.
Congress criminalized American flag-burning in the late 1980s. In a brave moment, the Supreme Court invalidated that law. But many saw the same case as a betrayal and reviled the Supreme Court for deciding it. Trouble is, we have a little thing called the "First Amendment" which guarantees "free speech." I think flag-burning is speech. You might hate what the speaker believes, but I think he has a right to say it without being jailed.
Beyond that, I find America's obsession with flags very disturbing. Relentless nationalism is dangerous, pure and simple. If anyone knows that, it's the Germans. That's why they aren't so zealous about flying flags all over the place anymore. 50 million dead worldwide (including genocide) convinced Germany that blind patriotism really wasn't a healthy prescription for anyone, including themselves.
I have difficulty according blind respect to any symbol. True, the American flag has long stood as a symbol for democracy, freedom and self-government. But sadly our Nation often falls short on its promises. As a "world leader," it often comes across as intransigent and churlish, not compassionate or principled. If people burn the American flag, they probably object to some perceived injustice America has committed. In my view, it makes no sense to categorically condemn flag-burning without at least acknowledging what the speaker means to say. Perhaps America truly has done something blameworthy. If we are committed to our principles, shouldn't we want to rectify a bad situation rather than ignore it?
This is the trouble with nationalism: It prevents people from rationally considering divergent opinions, even if they voice legitimate objections. From a nationalist's perspective, there is the "American way" or there is "no way." But life is never so simple. Still, America's love affair with flags all too often reveals that many Americans believe exactly that. In my view, simple-mindedness is not something to be proud of. It is just foolish. And it stifles rational dialogue that could lead to progress.
Friday, October 2, 2009
STANDARDIZED TESTS, SUCCESS AND LEARNING IN AMERICA
AN ESSAY
I always get ideas when I study advertising in the New York subway. A couple weeks ago, I looked up and saw a big print ad from Kaplan, the standardized test-taking course publisher. It showed a young black man with glasses holding a book. Next to his face ran a slogan: "Prepare for an Upturn." Under the slogan appeared a few words about the tests for which Kaplan offered courses. It did not mention prices, although it did list contact information and addresses.
My mind roared into action as soon as I saw these images. I have long criticized standardized tests for their counterintuitive absurdity. They rarely measure knowledge or intelligence; if anything, they measure an applicant's ability to learn the "test-writers'" techniques and predict which multiple-choice answer they designated "correct." This ability to "read the test-writer's mind" includes numerous little tricks, such as looking out for the words "not," "unless," "but if" and "except." If those words appear in certain combinations, they automatically rule out certain answers. By ruling out certain answers, test-takers increase their chances to pick the correct one from those that remain. In sum, standardized tests do not test substantive knowledge from a liberal perspective. Rather, they are merely ornate little games with learnable little rules. And worst of all, these "ornate games" represent the single most important factor in determining whether a person attends a university.
Kaplan--along with all the other test-taking course publishers like The Princeton Review--knows all these things. It understands that students want to get into the best schools they can. They know that students want to make money, and the only way to make money is to get a good job. Only people who go to "good schools" get "good jobs," and the only way to get into a "good school" is to do well on standardized tests. Kaplan, then, offers a truly valuable service. On a micro level, they teach students how to read the test-takers' minds and predict the correct answer based on subtle hints in the text. But on a macro level, they open the doors to lifelong commercial success: Once you "ace" the test, you get the degree, get the job and make the money. For a terrified student, that is a miraculous potential reward.
At least, that is the theory. In truth, good schools and good grades do not necessarily translate into employability and money. That is why I found it perplexing--and even misleading--for Kaplan to say: "Prepare for an Upturn." Is that not an ambiguous thing to say? An upturn? In what? In score? In salary? In happiness? On the other hand, perhaps Kaplan meant all these things. After all, according to the "test-school-job-money-happiness" continuum that dominates conventional American notions about "success," doing well on standardized tests is the first step toward ultimate victory. These conventional notions assume that people want nothing more than a high-paying job to be happy. And if a person aces a standardized test, that increases his or her chances to get into a school, which in turn will lead him or her to a high-paying job. Kaplan knows that students think in these terms, so they play to it: If you get an upturn in standardized test scores, you get an upturn in life.
But there are not too many jobs left in 21st Century America. Even people who follow the "conventional path" from high standardized test scores to college and graduate school will not always find the "upturn" they expected in the end. Thousands of law school graduates, for instance, now struggle to find low-paying posts. College graduates face an even grimmer employment picture, even the ones who got 1600 on their SATs and waltzed into top schools. For those who did not fare as well, opportunities are even bleaker. Put simply, success on standardized tests does not translate into a "guaranteed upturn" in salary, employability or happiness. In fact, those who peg their hopes for happiness on the private job market are bound for disappointment. In times like these, the best pathway to employment lies in family connections, not school names or even test scores. A dumb nephew will always get a family job over a smarty-pants stranger who got high test scores. And Kaplan can't teach you to be the CEO's nephew.
That is why it is both sad and disingenuous for Kaplan to promise hopeful students to "expect an upturn" from acing standardized tests. It is sad because no test score or intellectual achievement ever guarantees private sector employment. Quite the contrary, private enterprise follows the money; people get jobs in private business when the company has available money, not because it respects a student's performance on a standardized test. It is disingenuous because it leads students to believe that test scores somehow entitle them to private sector employment. The mystique surrounding standardized tests is so pervasive that students think they are invincible as long as they breach a certain score threshold. This is a fool's belief.
Standardized test preparation companies like Kaplan perpetuate this fool's belief. They want students to lust after high scores. They want students to believe that they are "set for life" as long as they achieve a certain score on the test. By nursing that belief, Kaplan's "services" become ever more attractive: If high scores mean a better life, then who wouldn't lay down $1500 for a course that guarantees a high score? Like any savvy advertiser, Kaplan did not list course prices. Advertisers do not like to scare people away with prices. Instead, they want to trigger a burning desire to buy their products; they only disclose prices after the consumer has developed a conscious need to get the product. Kaplan faces an easy task in this regard. All students burningly seek an advantage in standardized test-taking because they believe higher scores mean a better life. Thus, they all too readily buy into Kaplan's rhetoric about "upturns" as long as they buy a Kaplan course. When they ultimately learn that Kaplan charges $2000 for a course on the LSAT, they are too intoxicated to resist paying it.
I did the same thing. I paid $1500 for an LSAT course in 2002 because I wanted to get a better score and increase my chances to get into a "good law school." I didn't take Kaplan, but test preparation companies all follow the same principles. I fell for the rhetoric. I thought the course would magically boost my score, and my score would propel me to Harvard or Columbia, then a $150,000-a-year job at a private law firm. It didn't happen; not even close. I did not even do that well on the test. I am just not very good at standardized tests. But I am proud of that. I resist mimicking idiotic test-writers and learning their picayune little mind tricks. That doomed me on the LSAT, but so what? What good would a higher score have done in the end? We're still in a depression, and even the greatest test-takers face the same economic adversity as the most blundering multiple-choice neophytes.
I have deep objections about America's fixation on standardized tests. It is impossible to objectively measure an individual's intellectual depth, creativity, intelligence and "value" with a purposely deceptive, trick-laden, multiple-choice amalgamation. Yet millions believe that standardized tests authoritatively measure all these things. I think this reveals a fundamental flaw in most Americans' approach to knowledge in general. Standardized tests are supposed to measure intelligence and intellectual depth. Yet neither intelligence nor intellectual depth can prepare a test taker to face the myriad tricks and traps in any standardized test. Doing well on a standardized test about biology, for instance, requires learning about the particular standardized test about biology, not about biology itself. And because standardized tests act as "gateways" to universities and careers, they are essentially instrumental. In essence, then, the American obsession with standardized tests renders American approaches to knowledge "instrumental," too: By spending all your time learning how to take tests, knowledge becomes just another forgettable tool to get a job. Knowledge in itself is nothing. Only knowledge that "gets you in somewhere" is worth having.
I believe the opposite. I think that knowledge offers its own rewards, no matter whether it helps you do well on a standardized test. People tell me that this is a "humanist" or "Renaissance" approach to knowledge. In other words, it is "old-fashioned" and "impracticable." People tell me that I need to "put my knowledge to use" so I can "make money" and "get a better job." But that's not the reason I learn things. I learn things to enrich my own mind, not to boost my resume or impress some interviewer. This might be old-fashioned and even "unreasonable," but it's what I do.
I do not like instrumental learning. Kaplan thrives on it. I live in a country in which students ask: "What do I need to know for the test?" rather than: "I want to learn more about this subject because it interests me." That illustrates the difference between instrumental learning and learning for its own sake. True, instrumental learners might score highly on standardized tests. But so what? They can pick all the correct answers in the world, but that will not magically create a private sector job for them. How ironic is that?
I always get ideas when I study advertising in the New York subway. A couple weeks ago, I looked up and saw a big print ad from Kaplan, the standardized test-taking course publisher. It showed a young black man with glasses holding a book. Next to his face ran a slogan: "Prepare for an Upturn." Under the slogan appeared a few words about the tests for which Kaplan offered courses. It did not mention prices, although it did list contact information and addresses.
My mind roared into action as soon as I saw these images. I have long criticized standardized tests for their counterintuitive absurdity. They rarely measure knowledge or intelligence; if anything, they measure an applicant's ability to learn the "test-writers'" techniques and predict which multiple-choice answer they designated "correct." This ability to "read the test-writer's mind" includes numerous little tricks, such as looking out for the words "not," "unless," "but if" and "except." If those words appear in certain combinations, they automatically rule out certain answers. By ruling out certain answers, test-takers increase their chances to pick the correct one from those that remain. In sum, standardized tests do not test substantive knowledge from a liberal perspective. Rather, they are merely ornate little games with learnable little rules. And worst of all, these "ornate games" represent the single most important factor in determining whether a person attends a university.
Kaplan--along with all the other test-taking course publishers like The Princeton Review--knows all these things. It understands that students want to get into the best schools they can. They know that students want to make money, and the only way to make money is to get a good job. Only people who go to "good schools" get "good jobs," and the only way to get into a "good school" is to do well on standardized tests. Kaplan, then, offers a truly valuable service. On a micro level, they teach students how to read the test-takers' minds and predict the correct answer based on subtle hints in the text. But on a macro level, they open the doors to lifelong commercial success: Once you "ace" the test, you get the degree, get the job and make the money. For a terrified student, that is a miraculous potential reward.
At least, that is the theory. In truth, good schools and good grades do not necessarily translate into employability and money. That is why I found it perplexing--and even misleading--for Kaplan to say: "Prepare for an Upturn." Is that not an ambiguous thing to say? An upturn? In what? In score? In salary? In happiness? On the other hand, perhaps Kaplan meant all these things. After all, according to the "test-school-job-money-happiness" continuum that dominates conventional American notions about "success," doing well on standardized tests is the first step toward ultimate victory. These conventional notions assume that people want nothing more than a high-paying job to be happy. And if a person aces a standardized test, that increases his or her chances to get into a school, which in turn will lead him or her to a high-paying job. Kaplan knows that students think in these terms, so they play to it: If you get an upturn in standardized test scores, you get an upturn in life.
But there are not too many jobs left in 21st Century America. Even people who follow the "conventional path" from high standardized test scores to college and graduate school will not always find the "upturn" they expected in the end. Thousands of law school graduates, for instance, now struggle to find low-paying posts. College graduates face an even grimmer employment picture, even the ones who got 1600 on their SATs and waltzed into top schools. For those who did not fare as well, opportunities are even bleaker. Put simply, success on standardized tests does not translate into a "guaranteed upturn" in salary, employability or happiness. In fact, those who peg their hopes for happiness on the private job market are bound for disappointment. In times like these, the best pathway to employment lies in family connections, not school names or even test scores. A dumb nephew will always get a family job over a smarty-pants stranger who got high test scores. And Kaplan can't teach you to be the CEO's nephew.
That is why it is both sad and disingenuous for Kaplan to promise hopeful students to "expect an upturn" from acing standardized tests. It is sad because no test score or intellectual achievement ever guarantees private sector employment. Quite the contrary, private enterprise follows the money; people get jobs in private business when the company has available money, not because it respects a student's performance on a standardized test. It is disingenuous because it leads students to believe that test scores somehow entitle them to private sector employment. The mystique surrounding standardized tests is so pervasive that students think they are invincible as long as they breach a certain score threshold. This is a fool's belief.
Standardized test preparation companies like Kaplan perpetuate this fool's belief. They want students to lust after high scores. They want students to believe that they are "set for life" as long as they achieve a certain score on the test. By nursing that belief, Kaplan's "services" become ever more attractive: If high scores mean a better life, then who wouldn't lay down $1500 for a course that guarantees a high score? Like any savvy advertiser, Kaplan did not list course prices. Advertisers do not like to scare people away with prices. Instead, they want to trigger a burning desire to buy their products; they only disclose prices after the consumer has developed a conscious need to get the product. Kaplan faces an easy task in this regard. All students burningly seek an advantage in standardized test-taking because they believe higher scores mean a better life. Thus, they all too readily buy into Kaplan's rhetoric about "upturns" as long as they buy a Kaplan course. When they ultimately learn that Kaplan charges $2000 for a course on the LSAT, they are too intoxicated to resist paying it.
I did the same thing. I paid $1500 for an LSAT course in 2002 because I wanted to get a better score and increase my chances to get into a "good law school." I didn't take Kaplan, but test preparation companies all follow the same principles. I fell for the rhetoric. I thought the course would magically boost my score, and my score would propel me to Harvard or Columbia, then a $150,000-a-year job at a private law firm. It didn't happen; not even close. I did not even do that well on the test. I am just not very good at standardized tests. But I am proud of that. I resist mimicking idiotic test-writers and learning their picayune little mind tricks. That doomed me on the LSAT, but so what? What good would a higher score have done in the end? We're still in a depression, and even the greatest test-takers face the same economic adversity as the most blundering multiple-choice neophytes.
I have deep objections about America's fixation on standardized tests. It is impossible to objectively measure an individual's intellectual depth, creativity, intelligence and "value" with a purposely deceptive, trick-laden, multiple-choice amalgamation. Yet millions believe that standardized tests authoritatively measure all these things. I think this reveals a fundamental flaw in most Americans' approach to knowledge in general. Standardized tests are supposed to measure intelligence and intellectual depth. Yet neither intelligence nor intellectual depth can prepare a test taker to face the myriad tricks and traps in any standardized test. Doing well on a standardized test about biology, for instance, requires learning about the particular standardized test about biology, not about biology itself. And because standardized tests act as "gateways" to universities and careers, they are essentially instrumental. In essence, then, the American obsession with standardized tests renders American approaches to knowledge "instrumental," too: By spending all your time learning how to take tests, knowledge becomes just another forgettable tool to get a job. Knowledge in itself is nothing. Only knowledge that "gets you in somewhere" is worth having.
I believe the opposite. I think that knowledge offers its own rewards, no matter whether it helps you do well on a standardized test. People tell me that this is a "humanist" or "Renaissance" approach to knowledge. In other words, it is "old-fashioned" and "impracticable." People tell me that I need to "put my knowledge to use" so I can "make money" and "get a better job." But that's not the reason I learn things. I learn things to enrich my own mind, not to boost my resume or impress some interviewer. This might be old-fashioned and even "unreasonable," but it's what I do.
I do not like instrumental learning. Kaplan thrives on it. I live in a country in which students ask: "What do I need to know for the test?" rather than: "I want to learn more about this subject because it interests me." That illustrates the difference between instrumental learning and learning for its own sake. True, instrumental learners might score highly on standardized tests. But so what? They can pick all the correct answers in the world, but that will not magically create a private sector job for them. How ironic is that?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
AMERICANS UNITED TO RESOLVE EVERY SINGLE LIFE PROBLEM BY CUTTING A CHECK IN THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT
By : Mr. Sidney J. Bookings, C.P.A., Chairman and Senior Spokesperson; Graduate, University of Pennsylvania (Accounting Program 1982); Consultant in Wealth Management, Morgan Stanley & Co. (1983-2002); Founder, Bookings, Holderman & Petty, P.C., an Accounting Firm servicing Fortune 250 Companies; Statistics Enthusiast; Married.
According to an old adage, "money can't buy happiness." Throughout our society, we learn that emotional satisfaction only derives from human contact and genuine spiritual fulfillment. But we, Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount, disagree. We do not believe that happiness is about emotion. Nor do we believe that happiness is difficult to obtain. Rather, we believe anyone can find happiness as long as he or she receives a sufficiently large check in the circumstances.
Unhappiness stems from problems. In many cases, money causes problems. In those same cases, problems go away when the person obtains a sufficiently large monetary amount. Checks represent a written instruction to a bank to pay a person ("the payee") a fixed amount of money at a definite time. See, e.g., Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Article 3, § 3-104(e). In that light, it is not necessary to supply "emotion" or "comfort" to a person suffering from a problem. Rather, the person merely needs to receive a check in an amount necessary to alleviate the problem. Once the problem dissipates, so does the unhappiness. And when unhappiness disappears, happiness replaces it. That is why we believe that checks in the appropriate amount lead to happiness.
Evidence supports our position. Consider the unhappy man who struggles at two jobs to pay rent, child support, medical expenses, credit card debt and a car note. "If I only had $15,000 next month, I would be able to pay these back charges. I would feel so much better if I wasn't so worried about these bills, etc." This man is unhappy because he has not paid identifiable financial obligations. In these circumstances, emotional tenderness or even love will not make him feel better. He needs money. Thus, a check for $16,987.23 offers him an almost magical gateway to happiness. Not only will a check in that amount redress his problem in full, but it will also give him an additional $1,987.23 to spend on himself. In this way, we see that checks in the appropriate amount not only dispel problems, but also bring genuine happiness.
But checks can only bring happiness if they authorize payment for the appropriate amount. This inquiry depends on the circumstances. For example, if a woman gives birth at a hospital without insurance and racks up a $2,987,712.65 bill, a check for $45.00 will not redress her problem. In this sense, a check alone does not resolve her problem; only a check in the appropriate amount will resolve her problem. As much as we like checks, we acknowledge that a check's happiness-inducing qualities only arise to the extent it authorizes payment in the appropriate amount. Problems exist when people owe a particular amount. Unless a check authorizes payment for that amount--or a greater amount--it does not yield its maximum happiness-inducing effect. As Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount, we insist that our checks pay us the right amount, every time.
Despite checks' proven ability to solve problems, there are those who claim that a check--no matter its amount--cannot solve certain problems. These critics say that no check can make a crippled man feel better about his body, nor can a check repair the emotional pain that flows from heartbreak, loss or depression.
We disagree with all these assertions. For one, a check might not restore a legless man to health. But a check can symbolically make him whole. If you can't get your legs back, it's better to be legless with a $50,000 check in your hand than legless with no check in your hand. Second, while a check might not completely repair the emotional damage that flows from human relationships, it certainly can mitigate any emotional problem. For example, the most heartbroken man would feel a lot better if he unexpectedly received a $10,000 check in the mail. It is always nice to receive an unexpected check. It can brighten anyone's day, no matter how many problems they face. And if the check pays the appropriate amount, it can dispel any problem.
Although checks in the appropriate amount can solve any problem, checks paying an inappropriate amount occasionally cause unhappiness. For example, let us assume that a man suffers an automobile accident and pays $5,797.23 for repairs. He then receives a check from his insurance company paying only $500.00; the check will not induce happiness. To the contrary, it will induce anger, frustration or even unhappiness. But this is not the check's fault. Checks only cause negative reactions when they pay an inappropriate amount. By contrast, if the check in this man's case had paid $5,900.00, he would not have been angry, frustrated or unhappy. Rather, he would have felt relieved, excited and joyful. In essence, this illustrates a key fact about checks: They induce happiness and solve problems when they pay an appropriate amount, but induce negative reactions--and even unhappiness--when they pay an inappropriate amount.
We support checks' happiness-inducing qualities. We believe that checks should be a force for good in our society, not worry. To that extent, we stand for checks in the appropriate amount. As all the examples above show, Americans have problems. In all those examples, we saw that a check in the appropriate amount solves those problems, even when the problems apparently have nothing to do with money. Sufficient money sums always generate happiness, no matter the circumstances. A check for $9,000,000 will make even the saddest man happy, even if his mother, son and wife died on the same day. Greater amounts transcend any life adversity. We reject any claim that "money can't buy happiness." True, money might not literally buy happiness: There is no "Wholesale Happiness Warehouse" or "Happiness in a Box" for sale at a local outlet. But checks in the appropriate amount always remove obstacles blocking Americans' path to happiness. In our view, that is tantamount to happiness.
Tell the world that you can prevail over adversity as long as you receive a check in the appropriate amount. Stand up for your own well-being and comfort. Refuse to feel depressed any longer. Get your hands on a check in the appropriate amount. Every problem has a price; do not fool yourself into thinking that a check can't solve it. Checks can solve problems. They simply must pay the appropriate amount.
Stop making life so complicated. You just need enough checks to make your problems vanish for good. And when your problems are gone, you will be happy.
Stop the madness. Stop the delusion. Get back to basics. Join Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount.
Don't worry. The check is in the mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)