A Creative Nonfiction Essay (3.5 minute read) published in the July 2016 issue of The Tishman Review:
one-lap-left_kash_july2016-1
Subscribe here:
One Lap Left
I consumed nothing but gluten, alcohol, sugar…
The Irish Goodbye
You ever go to a party with your wife and best friend and a few hours later discover they have left together, giggling and drunk, without saying goodbye? You ever go on a first date with someone and after she vomits in your lap on the taxi ride home neither of you contact each other again? You ever get so high at a high school reunion that you think, “I gotta get the fuck out of here. Fast,” and surreptitiously slip out the back door? These are all examples of the Irish Goodbye.
—–
The Irish Goodbye, or Ghosting, or the French Exit, or the Dutch Leave, or the Filer a l’anglaise (just pick an ethnicity you don’t like and add “departure” after it) is when someone leaves a social gathering or a relationship without politely informing the people involved of their imminent departure.
—–
The origin of the Irish Goodbye is believed, by some, to be The Potato Famine:
When the potato crops failed in Ireland during the years 1845-1852, the Micks left their homeland in droves. One morning a lad would say to his freckled chums, “Just goin on down to the pasture to check on the old croppity crops.” Two hours later: gone. In most cases, the Irish never spoke to their remaining neighbors or friends again. The departure was irrevocable and unspoken, hence the phrase.
—-
The other, not so sad origin story is that Irish people just like to get obliterated drunk and secretly stumble away:
This cultural preference leads to zombie mode, slurred dedications of undying loyalty, wandering to a back ally for a quick nap, and the remaining friends wondering, “Where is Saucy Sean?”
—–
Social critics ask: Is the Irish Goodbye acceptable? Is it rude? Some reply, “Woah woah woah.” Others reply, “Go go go.”
—–
The Emily Post Institute, an organization dedicated to etiquette, believe it’s improper to not thank the hosts before leaving:
Others, like Seth Stevenson of Slate, say, “Let’s free ourselves from this meaningless, uncomfortable, good time, dampening kabuki.” (What is kabuki? A Classical Japanese dance drama.)
—–
Tom Jones of the Huffington Post says that, concerning relationships, The Irish Goodbye, “… saves an awkward conversation, an even more awkward face-to-face meeting or a most awkward “Dear Person B” letter. Everyone’s a winner because no one has to hear or say, “it’s not you, it’s me,” “I’m just terribly busy right now” or “for some reason, I just want to punch your face in.”
—–
Buzzfeed made a list of 14 reasons why The Irish Goodbye is the best exit strategy.
—–
It seems today’s consensus is that the Irish Goodbye is socially acceptable. But some people still don’t like it. They want closure. They want a soft landing of slow separation, even if it’s fake and pointless, rather than a harsh severance. When someone disappears without warning, it subconsciously signals that life is always moving on, no matter how hard we try to stop it. We want a nice, wrapped-up ending. Because when we’re at a party and we’re looking for someone who has already left, when we’re searching for them to say goodbye and pretending that there are endings in life, we feel
L’esprit de l’escalier
L’esprit de l’escalier (the spirit of the staircase) is a French phrase which roughly translates to staircase wisdom or staircase wit. It is the epiphany a person has after they’ve left a social situation, where they think of the ideal response (usually to an insult) they never said.
The term was coined by the enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot:
While Denis was getting sloshed at the mansion of his buddy, Jaques Necker, he was hit with a remark which left him speechless. Later on, Denis sat at his desk, fuming in his undergarments, and agitatedly wrote: “A sensitive man, such as myself, overwhelmed by the argument leveled against him becomes confused and can only think clearly again when he reaches the bottom of the stairs.”
“The bottom of the stairs” refers to the architecture of Jacques Necker’s mansion. In such a home the reception room, where people engaged in witty banter and busted balls, was on the second floor. To have reached the bottom of the stairs meant that you had left the party and were drunkenly stumbling out to your horse and carriage, pissed off at your social ineptitude.
After reading dusty biographies from Paris archives and scouring historical texts, I’ve been able to reconstruct the conversation between Jacques and Denis which led to the birth of this French phrase. Here is what Jaques said:
“So, hmph, ahem, Denis, you’re a freethinking atheist who is also a maniacal materialist. Well, answer me this. Last night the spirit of Jesus Christ visited me in bed and told me you’re an imbecile. (Crowd laughter.) He said you should have listened to your father and stayed in law, instead of living a bohemian existence for ten years and being disowned by your family. (More laughter.) Oh,
and you’re a penniless skeptic, who couldn’t even afford your daughter’s dowry so you had to sell your precious library, always questioning life and thinking about this blasphemous evolution. Well, let me give you some definite answers: I’m richer than you! I’m not a monkey! And I’m right and you’re wrong! (Room erupts with peals of uncontrollable laughter.)
Diderot sits there in silence. After he leaves the party, he finally thinks of the perfect reply:
“Your mother’s a dirty whore.”
*
I’ve always been interested in semantic discrepancies between languages concerning particular phrases and ideas. In some Kenyan tribes they don’t have a phrase for “being late.” In the Russian language there are 9 different ways to say “bastard.” In Spanish there are numerous ways to say “I miss you,” one of them being “Me haces falta,” which means “you cause my want,” or “you make my lack.” These discrepancies reveal the culture behind the language, where desires, beliefs, and idiosyncrasies dictate which expressions become more varied, powerful, frequently used, or specific.
The fact that the French have a well-worn phrase for “staircase wisdom,” reveals their culture’s emphasis on witty, biting, and sparing banter. I’ve read many French novels, and in almost all of them there’s at least one scene where people are sitting at dinner table ruthlessly making fun of one another. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that they have a phrase which describes the “spirit” of getting back at someone in a social scenario.
Anyway…to leave on a good note…here’s a picture of moldy, delicious cheese:
Gimme mold.
Subscribe here:
Why does turning malfunctioning electronics off, then on, work technological miracles?
From cell phones to personal computers to multi-million dollar pieces of electronic equipment, turning any of these devices off, then on, is frequently the best and simplest solution to a technological problem. The layman’s impatient neglect of this quick fix is often the bane of an I.T. worker’s existence, as shown in this comedy skit:
So what’s going on? Why does this technique work so well?
The best analogy I’ve read for understanding the inner workings of a computer and this miracle phenomenon is the mailroom.
Like a computer, a mailroom receives many different inputs which have to be organized, categorized, and sent out. If the mailroom is designed and managed efficiently, then the jobs of sorting letters and packages are done easily and smoothly. There has to be enough employees to adequately match the quantity of incoming mail to each set of zip codes. There has to be someone at the front desk to deal with walk-ins. Rolling bins have to be large enough to contain all of the daily packages. Stamps have to be readily available. The mail for the day has to be loaded into trucks. Etc.
Similarly, a computer programmer thinks of as many inputs as he can which a computer will have to cope with, and designs the responding actions which will be applied to these inputs. This piece of mail goes into this bin. This container is rolled to this loading dock at 3pm. Etc. But cyber reality, like our own, is complex and all the possible scenarios can’t be accounted for.
What if a famous actor moved into a zip code that was previously occupied by a low population of unknowns? All of a sudden, 10,000 letters of fan mail are directed to this one zip code, and the worker assigned to this area can’t keep up with the incoming mail. In the beginning of the day, the worker dutifully and successfully piles letter after letter, but soon the stack becomes too high, falls over, and affects the overall organization of the worker’s area. He calls for help from another part of the mailroom (Hey Jimmy! Shit’s hitting the fan!) and the initial problem snowballs and becomes systemic.
What if the famous actor posted on his website a fake address, encouraging his fans to send him a letter if they wanted an autographed photo of him buck naked and riding a polar bear? The poor bastard in the mailroom receives the letters, but doesn’t know where to put them, so he creates a new pile. Again, this new pile clutters the work area and the worker has to call for help. He puts the fake address letters on Jimmy’s desk, and this also slows down Jimmy.
These cascading problems lead to instability and frustration throughout the mailroom. Sometimes, it becomes so bad that everyone in the mailroom just puts their hands up and says, “You know what? Screw this shit. No more work.” That’s when your electronic device freezes.
Instead of getting frustrated and quitting, though, the best solution is to acknowledge the problem, clear everything away, and start from the beginning (a stable state where the majority of testing has been already done). If the people in the mailroom keep working they are only going to make the problems worse. Turning off your electronic device is like an announcement in the mailroom which says: “Everybody clear your desk, close any open files, and return to our initial schedule.” Some things will likely be lost, but the mail that was already sorted into bins and trucks before the disaster will not be affected. Furthermore, the skills and tools for organizing mail for the rest of the day are not affected, but are in fact refreshed and rejuvenated by a return to a known, starting position, a good initial state. Even if the previous problem still needs to be tackled, a return to the initial, known state allows the workers to go through what they were doing again, but this time taking a different path through the code using different variables (“Hey Jimmy, more letters are coming in for that goddamn actor, make room on your desk for me so if this gets out of hand again we have space”).
To conclude, I believe human beings have a similar strategy for coping with snowballing problems and mounting frustration, which is our re-set tool for returning to an initial, known, and stable position:
Sleep.
Before sleeping, subscribe here:
The Artistic Revolutions and Optical Illusions of the Mona Lisa
Last night I a dream about the Mona Lisa involving a Pope hat and tears. Here is my attempt to decipher and educate my corroded and gutter-infested subconscious:
The Mona Lisa is the most widely-recognized, discussed, and studied painting in the history of human civilization. Leonardo Da Vinci created this 30×21 inch masterpiece between 1503-1517 at the request of Francesco de Giocondo, a wealthy silk merchant in Florence. The image is of Francesco’s third wife, Lisa Gherardini, and was commissioned for their new home and to celebrate the birth of their second son. (Although some scholars believe it is either Leonardo’s mother or Leonardo himself disguised as a woman. I believe it is a subtle blend of all three.) The painting never reached the patron’s new home. Leonardo kept the painting until his death, constantly revising the portrait and traveling with it to show off his talents (the picture is neither dated nor signed). Later in life, Leonardo is said to have regretted “never having completed a single work.” He is considered one of the most diversely talented individuals to have ever lived.
The official, Italian name for the painting, “La Gioconda,” is a pun. Gioconda is the feminine form of the patron’s last name (Giocondo) and also means jocund (happy, jovial). The rough translation is: “a light-hearted woman.” My question is, how has this light-hearted woman been able to remain riding on top of the art world (pun intended) for the last 500+ years?
First of all, at the time of its creation, Leonardo revolutionized portrait painting.
Here’s how:
1a.) Before the Mona Lisa, portraits were mostly profiles. They looked stiff and contrived:
Na. She prude. Fuck that.
La Gioconda was the first image (in Italy) to show a relaxed, informal, three-quarter pose, welcoming the viewer:
Yea. What’s up. That’s better.
Leonardo established a new style of portrait painting which has become the standard today.
1b.) Pyramidal composition of the portrait
The painting has a “wide base” appearing heavier at the bottom because of the darkness and the crossing hands. The crossed hands form the base and your eyes are naturally drawn to the apex: the face…where all the “mysterious action” is happening.
1c.) Cropping
Most images of people at the time were “full length.” La Gioconda’s cropping creates a more intimate and “close” atmosphere.
2.) Almost all portraits during this time period rocked bling-bling. Necklaces, bracelets, rings, tight clothes, etc.:
The Mona Lisa was radical in that she “wasn’t that hot,” (comparatively speaking) and exemplified simplicity and modesty (Freud believed she combined the two, major female traits: motherly tenderness and alluring seductiveness.) Even though she was supposedly a rich merchant’s wife, she “didn’t have a ring on it,” and was wearing loose, poor clothes. Yet her modest crossing of the arms suggested chastity (some scholars even think covering up pregnancy).
Here is a note found in Da Vinci’s, Treatise on Painting, years after his death:
“As far as possible avoid the costumes of your own day…costumes of our period should not be depicted unless it be on tombstones, so that we may be spared being laughed at by our successors for the mad fashions of men and leave behind only things that may be admired for their dignity and their beauty.”
3a.) Paintings at the time used an equal level of detail in the foreground and background:
I AM A ROBOT
La Gioconda, instead, has a background which gets hazy and out of focus as the distance increases. Just like life.
3b.) But despite the life-like perspective of the background, La Gioconda was the first to use an imaginary landscape. The landscape at the left is noticeably lower than the landscape on the right:
And the twisting roads and jagged mountains add to the “other-worldly” feel.
3c.) Leonardo was one of the first artists to use an aerial perspective in the background. The Mona Lisa seems to be sitting in an open loggia (balcony) with dark pillars on either side (scholars are fairly certain the picture was cut off, at first, based on Rafael’s sketch when he was apprenticed to Leonardo in 1504):
This adds again to the mystical feeling of the background image.
3d.) The horizon is on level with the eyes, connecting the subject with the landscape but also emphasizing the mysteriousness of nature.
4.) Contrasting with the shrouded, misty fantasy background is an unprecedented realism in the foreground. In the human figure there is a compete lack of discernible brushstrokes. The anatomy of the hands is perfect. Da Vinci studied over 30 cadavers before beginning this work.
5.) Combining all of the previous points, the Mona Lisa is intensely human, intensely alive. “On looking at the pit of the throat one could swear that the pulses were beating.“-Vasari. You don’t feel like you’re looking at a picture. You’re drawn in and consumed by her face.
But even if Leonardo revolutionized portraiture, how did La Gioconda last the test of time? After Leonardo’s death, he was greatly respected in the art world, especially by Rafael, who continued his legacy.
But it wasn’t until 1864 that La Gioconda became well-known outside of the art world. And when the “general public” became aware of The Mona Lisa their attention was maintained over generations by one of art’s most enduring traits:
Mystery.
The illusion: the enigmatic smile and gaze. Is she smiling? Is she looking at me?
The smile:
Last year British Art historians “discovered” La Bella Principessa (1496) by Da Vinci:
It is clear from this picture that Leonardo worked on his enigmatic smile technique before the Mona Lisa. A study of La Bella Principessa revealed that people believed that she was smiling, or not smiling, based on their distance from the canvas. So Leonardo’s enigmatic smile was intentional.
The gaze:
She sees…everything
The eyes seem to follower the viewer. So how did Leonardo accomplish these illusions?
Sfumato:
The definition of form in painting without abrupt outline by the blending of one tone into another. It gives the image a translucent, smoky feel which provides depth and movement. Leonardo blends colors and shades to get gradual transitions between different shapes. No other artist has been able to pull it off as successfully. No one is exactly sure how he did it.
People overestimate the precision, ability, and clarity of their eyesight. Numerous studies reveal that we actually view reality in fragments and piecemeal, while our brain fills in the gaps. Leonardo was somehow able to take advantage of this distortion so that we can’t say for certain whether the Mona Lisa is smiling or where she’s looking.
Side note: La Gioconda used to have eyebrows and eyelashes, but they were removed through overzealous cleaning.
Lastly, La Gioconda has had a tumultuous past which has only added to her fame. Napoleon had the painting in his bedroom, it was stolen from the Louvre (Picasso was suspected, arrested, and thrown in jail), people have thrown acid, a ceramic tea cup, stones, and sprayed red paint at it. But through it all she has survived…
Will someone ever paint a portrait comparable in its revolt and mystery? I hope so. I’ll keep waiting. I’ll keep looking.
Until then I’ll just have to be satisfied with my absurd and sacrilegious dreams.
Subscribe here:
Eight Simple Steps for Building a Skyscraper
1.) People learn things and pass it on:
For 3800 years of human civilization, the Great Pyramid of Giza was the tallest structure in the world. To build taller without going wider (and to use less than 100,000 slaves and take less than 20 years) we needed new materials, more knowledge, and better technologies…
Such as…
-Steel (thanks to the Bessemer process established in 1854, which removes impurities from pig iron through oxidation, steel could now be inexpensively massed produced.)
-Steel frame construction (using vertical steel columns and “I” beams to create the skeleton of the building. Allowed architects to use curtain walls instead of load bearing walls, rather than “wall bearing” brick and mortar. The Home Insurance building, built in 1885, was the first to use this type of steel-skeleton construction):
-Cheap fossil fuel derived energy (steam locomotives transporting the materials to the site, powering machines, elevators, lighting, etc.)
-Reinforced concrete: invented in 1849 by Joseph Monier. It is concrete in which steel bars are embedded to increase its tensile strength.
-Passenger elevators: first one was built in 1857, located in the E.V. Haughwout department store in NYC:
(Don’t fart in that thing)
2.) Some people get together and make a plan:
The plan must be economically and politically feasible. Architecturally speaking, we have many designs and capabilities to build skyscrapers taller than most of them currently are, but these plans rarely make economic sense. Questions have to be answered such as: What is the real estate market like and where is it going? Should we have both office and residential space? What are the zoning regulations? The air rights? What is the future of the surrounding neighborhood? Do the city officials approve? Can we get financing and all the necessary permits? Questions spiraling towards insanity ad infinitum. Building a skyscraper is like making a ridiculously complicated movie (with many different roles and a high level of coordination) except there are no double takes, timing is even more crucial (elevator installation can’t occur before the frame is up) and safety is even more of a serious concern. Numerous tests are performed before construction (windproof, fireproof, earthquake proof?) and different plans are frequently swapped (are the living and working spaces conveniently accessible and comfortable?)
Civil engineers are faced with a paradox: the only way to test for failure is to to test for all modes of failure. But the only way to know of all modes of failure is to learn from previous failures. This means that engineers can never be absolutely certain that the structure will resist all loadings, but can only have large enough margins of safety such that failure is acceptably unlikely.
Similarly, the financially viability is often, pun intended, up in the air. Both the Chicago spire (would have been the tallest structure in the Western Hemisphere) and the Russian tower in Moscow were canceled due to the global financial crisis of 2008. Sometimes the money runs out…
Nonetheless, despite the structural and financial uncertainties….
3.) Round up the team:
You need architects, mechanical engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, civil engineers, interior designers,
elevator consultants, acoustical consultants, geotechnical consultants, dancing midgets, marketers to sell the space, a construction team, including the general contractors and their sub-contractors.
4.) Dig a hole. A big hole.
Often the hole is a few stories deep. They dig until they hit bedrock. When the World Trade Center buildings were built more than a million cubic yards of soil and rock were removed and dumped into the Hudson River. There are many skyscrapers in NYC, not only because of the high cost of land, but because the bedrock is near the surface in midtown and lower Manhattan.
This Indian man shares my enthusiasm:
5) Install the footings (big pads to spread out the weight)
These pads spread out the weight of the building in the bottom of the pit. Keep in mind that in most building designs, the weight of the structure is much larger than the weight of the material that it will support. In architecture jargon, the dead load, i.e. the load of the structure, has to be larger than the live load, the weight of things in the structure (furniture, paperclips, taxidermied pandas, etc.). As such, the amount of structural material required within the lower levels of a skyscraper will be much larger than the material required within higher levels.
6.) Raise the frame:
This part usually takes less time than most people expect (sometimes only a few weeks). The frame is raised with the help of cranes. There are 3 ways for cranes to rise within a building. You can read about that here: Cranes. Cranes can build themselves.
The skyscraper must be able to withstand strong winds (the lateral wind load governs the structural design in Supertall buildings, higher up = higher wind pressure). Modern buildings are able to swing a few meters in each direction.
7.) Construct the inner elements: staircases, corridors, air conditioning, heating, electrical systems, chamber of secrets, drainage systems. Most importantly: elevators. The elevators take up a lot of valuable space…which infringes on the economic benefits of the floor space. Also, the concrete core walls must be constructed. These are made of thick concrete, typically around the elevators, and they are the primary system to resist wind and earthquakes.
8.) Party at the top of the skyscraper with vane, Russian photographers:
Subscribe below:
Sources:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5086779http://www.english-online.at/art-architecture/skyscrapers/skyscrapers.htmhttps://www.quora.com/How-is-a-skyscraper-builthttp://www.bible-history.com/resource/ff_giza.htm
https://www.mhi-global.com/discover/earth/issue/history/history.html
http://madridengineering.com/challenges-of-skyscraper- construction/
Why does skin wrinkle with age?
If I make it past the age of 40 without my heart or brain exploding (unlike my favorite author, Thomas Wolfe, who died at 37 and when the doctors trephined his skull a burst of pressurized cranial fluid spurted across the room) I look forward to the day when my skin starts to wrinkle. Like a young boy admiring the hair follicles in his armpits blossom, I will observe the decaying and folding of my epidermis with a glowing satisfaction and a quiet pride. Why yearn to re-live the smooth-faced glories and taut energies of youth? I can go back to those fickle, ungracious, boisterous days in my sagging, thinning, white-haired head.
Interesting enough, a biopsy of a wrinkle reveals no obvious signs that it is any different from the rest of your skin. So why am I becoming a bulldog?
The development of wrinkles is a multi-factorial process of intrinsic and extrinsic aging.
Intrinsically, your skin is producing 1% less collagen each year after the age of 20. Collagen is the most abundant protein in the human body (30%). If your body is a house, preferably a brick house, then collagen would be the scaffolding. Less collagen means your skin is thinner and more fragile.
As we hurtle towards death, our bodies also produce less elastin. Elastin is a protein found in connective tissue which allows our bodies to resume their shapes after stretching or contracting. Elastin is like a rubber band:
But if you strain the springiness of the elastin too much/too frequently, the skin has difficulty springing back, and you develop grooves in your skin. This happens with repeated facial expressions such as squinting and laughing which is why young people can develop crows feet and other various lines. For me, I’ve already developed lines on my forehead from spending the majority of the last 26 years lifting my eyebrows in a questioning glance then furrowing my eyebrows in profound thought.
The two proteins mentioned above work together to keep our skin firm and resistant. Collage is the strength upon which the outer layer of the skin is anchored (located in the lower layers of the dermis). Elastin is responsible for the softness and elasticity of the skin (located in the middle layer of the dermis).
The third, crucial component of our skin are glucosaminoglycans (GMCs). This component is the final piece of our skin’s extracellular matrix…
So close.
GMCs are polysaccharides or amino sugars. Together with water, GMCs create a fluid which fills the space between the collagen and the elastin fibers. GMCs are water-binding substances which provide a turgidity or a firmness to our skin. This is one of the reasons why drinking lots of water can promote smooth, healthy skin and make your cheek feel like a baby’s fat ass.
As we plummet towards the grave, our sweat and oil glands also break down. The outermost layer of our skin is covered by an oil called sebum, which lubricates and protects our skin. The sebum is our natural raincoat. It is when sebum is removed from our skin during a prolonged submersion in water that our fingertips and feet become all pruny. Once the oil is gone, water becomes waterlogged in the epidermis. Why doesn’t the rest of our skin get pruny? Because the thicker layer on our feet and hands contain more dead skin cells than any other part of our body. Dead skin cells pull more aggressively on the lower layers and swell more easily than living cells. Unlike a raisin, our skin doesn’t get pruny because of shrinking, but because of expanding.
Extrinsically, our skin ages because of the sun and environmental damage (smoking, pollution). According to a study by the Journal of Clinical, Cosmetic, and Investigational Dermatology,
damage caused by UV rays accounts for at least 80% of skin aging.
UV rays penetrate our skin and damage the collagen and elastin fibers. In response to this damage, our body produces metalloproteinasas. Some of these enzymes break down the collagen further and the result is an uneven formation (matrix) of disorganized collagen fibers called solar scars. Repeat this abnormal skin rebuilding process over decades and you get wrinkles dinkles.
In addition, during the UVA attack break-down process, oxidants or free radicals are produced. Excessive amounts of these oxidants will damage our cells (they steal energy from them) and can even alter their genetic material.
If you’ve read my post on “Fred and the Trap house” you will remember that I asked the question: “why does black not crack?”…because Fred is 47 but doesn’t have one wrinkle. Answer: Black skin produces more melanin than white skin, which fights against (absorbs and disseminates) UV rays and prevents DNA damage. An albino is someone whose body doesn’t produce any melanin. Studies also show that black skin produces larger amounts of sebum.
Smoking also causes excess oxidants. In a study of identical twins, the smoker was found to have thinner skin (by as much as 40%). And in another study of women, the smokers were found to have less secretions of Vitamin E in their skin, and Vitamin E is believed to be an antioxidant.
Every year Americans spend 12 billion on cosmetic procedures to hide the signs of aging.
Every year Americans spend millions of hours staring at mirrors worrying about Father Time ploughing creases in their face.
Not for me.
Subscribe here:
Sources:
http://www.scientificamerican.
http://www.nytimes.com/health/
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/
http://www.blerdnation.com/
http://www.mayoclinic.org/
http://m.kidshealth.org/en/
http://www.annmariegianni.com/
http://blackgirlnerds.com/
http://wonderopolis.org/
Rape, Injustice, and Outrage: Aftermath and Analysis of Brock Turner vs. People of California
In September 2016, Brock Turner was released from jail after serving 3 months of his 6 month sentence for “sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object,” and “sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object,” in 2015. People were in an uproar, rightfully so, at this despicable act of leniency which made a mockery of our justice system. Petitions were being signed to recall the judge. The founder of linked-in, Reid Hoffman (Stanford graduate) donated $25,000 to crowdpac campaign in order to aid with the recall. The prosecutors in the case had initially pressed for a six year prison sentence, for a crime (rape) which has a minimum of 2 years imprisonment (the official rape charges were dropped, which was why Brock was only sentenced to 6 months). Brock leaving after 92 days was a corruption of the system.
One of my purposes for this post is to elaborate on the following idea:
Justice, both individually and culturally, is irrevocably intermixed and colored by identity and social status. This is why social change happens painfully slow over generations. It is why we have to keep reminding ourselves of unjust cases like this one to prevent a degradation of the law.
If you want to learn the gritty details and perspectives of the case there are thousands of blogs and articles you can find online. But the two “must-reads,” are the letter of the defendant’s father to the judge (read this first) and the letter of the victim to the judge/read to the defendant. Spring boarding from these two perspectives I want to answer four questions:
Who was Brock Turner?
Who was “Emily Doe” (the victim)?
How and why did the rape occur?
Why was the punishment so lenient/who was the judge?
I want the reader to keep in mind during my analysis that I believe Brock’s act was monstrous and not adequately punished. But if we’re going to understand why the judge sentenced him so lightly and move in the direction of positive reform, we have to delve into a painfully sympathetic perspective to fully comprehend the bastardization of justice.
Brock Turner was an awkward, drug-using (LSD, ecstasy), over-achieving All-American swimmer. Based on his father’s letter to the judge, it’s clear that Brock was enamored by his parents and that his father was narrow and dumb. What’s sickening about the letter is the father’s complete neglect of the victim. It’s all my poor son, my poor son…he’s losing his happy-go-lucky personality, his welcoming smile. He was so talented, hard-working, and humble. Now he will never be the same again…
The most horrifying line:
His life will never be the one he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.
The emotional destruction of Emily was ignored. The shattering tragedy imposed on her was called 20 minutes of action.
It is obvious from the father’s letter that a parent rarely has a reasonable and clear perspective of their child. It is obvious that a desperate love and fear of loss will often trump the lives and decencies of strangers. A parent is usually ready to forgive the heinous crime of their child and look forward.
Which makes me ask: can a person be defined by a single action? Can a whole lifetime be tainted by 20 minutes of unspeakable stupidity and cruelty, especially when alcohol or drugs are involved? When looking at yourself, the answer must be no. Our pasts, with all our mistakes, are set in stone and we must define ourselves with the next action we take. This is how the judge looked at Brock. The judge believed that Brock was being punished/”poisoned enough” with all the media backlash and having to register as a lifetime sex offender. Did he really need more than 6 months of jail time on top of that? Would that make him a better person? Would the severity of a long prison sentence negatively impact his moral restoration? But the justice system is not our caring parent. The law must look at our actions in a crime as direct and persistent connections to who we are. The law must look at what we’ve done as irrevocable. If it doesn’t, the law breaks down.
Emily Doe’s letter to her attacker is a work of art. Her intelligence and emotional depth sizzles between the words. It reminds me how much injustice can act as a flaming fuel for expression. Her paragraphs pulse with the power of someone who has been betrayed by the courtroom and refuses to back down. She hits the perfect balance of describing her personal struggles with the aggravating details of how the case progressed. She rightfully hits on the contemptible avoidance tactics of the defendants and their unscrupulous focus on the surrounding culture of drinking and promiscuity.
Reading between the lines, I believe Emily is a vibrant, passionate, empathetic, and engaging woman: “…there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house. I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister. On the way there, I joked about what undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian.”
Now let’s turn back to Brock. I’ve personally known two people who have attended Stanford University and transferred after their first year due to a toxic and hazardous social environment. The school is so academically and athletically competitive that it attracts people who haven’t developed socially. In Brock’s father’s letter he states, “When Brock was home Christmas break, he broke down and told us how much he was struggling to fit in socially and the fact that he did not like being so far from home.” Keep in mind that Brock had the highest GPA of the freshmen on the swim team (nerd) and was from the Midwest (relative foreigner). Now, compound all of these factors with the toxic frat environment:
Let’s get hammered and get laid!
Here’s the scene: wild frat house, semester just started, high-testosterone-level-
Why did Brock decide to violate her while she was unconscious? Besides the animal lust and drunken haze, what other cultural and social factors were at work? More importantly, how can we prevent young men from making such a depraved decision in the future?
Emily was right in her letter to attack the defense’s focus on the culture of drinking and promiscuity. Excess drinking and sleeping with strangers are not the issues, it’s the lack of consent.
I believe that issues between the sexes will persist long after issues between races have been resolved. Because the steps we have to take in order to emphasize consent sometimes conflicts with our animal natures.
We have to tell young men that hooking up with numerous, stranger women does not make you a man, make you cool, make you fit in, or make you attractive (despite our evolutionary tendency and desire to pass on the seed.) What makes you a man is forming a deep, lasting relationship with a woman. What makes you a man is having the confidence to ask for consent and if you can’t find out, to forget it. We have to make the idea of penetrating a woman who does not give absolutely clear consent as loathsome as possible.
Women can help this process in their own way, but again, this way can conflict with their animal nature. It’s a fact that some women are highly attracted to dominating and controlling men. It’s a truism that women don’t know what they want. They want a man who is knowing and can care for them. The success of the book, 50 Shades of Grey is an example of the fantasies many women have of rich, powerful, knowledgable men sweeping them off their passive feet and forcing them to submit. This Louis CK video describes the wavering mentality (telling a story about when he was, coincidentally, 20 years old/the same age as Brock):
Of course the video only describes one woman, but I think many women expect guys to read their subtle signals and act forcefully. But men are not nearly as emotionally savy or sensitive as women. Most of us are hungry, fumbling idiots. So the more independent and confident women become (which has been happening and I believe will continue to happen)…being clear about what they want and communicating it, the better the relations between the sexes will be. Keep in mind that I am not at all implying that Emily Doe wasn’t being independent or confident enough the night of the party (she mistakenly got black out drunk and black out drunk girls shouldn’t be expected to communicate clearly or give consent). In fact, I believe she is more confident and independent than the average woman. And I’m not saying that more independence and confidence could have prevented Brock’s attack the night of the crime. I’m just saying that if Brock grew up in a culture with less “waitresses-attracted-to-guys-
So why did the judge let Brock off the hook?
Judge Aaron Persky is a 53 year old white, male democrat who graduated from Stanford. While at Stanford he was the captain of the club lacrosse team. There’s no doubt that he unconsciously empathized with Brock as another male athlete with good grades from the same school. And democrats have a history of viewing the law as flexible, soft, and malleable. They also lean towards humanitarianism and rehabilitation rather than incarceration and punishment. This world view is shown via the judge’s focus on Turner being a “first time offender,” on Turner “showing remorse,” and the fact that imprisonment would have a “severe impact on the defendant’s life.”
When the judge and defendant share a similar identity, then the sense of justice spreads out beyond the person himself in this instance and the particulars of the case. Justice expands broadly enough to include the defendants swimming records in the past and his future, tainted life as a sex offender. (How will Brock ever find a woman who can love him when the details of his case are eternalized on the Internet?) It minimizes the slice of his action for the totality of his life…which is connected to the judge’s life.
The reader may be wondering: why doesn’t Aaron’s expanding, democratic, humanitarian sense of justice include Emily’s pain and suffering? Because the act which caused the pain already happened and is fading with time, Emily is different from the judge, and Aaron doesn’t see how punishing Brock more severely would further alleviate Emily’s pain.
The scenario reminds me of the death penalty debate. In the nonfiction book, Green Fields, by Bob Cowser an 8 year old girl named Cary Ann Medlin is raped and stabbed to death by a 23 year old man on LCD named Robert Coe. Coe is quickly arrested, confesses, pleads insanity, but is sentenced to death. He remained on death row for over two decades while his sentence was appealed, overturned, reinstated, and briefly stayed, until he was executed on April 19, 2000, the first execution performed in Tennessee in 40 years.
Cowser convincingly and subtly argues for the injustice of Coe’s execution. Cowser was a schoolmate of the victim, grew up in the same backwoods town as Coe, and witnessed the poverty and ignorance of the environment. He researched Coe’s childhood abuse. He empathized with Coe. He described the militant, revenge-fueled anger of Cary Ann Medlin’s family and neighbors. But what did killing Coe rather than life in prison accomplish? It satisfied revenge. That’s it.
A motivation for this post is that I’ve read numerous articles lashing out against Brock’s early release written by women who I believe have the same flexible, soft, and democratic sense of justice as Judge Aaron Pesky. They do not support the death penalty. They believe in rehabilitation, caring about the needy, and giving people a second chance.
Yet they don’t want Brock to rehabilitate or get a second chance. They don’t care if his life is already ruined by this case. Their sense of justice is rigid and hard. They know what it’s like to be a woman harassed by a man. They know Brock is a monster. They want revenge. They want more than 3 months in jail.
Let me reiterate: I’M IN THE SAME, FRUSTRATED BOAT. I believe Brock should have been punished more severely.
But these same women posting against the injustice did not write anything when Eric Gardner was strangled by a police officer (Labron James wore a shirt protesting against it:)
They did not write anything when French journalists were murdered by Muslim extremists (last time I saw Louis CK live he wore a Charlie Hedbo t-shirt):
And there’s nothing wrong with any of these silences! Injustices occur everywhere everyday.
My point is that we become outraged and our sense of justice becomes hard and rigid when someone with a similar identity or social status becomes victimized. On the flip side, our sense of justice becomes softer when it’s someone from a similar background being accused..and we’re the judge.
The emotional, empathizing mechanism impelling women to desire revenge and a harsher punishment for Brock, because he hurt a person similar to themselves, is the same mechanism which caused Judge Persky to be more lenient, judging someone similar to himself.
Most people know that their measuring stick for analyzing justice is biased when the subject is someone with a similar background. But I believe it’s important to realize that our compasses for discovering injustice and our barometers concerning our degree of involvement are influenced too.
Which is why, as a young man who was also an awkward, over-achieving, athlete who got hammered at frat parties and hit on girls, I decided to write about something that most of these men (who I believe are my audience) aren’t thinking about. If one of them reads this and shifts slightly in the direction of rape empathy and a recognition of conscious consent in their relationships with women, then my goal for this post will have been accomplished.
Why is Usain Bolt so fast?
This past Olympics Usain Bolt pulled off a triple-triple, winning 3 gold medals in 3 events (100 meter, 200 meter, 4×100 meter relay) in the past 3 Olympics, a feat that will go down in athletic history and will not likely be repeated during our lives. In track races that are often determined by 100ths of a second, in a sport where the body takes a particular kind of beating and where injuries lurk around the bend of the track (more so than swimming), in an environment where performance enhancing drugs are being furtively abused, it is extremely impressive that Bolt has maintained a #1 status for 3 consecutive Olympics. How did he do it?
Most articles on this topic will highlight Bolt’s superior genes and unique, physical build. While most sprinters are short or of medium height (5’5”-5’10”) Bolt is “freakishly tall:” 6’5.” This means that he has longer legs and a longer stride, which leads to him taking less steps, less contact with the ground, more time in the air, all contributing to less “ground resistance” and faster times. Here’s the breakdown:
Steps taken during a 100 meter race:
Amateur sprinter: 50
Elite sprinter: 45
Bolt: 40
Percentage of time spent in the air during a 100 meter race:
Amateur: 50%
Elite sprinter 60%
Bolt: 63%
Time spent in contact with the ground during a 100 meter race:
Amateur: .12 seconds
Elite: .08 seconds
Bolt: .07 seconds
Amateur sprinter top speed: 24 mph
Elite sprinter top speed: 26 mph
Bolt top speed: 27.8 mph
So why don’t we see more tall sprinters with long legs? Because tall runners cannot explode like Bolt. His explosion out of the blocks and acceleration is just as amazing as his long legged speed. Someone who is 6’5” with such long legs shouldn’t accelerate as fast as someone who is 5’5” with short legs, but Bolt does, stays even with his competitors for the first 25 meters, then in the last 25 meters leaves them in the dust.
Lesson: Sometimes an early disadvantage someone faces, which may prevent them from entering the ranks of the elite, is the exact thing which pushes them beyond the elite once they have reached that high level.
Here’s his world record 100 meter run:
So what allows Bolt to explode just as much as other elite sprinters? If we continue down the physical vein:
Fast-twitch muscle fibers. Bolt has a high quantity of these muscle fibers, like all elite sprinters, and has trained them to burst when the gun goes off:
Where did Bolt get these muscles fibers?
In the lab they recently discovered…forget science…Jamaica! (“You can take the boy out of Jamaica, but not the Jamaica out of the boy,”-Bolt’s mom).
Bolt was born in Trelawny Parish, in a primitive town with no street lights, limited running water, and old men riding donkeys. Bolt was a hyper active child, playing cricket with his brother, Sadiki, using a banana tree stump and an orange. His parents owned a grocery store and his father was strict.
Interesting tangent theory:
Woman in Jamaica regularly eat yams from aluminum rich soil, which is believed to help development of fast twitch muscle fibers.
Also: Sprinting gene (ACTN3), 75% of Jamaicans carry this gene. Compared to 70% of US international standard athletes.
But most important: culture! Sprinting is at the heart of Jamaican life. Ever since Arthur Wint won the 400 meter gold in the 1948 Olympics, Jamaica has loved and nourished sprinting.
Growing up, Bolt was a stand-out cricket player and was noticed by Pablo O’Neill, a former Olympic sprint athlete. A mentor was established early on and pushed him towards sprinting, without telling him how good he really was. This was key. Bolt won his high school championships. Bolt said that as a child, “All I thought about was sports.” His coach was often frustrated by his lack of dedication to training and his penchant for pranks. But this flippant attitude meant that Bolt didn’t burn out.
At the age of 15, Bolt participated in the World Junior Championships in Kingston, Jamaica. Before the race he was so nervous he put his shoes on the wrong feet. He still won the 200 meters, making him the youngest 200 meter winner ever. He vowed to never be influenced by pre-race nerves again. The International association of Athletics gave him a rising star award and nicknamed him the Lightening Bolt. Seven years before his first Olympics, Bolt was being told he was the greatest in the world at his age, celebrated in the capital of his country, which idolized sprinting.
In 2004, at the age of 18, Bolt participated in the Athens Olympics, but was eliminated in the first round due to a hamstring injury. He gains experience with an Olympics and the hunger grows. In 2005 and 2006 more injuries prevent him from completing a full season. The hunger keeps growing.
In 2007 he broke the Jamaican national 200 meter record held for 30 years by Donald Quarrie. Success! (Today he holds the 13 fastest 200 meters ever run.) At the 2007 world championships he won two silver medals. Relative Failure. Then in May 2008 he sets a world record in the 100 meters (9.72) at Icahn stadium in NYC. Success! Bolt’s early career is a back and forth between being the greatest and being just beneath the greatest…a recipe for continued improvement and rising confidence.
Dominates Beijing Olympics (despite eating McNuggets before the 100 meter final)
Dominates London Olympics
Dominates Rio Olympics
How did he stay on top?
Hard, grueling work (of course) but maintaining a distance of easy humility. People get caught up in his poses and showmanship…
But Bolt as been described by family and close friends as laid back and relaxed. He describes himself as lazy. His headmaster said that all the poses after races wasn’t arrogance, it was just him being who he was. He likes to party and dance. He doesn’t let things bother him past a certain point. But behind all the laid back humour is a fire, an intensity, a steady desire…
Being able to relax and control yourself before a race (especially one that lasts 9-10 seconds) while maintaining an inner intensity is paramount for success in sprinting. Here’s a video of Bolt I took 1.5 years ago when I saw him run in NYC (Icahn stadium):
Look how relaxed he is! One reporter called him “hammily cool.” You must have this attitude if you are to remain on top. Also, at the stadium I noticed more Jamaicans than any other group of people…Bolt has always had his country enthusiastically behind him.
Bolt is also a catholic. He crosses himself before each race.
“I want to thank God for everything he has done for me because without him none of this wouldn’t [sic] be possible.”-Bolt
Bolt displays gratitude. Right after his last Olympic gold he thanked all his fans on Twitter.
I don’t think anything great can be accomplished without an underlying sense of gratitude.
Subscribe here:
Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/
http://www.bbc.com/news/
http://www.bbc.com/news/
http://www.biography.com/