Life as an Extreme Sport

terrorizing robins (of the feathered, not comic, kind)

I live across the street from a park. (This is not a surprising thing for those who know me; I seem to always live across the street from a park. And fire house. Anyway.) I tend to cut through it when running errands, because why wouldn’t you, if you lived across the street from a park?

This evening, I was cutting through to indulge in two bad habits – wine, and takeout – and I ended up terrorizing a robin in the process.

The park is edged by a chain link fence on two sides, and I was walking down one side after having already cut through the baseball diamond. On the other side of the fence was a very plump, very red, robin. He froze, and looked at me. So, I stopped – I suppose out of a sense of politeness to the bird.

The robin very clearly looked at me, and then took three hops forward. Well, okay. I took a step forward. He stopped, stared at me, and then took another three or so hops forward. I took another step. Rinse and repeat, several times. At this point, I was worrying a bit – if the robin wanted away from me, shouldn’t he fly? Could he not fly? Was I going to have to figure out how to capture a robin and find local wildlife rehab? Oh lord, what about Zeus?

Step. Hop. Step. Hop.

We did this dance, me contemplating emptying the box I had with me (long story), all the way down the side of the street. Two steps (six hops) from the intersection with a larger road, the robin gave me one final baleful glare, gathered up his wings, and flew off to perch on top of a row of bleachers. When he was safe in the bleachers, he flicked his tail, turned around, and sternly began to lecture me.

…I admit, I felt better knowing he could fly. But I felt kind of bad that I probably terrorized him, stalking him all the way down the street.

all you need is a rubber stamp to have an ethics committee

I’d like to leave a comment on Stuart Rennie’s latest interesting post over on his Global Bioethics blog, but he’s one of those Google-account-only for commenting, and Google and I parted ways a while ago. So, you should go read his post about the continuing side show of research ethics, and then my comment will make some sense.

Oh, and here is my comment:

I’ll be the first to argue that there are issues with informed consent, but it seems to me that if you cannot explain what you are doing in a way that your patient population can understand, then perhaps you need to go back to the drawing board.

More importantly, though, is whether or not an ethics review committee is really doing anything, if the results can be so thoroughly rejected in commentary. Yes, ethics tends to be plagued with philosophers who like nothing more than to sit around and pick arguments with each other, but at the same time, one really has to question the function of an ethics review committee if such seemingly unethical behaviour is going to be approved. If the committee is just there to rubber stamp a proposal, is it really doing what it’s supposed to do?

Apple, Truth and the Audience Contract

I’ve always been curious about the world, and from a young age this manifested as an interest in the scientific process. Which, of course, is why I believed in Santa Claus. I had, after all, empirical proof! No, not the “Santa knows where I am even if I’m not home,” or the “Santa ate the cookies and drank the milk” sort of proof that most kids have. That, after all, can be easily explained by other means. No, I had proof. I had sleigh bells, hooves on the roof, and gravel (because in Arizona, there was no snow) dropping off the roof as the reindeer and Santa left. And after that, there were presents around the tree and missing cookies and milk, so clearly Santa existed. The sleigh bells, the hooves, the stuff falling off the roof — clearly that’s something that could never be faked.

Of course, my truth as a child — that Santa Claus existed and I had proof — is a lot different than my truth as an adult: when you get my uncles together with the rest of the family, mischief of a most impressive variety occurs. And as an adult, I can see that what I know now (a relative on the roof, recorded noises, coordination between all the adults in the house) is certainly the truth, and what I knew as a kid was not the truth but an elaborate fantasy. But it leaves me sympathetic to the idea of “different languages for what truth means,” which is Mike Daisey’s excuse for the Foxconn falsity/fiasco. I understand that the truth of a child is different than the truth of an adult.

And, on top of that, I am fond of narrative framing for stories. The hook of a narrative is an excellent way to get attention, and telling a story is always an effective way to share knowledge. Narrative, after all, matters.

So in many ways, I am perfectly set to be receptive to the basic argument Mike Daisey is trying to sell; so why am I not buying?

Well, the simple thing, I suppose, is the dishonesty — the same thing that shot James Frey’s credibility into a million little pieces (sorry). It’s not that Daisey presented narrative non-fiction, or advocacy journalism, or whatever anyone wants to gloss his lying with. It’s that he knew he was lying, and he attempted to hide it by providing This American Life with a false translator name in order to stymie their fact-checking prior to the story being released.

Daisey’s piece — the outrage and the empathy and the demands for justice and parity and all those things — all depended upon his bearing actual witness to what he said. “Oh hey, I heard about X situation and it sucks” is informative, but rarely as moving as powerful description of events witnessed firsthand. (This is why there is such a rush to collect the stories and memories of The Greatest Generation, and survivors of the Shoah, but I digress.) “Knowing” Daisey talked to poisoning victims, people who’s been injured in the pursuit of electronics, created a direct connection between audience and performer and the people supposedly on the other side of that performance — only they weren’t there, at least, they weren’t there in any more concrete way. Daisey violated the audience’s belief that what they were being told was not only real, but witnessed by the person in front of them — and he showed his knowledge of his violation in his shoddy attempts at cover-up (and his now shoddier attempts at passing the buck).

The sad thing* about this is that Daisey is a talented writer who has the ability to move people with his words and plays, and he likely could have created that same emotional resonance while just being honest — that this play was a play, based in truth but not the truth. But instead he attempted to pass it off as the truth when the reality is it was not the truth of a child, not the truth of an adult; it was, plainly, simply, not truth.

*I’ve seen people say “the saddest thing” in regards to Daisey’s talent and the magnitude of his fuck-up, but let’s be realistic here: the saddest thing is still the manufacturing problems that do exist in Shenzhen and other Chinese manufacturing cities. The problems are still real, even if Mike Daisey is not.

Response: Was Jobs’ Advice Banal? No.

This morning, flipping through Twitter, I saw that Tauriq Moosa had linked to a Big Think article by Will Wilkinson on Steve Jobs’ Stanford commencement speech, written shortly after Jobs died, questioning whether or not Jobs’ advice was good advice. Moosa’s tweet called it “banal”, and the post itself calls it banal status-signaling, and then explains why.

If you haven’t read Jobs’ commencement speech, go ahead; you’ll need the context for the rest of this. (You’ll probably want to read Wilkinson’s blog post, too.) Done? Okay.

So, Wilkinson is wrong, in that he misses Jobs’ point through misreading the point. Basically, Wilkinson appears to be saying that the advice to always pursue what you love, and to never settle, will lead to a nation of people constantly quitting their jobs to pursue fanciful dreams of art. He illustrates this using the ever-popular “art major in college” argument favoured by parents across the world, and equates never settling to poverty and suffering (frustration).

That last bit alone should tip you off to not understanding what Jobs said – as a Buddhist, Jobs would have never advocated people pursue a path that would cause their suffering. In fact, you really do have to read the speech with that in the background, because what he is saying is to avoid suffering, and that’s how you’ll lead a fulfilling life.

The Stanford speech has three parts to it: connect the dots, love and loss, and death. Let’s take a closer look, keeping in mind Wilkinson’s overall argument of banal never-settling.

Speech part the first: connecting the dots. Here Jobs tells about dropping out of Reed College, and dropping in to the classes that interest him, rather than the classes he must take. Now, it’s entirely possible that I am partial to this because of my own educational background: I chaffed quite a bit at required courses that didn’t interest me, which is one reason it took me a while to finish college; I had to find the place that would let me study what did interest me, rather than what they thought would make me a a well-rounded person. But Jobs is talking about more than just college, here. In fact, he’s retelling a rather famous Buddhist story that goes something like this:

A monk in San Francisco decides he wants to visit friends in Portland, and thinks that it’s a beautiful time of year to sail up the coast. So he borrows another friend’s boat at sets off north. About halfway to Portland, though, he changes his mind – the boat is large enough, and well-stocked, and he’s always wanted to see Hawaii. So he changes direction, and spends his time sailing to Hawaii, enjoying the sea life playing in the water around him.

Well, about a third of the way to Hawaii, he realizes that no, really, he’d love to go to Seattle, a place he’s never been. So the monk cheerfully resets his sails and heads north to Seattle. The whales are migrating at this point, and he spends long days watching them surface and play near his boat.

Somewhere near Neah Bay, the whales split off and he realizes that no, actually, his original idea to see his friends in Portland was the best idea. So he turns around and heads south, and a few days later pulls up at their dock just outside of Portland.

His friends are there waiting for him, and they ask him where he’s been – did he get lost? “No,” he replies. “I always knew where I was going- I just wasn’t sure where I would end up!”

Now, the point of this is relatively simple: paths are rarely straight lines, and if you get so stuck on that straight line, you miss out on a lot of things, and those things might be relevant, important, or even necessary some time down the line.

You can’t look in the future and know where you’re going to end up; all you can do is know where you’re going in the now and then look back and hope it all knits together. Sometimes, that knitting won’t happen for years, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

This is what Jobs was saying: there’s value in chasing the things that interest you in the “now.” Not every graduate at that lecture had to go out and take a job at a top investment firm and immediately chase the money; they could, to use a banal and overused phrase, stop and smell the roses – perhaps then starting off on a lifetime of botany, of hobby gardening, of, in 15 years, being in the right place at the right time to pull their professional life and hobby together into one thing that they love.

Which dovetails in to his second point, about love and loss, and how sometimes you have to lose what you love to reinvent yourself into something more than it. Again, it’s something I relate to: in 2001, I had to decide if I was going to continue in an industry that paid me a healthy six-figures, or if I was going to do something else. I really loved the lifestyle my income allowed me; travel, good food, wines, and all the things that you’re told you should constantly strive for in American society. What didn’t I love? Well, my job, I suppose. I got a strong sense of satisfaction from a lot of what I did, but it wasn’t something I was passionate about. (Rather, I was passionate about doing my best, which is actually a very different concept, although it can be hard to separate out.)

I opted to do something else; I went back to school, got a degree in something that is considered “utterly useless” by most, did grad school for a while, and am continuing to see where things lead me. Sure, I’ve given up nearly a decade, now, of making six-figures each year, and it’s definitely been hard – but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do. (And as a matter of fact, all of those experiences, from computers to college and beyond, have tied together into my current job, something I do enjoy doing that I wouldn’t have been able to without those diverse and divergent experiences creating who I am now.)

And those of you who know the bitter details know that I had something I love forcefully taken away from me a few years ago. I didn’t know what to do with myself for months; I felt I had let everyone down, everyone who had faith in me going off to grad school and doing all these awesome and amazing things. I had no choice but to start over – and that was the best thing for me, because it made me separate ego from self, it made me analyze what I liked, what I loved, and why. It made me re-evaluate everything, and gave me a chance to right course on things that had gotten off-course.

Good things have happened from losing what I loved (twice), and those things likely wouldn’t have happened without the loss. What’s the point of all that, what Jobs calls foul-tasting medicine, and getting hit in the head with a brick?

We can become victims of our own success, with what we love becoming buried under those trappings of success. Sometimes, it takes losing the trappings to remember the love – to be able to honestly evaluate and take stock of what it is we’re doing and whether we’re still pursuing that which we’re passionate about, rather than the enticing things that surround success.

And that actually ties in to what he is saying about death and asking whether or not, if this day were his last, would he want to be doing what he is doing. I think this is an area Wilkinson really misunderstood; Jobs is not saying “if you realize you don’t want to do what you have to do today, don’t do it.” He is saying that, if there are too many days in a row where you realize you don’t want to do what you need to do, you need to re-evaluate.

Whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Note Jobs doesn’t say how many days too many days in a row is, or even what needs to be changed – he’s not saying you have to throw out your career, change paths, do something else. You just have to figure out what’s causing the “no” and change that.

Knowing that you’re going to die – and probably sooner rather than later – is one of those things that can really burn the crap off the edges of your life. If you’ve ever known a terminally ill person, you know what I mean. Much of the practice of Buddhism is about embracing the idea that we die, and being prepared for that; it structures the faith practice, in part to make sure that we always pursue the thing we’d regret if we died before we did it.

But Jobs isn’t saying this in terms of money, or even careers – and Wilkinson appears to read it only related to that, and to also assume that no person in their right mind would want to work in waste management, or become a plumber or any of the numerous things that folks with white-collar, computer-based jobs look down on. To which I say, I think the original article Wilkinson wrote reveals more about himself than anything or anyone else – and that perhaps he should spend some time watching Dirty Jobs, to see that there are folks out there who find genuine joy and pleasure out of doing things that Wilkinson would not want to.

But see, isn’t that the point? Jobs says to ignore those people who have different opinions than your own, don’t let that noise and opinion drown out your own desires! Do you not want to go to college? Do you instead want to go into a trade school and learn to weld so that you can spend your life building massive bridges and infrastructure? Then don’t listen to people like Wilkinson who seem to tie up desire and money and status into a single concept; don’t listen to the people who would say that not being Donald Trump is settling, who would sneer at a career choice that they don’t understand.

This is what Obama is saying in his speeches about education, that everyone – all students – need to be given the opportunity to pursue, at an affordable cost, the education that they want, whether that’s at a two- or four-year college, trade school or vocational training. Not everyone has to get a four-year degree to follow what they love to do, and not everyone should be made to feel less-than for realizing that their path is not the path trod in the ground by so many people before them.

And that’s all Jobs was saying, too: identify what it is that drives you, and then set up your life so you can do it. This may mean taking a “banal” 9 to 5 job so that you can spend your evenings stargazing or writing the next great novel or painting murals on the sides of buildings; it might mean chasing your interests through college classrooms or spending your nights mucking out a sewer so your days can be spent cultivating orchids. Who knows; they’re your drives and passions, not mine.

Separate money from passion and happiness, live your day like you may not have a chance at another one, and ultimately recognize that the point isn’t the destination, it’s the journey.

Is that lacking in originality to the point of being boring? Is it trite and hackneyed? Ultimately, that’s for you to judge. But I’d suggest taking a look at the number of people who go through life doing what they “should,” who stop chasing dreams because “it’s not what an adult would do,” who live their lives sad and bland and without spark, all because they’ve been told they “have to” in order to be “responsible adults,” and consider which set of advice is truly banal.

Caturday*: Always Baffling

When Overlord Zeus moved in with me, he came along with a variation of the brand that I had been feeding Toledo – just a grain-free version. Which, fine, I figured it wouldn’t hurt Toledo, and his Overlordship clearly needed it for various digestion issues pet owners will understand and the rest of you really don’t want me divulging further detail.

I am not cat food. Zeus doesn't really care.
Being a cat, Zeus decided he didn’t like the food, and would carefully pick out all of the non-special dry food in the dish. Toledo found the grain-free diet too rich (something I’ve since learned is very common) and continually threw it up everywhere.

Fine, I can learn. I switched to another brand of food. We’ve been sort of muddling along with the Halo grain-free for a while, but neither cat seems to like it – both, as a matter of fact, do what can only be described as the cat version of holding their nose as they nibble at the dry food. This hasn’t been a huge issue because they also get wet food – not only are they spoiled, but it’s better for older male cats (it gets more moisture in their diet, which leads to less blood in the urine, which is always good in my book).

Well, when I was in the middle of a CLEAN ALL THE BEDROOM Monday night, I found a sealed tupperware of the old, grain-free food. I opened it up to see what was in the tupperware, and then left it on the carpet while I continued to clean.

Zeus came in, stuck his head in the tupperware, and proceeded to snarf down the entire dish of dry food.

…sigh.

So, with the help of the lovely folks at wag.com, I bought a small bag of the original grain-free formula, which was delivered today. I dutifully mixed it into the Halo grain-free… only to watch Zeus pick out and eat only the original grain-free (which, for the record, is Natural Balance’s grain-free duck and green pea).

I can take a hint. I put a few handfuls of the original grain-free in a tupperware container, and Zeus has been ignoring his wet food to snarf happily away at the dry.

Cats, man. Cats.

*Yes, I realize it’s technically 16 minutes until Caturday. However, I have every intent to either be asleep in 20 minutes, or at least nose very firmly stuck in a book, so Caturday just comes early. Besides, when you have two cats, every day is really Caturday.