Showing posts with label OCD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OCD. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 9, 2022

Slow to revolve


On 9/11/2001, everything changed.   Forty days later, on October 23, everything changed again when Apple introduced the iPod.  It took a bit longer for the second change to reach me.  I didn't get the big deal until my firm gifted me with an iPod shuffle for "employee appreciation day" 3 years later.  Even then it took months of looking at the thing before I figured out what to do with it.  Was it just a glorified walkman for playing 45s of your favorite songs?  Meh.  When I learned it could be played over the car speakers with an auxiliary cord, it dawned on me, "It's a re-configurable mix tape!" Once I had made my first playlist for a long car trip, there was no turning back. By  2006, I was so ensnared in the iPod web -- which unlike traditional music accumulation could only be fed sitting on my ass in front of the computer, meeting me where I lived-- that when I heard that Tower Records was closing, I felt personally responsible.

I had a similar slow uptake with the mobile phone: I want people calling me when I'm on the toilet?  No thanks.  But my wife was the influencer on that technology.  Needless to say, when the iPhone first appeared (changing things once more no less) I had the luxury of pitying the first adopters as hopeless saps.   Two years later, looking for a replacement for my deceased Razr, I took the iPhone plunge and became a hopeless sap myself.  

With me, it was never about telecommunications.   In fact, who could have predicted an explosion in personal portable communication devices would spell the death of the phone call?  I use my phone as a phone maybe twice a week.  I have 233 unlistened to voicemails.  With my phone on silent mode, I ignore easily 90% of those who try to reach me. Nonetheless as it is with so many people, my phone is attached to my hand.  In an effort to be with my phone as frequently as possible, I acquired as many habits as I could-- crossword puzzles, language learning, star gazing, ocarina playing.  Mostly, I read books on my phone to such an extent that I can sense the same thing happening to Barnes and Noble that I perpetrated on Tower Records.  The more exclusively I read on my phone, the less and less Barnes and Noble is a book store than it is a tchotchke emporium.  I do still visit book stores, but it's mostly to find titles to search the iBooks* store for for my phone.

As the iPhone is to phone calls, so the iBooks app is to reading.  In the early days of the pandemic, my Books app one day out of the blue following an automatic update started notifying me when I had reached a daily reading goal I hadn't set. The default goal of  5 minutes could be met just by leaving the app open while doing something else.  As I discovered last year, reaching the annual goal required turning the final page on just three books in the span of 12 months.  Though I have no incentive to be honest and absolutely nothing is stopping me from cheating, I don't cheat.  I met the quota last year in February.  When the app began tracking my habit for me unbidden, the laughably low bar of accomplishment struck me as being possibly Apple's way of keeping my reading to a minimum, I imagined for nefarious capitalistic purposes.  But to maintain a streak of daily goal meeting requires a steady pipeline of books.  By year's end, I had read 24 books on my phone, old and new on a variety of topics.  But as I look back at the titles I read in unbroken succession from January to December, I ask myself: What does it mean to say I read a book?  

I read the Brothers Karamazov in one day when I was 18. Do I remember anything about it other than what everyone knows about it?  I remember it had a lot of pages.  And that was a physical book that I have carried with me and have had to find a place for with every move for nearly 5 decades.  What about these electronic books that are designed to conjure the page turning sensation of reading but that unlike a book can't be remembered to the touch in the way that is so useful for finding passages you'd like to read again in a physical book?  eBooks can be searched so easily; they can be highlighted and bookmarked.  But for practical purposes I find that there is only one direction in an eBook and that is onward to the final page.  I like to think that I am accumulating some kind of experience with each book, that intellectual absorption is an inescapable force of the mind, but as I look back over a lifetime of reading, it occurs to me that reading requires more activity, less passivity than an attention-deprived brain such as mine can elicit.  Have I read Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes?  I purchased it last year;  I narrated its text word-for-word to myself for weeks over the summer until I was done with it; while it consumed my time, I thought about it, was moved by it, let it argue with me and inspire me; my iPhone Books app tells me I finished it.  Somewhere in there is that book-- if you quizzed me on specifics, I am not sure offhand whether my ability to respond would surprise or disappoint me.  I have read it something like the way I saw La La Land 5 years ago and yet could not on my own begin to tell you what it was about.  So have I read Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes?  We may need a decision from the judges.

~~~~~

*iBooks, Books, whatever!  By dropping the i- prefix from its app, Apple is helping you to forget that reading books on the phone and "buying" books for the phone are not the same as owning those books.  Don't forget, as I so often do that the purchase of an eBook buys you merely heavily termed access to material that could be-- and in some reported cases has been-- rescinded by Amazon, Apple and other purveyors of digital readers without warning to unsuspecting readers.  Your digital life is yours only at the will of the big tech providers of it to you, not because they have found a loophole to proprietorship, but simply because the technology allows it.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Rocky Horrors


Debra Messing is at it again.  She can't seem to let go of the notion that Susan Sarandon is responsible for Trump being in the White House.  What did Susan Sarandon do?  She inserted herself in earnest once again in the 2020 Democratic primary by publicly endorsing Bernie Sanders' candidacy.  After Sanders conceded the 2016 Democratic Primary to Hillary Clinton, Sarandon, who had already fallen out of love with Clinton in 2003 when the then New York Senator voted for the Iraq War,  publicly urged the disaffected to vote with their feet and abandon the ship of the Democratic party.  Her own vote was for Green candidate Jill Stein, but she intimated that even Trump would be a safer pick than Hillary Clinton.  Less fracking, she predicted; less war. 

Like Susan Sarandon, I was bitterly disappointed after the 2016 primaries.  It was hard not to crash after soaring on an unprecedented opportunity in my lifetime to dream with some realistic hope about an opportunity to vote for a Socialist in the General Election.  When Sanders conceded, I remained unenthused about his challenger, the nominee, and briefly, quietly contemplated abstaining from voting for president in November.  But on listening to the arguments of Stein, Sarandon and others and especially due to increased exposure to the cesspool of Trump, I was not convinced.

I have no regrets about voting for Hillary Clinton to avoid Trump in 2016, but neither do I harbor any special animus toward Susan Sarandon, at least, for voting her conscience.  Her supporters are right - Sarandon has many times over earned the respect of those on the left for putting her beliefs into action consistently for years.  I have never thought (for longer than an instant or two anyway) that Trump's election is owed to Sarandon's abstention from voting for his most serious opponent.  In the fight between Sarandon and Messing, my money is on the actual fighter.

Where I disagree with Sarandon's 2016 stance is not out of blame for Clinton's loss.  Rather it is with the notion that anyone with eyes open about Donald Trump before the general election can be excused for shirking in the effort against him.  Pissiness about Bernie Sanders' loss in the primaries is an especially feeble excuse considering Sanders' own commitment to Clinton's campaign following her nomination.  But by all indications at the time, Susan Sarandon's withholding of support for Clinton was due to a confidence in her impeccable moral purity that constrained her from participating in a Clinton victory, a purity that was no doubt persuasive and influential-- and certainly encouraging-- to some small percentage of similarly disgruntled Bernie supporters in swing states.  I've talked about my feelings about  the begrudgers, but I have to confess I reserve a special place in my personal conception of Hell for the saintly abstainers who actively sought to side with the Trump voters against Clinton in the wishful belief that Trump's blatant horribleness would "heighten the contradictions" inherent in the system and perhaps instantly foment revolution.  What made them so singularly special that they could be excused from the duty to vote responsibly, heedless of the Republican congress that Trump, if he won, would have at his disposal?  How bad does the greater evil have to be to vote for the lesser evil if Trump is not it?  How come they got to vote for the dreamy far out radical?  Why was it up to me to vote for the war-mongering fracking neoliberal in an effort to save our mutual society from the fake tanned, pussy grabbing, incurious, racist fascist bastard?

Is the effect you're getting the effect you want?  Was Susan Sarandon wanting to punish Hillary Clinton in 2016?  Was she hoping to signal a greater virtue in voting for Trump?  She is a dramatic actor.  I now suspect she was just being dramatic.   An interview with The Guardian in November 2017 if accurate and fair strongly suggests that far from being a super virtuous superwoman of the left whose vote for Jill Stein was too superior for its mighty purpose to be comprehensible to mere run-of-the-mill pants shitters who voted for Clinton to avoid Trump (I include myself), Susan Sarandon was a common naïf who assumed Clinton was going to win and was compelled to use her public platform to make clear that she wanted to claim no part in it.  In spite of her bluster about how Clinton was more likely to start a war and to pursue frantic fracking than Trump, in the Guardian intereview, she referenced the safety of her district for Clinton among the conditions that enabled her protest.  Explaining her stance in the general election, the article quotes her as saying, "Well, I knew that New York was going to go [for Hillary]. It was probably the easiest place to vote for Stein."  She has this to say about her widely cited argument in an interview with Chris Hayes on MSNBC in the runup to the election that Hillary Clinton was "more dangerous than Trump":
I don’t mind that quote ... I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.
Acknowledgement that Clinton would be smoother (if not by much) than Trump doesn't sound like a pure belief in Clinton surpassing the danger of Trump.  The virtue is cast in doubt even more by the argument that Clinton was going to win anyway.

 In other words she spoke one thing publicly but justified her actions on a faulty foundation of the tragically mistaken belief about what the outcome of the election would be which in 2017 she apparently indicated regret in having wrong.  Could her story be unique?  The humanness of her mistake (if the impression left by the Guardian article is fair) gives me an odd kind of hope.  I don't doubt that there were some small number of Clinton abstainers who genuinely evaluated Clinton's capacity for malevolence as on a complete par with if not surpassing Trump's.  But Susan Sarandon, who is as virtuous as they come in leftist politics, appears with hindsight at least (which is 20/20 mind you) to not be among them. 

What about Debra Messing's intentions?  Does she want a mea culpa from Susan?  Does she want to lock Sarandon's support for whomever the Democrat is in 2020?  I suspect she's just being dramatic -- and hoping in the process to preemptively ridicule the wasting of votes on anything other than anti-Trump in 2020*.   But based on the frantic righteous (and absolutely correct) defense of Susan Sarandon that Messing's repeated attacks inspire, I'm not so sure she's helping her own cause.  Let's get the best candidate for 2020 now, and stock up on outrage until we need it. It's too late from a planetary perspective to quibble over purity displays in the general election.  It's too early politically to do anything but get the nomination right.
~~~~~~~~~~

* Would Debra Messing support the ticket in November even if the nominee were Bernie Sanders?  I'd really like to know.