Art Cinéma at the Thai Restaurant

Last night, in a pique of laziness, and after eating bland food at home so often because we’ve been sick, I rebelled and went out to the local Thai restaurant. We’ve been there often enough, even though its new, that the girl who works behind the counter recognized me on sight and greeted me with a warm smile. We talked for a bit, I paid, left a tip, grabbed my food, and left.

Now the parking for the place in accessed through a alley between the restaurant and a pharmacy next door. So I walked out the door, made a u-turn to the south, and started down the alley. It was a dark out, 8:30 or so, in the winter, and the sky had that curious quality to it I’ve only seen in LA. It looks like it is night, but that everyone had left their night-lights on. That’s the best way I can describe it. If you’ve ever been in a house with lots of night-lights stuck in the outlets all over (something we did when Trevor was a baby) there’s this curious thing about the lighting. It is both night, and yet you can see quite well, especially if you get up in the middle of the night and your eyes are adjusted. Both night, and not night, dark and not dark, if that makes any sense.

The alley I walked down is paved with dark asphalt, but the walls on both sides are either white or a light shade of off-white. Straight ahead of me was a massive sycamore tree, blocking out my view of the 2-story apparent right behind it, and most of the LA skyline. In fact, my entire view of the night sky was proscribed by either wall or tree.

Now you have to understand, around here, in the San Fernando Valley, the horizon line is a dominant feature. It really is a lovely bowl of a valley with mountains all around. Almost no matter where you go you at night see the bright stars of houses twinkling upon the jagged edge of the mountains. After the flatness of the San Joaquin Valley, where I grew up in the subtile shadow of the distant though much larger High Sierras, the more constant and visible relief of the San Gabriels and the Santa Monicas against the sky are a joy.

So when I walked down that alley, it was suddenly like being transported to a different town. Gone was the skyline which the eye longs for with every outside walk. The walls around me practically glowed in that “night-light” effect. The tree ahead was dark, with a few apartment light peaking through its bare branches. And it was at that moment I looked up into the sky.

Have you ever seen the milky way? I mean really seen it? Gone to someplace so remote, and clear that it stands out in the night sky like a river or stars? Its a lovely sight; worth every effort to go and see. Alas one of the flaws of LA is that the milky way is not accessible in a place that looks like everyone has left their night-lights on. Its way too bright down here. But when you cut off all the light around, say by a wall on either side, a curious thing happens, the night sky appears darker. Not quite dark enough to see the milky way, but darker still.

So when I left the restaurant, and looked up into the night sky, I got a real treat. The sky was dark, darker than it normally looks. I don’t know if it was the absence of the bright horizon line, or what. Even thought the walls on either side of me were light colored, and relatively bright, they were still dark enough to not leave my eyes night-blind. There were  a few faint clouds in the sky, not enough to brighten it, but just enough to add a slight texture to the dark. Almost like seeing the milky way but faintly. Orion, that constant winter companion, was up and bold, as were a few stars and a planet or two. They twinkled above in their lovely way, made more crisp by the relative darkness of the sky.

And it was at that moment that I stopped, literally in my tracks, and looked around. My ordinary trip to a restaurant, a rather perfectly mundane errand, was transformed by a bit of natural theater, and happy accident of lighting, into a piece of Art Cinéma. As if I had stepped out of my ordinary life and was suddenly standing in a Jean-Luc Godard film.

And it was breath-taking.

*&@%#$ Lawyers

The other day I got a letter in the mail. It appeared to be from my health insurance company, but in fact, upon closer inspection, was from a third party. On the top it says “On behalf of Anthem Blue Cross”. The words on behalf of was my first clue.

Below the fold the letter states:

Dear Member. We need your help. On behalf of our client listed above, you are being asked to complete this questionnaire. Meridian Resource Company is reviewing your claims to determine if the services you received were a result of an accident in which another party may be responsible for payment. Examples include, but are not limited to…

So its a money hustle. Turns out, I’m not the only one to get such a letter. JohnMac from the Daily Kos got one as well. His response is much more polite than mine.

It turns out that there’s a name for this kind of thing. Its called Subrogation. Apparently, when I signed up for my health insurance, I signed up for subrogation as well. I guess I missed that clause in the sea of lawyerese. Still this kind of crap irks me.

Last summer my right shoulder started bothering me more than the normal amount. Way back in college I injured it playing flag-football, and ever since then its needed to be warmed up well to function. Add a few decades, a kid, a pool, and a busy father with no time to think about warming up first, and eventually you get a problem. In my case, Frozen Shoulder.

At the time I didn’t know what it was, I only knew I couldn’t move my shoulder, and whenever I did it hurt enough to knock my knees out from underneath me. Even worse, it got to the point where the pain was keeping me from sleeping. No sleepy, no worky. In the course of seeing my doctor about this I got asked a bunch of times if this injury was the result of a car accident of work related injury. I always answered no, because it wasn’t.

Apparently that NO was sufficient. Now a company I have no direct relationship with is asking me for information so they can fleece down somebody else and raise corporate profits. And to think I have friends who call taxes theft.

Does this kind of sleazy money hustle piss off anyone else like it does me?

On outsiders crossing the wrong lines

…or an alternate explanation as to why Phil Robertson got into trouble.

There are lines in the world that don’t appear on any map. You will not find them in a travel book or a website, but they exist as ways of dividing otherwise comfortably homogenous areas, and if you cross them they can cause you harm.

The first time I can recall crossing one of these lines as an adult was just after I moved down to LA.  My roommate and I decided to got clothes shopping at a store called International Male. For those that don’t know, IM started as a clothing catalog. For all I know there’s still one today. At the time I first noticed it, I thought IM was just a catalog for trendy men. It was only later, when I visited the store in West Hollywood, that I realized there was something more to the store. Perhaps is the was unusually large number of good-looking young men on the streets, perhaps it was the absence of women in the store, but I think what clued me in the most was the giant billboard featuring two attractive men and advertising a gay cruise line. I had one of those, “I think we’re not in Kansas anymore”, moments, and did my best to act cool.

See I grew up in a smaller, more midwestern town. A town where you could openly call someone a faggot, and never be mistaken by your meaning. Nor would anyone stop you because you weren’t being political correct. This is because that was how the town’s social structure worked. There were no jack-booted thugs (presumably with red necks) wandering around making sure everyone was sufficiently homophobic. You didn’t need that. All you had to do was pay attention to those around you, and mimic how they acted. And in that town, at that time, being gay was an insult. In other words, it was politically correct to be homophobic.

And yet in parts of Los Angeles, only a few hundred miles south of Clovis, calling someone a faggot would earn you stares, and social rebuke. Everyone spoke the same language as they did in Clovis, wore (for the most part) the same clothes, but judging by the billboards it was such a different town that it might as well be another country. Just like in Clovis, there were no jack-booted things (presumably in pink satin with shirts reading “fag” on the front) wandering around keeping the PC standards in place. There were just people with slightly differing expectations of social intercourse.

And that the important point here. The lines were drawn by the people. It was the people who chose what was acceptable and what wasn’t. And it was the people who enforced these unwritten rules. There were no signs, there was no way to tell, except by close observation, but there were some places where “faggot” was an insult, and other places were it was only used for irony.

So yeah, for those that don’t know, there are places in the US that have been staked out by homosexuals. Again, they don’t rove the block in well-appointed gangs, but they do enforce their own community standards, and if you happen to cross those standards you can expect to get in trouble.

Which leads me to Phil Robertson, the guy from the show Duck Dynasty. Much ink has been spilled lately over his words in an interview, and his subsequent firing, and rehiring. I don’t have a lot to add to any of what has been said except to say, “so what?” I disagree with his expressed opinion, but I’m also old enough to understand that there and many people who feel the way he does. As a gay friend of mine said, “my skin is thick enough for the Phil Robertson’s of the world.” Indeed, it is.

But in the brouhaha over this incident, I’ve also read a lot about the gays taking over, and making everything PC. I don’t see that either. I think there’s another explanation, a simpler one. One which has the benefit of being easier to prove.

Much like that part of West Hollywood I mentioned, earlier, the city of LA has its own moral code. And while there are places which are exceptions to this rule, most of LA frowns upon homophobia. This goes double for what they call in this town “The Industry”, which is short for the entertainment industry. There’s a reason for this, and it shouldn’t be a surprise for any one near my age.

We all grew up with that special guy in high school who maybe liked musicals a little too much, hung around the drama club, or spoke in a high voice. Or maybe it was that gal who was a bit large for her size and excelled at sports, or wore here hair a little too short. We all knew people like this. You can’t escape this experience in high school. The point is not that these people exist, but what happened to them after high school. You see, a lot of them left their home towns, and moved to the big city. LA, NY, SF, and the like. Places where they would feel more at home, where they’d fit in. Places where knowing all the words to every Rodgers and Hart musical made you a star, not someone to be scorned.

And when these self same people moved to the big city, they needed to get jobs, because, well all those fancy close and trendy haircuts aren’t cheap. Amiright? And have you ever priced a good interior designer? OMG!

So where I work, meaning advertising for The Industry, probably one quarter to one third of the men I work with are gay. Maybe one quarter of the women are as well. Not enough to organize into squads in pink jack-boots, but enough that calling someone a faggot could very easily cost you your job, and would certainly earn you rebuke. Again, this may not be your social standards, but they are mine. They’re not enforced by thugs, but they are enforced all the same.

And this is where I think Phil Robertson caught so much hell. From what I can tell, Phil was merely expressing his own social values, values that honestly come from the place that he lives. Unfortunately for Phil, he doesn’t just work where he lives. A large percent of the people who work to make his show a success live in towns like mine, with social rules like mine. And this, I think, is where the people at A&E got mad. Phil had crossed one of their lines, crossed the unwritten contract that says, “that shalt not act the bigot, unless its against conservative politicians.” In short, he was an outsider who crossed the wrong line, and said faggot when he should have said, Republican.

This, I believe, is an easy mistake to make. Phil can rightly believe his show is an invention of his social structure, and not that of Hollywood’s or New York’s. After all, it is almost entirely shot on location, isn’t it? Except…except, its not just a show from his duck hunting swamps. Its also a show that is edited, advertised, sold, and distributed by people living in gay friendly cities. Moreover, I think Phil should know this too.

Perhaps he does. Perhaps Phil was just doing the red-neck version of using controversy to increase his value right when it was time to renegotiate his salary with the network. Personally, I hope this is the case. I would rather think of Phil Robertson as being calculating and shrewd than your garden variety bigot. But whatever he thinks, I doubt he’ll cross this line again. Or as the old adage goes, “Don’t shit where you eat.” Phil may work in the swamps of Louisiana, but his paycheck comes from an office in New York. And the odds are very likely that his paycheck was cut, ironically, by a faggot.

And that, I think, is the best irony of all.

Scrooge is in the House!

I’m about to rant here. If you don’t want to see it, look away.

There’s a WestJet commercial going around FaceBook featuring an elaborate set-up where passengers are asked what they want for Xmas, and then their wishes are fulfilled when they land at their destination. Everyone is wearing blue hats and such. Even the old fart himself, Santa, makes an appearance.

All of this is great except for two things. 1) Its a commercial for an airline. Granted its a smart one, a perfect ad champaign that is well suited for both the holiday and the internet, and 2) This is not a celebration of life, caring, or even happiness. Its a straight up selling of consumerism, albeit dressed up in a fancy blue outfit.

Perhaps I’m old fashioned, perhaps I am WAY off base, but I always thought the gift aspect of Xmas was a way to acknowledge family and friends. You give gifts to those you wish to express a “thank you” to. Sure giving gifts to random strangers is nice, especially if they have a genuine need–I mean nothing say Merry Christmas like giving a legless veteran a wheel chair–but these were not “needy” people, they were regular Joes. In fact one could say they were probably all fairly well off as airline travel is still one of the marks of middle class. You want to help the needy, go to your local bus station. They’re not hard to spot, believe me.

Moreover, they didn’t deserve these gifts. Had they done something–some charity event, helped the poor, worked in a food line at the local YMCA, anything–I’d feel different. But these people got gifts solely because they were at the right place and the right time.

So what we have here are needless gifts being given to a few (relatively) rich strangers for doing nothing. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t strike me as Christmas. That strikes me as rampant consumerism. Apparently nothing says merry Christmas than an over extended credit card.

How about for Christmasy stuff we celebrate, caring. We celebrate giving, especially to the needy or to family and friends. We celebrate the hard work of others, especially the unsung heroes who make all of our lives better. But most of all, lets celebrate the love that we see in each other. Not the happiness we get when we’re given yet another large screen TV.

And I’m not even going to touch the religious aspect except to say that if Christmas is supposed to be about the birth of the Christ, then let us celebrate it with all the joy, reverence, and respect such an occasion deserves.

 

For far too long Xmas has looked like an episode of “The Price is Right”. Lets put an end to this crap.

A fist full of ideas

I was going over my computer, cleaning things up while I was waiting for a very large file to upload, and I noticed my writing program (Nisus Writer Express) had about 20 files open. Part of the way I work is to leave open files of stories or ideas so that I run across them every time I start the program. As a system its a bit chaotic, but its helps me remember the odd idea. But 20 is a bit more than I need, and it was starting to clog up my screen space. So I started going through them, and you know what? There’s some really cool ideas on my computer just waiting for me to have time to flesh them out. Like a time traveling princess who becomes an ambassador, or the geek guy whose first date with a hot girl ends with piles of dead zombies. Its funny how quickly I forget.

I’m still working on my middle grade novel, Order the Goddess of Small Machines. I got in a few chapters yesterday. I’m up to 17 I think. I doubt it will get over 25, so I’m on the home stretch. Alas, rereading the beginning the other day proved to me that the first few chapters need some serious clean-up. Once I get through that I’m thinking of putting it up here a chapter at a time. What do you think?

A letter to Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook

I wrote this letter after my recent experience with the repair of my computer. What do you think the odds are of him responding?

 

Mr. Cook,

I recently had my 2011 iMac repaired at a couple of your Apple stores this month, and I thought you should hear of my experience. The staff at the Glendale, and the Grove stores (both in southern California) are friendly, helpful, considerate, and kind. My every interaction with them was excellent. Really. So good job there. Alas, when it came to actually repairing my computer, the service was terrible.

 

The first store I took my computer to (Glendale) was able to accurately diagnose and repair the problem (A faulty video card and Logic board), and do this a reasonable amount of time. That is until the tech damaged a part (the ambient temp sensor cable) which required an additional 5 days to be shipped and installed. None of this was explained to me when I called after 5 days asking about my computer. Over the phone I was told again and again it was “almost” ready. This went on for 4 days. It was only when I showed up in person that I learned what had happened. Had someone told me, I would have been happy to come in and take my machine, returning it when the part had arrived, since the temp sensor is not critical to daily use. Sadly, I was not given this option.

 

Then, when I brought my iMac home from the Glendale store I discovered that the audio output from the headphone jack was damaged, apparently as a part of the repair. Rather than trusting my computer to the same store again, I decided to try the Grove store as it is close to a client of mine. Much like my first experience, the employees at the Grove store were helpful and friendly. They even let me come back to the store a few hours later and download some files I had forgotten. But when it came to the actual repair, they were a no show. I dropped the computer off first thing Monday morning. When I called on Friday evening, I was told they hadn’t even started yet. And this was to fix a mistake caused by one of your own techs. It was at that point that I decided I was through with your service.

 

The computer now sits on my desk, unrepaired.

 

But I didn’t write you to complain. That was just the backstory. Here’s what I wanted to tell you. All of this is greatly unnecessary. You guys sell very good products, and your personal service is truly outstanding. Its just went a computer goes behind the Genius Bar that your service sucks. If I may be so bold, allow me to make a few suggestions:

 

  1. Remember that us users form relationships with our computers. We not only use them, we rely upon them. Having them gone, even for a little bit, is worrisome. A bit like leaving a pet for surgery. So when we leave our computers in your store, we are trusting them to your care. Be worthy of that trust. 
  2. Keep it personal, all the time. As it stands, when a computer is left for repair it is put in a queue, and all contact with the customer is lost. Why not do the opposite? Assign each repair to a tech, and have them contact the customer while they are doing the repair. Texting would do, FaceTime would be even better. Anything to keep the experience personal. This is, after all, what you guys excel at. 
  3. When your stores make a mistake, prioritize the repair. Expecting a customer to go an additional 3-5 days without their computer for a mistake caused by your staff is grossly unprofessional. 
  4. Your store’s standard repair time of 3-5 days is onerous and unnecessary. How would you feel if you had to go 3-5 days without your phone or your computer? Most of us “little guys” do not have the excellent staff you have, and cannot afford the money or time to rent a computer while our main rig is in for repair. Hire more staff. Train them well. You do want us using your products, right? You gain from our dependance, right? Well, back it up then. 
  5. Don’t overlook the little guy. I run a tiny business, a sole-proprietorship. Even though I’ve been using Apple computers since 1988, you are never going to hear of me. My needs are not large enough to for something like your Joint Venture program. It’s just not cost effective. It would be nice if your stores didn’t treat me, and others like me, like we were insignificant.

A question about Latin

First of all, I’m not anything like a Latin scholar. I took several years of Ancient Greek in college, but never Latin. However, I’ve been reading the most wonderful book about language in general called The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language by John McWhorter, and from that I’ve been learning some things about how languages work. So when a buddy of mine emailed me a question about the Latin text of a song, wanting to know why it’s spelling kept changing so much, I was able to answer him with just a little bit of on-line research.

 

Here is his question:
This text (in Latin) is from the Roman Catholic Requiem Mass:


Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in aeternum, quia pius es. Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis
,

“May everlasting light shine upon them, O Lord, with thy saints in eternity, for thou art merciful. Grant them eternal rest, O Lord, and may everlasting light shine upon them.”

In this text there are these words: aeternum and aeternam.

What’s the difference(s)?

If you could explain it to me in a more plain English…I and particularly my wife would appreciate it very much.
 

Here is my answer:

I’m not all that good at Latin, but I think I know enough to answer this particular question.

The word Aeternus is the Latin adjective that means eternal, or without end. In fact, the word eternal in English is a direct descendant from aeternus. If you say them both fast, they sound similar.

As to why the word aeternus is spelled three different ways (aeterna, aeternum, and aeternam) in the same paragraph, that takes a bit to explain.

See, in many languages, like English, the way you tell what the words are doing in a sentence is by their order. Usually the order is subject, verb, object, although some languages do their order differently.

Take the sentence:  The girl ate a sandwich.

The subject (the person doing the action) is the girl. The verb (the action) is ate, and the object (the thing being acted upon, in this case, being ate) is the sandwich. When you read this sentence you know it is about a girl, eating a sandwich.

But what happens if you rearrange the word order? What if you write: A sandwich ate the girl.

Uh, oh. Those are the same words, but it means something completely different from the first sentence, at least in English.

As it happens there are some other languages, like Latin and Greek, that solve this word order problem differently. What Latin and Greek do is add a suffix to the end of the words so the listener (or reader) knows what is being done to who, regardless of the word order. So in Latin you could write:

The girl ate a sandwich.
A sandwich ate the girl
Ate the girl a sandwich.
A sandwich the girl ate.

And they would all mean the same thing (a girl eating a sandwich) as long as you used the proper suffixes for each of the words. In each case girl would get the subject suffix, ate would get the subject suffix as well (so you know its the girl doing the action), and sandwich would get the object suffix.
This is a neat trick for a language. Among other things it makes it easy to write long epic poems because the author is free of the limitations of word order when writing. They can rearrange the words to work best (in terms of rhyme and meter) without worrying about word order. But its also a bit of a pain for non-native speakers because you have to memorize all the proper suffixes so you can follow what is going on.

Another thing Latin and Greek do, they add a suffix the end of their adjectives so the listener can tell what nouns they are modifying. Other languages, like English, uses word order to accomplish the same thing. So in English if I write:

 

The pretty girl owns a car

You would know that the word pretty applies to the girl.  Change the sentence to:

 

The girl owns a pretty car

And now its the car that is pretty, not the girl. But again, like we saw before, in Latin and Greek you can rearrange the word order all you want, as long as the proper suffix is placed on the adjective so that the word pretty matches the ending of its subject.

One more thing, before we dig into the sentence. Many times in a language, an adjective will be so handy that eventually it starts to get used as a noun. Most languages have a way of taking adjectives and converting them into nouns for just this reason. Usually by changing their spelling. As it happens English does this the same way Latin and Greek do, by adding a suffix to the end of the adjective. Thus the adjective happy, because the noun happiness, by putting –ness on the end. In the same way forgetful becomes forgetfulness.

As you can probably guess, Latin and Greek not only adds a suffix, but they also change the spelling of it to indicate what they are modifying. Roughly the same thing as English, just slightly more complicated.

So now, lets go back to that Latin sentence.

Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in aeternum, quia pius es. Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis.

The first use of Aeternus comes at the beginning with aeterna. Here its an adjective modifying the noun Lux (or light) which also happens to be the subject of the sentence, hence the –a ending.  The second time the word shows up as aeternum with the –um suffix. This suffix tells us the word is now a noun. So, instead of the adjective, eternal, it is the noun meaning eternalness. The third time the word shows up, aeternam, its back to the adjective form, only this time its modifying the object of the sentence instead of the subject like above. In this case its modifying the word requiem, meaning rest. Thus the –am ending.

So the same adjective, used three different ways. Once modifying the subject, once as a noun, and once modifying the object.

There’s more to it than this, but I think this gives you a good idea of why the word is spelled so differently.

The inadvertent racist

I am not the hero of this story. Not even close. But its a true story all the same. This really happened.

I was coming home from work.
I was standing on the Expo line platform at La Cienega and Jefferson. The station there is elevated a good 30-40 feet above the traffic below. It offers a nice view of the lights of Culver City, especially at night. Its also a short block away from a Sees Candy factory/shop. When the wind is right you can smell them making chocolates.

A young african-American man approached me and stood nearby.
He looked to be in his late 20s. My height. Well groomed. He had on slacks, a long-sleeve button down shirt, and a tie. A coat as well, but I can’t recall exactly what kind. Not a suit jacket, more like a trench coat or a rain coat. It was dark, and cold (what people on the East Coast would call cool). The elevated station not only offers a excellent view, but it also exposes you to the on-shore breeze, the Pacific Ocean being only a few miles away. It was cold enough people were wearing gloves, stamping their feet, moving around, and standing instead of sitting on the concrete benches. So we stood.

I was dressed like a person of privilege.
I don’t recall exactly what I was wearing, but this is how I dress for work. Jeans and a fitted t-shirt. On warmed days, tan dockers, but more than likely it was jeans. The t-shirt was colored, and might have been long-sleeved. I buy them at Target because they’re cheap, and because they look good on me. I was probably wearing my skating jacket which is bicycling jacket: comfortable, lightweight, stuffs into a small pouch, is 100% synthetic, and is amazingly warm. The jacket looks like something a cyclist would wear on a windy day because that is precisely why it was made. It was a gift from my in-laws, is the perfect coat for anything but a serious downpour, and is easily hauled around in my back-pack.

All this to say I was dressed like a person who doesn’t give a damn about how they dress. That’s because I don’t. My day job is being an artist, a pixel-pusher, a photoshop expert. A great job for people who like to dress like they don’t give a damn. My outfit has evolved to this point as being the perfect blend of comfort, ease of use while skating, and just professional enough to give the appearance of confidence. As such my outfit is strictly utilitarian; clothes I put on to accomplish the task at hand, and nothing more. The uniform of a slightly socially awkward artist.

But its also important to point out I dress this way because I don’t have to dress better. No one expects me to prove my worth based on my dress. Quite the opposite in fact. No one has ever questioned my value to society based solely upon my clothing. Or at least not since I was in college. And it would be considered rude for someone to do so. Its not something I ever have to worry about.

We started talking.
Possibly because he was friendly, but more than likely because I like to talk to strangers. I try not to be too pushy, but almost anyone will engage in casual conversation. “Sure is cold tonight,” that sort of thing.

I asked what he did for a living.
I do this with everyone. Its a great way to get a stranger to talk about something they’re comfortable with. Since I collect stories, like some people collect butterflies, I use this question, among others, as a method of exploration; a way to dig deeper. Everybody has good stories tucked inside somewhere, and I am shameless in my hunt for them. Up until a friend posted something on Facebook, I didn’t realize that asking someone this particular question has another meaning in the black community.

He told me to “guess.”
I thought this a funny response, a bit like a girl who is flirting with you might want you to guess her age. Only we were definitely not flirting. So I looked at his outfit, at the way he carried himself, noted the other passengers (remember I ride the train and busses all the time, so I’m familiar with the clientele), and took a wild guess.

“Are you a security guard?” I asked.

“I work in a bank,” he said. “As a loan officer.”

He may have said something more about his job. He may have not actually been a loan officer. I don’t recall. All I remember is that he worked in a bank, and not just as a teller.

He was angry after that.
Not sneering angry, not growling angry, not “ball up a fist and punch someone” angry. Nothing so overt. It was more subtle than that. More of a “slight tightening of the jaw” angry.  That, and he all but stopped talking with me.

I won’t pretend to be the most observant guy in the room, but I can tell when someone is done talking with you. They turn a shoulder. Ignore the next question. Don’t say or waive goodbye. They are done. Period. And this guy was done.

He walked far away to another entrance to get on the train.
That is to say, he made it very clear he wasn’t going to sit near me. Now I talk to people all the time on the bus and train, like I mentioned before, so I’ve learned a thing or two. I knew our conversation was over, and I had a pretty good sense the man was angry at me, but at the time what I didn’t get was why. I didn’t know if I had done or said something wrong, or if he was over-reacting. He didn’t have any of the signs of mental illness (I know, I talk to those kind of people all the time), and there was nothing about the conversation that I could see that would make someone upset. Sure I had guessed wrong at his occupation, but so what? I mean he asked me to guess. He could have just told me what he did, and we could have gone on from there. Hell, I would have loved to talk to him about his job. I’ve never worked in a bank, and I could easy have asked a hundred questions. Everything from, “do you still keep banker’s hours,” to “do you get any play with the ladies?”

He probably went home thinking, “what a racist asshole.”
He probably was right.

So that’s the story. Now, I’m going to turn the conversation over, and try to present it from his point of view. He was coming home from work. He was dressed well, dressed better than 95% of the people at the station. He works in Culver CIty which could mean anything, but probably meant he worked at a bank in the nice part of town–and the nice part of Culver CIty could give Beverly Hills a run for its money. He stood for his train, and was approached by an old white guy who dressed like a bum. They talked for a bit, and then the old gut started pestering him about his job.

I’m going to stop here for a moment because I want to talk about this specific topic. Its worth mentioning because its possible the white people in the room might not get all that is going on here. I know I didn’t at the time, so feel free to go to school on my mistake.

There are rules about how society functions. These rules are not written down, nor are they in a real sense enforced, yet they do exist, and they do come into play in public. For instance, if you are out in public late in the morning on a school day, and you see a couple of pre-teens out on the street, you will probably note them, especially if you are a parent. A child out of school sticks out. If you’re a teacher, you will probably say something to them. Anything from, “How’s if going,” to “Aren’t you suppose to be in school?” If you know the kids personally, you definitely will say something to them. “Billy Jones. Does your mother know you aren’t in school?”

There are two things to this example that are important. The first is that perfect strangers in public, who normally do not talk to each other, will speak out at kids who they think should be in school (whether they need to be in school or not, as my friends who have have home-schooled their kids will tell you). Its a social function. A protection. The social equivalent of white blood cells attaching themselves to a virus. Its not done to attack the kid as much as to preserve a perceived order; in this case having kids in school where they belong.

The second important thing about this example is that the person speaking will do so from a perceived place of authority. A kid on the street on a school day will not be enough for most people to overcome their natural inclination to not speak to strangers. But if that person is a parent, they will have more of an emotional stake in the issue, especially if they have kids near that age. They understand deeply what a kid out of school means. For a teacher, this is doubly true. They have first hand experience with kids and their motivations. They also have, what my sister (a long standing middle school science teacher) calls “the voice”. In others words, they know how to be effective. And if the stranger actually knows one of the children and their family, they will almost certainly say something.

In each of these cases, the person doing the talking is doing so from a place of authority. They know something, or feel something and are compelled to act. They do this from a place of privilege. This is what privilege means, having a raised point in a social experience.

So this social system, this method by which people of privilege speak out in public to correct a perceived flaw, also happens to be the very same method by which racism is carried out, and perceived racial divides are maintained. The equivalent of weeding in the racist garden.

I think most of my readers can imagine themselves in the dim dark past, out in a small town somewhere deep in the south, and see how white strangers might have have asked a black person what they were doing out on the street in the middle of the day. Especially during the time of slavery, where free blacks were as rare as kids not needing to be in school. This is what I like to think of as “safe” racism. Its somewhere deep in the past, doesn’t involve us, and doesn’t match or present social context. I mean, after all, no one today would ask a black person what they are doing out on the streets, right?

Well yes and no. You see, I don’t see white people doing anything of the sort, and as a general rule they don’t. But what they actually do is not all that different from it. If you’re like me, you probably won’t notice until its pointed out to you, but these kinds of things often still go on. All you have to do is ask enough people of color. They’ll tell you.

Go to a university and see how often the black students are asked, “are you here on scholarship?” compared to how often the white students are asked. Go around your neighborhood, especially a nice neighborhood, and see how many times a black person is asked, “do you live around here?” compared to a white person. Or go on a public train platform and see how many black men are asked, “what do you do for a living?” compared to the white men. If you are white, and confronted with these questions it doesn’t bother you because the questions will be few and far between, and the answers do not reflect poorly on you. But what if you got asked these things all of the time? What does it mean when every white person you see, even the well meaning ones, ask you the same questions over and over? And why these particular questions?

Are these questions just a part of the friendly banter between strangers in public, or are they analogous to the, “aren’t you supposed to be in school?”? If you’ve only experienced these questions once or twice, I’d guess the former, but if you hear them more often, they start to look an awful lot like the latter.

Which is how I accidentally ended up a racist. See I wasn’t trying to subtly tell this young man he didn’t belong in my world of white privilege, I was genuinely curious what he did for a living. Only its hard to tell sometimes the polite question from the pointed, and intent–as any competent trial lawyer will tell you–is damn hard to prove, and easy to mistake. Asking a young black man if he has a job (which is probably how he took my question) is no joke. The unemployment rate for men of color, especially young men, is incredibly high. Only a few short times since the 1960s has it dropped below twice as high as white unemployment. I’ll say it again. The average is more than twice as high.

So if I had had to work twice as hard to find a good job, and then was bugged about it by someone who looked as if he had been handed their job on a silver platter, I can imagine I would be a little bit testy. Because men, especially young men, often measure their self-worth by their jobs and the money they make, this is a topic that is rife for misunderstanding and hurt feelings. Few things can make a man feel insecure faster than questioning his financial virility. This is true for men of any color.

Since that day I’ve learned to by more circumspect. I’ve learned that if someone talks about their work as being “a little of this and a little of that,” what they are really saying is either they’re unemployed, or they don’t want to talk about their work. Older men tend to be more sanguine about this, then the younger ones. They’ve found other ways to measure their own value to society instead of, or in addition to, making money. But it wasn’t until my friend posted something on facebook the other day that I realized I needed to find a different topic to bring up, or find a more socially acceptable way of asking. That, or I needed to acknowledge that my current style of questioning could end up with me being labeled a racist asshole. Again.

Aztecs react to…

Trevor and I went for a walk tonight, and because its its favorite topic right now, we talked about military tactics in history. He’s been playing the Total War game series, which allows you to general various armies and go head-to-head with them or to fight against the A.I. At some point we started talking about the Native Americans in general and specifically about the Aztecs. Most people understand that when the Aztecs ran across Cortes they simply did not have the military technology to compete. But what most people do understand is they didn’t have the right ideas either. Cortez and the Spanish not only had a huge weapon advantage over the Aztecs, but the also had an idea advantage.

For instance the Aztec fought a kind warfare that was significantly different form the Spanish. They didn’t even have the same goals. Aztecs fought wars to gain people for sacrifices. To them killing was completely secondary, and killing too much actually counter productive. So a typical Aztec victorious battle would mean ganging up on a neighboring tribe, killing enough of them so they quit, picking 10-20 people of that tribe for sacrifice, and making sure you got 20 more people each year.

Now counter this against the Spanish. Their idea of a victorious battle would start with killing so many of the other guys that you either were to exhausted to kill any more, or they ran away. For them, killing was the goal. It was why you went to war. And a vanquished enemy didn’t just pay you tribute every year, you went and took EVERYTHING from him.

Mind you, the Aztecs were not stupid. Not even primitive. They just had never come across certain ideas about war and warfare before, and it was their inexperience with these ideas that proved to be so fatal. Well that and small pox.

Anyway, it was while we were talking about this, about the native American Indians having the largest WTF experience in history, that Trevor suggested he’d like to see the look on the Aztecs faces when they got charged for the first time by Egyptian chariots.

And that’s when he came up with the idea for a tv show: Aztecs React To…. Every week the Aztecs face a new enemy. Every week its pretty much the same results, Well not quite. The Aztecs really did kick ass, for armies in their area. Pound for pound they were certainly tough.

So we went from Aztecs React To Egyptian Chariots, to
Aztecs React To A Roman fighting square, to
Aztecs React To Napoleon’s Army, to
Aztecs React To modern day U.S. Marines, to
Aztecs React To the 50 cal machine gun, to
Aztecs React To the M1 Abrams tank, to
Aztecs React To Apache Helicopters, to

I think you can see where this was going. Soon it was time for bed.