Thursday, August 28, 2008

Unchaperoned

(I wrote this in a hotel room in Albuquerque in the middle of the night.)

What began as an excuse, a sympathetic ruse we constructed to convince our parents to let us, both eighteen, drive unaccompanied from Durango, Colorado to Los Angeles, California, soon became the trip’s true reason, the only force that held the gas pedal down and kept us moving forward.  I was there for “emotional support,” a role that overshadowed my previous position the night before, during our first night alone together. The memory of the shameless, ecstatic night, flashing back as we walked down the hospital’s glowing corridors, stung with guilt that held us to a more sober, grave, adult manner than we had been able to manage then.

At the time we had been dating thirteen months, somewhat casually and sporadically, with far more affection than devotion. That fall his best friend was in an accident in California, a motorcycle collision, and they told us back home he would be fine after a few months in rehab. Nathan sent a few emails, in the optimistic tone of denial all guys adopt during hard times. They discussed sports, the nurses at the hospital, and next year’s professors, all with a too-cheery overtone of confidence that Ben would pull through just fine.

That summer things took a bizarre turn for the worse, courtesy of an undetected injury to the brain that had waited, latent, until the weather cooled. On August twelfth, Ben’s mom called Nathan with the news. On August fourteenth, we announced to our parents that we were taking a road trip up to see Ben. What went unsaid was that it would be for the last time. I barely understood why I was going.  Though both of us vaguely recognized the space in Nathan’s life that was about to empty, that I would be called on to fill, it was the allure of an unchaperoned trip that drew me. It was from this hazy knowledge that we formulated our story, a reason poignant enough to override parental concerns. I knew Ben as well as a girlfriend can know her boyfriend’s best friend – from parties, occasional double dates, stories Nathan would tell about growing up. He was there when Nathan learned to swim at five, when he saw his first dirty movie at eleven, when they got caught smuggling alcohol from Ben’s uncle’s trailer at sixteen. I went not because I felt an obligation to visit Ben but because I felt an obligation to Nathan and to my own young sexuality. Our imminent departures for separate universities whispered another unspoken knowledge - we may never get another chance.

On August sixteenth we were walking back down the hospital’s hallway, having left Ben (Ben having left Ben already), feeling painfully our immature callousness in the exploitation of the situation. The night before, when this shame started to unfurl its barbed arms, Nathan whispered, “Ben would have wanted it.” I went along, imagining the two of them high-fiving the next morning. And so the shame retreated back into the shells of our minds, waiting for its next opening, as we took advantage of its absence and of our hotel room, of its distance from every worried parent and brain-dead friend, of its thick comforter and thicker darkness.

But the guilt returned, and we, having no excuses left, were forced to bear its weight along with the awareness that for both of us, the memories of our first night together and Ben and Nathan’s last day together would be forever entangled. The anonymous, thickly covered hotel bed melted into Ben’s clipboard-adorned, thin hospital bed. Ambient lighting from the streetlight outside our window became the blinding glare of fluorescent lights off white tiling. Our sighs and laughs and gasps gave way to Ben’s fragile breaths moving rhythmically through tubes. Where we stopped moving and rocking together, Nathan was in the arms of Ben’s mother, shaking, leaning. Then, I was “Love,” but the woman who would always be “Mrs. Elaine” to Nathan held him now, with none of the girlish confusion I had behaved with then and felt again, a weak stranger with no place in the scene.

I had never seen Nathan cry before, never seen him lean on anyone with such need and desperation. I realized then that my given role on the trip was both my most important one and one I could never fulfill. He turned from Elaine, straightening up from her shoulder, and I reached for his hand with a pathetic futility. He took it, though – the ineffective seeming otherwise with no other option in sight. 

Monday, August 25, 2008

Give 'Em The Old Razzle-Dazzle (or, what's not unfucked-up about drug marketing)

Being sick is not nice. People who help us not be sick are generally regarded as pretty nice. One of JF's buddies put it very poetically when he said that hospitals work to "unfuck people up".
But not everything about the medical establishment is wonderfully unfucked. Take, for instance, drug marketing, advertising, and PR.
This commercial is absurd. There are four things going on - the visuals with cute girls and bright balloons; the fast catchy music; the words at the bottom; and the voiceover. Try and focus on "serious complications" and "side effects may include" when you're watching pretty colored balloons, reading the words on them/at the bottom of the screen, and humming along to the song.  This commercial is almost a self-parody - admission of ridiculous amounts of risks, then desperate "but maybe you should still buy it anyway!" The extreme visual overload of text is representative of pharmaceutical marketing's three-ring circus of smokescreens, sparkles, and doublespeak masking lies and insatiable greed. In keeping with our theme of co-opted vulgarity, these commercials are what is commonly referred to as a "clusterfuck".
But wait! Not only does drug marketing employ showy, distracting sleight-of-hand, it also stigmatizes! Commercials for Abilify (a drug for bipolar disorder) show sufferers alone until they make the decision to take the drug, at which point they are walking and talking with other people. Because the mentally ill can't have meaningful, fulfilling, healthy relationships without Big Pharma helping them out. I can't find the commercials online, but their site contains this warning: Some medicines can increase suicidal thoughts and behaviors in children, teens, and young adults. Serious mental illnesses are themselves associated with an increase in the risk of suicide. When taking ABILIFY call your doctor right away if you have new or worsening mood symptoms, unusual changes in behavior, or thoughts of suicide. Patients and their caregivers should be especially observant for such symptoms within the first few months of treatment or after a change in dose.
So this could actually do the opposite of what it intends to do, but that's not their fault because these people are already messed up! Note how it says "patients and their caregivers" - not "patients or their caregivers" or "patients and their doctors" - implying that even medicated, bipolar people can't really be trusted to take care of themselves. To compare, the similar warnings on websites for Yaz and Celebrex say only "tell your doctor", with no third-person reference to "patients" or "caregivers", affording users more autonomy, responsibility and dignity. I also like the vague "some medicines" that distances the product from the warning. Soon we should be seeing food packaging saying "some food may contain nuts!" or laws like "some people shouldn't kill some other people."
Also, even with that stated risk, it does not say the drug should not be prescribed to teens/young adults, while both Yaz and Celebrex warn that "people with [condition] should not" take them. I'm not exactly sure what to make of this - is psychiatry not enough of a concrete science for these risks to be valid enough? Do we care less about taking risks with the health of young mentally ill people? Is mental illness seen as a "worse" or "more devastating" condition that makes the risk more worth it? What the fuck?
Pfizer also cares more about money than those silly crazy folk, defending their new lucrative anti-smoking drug Chantix and claiming it can still be prescribed to the mentally ill even though it has been linked to mania/depression. (Research credit Furious Seasons.) This mirrors the longer-running issue hinted at above - legal and medical cases established a link between SSRIs (anti-depression meds) and suicide in young people and yet the drug companies (including Pfizer, who makes Zoloft) didn't stop marketing them for adolescent use. All the FDA did was slap a black-box warning on them, allowing Big Pharma to effectively "fuck over" kids and their families for money.
Recommended reading: 

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Apparently I Think With Lots of Dashes

While packing to leave, I came across one of the many tiny little notebooks I carry around in my purse to write down whatever thought, observation, eavesdropped quote or other notes that need immediate recording. Thought you guys might be interested in the ephemera of me processing the outside world. Also, I'd really like to put off packing for a little while longer and have been too busy to write real stuff for CI. Here are some of the little things I decided to jot down.  
The Spiral Staircase: Karen Armstrong 
Jeremiah 29:22 
The lie that tells a truth 
status: high/low/liquid 
breathing (speech) 
counterpoints; for (left arrow) find (right arrow) 
prismacolor markers
Natalie Goldberg: writing down the bones/wild mind 
raya - purple 
blue crabs - mate once in their life :( 
whisper disks 
"the last time you dressed me up to take me somewhere I ended up with more back-handed compliments than you could think of, and herpes." 
when she is not in love 
glass and brick
the most beautiful world is a world entered through imagination (Helen Keller)
something else 
Godless man-oriented city v. nature - good 
forgot to see the sky
Alice Flaherty
gets caught - "waiting for appointment" - uses name from last building
Sabaduria - knowledge 
pigeons 
camera - herself, flash, city - beeps until love throws away 
ice (cubes) 
Appellate practice for the MD lawyer 
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it (Twain)
"I lied about my age once at airport security and am afraid they have it on file somewhere" 
motivation - confident
black gothic spires (europe)
speaks big, wants longs seeks to be heard, grabs your shoulders and shakes, talks too close to your face
Tao te Ching - #11
thunder heartbeat
backwards/upside-down O
people walking - NOT ants
a cycle of wrongs, everyone gets hurt by the system set in place to help them Switchfoot - Stars - track one 
they came right for you.
Creativity, like human life, begins in darkness (Julia Cameron) 
Non c'e amore piu sincero di quello de cibo 
caffienated kiss 
Erik Erikson Identity
Madagascar 120 million years
leo Nisseras
light - only 1/2 reflection; melts into city
hope is a waking dream (Aristotle)
you can't copy it like rhinestones
can you feel the life in the air where you are?
midnight thoughts demanding

Monday, August 18, 2008

Lost in the Rye

(Alternate titles for this post: Lord of the Lies, The Bell Cookie Jar. I'm a nerd. Also, sorry about missing last Thursday's update. Getting ready to leave for college is somewhat time-consuming, what with all the packing, friend-seeing and freaking out I have to do.)
Edit: Apparently the AZ Republic doesn't leave articles up online for very long. Sorry, guys. I had an intro that commented on an article about advice for kids who get "teased" but it has since been taken down. I'm too busy and decided not to write a new intro, so here, have half an essay.
Children and adults don't relate at all. They are essentially two completely alien cultures. Children are incredibly complex, and they construct an entire sub-society complete with its own laws, law enforcement, hierarchy of power, caste system, and economy. Psychology Today recently featured Jill Price (also known in psych literature as "AJ"), a woman who remembers every moment of her life starting around age 8. She has now become an administrator at a k-7 school and says "a child lives in a world that adults left long ago. My memory has made me acutely conscious of that disconnect."
Freud described children as the ultimate expression of the id, and this is true. Children do not embody ignorance or innocence, but are full-fledged humans equipped with all the base, bare impulses and desires inherent to humanity. What they lack is the social and intellectual capabilities to understand the consequences of their impulses or the cultural restrictions placed on them, and therefore are not equipped with the desire or the capacity to validate or rationalize them. When adults want to avoid or "pick on" someone different, they come up with complex rationalization - the economy, the preservation of culture, fear of crime, past experience, etc. When children do so, it is a simple and individual decision with no ostensible greater purpose. Most adults don't realize that children can be seen as undiluted humanity rather than underdeveloped humanity. In them we can observe every beautiful and ugly thing that human behavior can offer, without all the extraneous trappings of adult civilization. When adults want others to feel the same way as them, they introduce religion, politics, or statistics - but a child smashing a friend's Batman toy because Superman is better is only a small-scale version of the Crusades. When adults give to charity, they claim tax breaks and write memoirs about it, but children simply act on the desire to give without thinking about or around it. Adults are essentially watered down children in this respect.
Children are not little, uncivilized adults, however. They see and understand the world differently, constructing social and internal realities completely foreign to almost everyone beyond puberty. What older people perceive as fickle friendships are in fact cunning manipulation and psychological warfare. We believe that children have imbalanced or nonexistent priorities without considering that the importance they place on seemingly insignificant objects or events might have a real origin and meaning. Imaginary fantasy worlds are not daydreams but an integral part of their reality. Adults would do well to wonder why children's minds seem so eager to leave, alter or block out this world. Is it that disorienting and difficult to be young here? Yes. Are children more acutely aware of the injustices and terrors of this world without the softening factors of rationalization, denial, and a sense of control? Yes, again.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Fashion

(SoCI: I've almost run through my buffer of archives and haven't been writing more because I've been busy with the novel, vacations, and getting ready for college. I'll try and keep the M-Th schedule but I can't guarantee anything about the quality of the posts until I settle in at college.)
I absolutely love this essay because it's one of those things that summarizes what you believe before you can; where you read it and realize "oh yeah, that's exactly how I feel"; where you are grateful that someone else managed to put it so eloquently and embarrassed that nobody helped you understand your own views this way before you made an idiot of yourself at the lunch table trying to explain your feelings about your friend Meg's Vogue magazine. Or at least it's that way for me. (Definitely check out the essay, but I am not responsible for the education you will receive poking around the rest of the publication/website. You have been warned.)
I've always viewed fashion as the black sheep of the visual art family. You've got the stately old grandparents, classical sculpture and oil painting, with their kids, the mostly-genteel sketching, photography, and watercolor. The grandkids got a little crazy - modern art, digital art, and abstract sculpture, but they're still part of the family. But little cousin fashion got caught up in a bad crowd, hanging out with advertising and pornography. Got hooked on money - sure the rest of the family uses it recreationally, but fashion's existence soon became almost entirely about sales and profits - and soon she was selling herself to the masses, obscenely accessible. She tries to fit in with the family, twisting museum walls into runways, but they still quietly whisper "oh, fashion? We stopped hearing from her a while ago" when company like ballet or literature comes to visit.
Visual self-representation is a tricky concept. People want other people to get the right impression immediately, and they want to present themselves the way they want to be perceived. We're acutely aware of the effects our clothes have on other people. All of the times I've done something bold along the lines of flirting with a strange boy and giving him my number, I've been wearing something that made me feel powerful (a slinky black dress, a suit, etc.) But once you admit that you dress to be understood, you open Pandora's closet of contradictions. 
Those who wish to dress as corporate-molded, fashion conscious divas assert their individuality by making that choice. Those who wish to dress as nonconformists demonstrate adherence to certain standards by imposing preconceived limits on their self-expression. Those who wish to dress as intimidating or rebellious must fit the exact stereotype that their intended targets understand. This means that it is impossible to "dress like" anything other than oneself, and that by striving for a certain image, we invalidate it. It's the Schroedinger's cat of visual expression. When we use something with a seemingly inherent meaning to mean what we want it to say, we pervert the purity of its symbolism. 
One thing fashion is really good at is the co-opting of visual and other aspects of culture and the piggybacking off of meanings while ripping them out of context. The skull motif, once used for its raw, violent imagery, now shows up on pink children's accessories from Target or Claire's, produced by the giant capitalist conglomerates that the skull's original wearers hated. What does it say about us as a culture when the idea of "fighting the man" becomes alluring in and of itself, allowing "the man" to profit from our love for anything "subversive"? The enemy adapts to create a space for your "rebellion," and the rebels snuggle cozily into that space rather than finding a real place to attack.
Which all raises the question of whether or not visual self-expression counts as a fight at all. In the 1960's, when the hippies were fighting for true social reform and a total upheaval of typical American life, then fashion that rebelled had a significant purpose. Long hair and bright colors on boys who in the 1950's wore almost exclusively crew cuts and white t-shirts demonstrated to the older generations in charge that things were changing and that the youth were living differently. But today, when most adults barely bat an eye at tattoos, piercing, or dyed hair, what purpose do these serve? Has the time come when fashion as social revolt is useless? I would argue, yes, for the most part. We cannot scare the establishment with our looks any longer. Clothing isn't a social commentary anymore, only a self-commentary. 
Recommended Reading (someone asked where I get these links to share, and it's one of two places: I either consulted them to research the essay they're included with, or they're links I saved for interesting value and are relevant to the essay):

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Rescue pt. 3

(This may be the last installment for a while; it needs a lot of work from here on out)

Inside was a mess. Staffers were racing everywhere, shouting into white headsets. I didn’t even have time to slip mine on before my supervisor rushed up to me. “Dump your duffel and get your ass into the West offices. I’ll be right there.” It took me a moment to mentally locate the West offices – other times, without all the higher-ups buzzing around creating an air of formality, we called them Sears.

He came into the West office main room soon after I did, followed by two of his supervisors. Both were high-ranking military officers, but the complex was a civilian-run operation for legal reasons, so they were referred to as supervisors. This annoyed them. The four of us sat around the round table I had eaten a microwave dinner at the night before and countless nights preceding.

One of the two military supervisors spoke. “We just need to ask you some questions about your shift last night. Something has happened that must be investigated immediately.”

I assumed an appropriate expression of confusion and concern.

“One of our inhabitants has been abducted by a radical cell of DC sympathizers. We have reason to believe she was closely involved with the group claiming responsibility for the incident.” He had his military stripes pinned to the sleeve of his white Department uniform, ironically against regulations.

I fought the urge to laugh at the inanely bureaucratic secrecy. I was to know no details, even though I had worked closely on that case prior to the incident. Very closely, as evidenced by her black eyes complementing the lighter tinge in my knuckles. I took a deep breath and waited for an invitation to speak.

Monday, August 4, 2008

We Only Care About Money, Inc.

It's nice to know where your money is going, and it's even nicer to know that your money is going to something charitable and is going to be spent on something you support. That's why people like recent Dove advertisements informing consumers that part of the money they spend on Dove products goes towards the "self-esteem fund," which runs programs aimed at helping young girls and young women see themselves as beautiful. The self-esteem fund identifies as its enemies the "impossibly perfect" women represented on magazine covers and advertisements.
Ads like these ones, for Axe body spray. It's a good thing money spent on Dove goes nowhere near the production of these ads, right? Except that isn't true. What a lot of people don't realize is that Dove and Axe are brands, not companies. One big organization, Unilever, makes both of them. The same people are financing the toxic ads and the efforts to undo their effects. I'm not the only person to realize this - someone parodied the Dove "Onslaught" commercial, replacing all of the perfect-woman images with clips from Axe commercials in this video.
It's no surprise that big companies lie about their mission and values to appeal to specific demographics. The website for the clothing chain Hot Topic states Just like with the whole alternative music thing, Hot Topic customers were drawn to the underground cartoon, cult movie and comic book scenes. It was a unique culture they could call their own, and it was difficult to find merchandise from these licenses. Hot Topic brought the world of South Park, Care Bears, Superman, SpongeBob SquarePants and lots of other pop icons into our stores. Last time I checked, "underground," "cult," "alternative" and "unique" scenes did not include "[licensed] merchandise" and "pop icons" from the country's biggest networks and syndicates. Hot Topic's slogan, "everything about the music," seeks to distance itself from the "sell-out" image and appeal to the rebellious, fight-the-man tendencies of young people - but it carries exclusively the products of large corporations and the symbols of mainstream American culture.
Hot Topic proved itself to be more about the money than the music or the "underground" ideals when it pulled TWLOHA t-shirts since they contained "religion" and "profanity." A chain that seems to pride itself on individuality and pushing against the mainstream gave up the opportunity to fight for free self-expression and instead caved to the demands of the offended - before the offended made any demands! The policy has apparently always been in place to forbid "religion" and "profanity" as a pre-emptive measure to prevent controversy. Yes, we're fighting the man and his corporate PC BS - in our own corporate PC BS way. Yet its customers continue to be deluded into thinking that money spent in Hot Topic stores supports an underground, unique, individualistic and anti-corporate business. The "Hot Topic Foundation" seeks to enable kids to express themselves in music, writing or other art forms, but one wonders how much censorship exists within the program to limit this expression. I can't find a "Mission Statement" or "Guidelines" of the program anywhere online that spell out rules and regulations, but I can't find the "no profanity or religion" thing either. Nothing says Power to the People like a lack of transparency and rules you don't know if you've broken until you break them!
I have no idea what's going on in theTV ads for a new FX show called "Sons of Anarchy" that show an American flag, right side up and not on fire, behind the title. The website for the show (strangely missing videos of the ads) says it's about a motorcycle gang, which I think is called Sons of Anarchy, with the goal of "ensuring that their simple, sheltered town of Charming, California remains exactly that." While I'm sure some brand of neo-anarchist could make the case that keeping a town sheltered and culturally self-sufficient is a sort of anarchy - letting the residents self-govern and isolating them from big government's influence - the imagery used in the ads seems to evoke more of the radical anarchy people think of; the type those on Zombietime advocate by wearing black and burning things down, and fighting for the destruction of everything that small-town/suburban life stands for. Maybe the show is intelligently and correctly probing the nuances of anarchy - referring to the men as "Sons of" to imply that they were influenced by its ideas but maybe not die-hard followers - but from the way it's being portrayed, it seems to me like it's trying to look "edgy" by piggybacking on misused ideas and symbolism.
Procter & Gamble is at least trying to get things right, though as a large company it's finding it easier to appeal to people's sense of charitable values than it is to actually carry them out. This commercial for the One Pack = One Vaccine campaign implies that P&G is about promoting global health. Unfortunately, it was named #52 in a list compiled by UMass of the Top US Corporate Air Polluters. Still, they at least appear to be working on this problem (pledging to reduce emissions 10% by 2012), which is more than I can say for Unilever or Hot Topic. Off topic but interesting: if anyone is interested in a sociological perspective on the Pampers commercial, Sociological Images has one here.
In related, happier WOCAM Inc. news, those who agreed with my post about drug companies giving free crap to doctors will be glad to hear that a new drug marketing code says that the presence of the swag implies an "unprofessional relationship" and effective in 2009, drug companies are prohibited from giving out these "reminder gifts" (creeeeepy phrase). Awesome! I'm really excited that so many others are taking notice and calling Big Pharma out on its shadiness that things are really starting to change. Reuters has the story here, and I'm so thrilled about it that I don't even feel like getting annoyed at the fact that such an issue is under "Oddly Enough" news.