San Fran Speak

Being a teacher in San Francisco, I spend the vast majority of my day around the city's teenagers. For many of you, this may sound like a scenario taken from the 6th concentric circle of Hell. But I love it, as the old adage is indeed true: you inevitably end up learning as much from your kids as you're able to teach them. This can often be as inspiring as it is unsettling, but, every once and a while, it's also hilarious. For instance, consider the 'urban Cali slang' my kids have been throwing around as of late. Growing up back east, we had terms like "dirty" (impressive), "sweet" (awesome) and "hooking up," (any sort of promiscuous behavior beyond kissing but short of sex (sometimes)) that left my own parents clueless. But these seem to stretch their relation to codified English even further. But see for yourself, I've listed a few recent favorites:


Hella - (adv) very much, increasingly so - "That burrito was hella good."
A California standard for a number of years, though worth mentioning due to its continuing relevance within the dialect.

Devastating - (trans verb) overwhelming, dominant - "That guy lit the place up with his devastating moves on the court."
An intentional expansion of the standard definition.

Sav - (adj) revolutionary, wild, attractive, stylish - "Oh my god, those pumps that J-Lo keeps wearing are totally sav."
Short for 'savage,' it expands the term's definition to connote strong primal and sexual undertones. I was recently made aware that "'sav' is in 2006 what 'fetch' was in 2004."

Cutty- (adj) dubious, shady, suspicious - "Cutty bounce, cutty bounce!"
Both obtuse in meaning and abstract in application, 'cutty' is a modification of the word 'cut,' meaning 'ghetto' or 'hood'. In the applied example above, such a phrase would be employed as a call to flight after being caught by an authoritarian figure in the act of something illicit or illegal.

Succa Free- (unknown) unknown - "Succa Free is betta than D.C."
Though employed regularly, no one seems to actually known what this term really means. One student explained to me that it was vaguely synonymous with the city of San Francisco as a whole, as "the first letter in each word spells it out clear." Can a 'succa' really be 'free' in San Francisco? All attempts at grasping deeper social commentary have proved futile.


Please feel free to post your own contributions. Urban Dictionary is always a great place to check out, as well.

The $35 Billion Storm

"Just when we are about to get 'ocean front' property you want us to sell?!"

That's my father, responding to an e-mail I sent him today suggesting he sell his house on a barrier beach in Eastern Long Island. (We're on the canal side of the barrier island, thus the dark humor.) The story that prompted my e-mail suggests that 2006 may hold a greater than normal chance of a major hurricane making landfall in the Northeast.

I'm a solid-earth geoscientist, so I don't have too much perspective on how reliable the prediction is for increased probability of a 1938-like hurricane. I can say that Long Island's congressman, Rep. Tim Bishop, was more concerned about everyday beach erosion than full-scale hurricane disaster when I met with him this summer. Perhaps hurricanes are more on the minds of Long Island politicians (and residents) since Katrina?

Judging by the damages in Eastern Long Island from the 1938 hurricane, I hope people are paying attention. Total damages in Long Island and New England from the 1938 hurricane were $6 billion in today's dollars. If the same hurricane were to pass through the area today, damages would be about $35 billion. That's a big number.

The Inevitable Conflict? Civil War in Reconstruction-era Iraq.

After another horrific day of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad (see Reprisal Killings Leave 87 Dead Throughout Baghdad and Scores of Bodies Found in Baghdad), one's thoughts cannot help but turn to the imminent possibility of Civil War in Reconstruction-era Iraq. Seeing as how I currently live thousands of miles from this developing issue (not to mention the fact that I've never even set foot in the Middle East), I am reduced to piecing together what semi-impartial information I can, setting it out on the table in front of me and pondering the scenario as a cold, sterile grouping of facts. I'll spare you my hopelessly shortsighted conclusions in favor of a few general remarks...

I find it infinitely depressing that the current tensions in Iraq aren't even remotely founded in the major issues of ideological conflict throughout the greater Islamic word. I'm referring to the crisis of identity that Islam is experiencing as it struggles to acclimate to pressures exerted by both cultural change over time and the encroaching modern world. At the risk of gross over-simplification, it is that age-old debate taken up by all established doctrines at one point or another: to follow the word, or spirit of its founders.

Sitting here at the computer, it is both horrible and fascinating to "watch this struggle from the sidelines," so to speak. One can't help but marvel at how essential burgeoning media forms are in Islam's current debate as they were in the age of Johann Guttenberg and the Protestant Reformation. As Middle Eastern media giant Al-Jazeera spins for both sides in an effort to play to the center, websites such as Islaam: Pure and Clear (be sure to poke around the "Monthly Focus" section), Annaqed ("The Critic") and Salafi Publications disseminate wildly disparate views on the past, present and future of Islam. A comparison between the hard-line, fundamentalist views of Shaikh Abu Usaamah Saleem's The Current State of the Muslim World and the liberal, bordering on reactionary, stance of Dr. Wafa Sultan in a recent Al-Jazeera TV debate says it all.

And yet the current violence is not a physical manifestation of this debate, so vital to the growth and continued relevance of Islam, but the product of deep-seated sectarian/denominational hatred (I would even argue that the term "ethnic hatred" could apply in most cases, as the lines between religion and cultural heritage are often so tenuous within Islamic cultures). Yes, Iraq is an "artificial state" drawn up (literally) in the aftermath of World War One, and its diverse makeup is, and will always be, a dominant factor in its success as a social and political entity. But is Civil War a foregone conclusion? History offers instances of both peaceful and violent resolutions of internal division within artificial (or expansionist) states. While the people of Poland and South Africa found common ground through largely non-violent means, considerably more blood was spilt as countries like the United Kingdom and Rwanda fought for their identities.

Can we draw lessons from such historical precedent? Certainly, both Poland and South Africa were ultimately able to find common ground against a shared entity from without (Communist Russia; the imperial remnants of Apartheid). It has recently been the feeling among many historians that an external threat is not only favorable to Nationalistic unity, but utterly essential (see Linda Colley's Britons: Forging the Nation, for one). With this in mind, perhaps the only thing now holding Iraq together is a shared hatred amongst both Sunni and Shiite of the American-led "occupation." Nonetheless, the idea of a democratic Iraq still gives me hope (God help me, I'm beginning to sound like Bush). Hope that the multi-ethnic, multi-denominational "Iraqi" hodgepodge will come to understand that a modern democracy, when run correctly, provides the fairest possible platform for such a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational body. Hope that from this common foundation, and within these established social and political structures, the Iraqi people can begin to "lawfully" distill the essence of Islam in the 21st century, and perhaps even lead their implacable Middle Eastern neighbors along the way.

"Can Network Theory Thwart Terrorists?"

Did you catch this John: NY Times Idea Lab, 3.12.06?
Really interesting stuff...

Was this blog post written 13.7 billion years ago?

"Take free will. Everything I know about physics and neuroscience tells me it's a myth. But I need that illusion to get out of bed in the morning. Of all the durable and necessary creations of atoms, the evolution of the illusion of the self and of free will are perhaps the most miraculous. That belief is necessary to my survival."

From Tuesday's Science Times, see here.

I had a real existential crisis the summer after my junior year in high school. I was attending New Jersey's Governor's School in Science and taking a course on the philosophy of science. I realized that if the universe was a deterministic physical system, then my next action was dependent only on the precise arrangement of the atoms (and subatomic particles) in my body and the system with which I was interacting. Tracing this back to the Big Bang, I reasoned that I had no free will, and all of my actions were predetermined 13.7 billion years ago.

Since it is difficult to function as a human being while thinking about these kind of things on a daily basis, I have mostly chosen to ignore the subject and act as if I had free will. Moreover, many scientists, philosophers, and the like I've talked to over the past few years also seem to have avoided confronting this question.

Obviously I'm not an expert on the philosophy of physics, free will, or consciousness, but I wonder whether it even matters (for our daily lives, at least) if the universe is a deterministic system. Is all that matters that we perceive the existence of free will? I need to read more on these subjects, although I fear extreme disillusionment if I pursue the questions to the end.

UPDATE: Tyler Cowen's alter ego Tyrone writes today about free will. Is the influence of East Meets West spreading? Sadly our Sitemeter stats indicate that Ned and I are pretty much the only visitors to this blog, with a few friends, family, and Facebook profile viewers trickling in. Perhaps this is some sort of synchronicity, which astute readers of my rambling oeuvre will recall I've discussed before.

Thoughts on Scientology and California

A few Fridays ago I was up in the city with my girlfriend. We had a little time to kill before dinner, and noticed a branch of the Church of Scientology across the street from the restaurant. Out in front was a well-dressed twenty-something man trying to get passers-by to come in for an open house that night. We gazed at each other and both had the same devilish look on our faces, "Why not?"

I know very little about Scientology, so this post isn't going to be some major criticism of the organization; you can find plenty of that here and as (almost) always a good overview is at Wikipedia.

Inside the building were at least a dozen men and women dressed in matching clean black suits and white shirts. The main floor looked like a nicely designed corporate office; I wouldn't consider it spiritually evocative by any means. We were greeted and then encouraged to read a museum-quality display about the life and times of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology.

After a good ten minutes of reading quietly about Hubbard, we ventured over to areas which described the main programs of Scientology: Dianetics, Auditing, Purification, etc. None of the descriptions told us how these programs actually worked; vague platitudes reigned. There was a video running that had testimonials of New York police officers and firefighters describing how a Scientology seminar had helped them recover from emotional trauma after 9/11.

Eventually a middle-aged woman began talk to me after I started investigating a tabletop device covered in dials and numbers. She explained that this was an E-Meter, and asked if I would like a demonstration. Always up for interesting experiences, I jumped at the opportunity. Holding two hollow metal cylinders in my hands, the woman prompted me to start thinking about people in my life while she played with the dials. When the needle on the E-Meter jumped wildly every so often, she explained that I must be thinking about people who were causing stress in my life. I nodded, and chose not to explain back to her that I was thinking about nothing of the sort, and was mostly wondering whether this machine was going to shock me and how I'd get out of there before they forced me to buy something. Upon further investigation, the needle on the E-Meter seemed to jump whenever I squeezed it hard; perhaps the theory is that you squeeze harder when you're thinking about something stressful? The machine looked liked it cost about $3.72 to have a small child build in some dark electronics factory in China; the fact that they sell it for almost $5000 blows my mind.

After my encounter with the E-Meter I filled out a survey about my time at the open house. I wrote with all earnestness that I was impressed with how professional and nice everyone seemed. Later, my girlfriend admonished me for including our real address on the form. I have heard nothing from them yet; perhaps the fact that I simply left mid-conservation while they were trying to sell me a copy of Dianetics indicated to them I wasn't serious? I left by myself however, puzzled to find that I was not followed out by said girlfriend. Calling her on her cellphone a minute later apparently interrupted the attempt to sell her a $100 book/CD/DVD set for a special $50 value, and we whisked away to a pleasant dinner across the street.

Reflecting later upon the experience, I was really quite saddened by the whole thing. All the people we met were very kind (albeit a few were a little off), and probably became involved in the organization looking for answers to their questions or help with their problems. Scientology takes advantage of this neediness by selling them products and offering dubious spiritual services. Yes, some criticize all religions for being cults, but if you've every actually talked to a priest, minister, rabbi, or whoever of a mainstream religion or been involved in their services it's not hard to distinguish regular religion from a cult.

Back to the title of this post, is California a hotbed of Scientology and other cult-like organizations? I haven't done extensive research, but California stereotypes (e.g. needy and rich Hollywood people, see Scientology's Celebrity Centers) and a few examples (Heaven's Gate in Rancho Santa Fe, the People's Temple in SF and LA, Charles Manson in the Haight) may give some credence to the claim. The mayor of San Francisco has even been cavorting recently with a celebrity Scientology practitioner.

So I don't think I'll be converting to Scientology anytime soon, but if anyone ever sees me offerring "Free Stress Tests" or selling copies of Dianetics at the local mall, feel free to throw a cold bucket of water on me. I'll need it.

UPDATE: Watch the controversial South Park Scientology episode here.

Eleven Ways to Say Snow

Hark back, if you will dear reader, to those glorious days spent in the Spartan one-room school house of our now-distant youth. Troll long enough, and you will no doubt stumble across a profound remembrance set in or around a 2nd grade Social Studies class. Yes, I am referring to that piece of ubiquitous jnana bestowed upon each of us so early in life: "Eskimos have eleven different words for snow." I recently checked back on the veracity of this claim and, after a bit of research, dug up the eleven words - or more accurately their "lexeme" roots - translated from the Inuit syllabary into our Roman characters. They are as follows:

quanuk - 'snowflake'

kaneq - 'frost'

kanevvluk - 'fine snow/rain particles'

natquik - 'drifting particles'

nevluk - 'clinging particles'

aniu - 'fallen snow on the ground'

muruaneq - 'soft, deep fallen snow on the ground' (skier's powder)

qetrar - 'crust on fallen snow'

qanisqineq - 'fallen snow floating on water'

qengaruk - 'snow bank'

navcaq - 'snow cornice, snow (formation) about to collapse'

------

"The eyes see only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." - Henri Bergson

My first (and probably last) artistic inspiration

The idea:

Create an important painting (preferably beautiful) in a traditional, realistic style. Make it as non-abstract as possible. Cover the canvas in monochrome, thus completely obscuring what's been done. Display in gallery. Have others praise brilliance.

Thoughts:

Has no one done this? My blog partner as art history expert shall let me know. I'm obviously aware of others who've worked in monochrome, but has anyone used monochrome in this way before? Perhaps performance art has included destruction of art itself?

Existential questions I think my painting adresses:

Does the work that I've covered up no longer exist? Can art that is not seen still be beautiful? What is the relation between the viewer and the work of art? Do I even need to paint the original realistic scene? Is it enough to just say I've done it, and let those looking at my blank canvas imagine how beautiful it is? Are there any patrons out there who would give me a large cash advance to bring this idea to fruition?

The Introverts

"Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?"

If you do know someone who fits the above, they are likely an introvert, says Jonathan Rauch. See here for the original article and here for a recent interview.

I used to think I was shy, but now I think I have a streak of introversion.

Via Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution.

Just a thought about Hollywood...

Ever since television stiff-armed its way into the entertainment industry in the 1950's, it has always been the equivalent of a second class citizen. The very same Hollywood that had been shunned by American "society" as unforgivably parvenu, that retreated from the east coast establishment to a no-name town in southern California had finally found a "middling sort". It was a classic case of the 6th grade loser fighting his way up the social ladder by mercilessly picking on the new kid in class, and a fascinating example of the fabricated emergence of a hierarchical society in the 20th century. And so it has remained for the past fifty years: you have the silver screen and you have sitcoms. I won't even mention soaps - scum of the industry caste, wretched troglodytes... you might as well be in pornography.

Yet I couldn't help but notice the wonderful irony of the industry pecking order at this year's Academy Awards. Let us keep in mind, the Oscars are the very pinnacle of the Hollywood year. Put on by one of the oldest trade establishments in the film industry, to win an Oscar is far more than just recognition of superior skill, it is to be knighted as an aristocrat amongst aristocrats. [As an aside, the New York Times recently ran a hilarious article on the absurdities of "Oscar Week Etiquette" that gives a sense of just how socially crucial this yearly ritual really is.]

This said, has anyone else noticed how enslaved the Oscars ceremony has become to television? The evening kicks into gear with the often-obnoxious, but decidedly obligatory, Red Carpet interviews, where the biggest names in Hollywood actually interrupt their hard-won traipsing (which is ENTIRELY different from strolling, I might add) to have a seemingly friendly chat with some of the most vile personalities in the business. Is this a case of magnanimous social charity - the shire's nobility tossing a few oily shillings into the gutter? With 60 millions viewers worldwide, I don't think the actors much care which way you spin it. Once inside, the host takes the stage and delivers his much-anticipated monologue directly to the television camera, making the quivering fear in John Stewart's eyes last night particularly palpable to those of us hundreds of miles away. And finally, as the awards show fulfills its prolonged course, the nail-biting action on and off the stage is periodically halted for commercial breaks! This being the case, last night Hollywood visionary Ang Lee had to wait on an advertisement for Bounty to claim his Oscar for Best Director and ascend the year's throne.

From scenes of Hogarthian Caricature to the Academy Awards...

You Get What You Ask For

Last night I posted links to my Facebook.com analysis and Ned's reply on my Facebook profile. In a superb example of Coase's Theorem, the number of pictures of me currently on Facebook has almost doubled, and there are actual visitors to this blog other than me and Ned.

(For a geologist, I really am an economics dork: Coase's theorem says that in the absence of transaction costs an externality will be efficiently corrected through bargaining. In this case, the plea I posted on this website was sufficient to convice others to post more photos of me online, thus fixing the original externality. No subsidies, taxes, or regulations needed.)

While Ned has correctly theorized that "windswept hair and a dynamic smile" is the norm for self-posted pictures, regrettably (for me, at least) the same is not true of pictures posted by others. In the two new pictures of me online, not only am I sporting the "freshman 15" that I put on for some reason during my junior year, but I am in fact shirtless and offensively pale. As per the title of the post, I guess I got what I asked for. (I do assure dear readers and friends out there that the active Bay Area lifestyle has returned me at least partially to fighting shape.)

Nevertheless, I will use my embarrassment at this turn of events to comment on an important consideration for all twenty-something hipsters out there: image.

In terms of the Facebook, image creation is actually quite easy. All you have to do is post a cool picture, create a sufficiently ironic profile, and friend the proper number of people such that you are popular but not trying so hard that you have 400 friends.

However, with the advent of photo posting this past fall, an important aspect of image creation is now left in the hands of others in the community. Anyone out there who is so inclined can post a picture of me. An unflattering pose can be instantly viewed by hundreds of judging friends, classmates, and profile browsers. Some thoughts on this:

1. The Facebook wisely includes veto power over posted pictures. I can't get the pictures removed (well, perhaps I could complain if they are egregiously ugly), but I can remove a tag that identifies me as a subject in the picture. How ugly must the picture of me be before I'm willing to remove myself? One obviously needs to balance the offense the friend who posted the photo will feel with the damage to one's image that the ugly picture has caused.

2. The cost-benefit function to one's image from online photos is not symmetric. The gain from a great picture is less than the damage from an ugly picture.

3. Posted photos are likely to be taken in generally flattering situations (parties, formals, vacations, etc.), which is helpful for image creation. It is likely that the inequities from the previous point will be balanced out. Thus, the sum of all pictures posted online are likely to affect one's image in the correct way. If you're a dork, you're going to have more dorky pictures. If you're cool, you're going to have more cool pictures.

4. Are Facebook users by definition unhip? Ned might have a better perspective on this living in San Francisco.

5. One's online image is increasingly important. Among some MMORPG players, their online persona has eclipsed their real one. The virtual John will not play on the scout team.

6. I think I am probably equating a good image too closely with popularity or beauty. "Image" is certainly more than a good facebook or myspace profile, but an online presence is undoubtedly becoming more important overall.

So how to manage one's online photo presence? Ned told me back in high school that confidence was the key to getting girls. Wise advice certainly, not the least for relationships. Thus I remain confident that my image is stronger than a few unflattering photos. But I have hedged my bets with a striking new main photo for my Facebook profile.