The rights of office products

Spending time recently in Paris, where smoking isn’t nearly as taboo as it is here, got me reminiscing back to when the “smoking wars” in New York had not yet been so decisively won by the non-smokers.

Today, of course, it would be unthinkable for a Manhattanite to light up a cigarette in the work place. Alarms would go off, authorities would be called, the perpetrator would be held up for public shaming.

In Paris they have similar rules, but the emotions around those rules are not so intense. Workers there must also go outside to smoke, but there seems to be far less social stigma attached to the process.

So I found myself thinking back to an incident about twenty years ago here at NYU. In those days you were allowed to smoke in the privacy of your office, as long as you kept the door closed. Smokers were very protective of this option — they considered it a question of individual rights.

Smokers and non-smokers managed an uneasy coexistence under those rules, until one evening when people noticed smoke billowing out of an office window. The building was evacuated, and the fire department was called. When the firemen emerged sometime later, they reported that somebody had dropped a still-lit cigarette into a wastebasket, and the papers had eventually begun to smolder and smoke.

A flurry of email activity ensued. An administrator sent out an announcement to the department explaining what had happened, and giving a stern warning about the dangers of smoking. The tide was clearly turning against the smokers.

I’ve never been a smoker, but I couldn’t help harboring a grudging admiration for their spunk, their insistence on the primacy of individual rights. So I sent out to the department a short and somewhat politically incorrect email in response.

“What’s the problem?” I asked. “The wastebasket was smoking in its own office.”

Conservation laws

The last few days I got a tremendous amount of work done, and I figured I was on a roll. I made lists of next things to do, started to organize for the next big push, and generally geared up for a really productive weekend.

And then something funny happened — funny but not totally surprising. My mind pushed back. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t turn today into a work day. Instead I found myself hanging out, reading the paper, doing the crossword, watching the occasional silly TV episode.

Something in my mind was, it seems, forcing me to take a day off, to put in some down time, kick back, relax, whatever.

At first it seemed a bit frustrating. “Hey,” I said to myself, “come on, we’re on a roll here. Just keep on moving, write that code, take that hill!”

But it was not to be. And eventually I realized that there was a good reason for it all. There seems to be some sort of conservation law at work here — a kind of optimal balance between up time and down time. Unless I make room from time to time to just chill, I can’t approach the sort of work I’m doing with the right mind set.

OK, glad we got that out of the way. Now it’s time to go back to my TV show…

Commercial shock

In recent years I’ve been watching all my television on Netflix. Which means it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen TV commercials.

This evening, visiting someone’s house, I found myself in a room where television is delivered with commercial interruptions. And I found myself going through some pretty extreme culture shock.

It’s not that TV commercials are loud. That part’s ok. It’s that they are so incredibly stupid. And I find myself wondering, is there some implicit assumption that we, the people presumably watching these commercials, are also stupid?

When you see TV ads without being used to them, the whole experience comes across as insulting and offensive. Although I could see, if you were to watch commercial television all the time, how you might develop an immunity.

And then, I suppose, maybe it would be ok.

Counting by twos

For many years now, certainly since I was about twelve years old, I have counted by twos in my head. It’s something I do without really thinking, so second nature that I don’t generally notice that I am doing it, like an earworm that one has lived with for decades.

I only count up to the first twenty powers of two, and for some reason I have no interest in anything beyond that. Maybe something in my mind just wants to get up to a million, and then says “Ok, that’s enough.”

It’s always the same sequence of course: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 512288, 1048576.

I think this may be something my mind does to reduce anxiety. If I am stuck on a subway, or waiting at an appointment for someone who is late, I will find myself running up the powers of two.

That’s only a theory — I really don’t know for sure why my mind does this. But I can say from experience that it is quite relaxing.

Mess-o-metrics

I am thinking of conducting a scientific experiment. The general plan would be to track the varying states of messiness of my office and apartment, over the course of days, weeks, months and years, and correlate that result with my general state of productivity — or lack thereof.

This is a true scientific experiment because I genuinely don’t know what I will discover, although I have various hypotheses:

Hypothesis I: I am more productive when I am keeping things neat and tidy, because those are the times when I “have it all together”.

Hypothesis II: I am more productive when the place is total chaos because that is when my creative juices are flowing.

Hypothesis III: I am more productive when things are neat because those are the only times when I can actually find anything.

Hypothesis IV: I am more productive when everything is a mess because I throw myself into my work to compensate for feelings of mess-induced guilt.

I would like to think that Hypothesis I or II is the most accurate, but deep down I fear that Hypothesis III or IV might correlate better with the available data. ;-(

Agendas

I have been having a great time watching Sense8 on Netflix. It’s a terrific concept for science fiction, and the way it is executed is very original and thought provoking, and often quite funny (at one point they even do a riff on classic Marx Brothers material).

I was curious to see what others thought, so I went to the comments section on IMDB. I was surprised to see a sort of war going on there. It seems that some of the commenters didn’t like it because, they said, it promotes an LGBT agenda.

I hadn’t noticed that, so I started watching more carefully. And I became a bit confused, because nowhere in the episodes I saw (I’ve watched about half of them so far), does anyone who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or transexual ever denigrate or attempt to influence anyone else’s sexual orientation.

So I started wondering — what exactly constitutes an agenda? Is it simple existence? If I am black, am I promoting a black agenda? If I am Jewish, am I therefore promoting a Jewish agenda? If I am Italian, does that mean that I am promoting an Italian agenda?

And if that’s true, then what exactly would I need to do, as a black, Jewish or Italian person, to not be promoting a black or Jewish or Italian agenda?

Home key

Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
    This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart has ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
    From wandering on a foreign strand?

— “The Lay of the Last Minstrel,” Canto VI., Sir Walter Scott

I am realizing that it’s not just that I am glad to be home, after a glorious and wonderful trip abroad. It’s more that I find my mind returned to its fundamental key after wandering about the chromatic wilds of foreign lands and places.

As I write this I am listening to Yuja Wang play Prokofiev #2, which I suppose explains those three musical references. In any case, you get the idea.

Waking up in the morning, reading the Times, doing the Crossword, making that first coffee in my little Bialetti. These sound like mere rituals, yet apparently parts of my soul have become tangled up with them.

This is me at home, rather than me visiting, and it seems that those are not the same. No, not the same at all.

A Titanic plot twist

Today I departed my beloved Paris, betraying her for my one true love — New York City. To fill the time during the long journey home, I watched in-flight movies.

Appropriately enough, one of these films was The Titanic, which I had not watched since its original theatrical release. For those of you who have just arrived from another planet, this was the epic James Cameron movie, about the eponymous maritime disaster, that broke all box office records in 1997. It also happened to be about a voyage from Europe to NYC, which made it perfect viewing for the trip across the Atlantic.

The movie was actually quite a bit better than I remembered. This time around, knowing everything that was about to happen, I could really appreciate its extremely sturdy dramatic structure.

One short scene in particular — when the two young lovers run in slow motion through the fires of the boiler room in the bowels of the ship — jumped out at me in a way it hadn’t the first time around. At that moment Cameron is using purely cinematic language to raise the story of Rose and Jack to the level of myth, as though Dante had written sections of the Inferno as a RomCom.

But the thing that really struck me, just as it did the first time around, was how the two young lovers end up precipitating the tragedy. So in a sense, it was actually their fault that all those people died.

In particular, the ship’s look-out at first misses the approaching iceberg because he is having too much fun watching young Rose and Jack cavorting on the deck. Therefore he delays reporting the impending collision by crucial seconds, and the ship just misses turning away in time. The rest is history.

Do you think Cameron was deliberately making the two adorable young lovers the cause of the Titanic disaster? Or is that giving him too much credit for conceptual hijinks?

Holiday greetings

Many years ago I invited my friend Michael Ferraro to my parents’ house for Passover.

As you might have guessed from his family name, Michael isn’t Jewish. In fact, as it turned out, he was very happy to be asked, but he was also quite nervous about the whole thing, not knowing very much about Judaism. I think he was worried that he would say or do something wrong or inappropriate.

My parents, being very wonderful and loving people, didn’t care at all about his cultural orientation. They were just happy to meet a friend of mine and welcome him into their home.

When the day came, and Michael showed up at the house, my mother came to the door to ask him in, with my father just behind. I could see that Michael looked a little nervous, trying to think of just the right thing to say.

Finally, apparently groping for just the right words, he exclaimed “Good Lentils!”

My parents both cracked up. It was, I think, the funniest thing they had heard in a long time. From that moment on, they completely adored him, and the entire evening went very well.