Yesterday I moved out of both my parents’ houses. Everything I own is either in my apartment or in my car, with the exception of a crate of collectibles at my mom’s and my telescope at my dad’s. The collectibles I will be pricing and selling. The telescope I need back in my life. It was a weird experience, being permanently gone. Looking at my empty bedroom at my mom’s house was like…I don’t really know, but it was strange. It was also strange sifting through piles of old stuff — I found everything from the only pair of high heels I’d ever owned to a second-grade science fair poster.

My mom made me lunch and dinner. For lunch we had sandwiches with roasted chicken and Baconnaise — which she bought from QVC because she thought it was hilarious. (A word to the wise: it’s overpriced and kind of ooky, actually.) Occasionally I understand the stock that I come from. Over dinner, she told me an incredible story.

She was at the drug store the other day and was talking to this woman waiting in line in front of her. Apparently she had been home sick with something for a while and had a visiting nurse come to her home. Her chart had said explicitly that she was allergic to a certain kind of antibiotic. One day, the visiting nurse proceeded to give her an intravenous dose of that same antibiotic. She went into cardiac arrest, and according to her family members who were home, the nurse called 9-11, but didn’t start CPR.

When the paramedics got there she was flatlining, and they immediately started emergency CPR and got her into the ambulance. When they took her to the hospital they defibrillated her and she revived, but they thought she’d probably have severe brain damage because her brain had been cut off for minutes. Miraculously, three weeks later, there she is, standing in line at the drug store, telling the whole thing to my mom.

Do we ever really completely move out of anywhere?


On Death

30Jun09

Yesterday I made my scavenging pilgrimage to Shaman Drum Bookshop, whose last day of life in the incarnation that we know it is today. I might go back and see if I can’t get the Vice Photo Book for dirt cheap, but my first scavenging trip kind of left me feeling weird. I was happy to have found a stack of books that I really wanted/needed/discovered that I wanted/needed. In real life it would have cost me nearly $200, but as it is, all of them were 50% off. Yet that’s more money than I’ve spent at once in a bookshop, barring buying textbooks at the beginning of a semester, in…I think ever, actually.

I am sad to see Shaman Drum go. I have fond memories of it dating back from childhood, visiting Ann Arbor with my mom and squatting in the history section while she did…I have no idea what she did. It’s symptomatic of the state of publishing these days, raises questions for me about the future, and makes me all nostalgic and misty-eyed. I’ve heard a lot of people express the opposite sentiment: good riddance, what’s the point in mourning a dinosaur, or what have you. Maybe I’m just a nerd.

But the act of scavenging the basement backstock, spread out on all the shelves in the store in no particular order, finding books on philosophy and social media, I felt a little weird. I wonder if this is what it’s like to fight with your siblings over your parents’ will? I wondered as I sifted through the decimated Media & Film section. When I called up my mom today we talked about the inevitable legal battle over Michael Jackson’s estate and kids, and I can’t help but think about how people and institutions (or people who are institutions) have barely to breathe their last breath than we — people close to them, the public, the news media — are swooping down from where they’ve been circling, waiting. It makes me melancholy.


I’ve been shopping for a good commuter to get me through the winters in Buffalo. My apartment is, according to Google Maps, 8.5 miles from UB’s center for the arts. About 2 miles of this can be covered on the train. The other 6.5? I guess that’s up to me to find out. I’d like to do most of my commuting by bike — if I work the round trip time into my daily schedule from the start, I think it’ll be easier to stick to. It’ll keep me active during the cruddy winters, especially when most of my work is going to require me to be relatively sedentary.

I have three contenders, and I’d definitely welcome input from readers. There are pros and cons to each of these rides, but I think I’m leaning toward the Kona at the moment.

Jack’s old stumpjumper: I can buy this lovely repainted stumpjumper frame off my friend Jack for cheap. However, she might want to make this into a bike for herself. It would be sweet because it’s black with pink pinstriping. Sweet. I’d have to build it up though, and I’m notoriously bad at finishing bikes in a reasonable amount of time. Aluminum. I think. Price: depends on what components I buy for it.

Surly Karate Monkey: sweet because you can stick huge giant tires on it. Surly makes some solid commuter cycles, and it would be nice to have a ride that I could switch wheels out on for summer riding. I’m tending toward buying a complete bike because I need this thing to be a serious workhorse. Unfortunately, they don’t come in exactly my size — but there’s also seatpost adjustments for that, I guess. Also you can get a complete Karate Monkey in black. Cro-moly. Price: $1175.

Kona Jake: a widely well-reviewed cyclocross bike. I like the idea of having something lighter (in weight and in handling) than a mountain bike, and honestly, I don’t think I’ve ridden a mountain bike since I was in middle school. I don’t anticipate doing any hardcore offroad riding, but then again, cyclocross bikes are built for pretty brutal rides. Johnny has one and loves it. Cheaper than the Karate Monkey. At first I didn’t think I’d be able to put snow tires on this thing, but I’ve been reading reviews around the internet that you can, in fact, put studded tires on it. Win. On the other hand, I think I’d probably have to settle for a seatpost mounted rear rack. Aluminum. Price: $899.

Are there any other bikes out there I should be considering?


So I guess it turns out one of my Twitter updates got scooped up by an aggregator called “The Longest Poem in the World.” Which, I think, is cute. The whole thing is a little bit…boring. (Why write a long poem for the sake of writing a long poem? It’s sometimes vaguely humorous, but I think we have Texts From Last Night for hilarity in 140 characters or less. The only reason it’s a “poem” is that it rhymes.)

So I kind of figured I could think of something better. At the very least, more interesting. Or with some kind of pseudo-intellectual appeal. I don’t really want to write a program that aggregates Tweets and scans lines, but wouldn’t it be better if the Longest Poem in the World scanned lines instead of just matching rhyming words? I mean, I think at least then you wouldn’t be stuck with flat rhymes about being a Miley Cyrus fan and how high you are? I don’t know. We need some kind of standards here, man.

Any other, more clever ways to use a Twitter aggregator to write an endless poem?


Practice.

27May09

I’ve been struggling the past week or so with this short piece that I’ve been working on for a book.  I just can’t seem to write anything that comes out making any sense — or doesn’t sound totally grandiose and weird.  I really just want to write a few pages about where love belongs in the academy, and the role of forgiveness in learning — not just about social identity but about everything.  Maybe I’m trying to tell too complex a story.  This is a function of my reflection on the past few years, the fact that living in this town means the past knows where I sleep at night and can come bother me at all hours of the day.  I’d really like to spend some time away, take a vacation from myself.  It’s not to be.  Some parts of me wish there were more people here for me to be around, some parts really want to be alone with the task of reconstituting the most insane four years of my life so far in ways that make sense and are completely translatable into a series of vignettes and anecdotes.

Writing is, at the moment, being alone.  I am trying to write about the schism in my experience at Michigan between being a philosophy major and being a dialogue practitioner — the kinds of inconsistencies that I began to detect in my junior year and weren’t resolved until this past semester.  I am trying to write about how dialogic pedagogy doesn’t need to be reserved just for social justice education, and how what I learned about being an educator at Michigan is going to apply not just to my continuing education but also to my life.

I think that part of the reason radical pedagogy really resonated with me was because I had been feeling pretty alienated by a lot of things that go on at the university at large.  I disliked being asked to check my identity at the door, even though leaving behind “identity” didn’t mean that I wasn’t expected to answer prying questions about who (what?) I am/was/will be.  I was irked by the refusal to recognize the weight of human experiences and identities in society in the formulation of philosophical disciplines, especially ethics.  While I imagine it would be easy to chalk up a good deal of this to the fact I’ve been working in a heavily analytic department, but I notice it in other places, too.  On the other hand, I found anything that smacked of “applied philosophy” to be uninteresting and kind of petty.

What’s interesting is that in the past year I’ve been shown or been figuring out ways to use radical pedagogical models to teach subjects other than social justice education.  Working with Jennifer this past semester was kind of revelatory in this way — I discovered that the principles still held in her classroom.  Her transparency about her goals, plans, and pedagogical choices was refreshing.  I felt invested-in, challenged, and also supported and affirmed in ways that I generally don’t associate with academic coursework.  She’s also been very supportive of my own linking of my subject to a kind of Freirean praxis.  Maybe I am off on the right track.

On the other hand I’ve always been troubled by the lack of intellectual rigor in a lot of social justice education.  I think that intellectual rigor is really important to me not just because of my academic background but because I have always thought that way.  (I have been cleaning out my old bedroom at my mom’s house and reading some of my early philosophical writing and, damn, boi knows how to construct an argument.)  I dislike engaging with people who are unwilling to engage on the minimum level of not changing the premises of their argument spontaneously, fallacious lines of argument frustrate me to no end.  I resent skepticism about people who are well-educated, well-spoken, and well-read.  I don’t see why we can’t enjoy both rigor and love in our academic and social justice work.  This is another thing that I saw in action in Jennifer’s class.  For a while I didn’t think it was possible, but under the right circumstances it really allows people to flourish.

What I’m trying to write about is the path to an inclusive, supportive, but intellectually and personally challenging classroom.  I don’t think it is by any means easy, but I do think it’s possible.  Incredibly, there are people out there doing this kind of work already, but I don’t think they get the credit they deserve at all.  I also really want to write about how important it is to change the game in this way.  This is about institutional diversity at the broadest but also the most personal level.

I guess I didn’t realize until now how alienating I found a lot of the experiences I had my freshman and even my sophomore years at Michigan.  Not just in the typical ways, like campus housing and having to explain myself to faculty, but also in the sense that so many things didn’t make any sense to me, and I wasn’t allowed to work those things out.  I didn’t find out until years later why they didn’t make sense and I’m kind of angry — or maybe disappointed — about the whole situation.  It’s a lot of stuff for two or three pages, but I can’t seem to get past framing this in terms of education being an act of love.


One of the weirdest things about this summer is the process of removing myself from where I used to be.  Over the weekend, I went home and hung around to help my mom out post-surgery, and spent most of the time she was sleeping getting rid of stuff from my old room.  There is (was, but there still is, too) a lot of stuff there — accumulations of things I used to think were important, accumulations of memories, from middle school right up until the summer after high school graduation.  I can’t tell you how strange it is to read reflections on stuff I still think about from 16 year old me, because I knew so much less then.  But the difference between who I was then and who I am now is complicated and compound: it can’t just be reduced to school or better taste in music or actually being deeply in love with someone or nearly getting killed or solo road trips to Pittsburgh.  I guess it isn’t surprising but it was a great reminder that even when we feel stagnant we are always in motion — it’s part of how we are in the world.

Maybe I made a mistake purging so many relics of who I was from my life.  At the same time, I’m a little embarrassed, intellectually and personally, at some of the stuff I wrote.  I suppose that’s natural.  Yet more than most people I know, I have re-made myself in the past four years.  I barely recognize photographs of myself in high school.  And I do need to get rid of things, because I’m going to be moving a significant ways away, become truly financially independent, and, if I want, drop off the face of the earth for a while.

Sometimes I do want to forget what it was like when I was younger, sadder, and more confused.  At the same time it’s a bit like looking in a weird mirror.  I’m not a very sentimental person — I used to want to keep everything, but I can’t keep anything, and I’d rather remember it, I guess.  I hardly keep anything anymore.  Maybe I’ll regret it in twenty or thirty years, but at least I won’t need a whole truck to move.


killing denouement blogs about if and how we make the distinction between copyleft and anti-copyright.  There’s a difference, at least in my mind, and I think the distinction is an important one to make — and the questions of whether these two models can coexist, and in what contexts they are most useful to creative types and intellectuals, are important to ask.  There is some level of agreement, at least amongst makers and thinkers I spend time with, reading, and reading about, about the fact that copyright has become unsuitable for the networked age, but also that copyright may be unsuitable for creative growth with or without ubiqutious digital networks.  I think it’s quite clear that, at the very least, contemporary copyright law is kind of a dinosaur, whether or not you like the idea of “intellectual property” or no.

Being anti-copyright, to me, means you don’t believe in any kind of checks or requirements for re-use or adaptation of someone else’s work.  Being all about copyleft, on the other hand, is more about liking progressive copyright law that allows individual makers and thinkers to place their own requirements on how others can re-use or adapt their work.  Anti-copyright is about a standard of free use for all; copyleft vests some power in the creator to say what happens next, but encourages progressive ways of dealing with information as opposed to forcing people to pay each other to use ideas.  At its core, anti-copyright versus copyleft asks a fundamental metaethical question: who gets privileges over stuff after that stuff has been produced?

On a very basic level I don’t think that knowledge should be bought or sold, but at the same time I do know that I continue to be forced to operate in a system where ideas professionals — intellectuals, artists, writers, programmers, or whoever else you might think of — still have to put food on the table.  I hate these kinds of compromises and they’re more symptomatic of larger-scale problems than who owns ideas, but they’re something that has to be taken into account.  Fortunately, just because this is the status quo doesn’t mean there are other ways to feed your family if you’re an ideas professional that don’t include draconian copyright over your “intellectual property.”  Just because your job doesn’t produce stuff doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t benefit from the production of it — but then again, just because your job produces stuff doesn’t mean you own it.

I can see an argument based on the fact that completely free information is a public good, and that completely free information creates a better quality of life for more people.  The arguments for complete freedom of information are myriad: it has the potential to touch many people who might not have access in traditionally-controlled information environments; it’s more egalitarian; free information encourages creative innovation and collaboration; and it simply doesn’t make sense to try and regulate the exchange of information in a highly networked society.  I grant all this, but the question of who has privileges over what can be attributed to individual effort and labor still troubles me.

I think that people have a right to have some control over what they produce.  As a musician, for example, I think you have every right to say, “I don’t want you downloading my stuff from other fans.”  I might think you’re stupid for saying so, and even try and convince you that going after pirates isn’t the way to do business in the industry in this day and age, but I do want to afford you some control over the music you make.  I think it’s only fair: your effort and your creativity went into producing that music, it’s yours.  What you do with it is up to you, and it’s possible that you make the wrong choice in how you handle that right.

Which is a fundamental problem with copyright as we know it.  People’s choices are limited to: do nothing, let stuff propagate organically, or be draconian about your levels of control.  As far as I’m concerned that virtually isn’t even a choice. I think you should have even more choice over how things you produce get reproduced and distributed.

I do think being copyleft lets you make room for people who are stridently anti-copyright.  After all, if we let people make their own rules of use, some people might choose to let people take their ideas and run with them.  At the very least I think copyleft policy is useful because it creates an environment where people who are committed to progressive (or nonexistent) “intellectual property” rules can bend and customize as they see fit.  The main reason I consider myself a copyleftist and not anti-copyright is because I think if you make something, or have a part in making something, you have the right to some kind of control over it — and part of that control can be to decide that you no longer have control over it.


I’ve been re-reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed for May’s installment of Radical Book Club, and one thing that keeps striking me is how it’s understood that young people find the educational establishment to be part of “the enemy” in the text.  In fact, in the foreword to my edition, Richard Shaull writes, “the young perceive that their right to say their own word has been stolen from them, and that few things are more important than the struggle to win it back.  And they also realize that the educational system today — from kindergarten to university — is their enemy”  (New York, 2006: 34).

I’m conflicted about this idea.  I don’t think that the educational system is my enemy — at the very least, the educational system is a surmountable obstacle, or maybe a system of surmountable obstacles.  I’ve written before about my deep-seated reservations about entering academia as a research and teaching professional as well as a minority, but I also realize that there are few places in this world where I can fit in the way I can fit into a work and social environment quite like the academy.  And maybe it’s a testament to my ability to seek out and find communities that are more flexible, open-minded and critically aware on both a professional, personal and pedagogical level, but I get the feeling that the times are changing.

Yet I wonder if I would be saying these things if I hadn’t gotten involved in the Program on Intergroup Relations.  Looking back on the past four years, a lot of the people whose ideas and empathy I have valued the most I have met through IGR.  The bulk of the development of my critical consciousness — from a generalized sense of outrage and alienation when I arrived here to ideas coherent enough that I’m working on a small book about it — took place with other IGR folk, whether in class settings or while talking on our own.  Once you get that kind of process going, it’s hard to stop it.  I wonder if I would feel the same way about the philosophy department, or if I would just be more angry and in kind of a smoldering frustration that is hard to put a name to.  I certainly doubt I’d be able to put a name to the things that frustrate me about the philosophical discipline of ethics, for example.

It’s hard to say — because, just as Shaull turns around and immediately points out, “there is no such thing as a neutral educational process” (34).  So, at the very least, I was given the tools to examine the education that I was given under pretenses of neutrality.  The sanctification within the academy of IGR is a big step forward, and my experience with progressive professors like Jennifer Wenzel has made me hopeful that we can’t assume anything.  I don’t think that, as part of the educational system, these sorts of people constitute part of “the enemy.”  Moreover, I can imagine that applying progressive pedagogy to my teaching this fall will separate me from “the enemy,” as well.  I certainly don’t consider myself “the enemy,” and I hope I never do!


I’m officially a graduate of the University of Michigan.  This summer will be a summer of waiting — and I don’t have a problem with the waiting, but it also means that this summer will be more or less dictated by what I want to do and feel like doing.  Which means I need to be able to keep a schedule for myself, follow through with things, and make sure I don’t start sleeping all day and sitting up all night.

I’m doing pretty well so far, and I think that part of this self-structuring will include reporting on the things I’m up to and thinking about.  I realize I haven’t done anything to this blog for weeks, and it’s also time for a facelift, which will be coming soon, hopefully.

May’s book for Radical Book Club is Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  (I am thinking about teaching hands-on dialogic methods at Ann Arbor Free School this summer…thoughts?)  I am making a website for friend and wine rep Thomas Rapai.  I am watching my cat try and remove the screen from the window next to my computer.

I have had some disappointments lately, but things are going to get better.  You’ll see.


I’ve been a busy one lately, and I know it’s really not a very good excuse for not blogging, because if anything, I should be posting more because I’m always looking for something to do that isn’t what I’m supposed to be doing.  I haven’t been feeling ready to write anything lately, which is another kettle of fish entirely, but it is somewhat related to my preoccupation.

This past weekend was the University of Michigan Social Justice Conference.  I actually had a pretty good time, learned a great deal, and met some excellent humans.  It was a good space for me to meet some people I wouldn’t have met normally due to our different interests in different sectors of social justice, and while I don’t necessarily agree with everything they had to say, I think it was a good experience for me to get outside my IGR-insulated comfort zone.  I had a hard time with a lot of things, though, including the issue of diversity of groups and individuals involved.  For a conference examining community growth and coalition-building as well as personal development as activists, I felt very out-of-place and disconnected from much of the conference.  Like I said, I found the conference largely beneficial.

Yet I couldn’t shake the feeling of alienation.  I couldn’t help feeling isolated from time to time, like I was watching other people doing things.  It wasn’t until our breakout session when we brainstormed challenges for the future that I felt really connected to anybody else at the conference.  I think part of the root of this feeling was the acute knowledge of being regarded in a certain way because I was the only out transgender person at the conference.  The number of queer folk seemed pretty small in general, and the number of people of color was a bit disappointing to me, too.

Looking back I can kind of see why this was the case.  I don’t think that queer political movements were integrated into the conference the way others were, and perhaps that is merely emblematic of the personal interests and priorities of the group who were most influential in organizing the conference.  (An important observation at our large-group session toward the end: we might never come to a consensus about what to tackle and how!)  I just took a look at the poster again on the blog, and the only social identity groups whose fight for civil rights is not characterized as a rights struggle are queer folks and women.  I have other social justice priorities, interests and passions, too, but my struggle for equality is not about my gender “issues.”  It’s about my rights to be fully enfranchised as a human being.

The representation at the conference of LGBT-related organizations began and ended with LGBT Commission.  While I respect the work LGBT Commission does, it is, undeniably, dominated by white, upper-middle class, cisgender gays and lesbians.  I’ve never felt like LGBT Commission had my interests in mind.  I suppose I can’t make assumptions about whether or not other groups were reached out to or invited and, possibly, declined to offer a workshop or input because of time constraints, but it kind of left a feeling of uneasiness with me.

Let’s also consider the keynotes and panelists, with the exception of Shanta Driver and Hector Aristizabal, were white men.  And that the closing plenary, Derrick Jensen, while interesting and entertaining, is also a deeply divisive figure.

In order to build the broad-based coalitions we talked about at the conference, we must address these things.  It didn’t take me until now to really articulate some of these specific things that caused my feelings of alienation and unease.  That said, I do think that UMSJC 09 was a great step in the right direction.  I’d be really happy to see more events and activities like it to continue on this campus.  I can’t help but care deeply about U-M even though I’m leaving in four months.  (Still seems incredible.)  This is, in a big way, my home, and I love it.  I hope we can take these critiques to heart as serious ones, and continue to build greater solidarity.




archives