Monday, April 15, 2024

Treating Fake Affection

 

My family's last collie, Feliz.  He hated having his picture taken!

 

We humans tend to crave affection from others.

We tend to seek affirmation and acceptance both for ourselves, and with other people.  And the more reciprocal that affection, affirmation, and acceptance becomes for us, in terms of both giving and receiving, the stronger our relationships tend to become.

And strong relationships can be a powerful balm in the midst of all that troubles us.

Unfortunately, developing rewarding human relationships can be a daunting challenge.  Selfishness, neuroses, and personalities usually get in the way.  It doesn't matter the category of relationship, whether professional, familial, romantic, or platonic:  Cultivating a productive, reciprocal partnership with another human being usually defies ease.

Occasionally, we will meet somebody with whom we just "click", and relationship development seems to happen all on its own.  For those of us who've had those types of relationships, we know how rare they are.  How much nicer life would be if we had more of them, right?

Well, maybe this is where the increase in pet ownership comes in.  Because as our American society becomes ever more fragmented, as we tend to celebrate those things that separate us, human beings may increasingly be turning to pets for the affection, affirmation, and acceptance we used to seek from other humans.

Dog ownership in America, for example, has been growing for years.

City parks designed for dogs have become a huge deal now.  Time was, only dotty old ladies would bring their fluffy pooch into a store or restaurant, but now far more people feel comfortable doing it.  In my college days, I didn't know any fellow students who had a dog or cat.  Proper, responsible pet ownership costs money and time - two things college students tend to lack.  These days, however, judging from all the students living in large college housing complexes near me, many of them own dogs, because I always see them out walking each other.  

Hey - with some dogs, it can be difficult to tell whether the canine or the human is leading the walk!

Even in my suburban neighborhood, it seems the percentage of dog ownership has increased exponentially.  Of course, there have always been neighbors with dogs - shucks, my parents and I used to have a handsome pure-bred collie who loved his daily walks.  However, dog walkers have become an even more ubiquitous presence on our shady streets.

Statistics say cat ownership is growing as well, but here's the thing about cats:  Humans may "own" cats, but how often is it more accurate to say that cats own their humans?  Cats may be affectionate, but dogs seem to be far more affirming and even forgiving of their humans.  Which for many people may make them more rewarding to have around.  One usually doesn't have to work hard at winning the affections of dogs.

But is it genuine affection?

Maybe for humans who've conditioned themselves to be satisfied with immediate gratification, it doesn't matter if affection of any kind is genuine.  Or maybe it's just that affection from a dog doesn't need to be genuine - just enjoyable, no matter how shallow it may be.  And in the grander schemes of life, maybe it doesn't matter either way.

Last night I had a conversation with a neighbor whose family got their first dog last summer.  As my neighbor has joined the legions of other daily dog walkers, he's noticed that many of them carry around handfuls of doggie treats.  Whenever they see another dog, they eagerly give the other dogs an opportunity to nosh on those treats.  When I used to walk our collie, that never happened.  People didn't walk around with doggie treats.  However, I understand why it's become a thing:  It's an easy and superficial way of keeping the dogs quiet as they pass, and establishing what they think is a sustainable, affirmative rapport with the other dog for the next time they encounter each other.  Which, of course, for neighbors, will probably be again tomorrow.

And it doesn't take long to condition dogs into expecting any human they encounter will have hand-held treats for them.  I've watched some of the interactions just in the street in front of my house, and can see where some dogs now actually expect and anticipate the treats.  As soon as the treats have been passed out, the dogs utterly lose interest in the humans who've just fed them.

Another neighbor of mine further down the block, however, has grown tired of this practice.  He mentioned to me a couple of weeks ago that he wished people wouldn't try to buy his own large dog's affections with handfuls of treats.  Yes, they ask permission before presenting their hand to his dog, but now it's too late.  He has realized what has happened with his own dog.  His dog automatically searches for hands - anybody's hands - because he's been conditioned to expect a tasty treat from it.

His dog no longer relies on natural canine instinct to decipher "friend" from "foe".  His dog no longer rewards natural affection from humans as a sign that they're safe for him to approach.  His dog now simply looks for the treat.  And when he doesn't immediately find any, he turns sullen and disengaged.

That's like a lot of us humans, actually.  Right?

I'd already noticed that about his dog.  When they first got him, his dog would come up to me and let me pet him and fuss over him, and he was content to be rewarded by that.  As I'd chat with my human neighbor, his canine companion would stand next to me, letting me pet his furry back.  That was his reward - a type of companionship.  But now, the dog comes up to me and instantly - instinctively - searches for my hands with his greedy schnoz.  And he won't find any doggie treats in them, so almost reflexively, he turns away in disgust.  It's sad to experience.  And my neighbor doesn't like it either, but what can he do?  He says almost everybody else in the neighborhood carries treats with them, and he's too mild-mannered to ask them to stop.  It's probably too late now anyway.

I have noticed that my next-door neighbor's pet has also started sniffing my hands when we first approach each other, and when he doesn't find any treats, he's soon trotting away.  That's not how he first treated me when he was a puppy.  His owner, like my other neighbor, has noticed the change, but he doesn't know how to deal with it either.  And frankly, it appears that both dogs still treat their owners with an affection that is stronger than the immediate gratification of hand-held treats.  Which, for them, is a good thing.  And since they're not my dogs, none of this is really any problem of mine.

Nevertheless, I wonder what it says about our society in general.  As loneliness increases in our country, perhaps it's simply one of the coping mechanisms people are creating for themselves.  Exploiting dogs with treats seems a less risky tactic than trying to exploit humans with our far more valuable emotional, financial, and relational assets.  Especially for people like me, who seem to have a difficult time cultivating healthy interpersonal relationships.

When dogs "bite the hand that feeds them", it's mostly a physical pain.  But when humans do it, the pain goes far deeper.

Handing out treats becomes easier than treating relational problems.

_____


Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Woods Drive a Snapshot of Arlington's History

I am a board member of the Heart of Arlington Neighborhood Association in central Arlington, Texas.  I was asked by our board president to write up some information regarding the history of our neighborhood, and this is one of my efforts:


(In the photo: Long-time next-door neighbors Billie Farrar, Eleanor Grace Martin, and James Martin, at Dallas' Meyerson Symphony Center, circa 1990)


Woods Drive Housed a Generation of Arlington's Merchants

Arlington used to have a real downtown that was the growing city’s central business district. 

Those were the days of the local merchant, before Amazon, before Internet retailing, before Walmart, and before shopping malls.  The days of raw entrepreneurship, or what we nostalgically call “mom-and-pop’ and “brick-and-mortar” commerce. 

The merchants who worked in central business districts also tended to live in clusters.  Throughout history, actually, around the world, merchant classes operated economically and socially in relative proximity to each other.  And of all the streets in Arlington that have housed this city’s ever-changing roster of civic leaders - streets like West Abram, West Park Row, South Center, Southwood, Meadow Oaks, and Shady Valley - perhaps none has been home to a larger concentration - economic, educational, cultural - than Woods Drive. 

Woods Drive runs through what was the historic Elm Shadows Farm between Johnson Creek and Center Street.  Elm Shadows Farm was the Moore estate, named after the family which subdivided it during the 1950s, although most people now popularly call it “the Goat House”.  You can’t miss it, since its current owners have maintained their farmstead exemption by perpetually housing goats, geese, and other barnyard animals on what remains a large property. 

Although the street is admired for its tall trees, Woods Drive is technically named for the Moore family’s patriarch, Woods Moore.  Virginia Lane is named for the Moore's matriarch, and Thomas Place, Patrick Drive, and Michael Court after their three sons. 

Originally, Woods Drive ran from a cul-de-sac behind the Moore estate to a dead-end where Mill Creek Drive now intersects.  As Arlington grew, and the Moore's further developed their farm, Woods Drive was extended in the early 1960s to include a connection with Center Street near Pioneer Parkway. 

By today’s standards, the houses may not be opulent, but at the time, they were larger than conventional ones and loaded with features we take for granted today.  Two-car attached garages, sliding-glass patio doors, at least two living areas, and at least two bathrooms were common amenities of these homes. 

If that wasn't enticing enough for you, consider who your neighbors were: 

F.M. "Tiddle" and Hazle-Vern Terry.  They owned Terry Brothers Pharmacy, which was something of a landmark near Arlington’s iconic mineral well.  Their house, built in 1954, is still owned by an heir.  For the record, the very first home to be built in Elm Shadows is on Virginia Lane, and only recently changed ownership to a family outside of the original owner’s heirs. 

Hayden Johnson.  He was related to the Terry’s, and owned an appliance store where the Flying Fish and other restaurants are now located.  A subsequent owner of his house was George S. Wright, while he served as dean of UTA’s architecture school. 

J.C. and Lillie “Bill” Watson, co-owners of an upscale chain of fashionable department stores in Arlington, Hurst, and Grand Prairie.  Their house, designed by Mrs. Watson herself, is still owned by an heir, and their former store on Arlington’s West Main Street, with its wavy Mid-Century Modern awning, is now an office building for UTA.

H.E. and Burney Pearl Caton, owners of both a popular “five-and-dime” retail shop downtown, as well as a company that manufactured decorative clothing ribbon downtown.  One of their customers was Macy’s department store in New York City.  Heirs of theirs still live on Woods Drive. 

James and Eleanor Grace Martin.  James served as a long-time AISD superintendent, during most of the district’s rapid growth, and Martin High School is named in his honor.  Eleanor Grace opened her art space above the store owned by their neighbors, the Caton’s.  She called it “the Upstairs Gallery” for obvious reasons, and kept the name when she relocated to a house on W. Abram St., as the Caton’s store would be demolished for the construction of Arlington’s original Central Public Library.  A Martin heir still lives in the neighborhood, and heirs still run the gallery. 

Happy King.  He was a long-time builder and developer in Arlington.  His company constructed several of the houses in Elm Shadows, and most of what are now called “the Air Force Base streets” clustered around Park Row and Collins Street.  One of his downtown projects, at 300 W. Main St., remains mostly intact. 

William “Bill” and Billie Farrar.  They first owned B & B Supermarket (for Bill and Billie), at the southeast corner of Park Row and Collins St.  Billie eventually went into real estate, becoming a pioneer of the industry in Tarrant County.  She was the first Realtor in Arlington to complete a $1 million sale - a farm where Highway 360 and Sublett Road now intersect.  Heirs still own her office building on Park Row near Cooper Street. 

Catherine Coulter.  Okay, so she never owned a business in Arlington, but she’s our neighborhood’s bona-fide celebrity.  She is a famous novelist and long-time resident of the San Francisco Bay area who spent part of her growing-up years with her family on Woods Drive.  Her father, Charlie, was an aeronautical engineer and her mother, Betty, was a musician who wrote and published her own educational books for piano. 

Lena Hornaday. She owned a popular restaurant, La Tapatia, for 27 years.  Hers was widely reputed to be Arlington’s first and, for a while, only Tex-Mex restaurant.  She retired in 1974, and a Comet Cleaners now occupies the 2-story building at Division and West streets.  Her house is still owned by an heir. 

Dan Burkholder.  He was a noted jazz musician who conducted bands and orchestras for celebrities such as Bob Hope and Dean Martin.  He also taught at UTA, and was a philanthropist to UTA’s music department. 

Howard “Gumpy” Moore.  He was an heir of Arlington’s fabled Moore Funeral Home family, and namesake of Howard Moore City Park off of Davis Drive, in honor of his long-time chairmanship of Arlington’s parks board.  For the record, Moore family heirs also built a house on Patrick Drive, and they were not related to the Moore family which owned the Goat House. 

Judge Bill and Barbara Hughes.  Bill was a lawyer and a widely-respected Tarrant County judge.  Barbara was a longtime public school teacher, and both were prolific philanthropists.  Their house is still owned by an heir. 

James and Bea Horsman.  It wasn’t downtown, but in a strip shopping center at the northwest corner of Park Row and Collins, where the Horsmans owned an upscale childrens clothing store.  After Six Flags Mall opened in 1970, their store began to fade in popularity.  Bea eventually worked for Billie Farrar as one of her agency’s Realtors.  Their address technically was on Michael Court, but their long side yard ran parallel to Woods Drive. 

Dr. Mo-Shing ChenDr. Chen was an internationally-renowned electrical engineer who taught at UTA for over 40 years.  He began several programs in the electrical engineering department that still exist today, helping to give the department its impressive global reputation.  He and his wife, Dr. Flora Chung-Hsia Huang, raised their two daughters on Woods Drive, and both of them are now doctors as well. 

Gene Allen.  He started a popular 3-store Hallmark greeting card chain in Arlington, with locations on Park Row, Randol Mill Road, and Little Road.  His home was designed with a flat roof to give it a West Coast aesthetic.  It is two doors down from another flat-roofed house on Woods Drive, designed by and the personal home of Alvin Mikusek, a local architect. 

And speaking of architecture, it is believed that 2003 Woods Drive was designed by a student of Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin West studio in Arizona. As one of America’s most influential architects, Frank Lloyd Wright helped invent and promote the “prairie style” design movement and the long, low ranch style house, which became a favored residential model during the Mid-Century Modern aesthetic, not to mention most of the houses built up and down Woods Drive. 

The first homes on Woods Drive were constructed in 1954, around its northern cul-de-sac.  Ironically, the last home built on Woods Drive, the Watson home, was constructed just up the hill from that cul-de-sac in 1966.  Four years after that, Six Flags Mall opened at Division Street and Highway 360, and Arlington’s downtown would never be the same. 

Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Leaving Antidepressants Isn't Easy


My crystal Swarovski "Volcano Pyramid" prism with a damaged edge
(the puffy-looking shape in the middle - a significant imperfection)


Last October, I posted about my decision to stop taking my antidepressant prescription medications.

Several months later, I'm checking back with an update to that post.  I don't want to be melodramatic, but I also don't want to minimize the struggles of going without antidepressants.  

The summary version is that I'm not doing as well emotionally as I was when I was still taking my full antidepressant dosages.  The only two benefits I can see are that, one; I haven't yet returned to any of my antidepressants since last fall.  And two, I've lost more weight, and appear to have plateaued in terms of my weight loss.

So, I've lost emotional ground, but I've also lost some physical baggage, meaning my slimmer appearance hides what's going on inside.  I'm also finding that as I lose weight, I'm getting more wrinkled, which is making me look older!  I used to enjoy looking considerably younger than my years, but now, it seems the inverse is happening.  So in terms of aesthetics, my weight loss has become a net neutral. 

Anyway, the bigger story is inwardly, since I'm struggling more with my depression now than I have in decades.

Turns out, in terms of masking my depression and helping me be more productive as a human being, those antidepressants probably were far more effective than I thought they were.  The longer I go without them, the less competent I am at adjusting to negative things and surprises.  And whereas I used to suspect my antidepressants of sabotaging my joy and peace, I now realize that without antidepressants, I have even less of either joy or peace.  I used to scoff at the notion of emotions governing so much of my behavior, but now, I lament how so much of my logic, industriousness, and discipline gets eroded by emotionalism.

I've tried to modify my behavior to accommodate my deteriorating emotions.  My biggest change:  I've stopped most of my news consumption.  American politics, Christian nationalism, the Israel - Hamas war,  all sorts of racism, and hatred in general have taxed me emotionally.  Suddenly, I find I simply can't absorb it all.  My fearfulness factor is sky-high.

While I used to regularly and verbosely blog here about news items and current events, I no longer can stomach even the most cursory glance at the headlines.  I  have an acquaintance who is a professional journalist, and he confirmed that disconnecting from the news is a prudent move for me, at least for now.

As a person who used to seek out the news, especially looking for stories about which I could blog, that has been the biggest change for me.  A dear friend of mine in Dallas used to tease me about "doom-scrolling", since he's long said the news media revels too much in life's horrors and tragedies.  Now I realize how even trolling basic headlines has become a form of "doom-scrolling", since the Internet appears to have forced the journalism industry into competing for the most salacious stories.  News outlets survive today by trying to generate views and click-throughs, because those are how they calculate online advertising rates.  

I reported back in October that I seem to always be on the verge of crying, and that has only become a more pronounced sensation.  Loud and sudden noises also distress me more than ever, while crowds of people - no matter who they are - intimidate me. 

Apparently my antidepressants were my go-to coping tools.  Some things did upset me, but not to the degree they do now.  It has been discouraging for me, as supposedly a "person of faith", to realize that after all these years, I apparently don't trust in the God I've claimed to embrace.  After all, if I did, would I be so incessantly anxious, even as a chronically clinically depressed person?  

Realizing how desperate I was becoming, I reached out to the senior pastor of the Dallas church in whose choir I used to sing, and we've met a few times for some counseling sessions.  Even though our church numbers about six thousand members, we've known each other for quite a while, and I'm grateful he makes time for me.  He's not a therapist, but as a theologian, I'm asking him questions about faith that he's answering with candor and grace.

It's too early to know how much of a help he's been, but even knowing he's willing to try is itself helpful.  I'm not paying him, he knows I'm neither wealthy nor influential, and he's not anti-antidepressants.  He attended my father's memorial service so he knows all about my concerns regarding dementia.  Nevertheless, he warned me I might still have to go back on antidepressants depending on how things evolve.

So obviously, I have no cheerful update here.  No philosophical or theological insights.  No profound one-liners.  This is simply a status update of where I am at this moment, approximately six months after stopping my antidepressants.  People ask me if losing all this weight (85 pounds total since the start of Covid) makes me feel more energetic, but no, I feel even more lethargic than ever.  You see, I haven't lost weight in a healthy way - it's all been through stress.  

There have been a few days where I almost caved and started taking those "happy pills" again, but - for better or worse - the ominous specter of dementia has proven stronger.

Even with my problems, there are other people who are living with griefs and pains far worse than mine.  My pastor calls these "bitter providences" of God, Who, although He is good, certainly allows plenty of bad things to happen to His followers - even through no fault of their own.  

Saying "things could be worse" may not necessarily be a healthy response to anyone's crisis, but it can be helpful to keep some of these considerations in perspective.

So for now, I'm staying the course, away from antidepressants.  I'm finding that this is not the easier path, but perhaps its benefits will come in the long run.

_____


Tuesday, October 10, 2023

No More Depression Meds for Me

 

Lantana in our backyard... just because it's colorful and happy!


Depression denies delight.

Nobody likes talking about it.  It is often misunderstood, and sometimes exploited.  It can be taboo, controversial, and destructive.

Some claim it is a figment of one's imagination.  Others seem to let it crush their soul.  It is impossible to quantify but easy to use as an excuse.  Approximately 12% of Americans take antidepressants, and are therefore considered to suffer from some degree of "clinical" depression.  And while an antidepressant prescription requires a medical doctor's authorization, no benchmarks exist for determining who really has the medical condition termed "depression", who doesn't, and how bad or mild a person's depression may be.

Back in 2014, I outed myself on this blog as a person struggling with chronic clinical depression.  I was taking at least two medicines commonly prescribed for such a diagnosis.  However, my history with antidepressants had begun years earlier when I lived in New York City.  While the prescriptions themselves had changed over time, I was taking them daily, year after year - until this past summer.

I am now clean of those anti-anxiety prescription medications.  

But that's not because I'm cured.  Chronic clinical depression is real for many people, and I remain one of them.  And while my depression is characterized by extraordinary anxiety, that actually explains why I've stopped taking my antidepressants.

I'm not anti-medicine, or anti-big-pharma, or anti-science.  In fact, technically, it is the emerging science related to dementia that convinced me to wean myself off of my antidepressants.  Turns out, evidence has begun to accrue regarding a likely link between antidepressant use and one's chances of developing dementia.  And since profound memory loss runs in my family, it looms large as something for me to fear, looming even larger than depression.

During the past several years, I often wondered how effective my antidepressants had become anyway.  I began Googling my way around the Internet, and discovered that other patients - as well as scientists and doctors - were also beginning to express skepticism regarding antidepressants.

Then I discovered something especially troubling:  As science completes more and more research with dementia, the impact long-term antidepressant use has on future memory loss does not appear to be insignificant.   Please notice, however, my cautious phrasing of that sentence, because I don't want to be alarmist.  You see, from what I've read, the research and its findings are not yet conclusive, and they do not currently appear to be stark enough to bring antidepressant use to a standstill.

Of course, I am not a scientist, nor a doctor.  I am not a clinician, a mental or emotional therapist, or a person with any vested financial interest in any individual, company or entity that is.  I'm aware that science evolves.  There are valid reasons why medicine is called a "practice".  Big pharma has been accused of greedily foisting prescription antidepressants onto gullible patients and their doctors, but I can't deny that for a while, it seemed as though my prescriptions did provide some sort of help. 

And I'll admit, I weaned myself off of my antidepressants without consulting my primary care doctor (I haven't seen a psychiatrist or therapist for years).  But when I did tell him, close to the end of my weaning process, he wasn't alarmed.  He listened to my rationale and agreed that antidepressants can lose their efficacy over time.  He also acknowledged that the growing body of evidence regarding dementia is concerning.  So he didn't try and talk me out of my decision. 

I've been completely off of my antidepressants for three months now.  And just to prove I'm not endorsing any similar actions by anybody else taking what I call "happy pills", I'm not going to detail what medications I was taking.  Or how I weaned myself off of them.  

But I have to admit (or boast!):  I've lost over 20 pounds since starting the process.  I think I look the best I have in years, if vanity counts for anything.  Considering how much weight I'd acquired at the height of my antidepressant use, I enjoy looking into mirrors now and not seeing some obese person staring back at me in dismay.  

I'm still not thin, but I'm not trying to be thin.  I didn't do this to lose weight, although losing weight has been a nice bonus.

And for the record:  I haven't been exercising more, or making any concerted effort to lose weight.  Quite simply, my appetite seems to have changed the longer I've been without "happy pills".  From my research, I've learned that this type of weight loss can happen to folks who come off of antidepressants.  Today, I do not crave food, although salty foods can still seem to beg for more!  I'm not as tempted by sweets as I used to be.  I find it bizarre to approach mealtimes now with a bland acknowledgement that my body basically needs some nourishment.

So, bottom line:  What are the pros and cons of what I've done?

PROS:

  • Possible reduction of future dementia risk - or at least, I'm no longer contributing to that risk.  For me, this alone is major, and worth more than all the pros and cons to follow.  Yes, I still may end up developing dementia, but at least I'm trying to avoid it.
  • Weight loss and a better appreciation for my own physical appearance, which is encouraging.  I know looks aren't everything, and I don't want to be vain, but it certainly seems counter-productive for antidepressants to prevent weight loss, thereby compounding things for people who've been prescribed them in the first place!
  • Relatively improved diet, since I'm not strongly craving junk food like I used to.
  • I have far less vertigo than I did before, especially when standing.  It really had gotten annoying.  Vertigo can be a side effect of antidepressants.

CONS:
  • More fitful sleep.  I've lost about an hour of sleep a night, what sleep I get isn't high-quality, and I never feel refreshed when I get up in the morning.
  • My energy level seems lower than before (and I can't remember when it was ever very high!).  Maybe because my body is adjusting to having less food to process, thanks to my diminished appetite.
  • Conversely, my inertia level is higher, and inertia - or disillusionment, apathy, lethargy, lack of ambition, or whatever it is - has unfortunately been a deepening hallmark of my depression journey. 
  • Often I feel as though I'm about to burst into tears.  This has never been a regular issue before.  I haven't had a crying episode yet, because I fight them, but it is not a sensation that inspires confidence.
  • I'm no less anxious than I was when I was taking "happy pills".  More proof that I'm not cured.
  • My temper is noticeably stronger, while my patience is noticeably weaker.
  • I still get dizzy, especially when standing (yes, in addition to the vertigo).  Dizziness has long been a side effect of my antidepressant use, but my research says it can also be a side effect of going OFF of antidepressants!
  • Occasionally I get painful cramping in my abdomen, which can be a side effect of stopping antidepressants.  Nausea can also be a side effect of leaving antidepressants, but fortunately, I haven't had that.


Maybe you've read this far and are wondering what role psychotherapy - either with a PhD/MD, a psychologist, or a certified psychotherapist - has played in my treatment.

I attended psychotherapy for a number of years, both in New York and here in Texas, with a variety of credentialed providers.  Perhaps they worked for a time, but finally, my last psychotherapist was the one who called it off.

"Why do you keep coming to see me?" he asked bluntly during what turned out to be my last session.  "I ask you all these questions, and you always give great answers.  I don't think psychotherapy is doing you any good anymore."  

So that was that.

Again - not that my journey with chronic clinical depression is typical, or replicable.  I'm just journaling about it here, chronicling what it's been like for me thus far.  Besides, since my overall functionality has not improved, and there is no definitive proof I've genuinely decreased my risk for dementia, maybe all I'm really doing is bragging about losing so much weight!

However, if you are a person who is taking antidepressants, maybe what you've read here rings a bell with you.  And if so, I recommend that you talk with your doctor.

You may have something to lose, too!

_____

Check out my update here.

Tuesday, June 20, 2023

History Chronicled With Religious Architecture

OLI Snippets

(from my short posts on social media)

_________________________


St. Stephen's Catholic Cathedral; Passau, Bavaria, Germany
Photo credit: my friend Mary Bryant McCourt, May 2023


For all my preacher friends:  How's this for a church pulpit? 

Preachers speaking from such an opulent elevated platform needn't worry about their sermon getting boring - because if it does, congregants can just let their minds wander over all that gold leaf!  

I only hope the theology preached from it is more valuable than its gilded ornamentation.  I mean, seriously!  I'd never have guessed this audaciously decorated tableau was a historic German church.  I'd have guessed France, or maybe even Russia, but not the country that has given us the austere, clean-lined BMW and Mercedes-Benz brands.

As an architecture student in college, we studied many religious structures because throughout history, they often represented the pinnacle of their respective society's ideologies and abilities.  The sociological cynic would categorize religion as a form of folkloric storytelling, or cultural assimilation, or moral dogma, or a primitive way of explaining how people groups interpreted their natural environment.  But some cultures - generally the ones with more sophisticated religions - eventually came to dominate entire regions of the world, and have played significant roles in developing construction methodologies and aesthetic principles that we still incorporate today in our built environment.

Up until the Industrial Revolution, whether in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Central and South America, or Europe, religious structures such as this one were lavished with a panoply of human resources to inform their own culture - and their enemies - who and what their society represented (whether everyone believed the same thing or not).  Religious structures were literally the brick-and-mortar of their community.

Ever since the Industrial Revolution - which brought unprecedented wealth to our planet - the amount of resources we spend on our religious buildings has paled by comparison.  Hardly any society today expends the type of effort - in money and labor - that used to be spent on religious structures.  Many reasons exist for this, such as: 
- a continued splintering of various sects from the larger body of beliefs (particularly within Islam and Christianity), meaning religious groups are smaller and less willing to share resources;
- few monarchies and political dynasties powerful enough to force subjects into religious submission
- changing aesthetic tastes (such as severe Modern and Post-Modern minimalism within Judaism);
- advanced construction technologies that can actually lower overall costs by making formerly prohibitive designs relatively accessible (and therefore, less remarkable);
- a lack of interest by most religious leaders and their adherents today to create monolithic memorials to their faith and deity, and/or a preference to spend money in different ways;
- and yes, the drastically-lower reliance people across the globe have on religion and deities.  These days, we have easy access to so many devices, ideas, and other influences to help us feel more self-actualized.  Religion, which almost universally involves a certain level of adherence to a thought structure we have not created ourselves, seems so antiquated and bothersome to many people.

Whether they're religious or not, very few societies now use buildings as their main source of pride and identity anyway (with the possible exception of Persian Gulf states and China, homes to some of the most audacious new buildings on our planet).  I've written before about my Mom's childhood church in Maine, once the beacon of her coastal village, now rotting away atop a hill with millions of dollars worth of stained glass windows disintegrating in place, no services or any public use for over 15 years now.  

We all are aware of how much society is changing, and one of the values in architecture is that it helps tell us where we've been, and maybe even what we're missing today despite all our "progress".



PS
- when I checked out my blog on my smartphone, and saw Mary's photo, the pulpit, resized for a smaller screen, looked more like a snake's head, or maybe one of those ceremonial Chinese dragons.  That jagged-edged canopy and wrap-around stairway - Yikes!  Now I can't help but see it as fearsome - awe of a negative sort.  It reminds me of the dramatic pulpit and canopy of a much newer church, a rare example of extravagant contemporary evangelical Christian architecture:  Coral Ridge Presbyterian in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  I've never been in person, but from the videos and photos I've seen, their black snake-like canopy over the pulpit seems straight out of the Garden of Eden - in a bad way.

_____

Monday, December 19, 2022

Trending From Church, Which I'm Doing Too

The sanctuary of Brooklyn Baptist Church, which used to be
Golgotha Finnish Congregational Church
(which I attended as an infant - my first church)
in Brooklyn's Sunset Park neighborhood. 
The remaining Finns sold their building to the Baptists,
a multi-cultural evangelical congregation,
in the late 1980s.

______________________


For it is not an enemy who taunts me—
 then I could bear it;
it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me—
 then I could hide from him.
But it is you, a man, my equal,
 my companion, my familiar friend.
We used to take sweet counsel together;
 within God's house we walked in the throng.
- Psalm 55:12-14 ESV


Christianity continues to dominate American culture.  Yet religious practices here, such as church attendance, are in decline.

Some researchers misread data gleaned from church attendance statistics and inaccurately state that America is becoming less "Christian".  What's really happening, however, probably points to more of an honest admission by Americans regarding the priority they place on acting out their faith.

Yes, many Americans no longer attend church.  And technically, I'm one of them.  I watch the video feed from "my" church online, but frankly, I admit I have no desire to return to in-person worship.  And it's not because of Covid, or doctrinal issues, or how hard it is to find a parking space on Sunday mornings in the hipster Dallas neighborhood where "my" church is located.  

Mom and I both had stopped attending in-person church before the pandemic ever hit.  Her reason is mostly her age, and her increasingly limited mobility.  My reason is completely different, but I wonder how common a reason it may be.

More and more Americans appear to be comfortable in not just dropping church attendance, but being unaffiliated with church, period.  By now, that trend should surprise nobody, since it's been going on for decades.  People have stopped going to church for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn't look like many of us plan on returning anytime soon.

Nevertheless, look around you:  Here we are, the Monday before Christmas, and how many homes in your neighborhood boast Christmas decorations?  You likely know the folks on your block who attend church regularly, and those who don't.  And I'll guess that the folks who never attend church have the same amount of decorations as those who do.

So while church attendance has been the big data point researchers have been watching, does it really point to any significant decline in levels of America's cultural Christianity?  That's always been a fairly shallow concept anyway, right?  How theologically-sound have been the measures of how "Christian" America was, and is?  

Every Advent season, for example, some folks complain over the evolution of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", but in reality, that change indicates more of an inclusion of other celebrations instead of an outright refutation of Christianity.  Plurality of faiths among a society like America's, with our strong immigration ethos, should not be conflated with people from Christianity's legacy losing interest in observing it within pews.

(Sidebar #1:  Pews, of course, are those long wood benches with built-in backs that "church growth movement" experts pilloried during American Christianity's seeker-sensitive movement, one of the tricks churches began using to try and fill sanctuaries - excuse me, "worship centers" - when America's church attendance decline became noticeable, back in the 1990s.)

(Sidebar #2:  And IF there are fewer and fewer "Christians" honestly celebrating Christmas, why do the remaining Christians blame society at large?  Most American Christians are dyed-in-the-wool capitalists, and capitalism is all about bottom-line marketing to the consumer.  So why bemoan the folks who are trying to appeal to the broadest constituency with their inclusivity of all December/January religious holidays?  As long as Christians aren't penalized for their "Christmas" sentimentality (Christmas is not a Biblical holy day anyway, you know), what's the harm?  Christians who fear the fact that fewer and fewer Americans actually observe a religious Christmas should pray about how they can minister better to their lost neighbors, instead of grumbling about terminology that only reflects society.)

Having fewer and fewer folks in those pews likely isn't a bad thing anyway, because it means that people who only marginally voiced allegiance to Christianity simply have decided to stop their pretenses.  Not that everybody remaining in America's churches are "saved" - I believe that, unfortunately, there are folks who attend church still as a pretense for a faith that they want to exercise on their own terms.  

For example, the idolatrous rise of Christian nationalism has taken over much of the religious right, meaning that allegiance to Christ may be falling to allegiance to Americanism.  

Depending on how one defines a "Christian nation", dropping church attendance still doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity itself is experiencing a "mass exodus", as one Roman Catholic demographer cleverly put it.

I was raised in the evangelical church.  I can trace my life by the Christian churches I've attended:

  1. Golgotha Finnish Congregational Church; Brooklyn, NY
  2. Maple Flats Baptist Chapel; Cleveland, NY
  3. Kenwood Heights Alliance Church; Oneida, NY
  4. Rome Alliance Church; Rome, NY
  5. Arlington Alliance Church; Arlington, TX
  6. East Park Church of the Nazarene; Arlington, TX
  7. Pantego Bible Church; Arlington, TX
  8. First Evangelical Free Church; Brooklyn, NY
  9. Calvary Baptist Church; New York, NY (the only church I've ever joined)
  10. Arlington Presbyterian Church; Arlington, TX
  11. Park Cities Presbyterian Church; Dallas, TX  (my longest affiliation; over 20 years)

I've written articles for Crosswalk.com, a prominent evangelical website.  I served as a leader in the singles ministry at New York City's venerable Calvary Baptist, which was, overall, my best church experience.  For about three years, I worked in the financial office at Pantego Bible Church, a sizable non-denominational fellowship now located in Fort Worth, Texas.  For over a decade, I sang in the chancel choir at Dallas' wealthy Park Cities Presbyterian.  

Most of my Facebook friends have been acquired over the years through my various church affiliations.  My parents met as counselors at an evangelical Christian youth camp near Cape Cod, and my mother graduated from an evangelical college.  My brother and sister-in-law met while students at Moody Bible Institute, an evangelical college in Chicago.  So I'm definitely a product of America's Christian church culture.

Yet even I have lost my enthusiasm for the American church.  Yes, I still watch Sunday services online, but mostly I do that for my mother, who is a luddite and needs me to get the connection on my laptop computer for her.  I have personally become disillusioned with the way American evangelicals "do" church, and have both moved myself out of their circles, and have been forgotten by them.

I may have a few church-going acquaintances who actively shun me, but mostly, there's simply no more room in American evangelicalism for people like me.  I don't fit the mold they've created for what the typical evangelical church congregant should look like.  

Right off the top, I'm not married, I don't have kids, and I'm not currently employed.  Singles have never had an easy task navigating the cliques of conventional church, and the longer we stay single, the harder it becomes to assimilate.  Being divorced is marginally OK, especially if you still have kids at home, but being never-married means something is deeply flawed in you.  Unless you're making a ton of money from a great job, and can tell others your career simply comes first.  Which, um, I can't!

I live in my aging mother's aging house and help care for her.  Some folks peg me as a "mamma's boy".  If my life was a sitcom, I'd be the butt of the jokes.

To make matters worse, I am not a Christian nationalist, I have never voted for Donald Trump (or Hillary or Joe, for that matter), and while I believe it's a sin, I don't believe abortion is the greatest one.  I am not an anti-vaxxer, and I've had all my Covid shots.  I remain a registered Republican, but I don't vote a straight Republican ticket.  My faith is supposed to be in God, not politics or governments or laws.

Even worse than all that, however, is my battle with chronic clinical depression, which many Christians mock as a fake illness, a sin, and an excuse for laziness and immaturity.

I managed to sustain considerable friendliness with many folks at the churches I've attended, but as my life has continued to wear me down emotionally, I've discovered that those friendships only went as far as what other people could understand about me.  After that, I suspect my problems were simply too confusing and demanded too much time and attention - time and attention they could more easily spend on people more like themselves.  

Some would accuse me of whining and complaining now, but hey - I'm not complaining as much as I'm parsing out reality.  Modern life is complex and extremely time-consuming.  Schedules fill up fast.  In such a world, streamlining one's friendships to obtain maximum benefit from them makes sense.  And I understand that.  I can't say I'd handle the trappings - and traps - of modern success any better than anybody I've known.

In retrospect, I also realize I could have worked harder myself at making those friendships last.  I know I'm not outgoing or charismatic.  But that means my relationships were not organic enough to develop into friendships on their own, right?  Just going to the same doctrinally-sound church while professing hope in the same Biblical Savior proved woefully insufficient as a baseline for sustainable fellowship.

It's been a sad realization for me.

Maybe there's a country-club mentality among modern American Christianity, and maybe that's what's turning off many folks.  Us versus them.  In versus out.  And as American churchgoers increasingly embrace political dogma alongside their churchy preferences, the freedom many conservative religious people feel to wrap the Cross of Christ with the American flag gives them an unBiblical purpose.  And what is that purpose, but to market themselves as our country's patriotic remnant.  It's the new church schtick, since the specter of eternal damnation doesn't seem to hold as much resonance anymore.  Market your church as a defender of traditional family values, keep trying to legislate morality, and draw your battle lines around the vices in our society you can most easily define.

Maybe church has become a matter of defining what separates us.  Whereas Christianity can point to a history of welcoming the disenfranchised - at least, in Christ's day - today, it's mostly about how well a person can assimilate into a moralistic group, and how much sin they can avoid while still having their share of fun.  Anything that challenges their expectations and preferences provides sufficient justification for excommunication, or at least social distancing.

(Sidebar #3:  Churchgoing conservatives hate social distancing when they perceive liberals are forcing it.  But churchgoers have been doing it for years.)

So yes, while I'm not particularly threatened with data analyses that paint dire futures for Christianity in America, I personally can vouch for the data showing church attendance in decline.  Some churches do continue to grow, but I suspect such outliers generally reflect church-hopping - some call it "church-shopping" - as socio-religious butterflies flit from one congregation to another, like there are big revolving doors within any given city's church culture.  Some people who still want the churchy vibe strive to find the best fit for how they intend to live their lives (but not necessarily how Christ has taught us to live them).  Meanwhile, if somebody with as rigorous a churchy background as mine can become so disillusioned with the American church, imagine how easily other folks - with an even more ambivalent view of church attendance - can find it daunting and discouraging.

As for me, the basics haven't changed:  I still believe in God, and I believe in Jesus Christ, His holy Son, Who was born of humble birth to provide salvation for all of us humans who believe that He is the only Way to Heaven.  I still believe in the holy "catholic" (small "C", meaning "universal) church, and the communion of saints, as the ancient Apostles' Creed reads.  I even believe that believers should not "forsake the assembling of ourselves together", as Hebrews 10:25 reads.  

However, are people like me who no longer attend church the only ones who have fallen out of such idealistic descriptions of Christian fellowship?  What about the people who remain in their country-club-type churches, in their cliques; never bothering to consider if how they're exercising their churchy paradigm is corrupting the communion of saints by... forsaking assembling with marginalized saints?

"Oh, those marginalized people can attend church with us, but they will need to rise up to our pseudo-religious standards.  We shouldn't have to work harder to include them, or figure out why they're not as fun to be around."

(Sidebar #4:  If just about everybody in a congregation feels that way, it's kinda like the Kitty Genovese tragedy in 1960s New York City, when a woman screamed for help during an attack in the middle of the night.  Basically, although they heard her screams in their upscale Queens neighborhood, her neighbors figured "somebody else" would come to her aid - which meant that in reality, nobody did, and her corpse was found later).

Some folks find basic Biblical faith to be extremely exclusionary.  Which, theologically, it is.  And for those people who simply find the Gospel itself offensive, their abandonment of the church is sad, but not surprising.  Meanwhile, haven't many churches today made a different form of exclusiveness so popular amongst themselves?  

Some sins are more acceptable than others (gluttony, vanity, coarse joking, and increasingly, alcohol abuse are the wink-wink "bad habits" that can actually win a churchgoer more acceptance).  Popularity continues to define church pecking orders.  Wealth is an obvious way of doing that, but pick a metric - any metric - within society at large, and you'll find it mimicked either brazenly or discretely in church.  We are to love our neighbors as a way of demonstrating our love for God.  Churchgoers who prefer mixing in their religiosity and their lifestyles, unfortunately, are simply demonstrating their love only for neighbors who are like themselves.

And despite everything I've just written, I get that.  I really do.  As social creatures, all of us tend to do that in most aspects of life.  It's a comfort factor, and a safety factor.  Unfortunately, doing the same thing in church, like folks do in country clubs, is part of the dumbing-down of church and theology that's been going on for generations now (and not to bash only conservative churches, but liberal ones have been doing it all along, too).

And - shucks - not finding comfort and safety in church myself, it helps explain why I have no desire to return.  Extrapolate that across our country, and the trend explains itself.

Maybe at one time, there was something special and unique about going to church and being "in fellowship" with other people who claimed to believe in Jesus Christ.  When I attended Calvary Baptist, on busy 57th Street in Midtown Manhattan, we had homeless people attending, along with at least one matronly lady who I'd see arrive in a silver, chauffeur-driven limousine.  Plus cultures, skin colors, and ethnicities from literally around the world.  

Calvary's diversity was stunning.  There were Sundays where I'd stand on the main floor of its packed sanctuary (literally every Sunday, ushers would be cajoling seated parishioners into making extra room in their already-full pews), surrounded by this panoply of contrasts, all singing the same hymns, and tears would well in my eyes; I'd be overcome realizing how it represented a sample of what Heaven will be like.

Today, however, church no longer seems special.  And that's not God's fault, it's ours.

_____


Monday, February 6, 2023

By the way, some readers who are familiar with Park Cities Presbyterian and its congregation - one of the world's wealthiest - might casually deduce that my detachment from it stems from personal bitterness at being so economically poor relative to its congregants' affluence.  In response to such a presumption, I would first say that I never participated in Park Cities Prez because I was pretentious enough to figure I could fit in with their target audience.  I schlepped over there (a 40-minute drive in the best of times) because their corporate worship services were in the classical, traditional style, which I believe best reflect God's glory and holiness (and hey - those church growth experts say preference is the top reason to pick a church, right?).  

Second, I'm actually grateful to God for the time I got to spend at Park Cities Prez.  I learned a lot about money, wealth, and the people who have it.  For example, I learned not to begrudge people their wealth; not just because being jealous is wrong, but money really does add heavy complexity to one's life.  I also saw that money truly is relative, and God has given His church (the "holy catholic church" :-) plenty of it to do His work.  The thing is, in areas where we see funds lacking, it could mean we aren't spending His money properly.  

But enough about money, and Park Cities.  My conclusions about the church in general stem not just from my experiences in Dallas, but from the ways and things I've seen professing evangelicals from across the church spectrum do, be, and embrace.

I also have found it curious that since posting this essay in December, the only feedback I've heard (except from one long-time friend at Park Cities) has been from other folks who are disaffected from church.  I don't know how to explain that, but it seems to prove my point that churchgoers today are more comfortable without folks like me.  If I could be proven wrong, I'd gladly admit it!

Wednesday, June 15, 2022

When Rarity Is NFT: Not Fiduciarily Trustworthy

OLI Snippets

(from my short posts on social media)

_________________________

Non-fungible tokens. Sounds like a disease riders could get from dirty subway tokens in NYC - back when those coin-like payment discs were used. But today's hipsters wouldn't know about subway tokens. They know all about NFT's, though. And rarity is what non-fungible tokens are all about. Except... a recent study suggests that rarity can actually reduce value. "Demand for rarity is self-defeating... the big question now is whether we can observe this effect in other categories, too.” - Jordan Suchow

Which, actually, shouldn’t be too surprising, right? Consider this principle when generally applied, for example, to most of the news stories our media creates. Much of what we commonly consider “news” is what we consider to be rare. Things that don’t happen every day, people who aren’t like other people, etc. What captures the imagination for a moment - that's what purveyors of news (from the mainstream media to extremist news outlets) are selling their consumers. Unfortunately, this push for the extreme may be building within the minds of consumers an ever-rising threshold of what is considered worthwhile. In the media’s case, this means they have a constantly evolving quest to find what their audience will consider to be rare or extraordinary. Which maybe helps explain one reason we have the unhappy, angry society we have today? Pushing the boundaries of the unusual ("rare") is bound to distort what we consider "normal", don't you think?

And yes... I thought I had a couple - and I do!  Original, genuine NYC MTA subway/bus tokens from around 1993.  Well, two are from '93; the one with the ribbon through its diamond-shaped hole was a commemorative token from 1979 in honor of the subway's 75th anniversary.

Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Meritocracy Means Be a Better Person

 
Whom would you hire?  

It's not a trick question.  At least, it didn't used to be.  If you were looking for somebody to fill an open position, would you look for the applicant who has the most qualifications for that job?  Or would you prefer someone who has average qualifications - but isn't a man, and isn't White?

These days, the hiring process has become fraught with complications regarding race and gender.  To a certain extent, considering the degree to which White men used to constitute the working class, expanding today's opportunities to applicants of various other characteristics is right and good.  Outside of specific religious-centric jobs (particularly in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), gender hardly matters for employment purposes.  And race doesn't matter for any job.

What should matter are one's qualifications:  The merits applicants possess.

Yet the more high-paying and high-profile a job becomes, the answer to who gets hired holds increasingly more sociopolitical baggage.  You see, as our society has come to grips with what "equality" means - and as different people have come to define equality differently - the concept of "merit" has become for some an unnecessary distinction.  For them, merit represents a lingering racist or sexist impediment to economic access.  

The dandy White male
can longer count his
race and gender
as meritorious.
That's a good thing,
right?

Some progressives suspect that conventional standards of merit are still used to deny rewards to those who've traditionally been denied them.  In the past, for example, women and non-Whites have not received the degree of access generally afforded White men to educational tools* that build skill sets that qualify people for the best jobs.  And since a primary way participants in a capitalist economic system secure rewards for themselves is through employment, metrics that are seen as impediments to better employment need to be discarded if they can be determined to be race-based.

And frankly, most of us would agree with that, right?  Race-based and gender-based saboteurs of employment access need to be eliminated to provide as much parity to our work-and-reward paradigm.  This isn't just for the sake of fairness, and respect for others.  Even if you're a selfish person, you should be able to recognize that the more people can participate profitably in capitalism, the better the economic prospects are for everybody.  So that means an individual's ability to build their personal merits for employment needs to be as open as possible.  Right?

Unfortunately, some folks don't think so.  For them, the fact that White men still tend to populate the best jobs stands as stark testament that the system continues to be rigged against everyone else.  Never mind that trends today show a broad erosion of White male dominance.  Some academics, journalists, and politicians believe such erosions haven't been eroding fast enough.  So they've begun questioning whether merit-based hiring, wages, raises, and other rewards really are beneficial to our society.

After all, if you remove "merit" from your hiring guidelines, you can open up jobs to a lot more people.

But aren't there valid reasons for keeping training, experience, and competency as important job considerations?

"Meritocracy" is the term describing a society that generally rewards people according to their talents, abilities, and proficiencies.  In other words, the people with the best skills for a job generally get that job - or, at least, are supposed to get that job.  And the better the job, the better the salary, and all the things that salary can buy.

It's how capitalism operates, as well as everything that contributes to it - our educational system, our recreational pursuits, our governance and laws, how we pick romantic partners, how we raise our children, and how we defend ourselves.  And yes, where we live - and how we live - depends largely on our merits.  Do everything right, check off all the key boxes, acquire successive assets and resources, and you will succeed... at least in terms of how our society broadly defines success.  Shucks, the career ladder doesn't climb itself.

Is it a perfect system?  No, at least not in terms how we operate it.  Some of us value the wrong things, or value the right things disproportionately.  But is that meritocracy's fault, or the fault of people who abuse it?

Elites among academia and journalism believe that merit is over-rated, and even "bad" for us.  However, these extremist views are themselves dangerous, because they fail to acknowledge the fundamental flaws in throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  Decrying meritocracy is yet another knee-jerk reaction to issues, trends, and data points that are currently in flux, but still seen to primarily give the best results to White men. 

Can you see the irony?  Here they are, many of them White, many of them men, many of them already Ivy League educated, working in prestigious university and journalism jobs... jobs for which they had to compete based on - you guessed it, "merit" - saying that the system by which they've acquired a seat at the table doesn't work.  

So are their own lives proof that their ivory tower theory really is out of touch with reality?  Is merit really so bad and dangerous?  And if it is, why are they perpetrating it with their own personal careers?

Let me be clear:  I can hardly declare that Western societies are purged of racism, sexism, and other negative "ism's" that create unfortunate and unfair power imbalances in our world.  And to the extent that our employment markets themselves still need some work, then OK - maybe non-Whites and women still find themselves striving a bit harder to prove themselves these days.

But does that mean merit is wrong?  After all, plenty of White men hold lowly, low-paying jobs without power and prestige.  And merit stands as a far better metric for advancement than oligarchies, in which a society's wealth is held and guarded by a tenacious few, regardless of whether they're earning it.  Merit means - at least theoretically - that anybody with the drive, ambition, and access to the proper resources can rise to the top.  If our society is still in the process of distributing those proper resources, why stifle those with drive and ambition like just about any other system would?

Then there's this.  My brother is fond of asking the joke, "What do you call a person who graduates medical school dead last in their class?"  The answer, regrettably, is "doctor", isn't it?  

But given the choice, how many progressives would choose to be operated on by somebody with marginal medical skills, rather than somebody who is at or near the top of the meritorious medical ladder?

Some classical music pundits have been chattering recently about watering-down requirements for new musicians as they're auditioned for open seats in prestigious symphonies and orchestras.  To make this primarily White industry more diverse, they think skin color should trump musical ability when it comes to... demonstrating musical ability.  But who would pay money to hear average musicians of any skin color struggle with Bach or Shostakovich?  And isn't showcasing the race of prospective symphony members rather demeaning?  You mean some people don't have to be good enough musically to score a gig; they have to exploit their skin color instead?

What about Black audiences of music that isn't classical?  Wouldn't they howl in protest if an average White person was engaged to perform soul music or the blues?  "She sings the blues pretty good for a White woman" isn't exactly high praise, is it?  I would imagine most White blues singers don't want their skin color to "color" their reputation, so why should Black musicians be any different?  Perpetuating different standards for different races risks perpetuating racism itself.

So let's take race out of this, shall we?  When boarding an airplane, how many of us would willingly let the airline staff the cockpit with trainees?  Who do you want designing the bridges you cross and the skyscrapers you visit?  Engineers who are well-qualified, right?

Merit still means something.  It doesn't mean racism, sexism, or oppression.  It means somebody has not only barely met the requirements by the skin of their teeth, they have either met them with talent to spare, or they've decisively exceeded them.  That is not a bad thing.  In fact, that's how society progresses, because meritocracy clarifies problems to be solved, and encourages competencies to solve them.  Becoming better than good at something creates a process that helps create wealth, whereas being only adequate barely sustains wealth.  Not exactly a key to success - if success is what we're supposed to be spreading.

So beware:  The next time you hear somebody grousing about our meritocracy, consider whether they may actually be jealous of folks who have more money, a better education, or a nicer home.  Are they paying lip service to the virtue of diversity while using it as a smokescreen for envy?  Might they also be risking a disservice to everybody who isn't White, or a man?  Nobody wants to say non-Whites and women are intrinsically inferior because they can't make up for lost time, but isn't that an implication?  Equality is one thing, and a noble goal; however, the continuum of attaining equality's rewards operates apart from status for all of us, which makes it like a photo or a video of something that doesn't depict all surrounding context.  Remember, plenty of White men aren't fully vested in our meritocracy even now.

Still, don't you want to be the one deciding how far you even want to go, no matter who you are?  Without merit, however, practically anybody can qualify, and how fair is that when it comes to the effort required to gain skills?  Eliminating a meritocracy doesn't mean jobs won't require skills.  But it does mean there will likely be fewer skilled workers, because the incentive will be gone.

Of course, maybe as a good-will gesture, all the folks who deride meritocracy could make a start by giving up their own hard-won jobs and positions - after all, those apparently were obtained corruptly (through meritocracy).

But wouldn't the better option be this:  To be a better person instead?  

Not simply a statistic.

_____

*Then there's this:  From the Wall Street Journal, about the historic disparity between men and women graduating college these days - with graduation rates for men lagging far behind those for women.

Monday, October 11, 2021

Chris Columbus and Messy History

Columbus Statue in Syracuse, New York. Photo by Wil Snodgrass
Many statues of Columbus attract protests these days, and this one is no exception. For those who dislike this particular statue, I agree that it seems to take delight in portraying Native Americans - of which there were many in Upstate New York - as subservient to Columbus. In this case, wouldn't removing the figure of Columbus and leaving the plinth with the chiefs in headdress be appropriate for the statue's location? It's sited not near any of Christopher's beachheads, but in the foreground of the Onondaga County Courthouse. The Onondaga people were charter members of the Iroquois Confederacy
, key allies against the British during the Revolutionary War. Alternatively, then, the statue could remain intact and be interpreted as a link between Colonists and Native Americans united against a common enemy. At any rate, the point is that messy history means simplistic conclusions may not be accurate.

 

History is messy.

Of all the things I learned in school growing up, that's one thing I didn't learn.  And you probably didn't either.  We were spoon-fed pre-packaged parcels of chock-a-block history lessons, with Colonial America in one box, European history in another box, and Texas history in a huge box (here in Texas, all 7th graders are taught how absolutely indebted the world is to the Lone Star State!).  

World history often gets broken up and tossed into various other boxes like geography and social studies.

When I got to college, I had a history professor who announced that his job was to re-teach us history.  Public school so corrupts our understanding of the world around us, he said, that it's a wonder our modern society isn't even more twisted than it already is.  While it is true that people who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, the vast majority of us have never been taught how individual bits of history correspond to the whole.

And increasingly, when Columbus Day rolls around every year, we're confronted with that unfortunate reality.

Not because "Indigenous Peoples Day" deserves to replace unfettered adulation of the White guy who "discovered" the "New" World.  But because even folks who champion the Western Hemisphere's "indigenous people" don't realize that the civilizations Columbus mocked and tortured weren't really all that civilized to begin with, either.

The more I learn about Christopher Columbus, the more convinced I am that he wasn't just a product of his time.  He was deeply ethnocentric, incredibly vainglorious, and wildly racist.  His writings, even watered down by all the caveats his modern defenders posit, stand as sad testament to his disdain for just about everybody he encountered over here.  Let's just go ahead and admit it.

The thing is, we can't stop there.  When I was in junior high, I took Spanish classes, and I learned about the Mayans, the Incas, and the Aztecs.  And while they were remarkably advanced cultures for Central and South America, they were not civilized.  No "indigenous people" champion today would want to live in any of those cultures.

Mayans, for example, believed in human sacrifices.  They fought vicious wars amongst themselves.  They were also ignorant regarding basic ecology - they caused epic deforestation that endangered their society.  For all the people today who complain about diseases Europeans brought to the Western Hemisphere, let's remember that there are many ways to die, and our indigenous peoples were already facing perils of their own making.

The Incas were colonizers - the dreaded "C" word that horrifies progressives today.  Through crude diplomacy and brutal warfare, they amassed a huge empire along the western coast of South America.  If Columbus hadn't shown up, who knows how much of the continent would have fallen under their control.  For all the people today who complain about imperialistic European colonizers, their posturing is mostly frustration that Whites tended to be more capable at it than indigenous societies like the Incas.

Aztec culture was based on warfare.  Their religion and economy depended on it.  Warfare was how the Aztecs survived - by expanding their empire - and how they pacified their deities.  The Aztecs had no standing army per say; every man was part of their army.

Don't believe me?  Do your own research.  It's not hard - I learned about their warfare when I was in the 7th grade.  But I learned it in the "Spanish Class" box, and I was not encouraged to compare the facts about ancient people groups in the Western Hemisphere to what happened on our side of this planet after Europeans arrived.  I suspect many people who revile Columbus weren't, either.

And what of the Native Americans here in the United States?  Think about it for a minute:  Why do we have the term "braves" in our lexicon today?  It's not because of white supremacy.  Native Americans tended to be quite fierce.  They scalped their enemies long before Europeans began docking their ships along the Atlantic Coast.  Not every tribe possessed such brutality, but generally speaking, the conquest of their world attributed as beginning with Columbus was just an extension of the warfare that was their existence before Europeans set foot on these shores.

There was no placid, bucolic "kumbaya" utopia going on here before Columbus.  In fact, there was no real government, and no rule of law.  Societies here were ruled by autocrats and perpetuated by warfare.  So, how was that so different than what Columbus introduced, you might ask?  Maybe not a lot - except that Columbus was an emissary of a government that was governed to a certain extent by laws.  

The rule of law is not natural to humanity - it was invented by the Greeks.  White Europeans (oh no!).  Ever heard of Aristotle?  He's the guy generally credited with formalizing the philosophy of authority by civil code rather than individual power.

While the rule of law may have been wholly ignored during Columbus' explorations, the concept's evolution made its way to the "New" World not by osmosis, but after the European conquest of this hemisphere.  Was it pretty, and neat and clean, and pure?  Of course not.  It was ugly.  People did bad things.  All kinds of really bad, awful things.  And yes, you and I are living with the messy consequences today of those messy things.

But how does denying reality of this hemisphere before, during, and after Columbus help clean up the messes from history?

Sure, let Christopher's dirty laundry hang out in the fresh air of freedom for all to see.  Should we celebrate him because of how he acted?  No, but is there anything in his sheer passion for discovery that is at all meaningful and relevant to our progress today?

And at the same time, let's not canonize indigenous peoples.  Did they deserve to be treated the way Columbus treated them?  No, but was the world in which they lived deserving of preservation?  Again, the answer would be a resounding "NO", right?  At least, if you value the rule of law and human rights.  Those things may have been absent from the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria, but they did follow.  Eventually.

Would values like the rule of law and human rights have eventually come to the Western Hemisphere had Europeans not?  We don't know, and how can we speculate?  Perhaps Asians would have found the western coast of our hemisphere, but remember, the indigenous folks who were already here had come from Asia across the Bering Strait, right?  Might nomads from the "West" have trickled down through North America over the centuries by land, bringing concepts like the rule of law and human rights with them?  Maybe, and maybe they'd have met the same warrior tribes that the Pilgrims and other colonists encountered on the East Coast.

Suffice it to say that the history we're supposedly acknowledging today is messy.  Very messy.  But making villains out of each other, and Italians, and indigenous peoples today misses that point.  What would be so wrong with using this day as a reminder that none of us is perfect?  That daily life is made up of six billion people making mistakes and (hopefully) learning from them?

Maybe you don't appreciate what we have today, compared with what ancient civilizations had - or didn't.  That's the bigger problem with folks who grouse about Columbus, isn't it?  Would you want to risk being alive today in any of the ancient cultures Columbus' arrival helped extinguish?  

Maybe Columbus isn't the person who should have a day named after him (or an uber-liberal university in New York City *cough* *cough*).  But if we're going to start naming holidays after people groups, what's so special about folks who slaughtered each other because they were the more dominant?

Isn't that what you dislike about the Europeans?  Or are you just upset that Europeans had more lethal weapons?

What happens when we don't learn from history?

Saturday, February 6, 2021

Begin and End: My Internship With NYC

(FYI - this is quite long, more like a short story than one of my typical essays)

 

For better or worse, I don't have any pictures of me during my internship. Instead, how about this photo, taken 3 years later, in NYC. I'm in the middle, in the blue shirt, with hair and a 29" waist! Two co-workers of mine at the time, Vinny and Maria, took me out to lunch to celebrate my birthday. We were at the TGI Friday's on Broadway, in Lower Manhattan. (No, I've never been a foodie!)


 

In the summer of 1990, I was a young, idealistic graduate student studying city and regional planning at the University of Texas at Arlington.  Part of the program's graduation requirements involved me completing some pertinent internship at a municipality or other government entity.

One year earlier, I'd acquired an undergraduate degree in sociology, which I'd cobbled together after spending my first two years majoring in architecture.  Unfortunately, I had underestimated architecture's daunting math and drawing requirements.  I managed to salvage the credits I'd already earned by combining the architecture with sociology - with no more math, and writing instead of drawing.  

Then I planned to apply all of that towards an urban planning masters degree.  And then pursue a planning career in New York City government.  

As an amateur adult, I was infatuated with New York City.  I had been born in Brooklyn and only lived the first three months of my life there, but after I graduated high school, for whatever reason, I developed an extraordinary pride in being a native Brooklynite.  Ironically, back then, most people born in that borough took pride in being able to leave it and move someplace - anyplace! - else.  

Those were not stellar times for the Big Apple in general, or Brooklyn in particular.  Suburbanization, White flight, the rise of America's sun belt, and deindustralization had gutted much of the city's tax-paying middle class.  Violent crime was at all-time highs, and the city's infrastructure was literally crumbling from age and neglect.  

Still, I found Gotham enticing.  The juxtaposition of contrasts one could find on virtually any block made it seem vibrant, even as so much social, economic, and political decay was wreaking havoc on the place.  I took vacations there every year, staying with my aunt in Brooklyn to save on lodging expenses.  Whenever I could base a college paper on something about New York City, I did.  I read books (this was pre-Internet, kids) about New York's history not for class credits, but out of my own curiosity.  I seemed to take personally the tragic atrophy consuming that great metropolis, and I believed I could help change things for the better.

As you will see, my first and only internship brought a swift end to that presumption.  My naivete on the subject of New York City collided with reality.  I'm not a glass-half-full person by nature, and my friends in high school used to tease me about my lack of optimism.  Edith Chen, who is now a college professor in California, used to cheerfully say "'Tim' is part of 'optimism', so you should be optimistic"!  Maybe I suddenly became an optimist, at least for a short time during my college years... but it didn't last.

Not that interning for the city was a complete failure.  Quite the contrary - it was a deeply illuminating time for me.  Those three months were packed with experiences I still remember vividly.  Actually, they began before that summer ever did - in the spring of 1990, when I was surprised to learn they wanted me to interview in New York for one of the few available internships.  At the time, Gotham was still grappling with its epic budget problems, and funding had initially been denied for that year's prestigious internship program.  However, at the last minute, some money became available, and notice of potential internships was released on a limited basis.  It so happened that Nona Volk, a longtime city employee who lived in my aunt's Brooklyn co-op building, snagged a memo about the internships, and passed it on to me.  I applied, and heard from a guy in the BEGIN program - whatever that was.

So I flew up to New York, and found my way to a faded Beaux-arts-styled office pile on 16th Street, down the block from Union Square, on the northern fringe of fabled Greenwich Village.  At the time, that neighborhood could hardly boast of its trendiness - or even bemoan its gentrification.  In fact, the block-long Zeckendorf Towers mixed-use high-rise complex had just been built on 14th Street as an urban renewal project.  The development's newness, blandness, and skeletal rooftop pyramids made it stick out awkwardly among its more venerable and ornate neighbors. 

Union Square itself was a beleaguered haven for drugs and crime.  Only on odd occasions would benches underneath the square's big, leafy trees be empty of vagrants.  On the plus side, there was a fledgling farmers' market on Fridays during the daytime, hosting countrified growers from as far away as bucolic Pennsylvania.

Talk about your contrasts!  The aroma from their freshly-picked produce clashed with the greasy, exhaust-tinged fumes of ordinary Gotham air, and the farmers themselves seemed downright nervous about being out of their element in gritty, concrete canyons.  

Indeed, Union Square was hardly idyllic, or even hip in a bohemian sort of way. 

I interviewed with a 30-ish Caucasian manager named Richard, who was originally from the Midwest.  Almost immediately, Richard announced that he was gay - as if his announcement was needed at all, he was so flaming.  Back then, outside of cities like New York, such public behavior was quite rare.

And by the way, I've changed these names to protect everyone's privacy.  Except for Nona's.  A free-spirited Montana native, Nona is altruistic, feisty, and long since retired.  Plus, she's the reason I have this story to tell in the first place.  As of this writing, she still lives in my late aunt's building.

She was the first person I ever knew who painted her bathroom a color I'd consider odd, back before such a thing became trendy.  In her case, it was completely purple - including the ceiling.  She found a fallen tree branch up the block in Sunset Park, brought it home, painted it flat white, and hung it from her bathroom's ceiling.  One evening, with lit candles the only lighting, she had me lay in her (dry) bathtub so I could soak in the ambiance of dancing glows and shadows flickering across the delicate white twigs splayed before a purple backdrop.  I went back to my aunt's apartment and tried to explain it to her, but my practical aunt couldn't understand why anybody would hang a tree limb from their ceiling.

So, that was Nona.  But Richard was interviewing me, remember?  Well, I remember being ill at ease in his little cubicle, but not just because the interview had become so intensely personal so quickly.  The faded building we were in unnerved me.  It sounded and felt as tired as it looked.  I'd never before been in an edifice that was in such poor shape - and was still certified for occupancy!  Ancient wood floors sagged and creaked when you walked on them.  Maybe not so disconcerting in a one-story building, but we were nine stories up!  The main elevator was rickety and unconvincing as a safe mode of conveyance.  Dropped-ceiling tiles likely installed in the 1960s were yellowed with age.  The first few floors of the 11-story edifice housed client-service halls for welfare recipients, and those floors were chaotic and filthy, as was the public entryway on 16th Street.  Jaded city clerks droned over static-laced public address systems.  It was an utterly dystopian setting. 

Thankfully, Richard tipped me off about a back stairway for staff that, while itself a bit creaky, provided some respite from the worst of the din.  He could tell I wasn't the most savvy candidate, at least in terms of knowing what I was getting into with the city.  He also knew that this naive fellow from Texas would - if nothing else - be a clean slate for what the summer had to offer.  And he offered me the internship, although - as he bluntly and politically-incorrectly admitted - the fact that I am a White male was two strikes against me in terms of qualifications.

My main qualification involved a class project I'd been doing that semester at UTA, in which a group of us graduate students had undertaken a study regarding poverty here in Arlington.  

Several years earlier, some leaders from a number of churches had launched a low-key homeless shelter to address a problem that never used to exist in our suburban city.  Social work types had begun exploring technical aspects of this homeless shelter, which was growing exponentially and serving a mix of single men and families, even in 1990.  However, nobody really knew how the shelter was impacting its community.  It was located in a commercial corridor but right next to Arlington's historically Black "Hill" neighborhood, even though none of the shelter's patrons were from the Hill.  So there were a number of socioeconomic factors my group had to consider in our project, and that's probably what attracted Richard to my resume in the first place.

Not that I was going to be a social worker, or that my internship would be about social work.  Turned out, I would be interning for one of the first programs in America designed specifically to transition welfare recipients into the workforce.  You can imagine the impacts such a program - if successful - would have on any city grappling with poverty and unemployment.  


 
The official name of my department was The City of New York Human Resources Administration, Office of Employment Services, Work Experience Management, B.E.G.I.N. Program; or NYC HRA OES WEM BEGIN.

Whew!

“BEGIN” stood for “Begin Employment Gain Independence Now".  It had been running for less than two years when I came for my internship.  The program doesn't really exist today, but then again, the whole "welfare-to-work" strategy looks quite different today, all these years later.  Still, it was an ambitious notion at the time - and for liberal New York City, an audacious one as well.  Sometimes,  welfare programs seem more about enabling people in their current predicaments, rather than empowering them to move beyond them.

My boss, and his boss - the director of the whole program - wanted me to provide a reasonably objective impression of how things were going thus-far, without getting mired in social work group-think.  In other words, did I see something they were doing that just struck me as extremely odd or counter-productive?  Or did I see something that they should be doing, but weren't?  If I was too close to the project, I probably wouldn't provide them the type of third-party feedback they were looking for.  

I would have access to reams of print-outs and reports, I'd attend various meetings, I'd conduct site visits at various service centers across the city, and I'd interact with clients.  I’d even have my own assistant (a public high school student), and a schedule of special meetings at City Hall with other graduate interns like me working in various city departments that summer. 

This was during the tenure of Mayor David Dinkins, and one morning, along with other interns, I was on the steps of New York's elegant City Hall, waiting for the start of one of our meetings.  I am not an outgoing person, and I didn't mingle with the other interns, of which there were a couple of dozen.  Actually, my aunt's neighbor, Nona, had procured for herself an intern as well - an eager fellow of Indian descent from New Jersey.  She'd already arranged for us to meet, and we would occasionally chat at these events.  But he was more interested in networking with the other graduate students, a career-building tactic that I didn't understand in those days.  

Looking back, I realize I had no concept of how meeting the right people can help someone climb their own career ladder.  Even before people called it "networking", that's what ambitious folks did - they're called "strivers" today - and they seem to possess an innate drive to do it.  I, on the other hand, do not.  

A year or so after my city internship, while working in Lower Manhattan, I would notice how many White men walking the financial district's streets wore club ties (neckties with a solid background color and little shield-shaped emblems patterned across them).  Somebody informed me those were from Ivy League schools, and graduates wore them both to discreetly brag about their scholastic pedigree, and to attract networking possibilities from fellow graduates they might meet by chance in public.  Kind of like their own subtle wealth-building code.  Did you know that?  I surely had no clue.

At any rate, back at City Hall, I watched as a motorcade of police cars and a limousine swept up to the bottom of the steps.  A diminutive, gray-haired Black man with a clipped mustache elegantly emerged from the limousine, and effortlessly glided up the steps, right past me.  We both cautiously glanced at each other, we exchanged greetings, and that was that!  I'd had a personal encounter with the leader of the "world's capital".

Frankly, I thought Hizzoner would have had a private entrance down in City Hall's basement or something, so the guy wouldn't have to trek all those steps in all sorts of weather.  But Dinkins was a tennis fanatic, and in excellent physical shape, so considering the stresses and strains of being New York's mayor, climbing those steps may have been the easiest part of his day!

We interns usually met in the city's press room, a delicate, high-ceilinged hall painted light blue.  Once, we were given a tour of the building, and I only remember that overall, it seemed too small to be a city hall for a town of New York's enormity.  However, one of our meetings was in the larger, grander Tweed Courthouse, a far more imposing structure right behind City Hall.  Historians know the Tweed Courthouse as one of the most visible and lucrative slush funds in American history.  Its very construction literally provided a barely-concealed pillaging of public coffers by the city's notorious "Boss" Tweed during the Civil War era.  Tweed was one of the most iconic political crooks of the city's unabashedly crooked Tammany Hall society.  Their headquarters, ironically enough, used to be in a building that still sits around the corner from where I interned on 16th Street.

Sixteenth Street's more humble environs were redeemed for me when I discovered Gramercy Park, just a few short blocks to the north.  On my lunch hours, I'd walk up Irving Place (after Washington Irving, who'd lived there) to the gated oasis, accessible only to residents around the private park.  Ringing Gramercy Park were ornate apartment buildings and townhouses, and a couple of exclusive literary clubs, all reeking of refinement.  It was truly like stepping back in time, to a grander, more serene New York City (which is rosy retrospection, since New York was never serene).  A couple of years later, when I was living up on East 28th Street, I'd often go for evening walks back down to Gramercy Park, circling the patrician enclave for an hour or so - even in the rain! - before heading back to my dreary apartment.  I hardly ever saw any other pedestrians, and I never saw anybody inside the park.  I presumed all the folks who had access to it were working extra-long hours just to be able to afford the neighborhood... and say they had access to the private park, even though they hardly actually used it.

Back at work, our days were spent with decidedly antiquated furniture and aesthetics that probably dated to the origins of the grand old buildings around Gramercy Park, but were far less satisfying for an office environment!  But we made do.  The bathrooms still had stickers about water conservation from the 1970s, which at least was newer than the plumbing itself.  When typewriters wouldn't work (Google it, kids), city staffers simply hunted for one that did.  Employees knew it was useless to complain about chairs that weren't comfortable, or desks with drawers that fell apart.  Those creaky, bouncy floors eventually grew on me, although I could never mentally erase the notion of one day, all of us just sagging down, floor by floor, until the ancient floorboards simply popped apart from the strain.

Meanwhile, the city's maintenance union ruled this building like all its others - with impunity and waste.  Once, a florescent lightbulb burned out in our office, and maintenance did eventually get around to replacing it.  Three guys strode into our office one afternoon, clumping loudly across the creaky floor.  One carried a stepladder, one carried a new bulb, and one carried nothing.  

They were making such a production out of it, I felt obligated to turn around and watch.

The guy with the stepladder set it up, and stood back.  Then the guy carrying nothing climbed up and removed the dead bulb.  Then he climbed down and stood back, holding the dead bulb. 

The guy with the new bulb then climbed up and installed it.  Then he climbed back down.  The guy who'd brought in the stepladder moved to reclaim it.

Then the three of them left... three full-time employees to change one light bulb.  

I turned to look at Richard, in his cubicle, and he caught my glance.  "Don't say anything!" he immediately cautioned me, smirking as he talked.  He was already used to it.

I truly liked the folks with whom I worked.  I liked the diversity of their personalities, races, and backgrounds.  Of all the things that bother me or make me uncomfortable, diversity isn't necessarily one of them, as long as we can all get along.  And for the most part, I think we all did.  At least for those three months I was there.  Of course, it helped that I wasn't there to steal anybody's job, or find fault with anybody.  And if they didn't like my final report, since I was only an intern, they could ignore it once I was gone.  So there was very little pressure, and that helped a lot.

Although not a native New Yorker, Richard could pass as one, with his cosmopolitan vibe and unique personality.  He had a receding hairline, was fairly tall and slender, and while he dressed in business attire, he tended to be a bit rumpled in his appearance.  Yes, he proved to be flaming as well - he huffed and puffed and flounced about - and he clearly enjoyed a robust social life within Manhattan's vibrant gay scene.  Energetic and earnest, Richard garnered respect from everybody in our office, while giving utter loyalty to Ruth, his boss and the director of the BEGIN program.  

Ruth was also relatively slender and tall, Caucasian, a career city employee, and surprisingly quiet and reserved for somebody in her senior position.  She was married - to a man (in New York, one has to qualify that) - but she never talked about him.  I didn't know if it was because she was an ardent feminist, or because they had a poor relationship, or if she simply thought her private life needed to remain private.  Ruth never raised her voice, but she controlled any conversation she had with anybody in our office.  She never gave me any instructions or orders - all my assignments came from Richard.  That told me Ruth was a delegator and knew who would get done what she wanted done.  In my opinion, that type of manager is a rare and valuable breed.  

Ruth struck me as being a good program executive, but just as she didn't order people about like a typical executive, she didn't dress like one, either.  She wore plain clothing.  She did nothing special with her naturally red hair that was turning gray.  She wore no makeup, but maybe that was because she perspired a lot.  Her face always looked flushed - kind of like Richard's, actually.  Despite its many inadequacies, our building did have a sort of central air-conditioning system, and it worked most of the time.  I figured maybe the stress of their jobs - with BEGIN being so new and unproven - made the two of them constantly anxious. 

Ruth had a secretary named Nadine, and she was a hoot.  Large and gregarious, Nadine was everything Ruth was not.  She wore loud clothing and laughed just as loudly, full and throaty.  And she laughed a lot, despite her lot in life.  A single Hispanic living in Queens, she had several children and before working for Ruth, lived on welfare.  In fact, her income on welfare was more than she was earning working for the city.  But Nadine wanted to set a good example for her children, so when her last child went into grade school, she went to work.  And fittingly, that work was with BEGIN. 

A couple of years after my internship - would you believe it - during the evening rush hour, at the Union Square subway stop on the Lexington Avenue line, I saw Nadine enter the car in which I was riding.  I went up to her, she recognized me, and we chatted until my 28th Street stop came.  She was still working for Ruth, and Richard was still there.  

Just now, typing this out, I realize I should have gone by the ol' office when I had the chance.  But to be honest, I don't think I'd ever thought of doing that until today.  Maybe if I did think of it back when I was still living there, I decided against it, considering how I'd ended my city planning plans when my internship ended.  Not exactly the type of affirmation for BEGIN that Ruth, Richard, and the gang were likely expecting from me!

Richard's secretary was a younger, Black single mother from Brooklyn.  I can't remember her name, but she was quite helpful to me and took the time to explain some back-stories to the narratives I'd hear around the office.  She and Nadine were good friends.  Sometimes I’d see them having lunch at a greasy, grim diner down the block, and go inside and listen to them chat away about all sorts of things.

Next to Richard's secretary sat Paula, a delightful, trim, middle-aged Filipina who always wore a bright smile on her smooth face.  She managed a lot of the data and reports for the program along with Mark, a young, athletic Black man who dressed the best of anybody in the office.  I could tell Mark was a native New Yorker by the way he said his name:  "Muak", kind of like "moo-ark" mashed together.  Mark was a very eligible heterosexual bachelor who seemed to have an active social life.  He also drove a late-model dark-blue Mercedes sedan and parked in private parking garages, which is a pricey proposition in Manhattan.  

His lifestyle seemed so much more expensive than everybody else's in the office, I presumed he came from a wealthy family.  After all, if Mark was White, that's what most of us would presume, right?  So I don't want to be racist here and deny him the same presumption just because he was African-American.  And to be fair, the other inverse is also true:  If Richard was tooling around Gotham in a late-model Mercedes, it would have seemed just as odd to me.  New York City simply wasn't known as an employer with highly-paid social workers, even in management.

OK, so yes; I admit I was curious about the apparent disconnect there, but I chalked it up as one of those many contrasts that intrigued me about New York.

Cynthia worked down at the far end of our office.  She was round, but not really heavy; Caucasian, with straight black hair that always seemed stuck to her head and face, since like Richard and Ruth, she perspired a lot.  Part of the reason was that Cynthia and her husband, who also worked on our floor, but in a different office, walked to 16th Street from their tiny apartment up in the east 30's.  And since this was summertime, the city was usually sticky and humid, even in the mornings.  Cynthia would come trudging in, wearing sneakers and a dress, with a backpack - and back then, backpacks were not fashionable.  She'd plunk herself down at her desk, and immediately begin returning telephone calls - something she spent most of her day doing.

Cynthia was basically in charge of cajoling welfare recipients who were trying to get out of having to go to work.  These weren't folks who had physical disabilities, or even diagnosed mental disabilities.  These were people who were completely able-bodied, with no young children at home, or elderly parents to tend.  They were people whose caseworkers were at their wit's end, trying to convince them the city could no longer afford to pay them to sit around and do nothing.  

I particularly remember one man with whom Cynthia talked almost constantly.  I'll call him Doug.  We all knew when she was on the phone with Doug, because Cynthia treated him like her little brother, she'd gotten to know him so well through their frequent conversations. You see, not only did Doug target Cynthia for his many complaints, but Doug had gotten ahold of then-governor Mario Cuomo’s private phone number, and at least once he chastised Cuomo personally about having to find a job. Doug also had learned a private phone number for Dinkins, and he’d call Hizzoner with the same complaint. The staff for Cuomo and Dinkins would then call Cynthia – and Cynthia would call Doug and tell him in her nasal Queens accent to quit bothering the mayor and governor.  They weren't going to give him any waivers. 

It was a silly, farcical circle of obstinacy through which Cynthia patiently suffered. Once, Cynthia told me that she’d tried to reason with Doug; “Do you realize, with your skills at finding private phone numbers, needling major politicians, and deceiving your caseworker, you could be making a killing on Wall Street with less effort than you’re using trying NOT to work?!”

I remember several case managers who'd frequently hang out in our office but worked in other locations.  Two of these regulars were Roz, another gregarious Latina, and a short, gay Hispanic man whose name I no longer recall.  Roz wore flashy, skin-tight clothing, lots of makeup, and big hair, while the gay Latino wore softer clothing.  They'd come back from meetings with Richard and animatedly "dish" on all sorts of things. 

There was one afternoon when Richard and another gay caseworker were going to a protest after work to denounce New York's Roman Catholic diocese and its stance against abortion.  They were trying to cajole the gay Latino caseworker into joining them, but he was refusing to go.  Finally, exasperated, Richard exclaimed, "But you have to protest against the Pope and Catholics!  You're gay!  We're pro-choice!"

"Yes, I'm gay," the Hispanic caseworker replied, "but I'm also Catholic, and I'm pro-life.  I can be pro-life and still be gay, right?"  And Richard slumped backwards, obviously stumped at the concept.  A person could be gay and also pro-life?  It was as if the two couldn't be reconciled in Richard's mind.  Still, he and the other gay caseworker stopped pestering their co-worker about attending the protest.  

In my mind, meanwhile, sitting off to the side, listening to their conversation, I thought to myself, "This is what New York's hallowed 'diversity' is all about, right?  Even gay people can be against abortion."

Sexuality played an outsized role in my internship that summer in a far more disturbing fashion.  

Neither Richard nor I had a say in who my high school intern would be, since the teen would be assigned to us by the public school system.  So Richard and I were pleased to meet a shy yet competent 17-year-old young woman who was an immigrant from China.  I believe she was the only person in her family who spoke English, and she spoke it quite well - when we could hear her!  She spoke so softly and timidly. 

To be a high school intern, her scholastic record must have been stellar, yet she was not there to wow us with her accomplishments.  The high school intern program was basically about exposing the city's brightest young people to the workaday world, giving them a taste of what careering in an office was like.  Richard gave her pamphlets about the program to read, she tailed his secretary as she went about her tasks, and she attended some of our meetings.  Otherwise, she'd sit off to the side and watch the rest of us interact.  Her hours were only part-time, so she could still be a kid enjoying her summer break.  She hardly interacted with me, so she wasn't really "my" intern.  Since she didn't have the typical teenaged attitude, she seemed to get along well with everybody.  The only issue was getting her to speak up so we could hear her during the few times she did talk!

Unfortunately, another issue did crop up, and it proved far more sinister.  My intern and I were paid, and we had to clock-in and clock-out at the human resources desk on the third floor.  Or was it the fourth floor?  At any rate, the human resources desk was comprised of a time clock and the usual slots for time cards, positioned next to a long counter that seemed to be constantly manned by a thin, middle-aged Black man who sat perched on a tall stool.  I saw him twice a day, every day, when I came and left, and I don't think he ever spoke one word to me.  I knew that basic New York City protocol was not to talk to anybody else anyway, so I doubt I ever said anything to him either.

My intern, however, suddenly arrived to work one day crying softly.  Richard asked her what was wrong, and she brushed it off.  But it happened again another day, and we all became quite concerned.  Was there something wrong in her family?  We thought she communicated well in English, but was there a problem we didn't understand?  Was the internship too hard for her?  Were we not treating her well?

Richard finally coaxed from her the ugly claim that the Black man at the human resources desk was making sexually vulgar remarks to the 17-year-old.  The teenager had never experienced being the recipient of such things.  She was still relatively new to our country, and yes, she was a naturally-shy person.  Hardly the type to welcome, or fully understand, or appreciate such unwarranted advances.  She was also Asian, and apparently her cultural background featured in some of his remarks and suggestions.  So it was a mix of really bad things, and the rest of us were appalled.  Ruth personally met with the teen - Ruth never met personally with me about anything - and then went to higher-ups in the city to get some justice for her.

Would you believe - the man in human resources was a shop steward (or supervisor) for his union, which for all practical purposes, made him something of an "untouchable."  It would be the young high school intern's word against his, and his union had massive financial and political resources to throw at the high schooler.  She didn't have the money or clout to fight such opposition, and the city would provide no defense for her, probably because she wasn't an official city employee.  Just an intern.  The fact that there was cultural bias involved didn't matter.  The fact that she was underaged didn't matter, either.  So Ruth and Richard advised the intern that she could simply quit the program, but they would credit her with completing the whole thing so she could include it on her scholastic resume.

And with that, Mark went to get his Mercedes from a nearby parking garage, and he and I drove her back home.  She even lived on Mott Street, one of the quintessential parts of Chinatown.  The whole thing was so demoralizing.  

I'm afraid to learn whether that young woman was ever able to make something positive out of such an awful experience.

Today, I can see how people can become jaded to all sorts of wrongs, especially when exposed to situations such as my high school intern's.  We can become even more jaded the more we're exposed to a continuous stream of antisocial behavior.  And like bacteria in a petri dish, New York City is a vast incubator of antisocial behavior.  

Scientists call growing bacteria a "culture".  Ironically, New Yorkers call theirs a city of culture, too.  But what kind of culture?

Indeed, at least when I lived there, every day was yet another crazy New York City tableau.  One time, building security called Richard and told us all 11 floors were in lock-down because an angry welfare recipient visiting a lower floor had brandished a gun (a big enough deal in conservative Texas, but an absolutely huge deal in liberal Manhattan), threatened his social worker, and stormed up a stairwell to elude guards.  We all simply closed our doors and kept on working.  

Another day, in our staff stairwell in the back of the building - which featured tall windows that were never closed, making them airy and often fragrant with questionable aromas - I passed two young welfare recipients... well... being very friendly with each other.  I took the opportunity to practice my burgeoning jadedness and continued descending the stairs.

About the only part of my internship I didn't like involved visiting our building's lower client service floors.  They were always jammed with welfare recipients who were confused, loud, angry, smelly, and extremely stressed.  Small children cried in fright at the cacophony, with city clerks and social workers also physically and emotionally overwhelmed by it all. 

One afternoon, I can't remember what possessed me to use our building's main elevator, but I took it to run an errand to the first floor.  The elevator car was absolutely packed.  When its doors wheezed open, we would have spilled out like beans from a burst sack into the lobby, except the lobby was equally jammed with people waiting to go up.  And New Yorkers rarely part like the Red Sea when elevator doors or subway doors open.  Each person either embarking or disembarking needs to independently fight the surge and claim their territory on either side of the soon-to-be-closing doors.

I managed to run my errand just fine, but apparently that gave me a false sense of optimism when it came to attempting a ride back up the same elevator to the ninth floor.  Maybe I figured it was a cultural exercise, since I was the only White person using the public elevator then.  And I did manage to get into the elevator with an astonishingly large crowd of other people.  Except there was a mother with a child trying to get on, and the doors were closing, and her child - a young, small Black boy - got trapped in the elevator with us, and his mother yelling as the doors slammed shut with her still in the lobby.  With a disconcerting lurch, the elevator began chugging upwards.  Above all the other din in the lobby, I could hear the mother screaming.  And the little boy started screaming.  But nobody in the elevator bothered to do anything.  

The doors slid open at the second floor.  I grabbed the child by his arm and, as quickly as I could navigate the crowds on that floor, I went to the stairwell with him in tow, rushed back down to the first floor, and over to the lobby, where I found his mother, still by the elevator.

"Here he is," I stated, handing her little boy back to her.  I don't know why I thought an appreciative "thank you" would have been in order, so I was surprised to receive a mean, angry glare from the mother as she grabbed her son's arm from me.

I simply turned around to go and use the employee elevators in the back of the building.  That's what I should have done in the first place!  Now I knew why nobody else in the elevator bothered to help the little boy.  In New York City, no good deed goes unpunished.

 
One bright morning, I went on a site visit to a foreboding, dilapidated city building west of the Port Authority bus terminal.  Child care was being offered there to BEGIN participants, and ESL classes were being conducted.  I sat in on a session in a big, airless room where Hispanic, Russian, and Bangladeshi immigrants – mostly women, mostly in their 30’s or older – were smiling and laughing along with their gregarious instructor.  Their good nature filled the dark hallways of that poorly-maintained, poorly-lit building, although I never understood what was so funny.  I also didn't understand why none of the lights were on - was the city trying to save money on their electric bill?

Or was the city's maintenance union running seriously behind in replacing its burned-out light bulbs?  Good thing it was a sunny day, and the building had lots of windows.

Richard and his staff made a big deal out of another of my visits, this time to a client site on 125th Street, in the heart of Harlem.  With me being a suburban White boy from Texas, and Harlem at the time still being very much a Black ghetto, there was little to exaggerate in the contrasts.  For his part, Mark especially got a kick out of me going up there, telling me wild stories about surviving 125th Street as a Black youth.  My aunt, a lifelong Brooklynite, was particularly fretful about the idea.  So when the day arrived, I didn't know what to expect. 

When I'd go for evening walks in Brooklyn, my aunt had already taught me the mugging victim's protocol: 
1.  Don't wear a wallet.
2.  Put a $20 bill in a front pocket.
3.  Put your drivers license in one of your socks, or under your foot before you put on your shoes.
4.  Put your health insurance card in the other foot, along with another $20. 

The $20 in your pocket was usually enough to satisfy most muggers so they wouldn't beat you up or even kill you; so you kept it in a readily-accessible place.  The drivers license was so cops could ID you in case the worst happened, and the insurance card was so you could convince paramedics that they shouldn't deliver you to a public hospital, but a private one (for much better care).  And the extra $20 was to pay for car fare in case your mugger left you unable to walk very far for help.  

And by the way, this wasn't just my aunt being paranoid.  I'd heard these protocols repeated by other New Yorkers, at least back in the day, when crime was so much worse in the city.

So I ventured to Harlem that morning, with my protocols in place.  I did bring along some extra money for lunch, however.  I was planning on being there all day.

I stepped out of the Lexington Avenue 4-5-6 subway onto the platform, only to find myself immediately engulfed in a swarm of police officers.  What an auspicious way to begin my visit!  That evening, I heard on the local news something about a major drug bust and a gunman running into the station.  

To my credit, I didn't just cross over the station and take the next downtown train back to the office.  I may have been the only White guy in sight, but this was New York.  I was born here (even if I only lived here for three months afterwards).  I had as much right to be on 125th Street as anybody else of any skin color.  So I briskly hustled down 125th Street, trying hard not to look conspicuous, and found the client site, a remodeled walk-up that boasted clean, fresh paint outside.  It was a stark contrast to its neighbors.

Inside, I found equally new carpeting, paint, light fixtures, furniture… but no clients.  Actually, I think before I left for the day, a client did come in to meet their case worker.  But that was it.  Just some friendly city employees.  I remember their friendliness because New Yorkers are not generally known as being friendly, and this White boy especially wasn't expecting to encounter anybody friendly in a place like Harlem.  

One of the slightly embarrassed social workers admitted they were having a hard time getting welfare recipients to keep their appointments for counseling in preparation for entering the workforce.  Apparently, the idea of transitioning from welfare to work hadn’t yet gotten a lot of buy-in from their client base.  But the workers there gave me a tour of their surprisingly comfortable facility, which was much nicer than the place near the Port Authority bus terminal.  And all the lights worked!

For lunch, I went back out onto 125th Street and recognized the familiar logo for Burger King.  But that logo on the sign out front was all that was familiar about this fast food joint!  I opened its steel front door, and faced a long, foreboding hallway lined in brown metal - the same ribbed brown metal with which many of the city's storefronts were sheathed for security.  At the end of the hallway was a big sign listing the available menus.  Next to the sign was a big window of bullet-proof glass, with a speaker system so I could tell the employee behind the thick window what I wanted to eat.  

I passed my money through a metal drawer, like at a motor bank.  None of the employees were smiling.  Security cameras were everywhere.  My meal was ready quickly, and placed in a big plexiglass turnstile, which was then rotated so I could open a bulletproof glass door and retrieve it on my end.  I turned around, and there was the dining room - a dim, unwelcoming place even by the worst fast food standards.  In the middle of the room was a tall stand, with an armed security guard sitting on top of it, watching customers eat.  All over the room were security cameras.  I had the distinct impression that this restaurant had a history of crime problems.

The 125th Street outpost of the BEGIN program was called the "St. Nicholas site".  At first, that confused me, because I'd never heard of Harlem having any particular association with Santa Claus.  I learned later that before the turn of the 20th Century, as Manhattan's northern reaches were being built-out, a new public park in Harlem was christened "St. Nicholas" in honor of the Dutch immigrants who originally helped settle and finance the development of Manhattan.  St. Nicholas is the patron saint of Amsterdam, and New York used to be called New Amsterdam.  

And another thing:  The name "Harlem" applies to a fairly broad collection of neighborhoods I'd also never heard of before, like Hamilton Heights (after Alexander Hamilton, whose country house is still there), Sugar Hill, and Manhattanville.  Kinda makes me think of Jimmy Buffett, right?

Still, whenever I heard my co-workers talk about the St. Nicholas site, it would take me a minute before I'd remember they were talking about Harlem.

When folks today complain about gentrification, they often point to Harlem as an example of ethnic displacement, which is one of the unfortunate side-effects of the gentrification phenomenon.  In the 2010 Census, it was discovered that more Caucasians than Blacks live in Harlem - the neighborhood that for generations defined quintessential Black urbanity.  When I lived in New York City, tour companies would bus tourists - mostly from Europe and Asia - around Harlem, as if to show off the city's Blacks as some sort of caricature.  I found that notion entirely distasteful and even racist.  But it brought in much-needed revenue to the Black churches and other neighborhood stakeholders who would put on shows - including entire Sunday "worship" services - for gawking out-of-towners.

Contrasted with Harlem - excuse me, "St. Nicholas" - was my visit to the “Yorkville” site on East 34th Street, several blocks from Macy’s.  Like most New Yorkers, I would call this neighborhood Murray Hill, not Yorkville.  Nevertheless, 34th Street is a major two-way cross-town boulevard.  Its eastern side is mostly middle-class apartments with some public housing mixed in.  Quite safe and pleasant, at least by New York standards.

Unlike St. Nicholas, the Yorkville site was more typical of the city's municipal aesthetic - grimy windows, dreary grays, and dim lighting.  On the day I visited, it was bustling with clients, and I was the last person any of the staff wanted to see, talk to, or tour around the place.  So I didn't really end up talking with anybody, and Richard never got around to re-scheduling the visit.  Apparently this site was usually pretty busy, which for the program's sake, was a good thing.

When the end of my internship arrived, I wrote up a nice report.  I presented it to a large meeting of program managers who didn't seem sure why my opinion of how they were doing their jobs mattered to anybody.  Nevertheless, they appeared content to hear that my opinion was positive.  And that was that.  

Was there a farewell lunch with Richard and Ruth?  No, not that I can recall.  I finished the day, clocked out next to that awful fellow who forced my teenaged intern to quit, and spent a couple of weeks helping my aunt around her apartment before returning to Texas.  I do remember that Nona - the only one to celebrate my internship - bought two pricey tickets at City Center for us to see some bizarre dance group wearing nothing but body paint gyrate about in huge plexiglass tanks of water.

Some of that culture in which New York revels, don't you know!  

At first, having just been exposed to Gotham's stark poverty and neediness, the expense and practical non-necessity of such an "artistic" performance struck me as wasteful.  Then again, Jesus Christ's fallen disciple, Judas, professed a similar reaction when a bottle of expensive perfume was poured on the Messiah before His crucifixion.  Don't many of us tend to have that type of reaction when we don't like or understand something that is lavish?  

In those moments, perhaps it's better to prevent our lack of appreciation for something from being a moral decree of its worth.  Maybe, too, that's why there's so much art in New York City.  It provides an escape valve from all of the poverty that exists alongside the creativity.

And what Christ said in response to Judas certainly remains true today:  He prophesied we would always have the poor with us. 

Indeed.

Another friend of our family's arranged for me to interview with a business associate of his who owned a freight forwarding brokerage in Lower Manhattan.  You see, even before my internship had officially ended, I had decided that working for New York City was not for me.  The absurd indignities and injustice of my high school intern's experience was the last straw, but there was more to it.  I saw how hard city employees worked for very little pay.  I witnessed the laughable waste of the city's unions and administrative bureaucracy.  And I got a pretty clear idea of how hard it is not to get chewed up by the cogs of the city's vast machinery - both figuratively, and even literally!

Maybe New York City was still the place for me, but being employed by it wasn't.

So in a way, the internship did do its job as an educational career tool.  It exposed me to what employment with the City of New York is typically like.  For many people - since, obviously, many people work for the city - the indignities of city employment are worth whatever they're trading off to keep their jobs.  And I guess that's OK for them.  But at the end of the day, it all seemed so depressing to me, even though my literal experience with the BEGIN team wasn't bad at all.  Of course, that was mostly because it was a temporary thing, and I had no clout.  I was just there to observe.  And I think I observed what I needed to observe.  I can say with complete honesty that I have never once regretted my internship, or my decision not to go back to my masters program that fall, and finish my degree.

Many years later, I got a call from the new head of the city planning program at UTA.  She'd been going through old files and found my name, with a record of coursework that ended abruptly after the spring of 1990.  Had I gone off to another school?  What happened to my degree plan?

I agreed to meet with her in her office, and I gave her a very abridged version of what I've just told you (how fortunate for her, right?).  She nodded her head and admitted that to make a difference as a city planner, one has to mostly be told by politicians what they want to have done.  City planners offer expertise in planning cities, but politicians are the ones who decide what planning they deem important, because they are technically beholden directly to their voters.  It's not a perfect system, but in a democratic republic, that's how we operate.  After listening to me regale her with my experiences, she admitted that I'd probably made the better choice in not pursuing a city planning degree.  It didn't sound like I would have fit very well into the job description.

So there you have it, folks - confirmation from an expert!  And frankly, judging from what I've heard about New York in recent years, what with all their bike lanes that I find so silly, and pubic parks thrown up in the middle of streets that have simply been painted different colors, and congestion pricing - all things I think are repressive, in a hollow, trendy way - it really is just as well I never went to work for the city as a career.  Today I suffer only from chronic clinical depression.  As a city planner in New York, I'd likely be in a loony bin by now.

For the record, I believe a cabal of anti-motor-vehicle activists exists within the environmentalist movement that wants to do whatever it can to make driving motor vehicles as prohibitively inconvenient as possible.  Bike lanes painted onto streets built for motor vehicles are one of those tactics, and it's happening all over the world, not just New York.  Now, I'm not against bicycles, and I think that in communities where they provide a reasonably efficient mode of transportation, some accommodations can be balanced to the benefit of both drivers and bicyclists.  However, putting bikes within mere inches of behemoth city buses and tractor trailer trucks is illogical.  Expecting city drivers - who already have a plethora of distractions complicating their task - to cede way to bicyclists who often refuse to follow basic bike etiquette is unreasonable.  Besides, motor vehicle drivers pay a lot more for that pavement through their vehicle registration fees and gasoline taxes, so they deserve access to it more than bicyclists do.

New York City has also taken to directing motor vehicle traffic away from swaths of certain city streets in order to create pedestrian spaces and public seating areas.  These pedestrian spaces are literally created on pavement that has already been paid for with many taxes and fees from drivers of motor vehicles.  Traffic experts say the data shows that doing so does not increase congestion, but frankly, taking traffic lanes out of service does not mean that the number of vehicles on the roads is also reduced - it simply means drivers will likely avoid the area altogether if they can help it by taking other streets instead.  Which pivots traffic problems to other areas, right?  So what gets resolved?  Very little, if anything.

And speaking of traffic, congestion pricing (charging fees to drive into certain neighborhoods at certain times of the day) in some of the most traffic-choked parts of Manhattan represents an extremely elitist view of the problem.  Yes, New York City's population has grown quite rapidly during the past couple of decades, but let's consider why so many of these people insist on owning motor vehicles in a city renowned for its mass transit options.  It's because the city has allowed those mass transit options to deteriorate to the point of them failing to provide the type of efficiency and service the city's residents require.  For example, New York is a round-the-clock city, with many low-paid service workers needing to get to and from their jobs at all hours; it's not just suburban office workers on their nine-to-five schedules who jam mass transit twice a day on weekdays.  Yet the city has drastically cut "off-peak" bus and subway service, making them woefully inconvenient and dangerous, which further alienates potential riders.  And on those workdays, when Manhattan traffic often comes to near gridlock, why do city leaders think so many drivers still insist on driving, instead of using mass transit?  It's because that even on workdays, service isn't fast enough and provided in sufficient volume so riders aren't crammed in like sardines on subways and buses, and waiting forever for the privilege.  So charging drivers more money because you can't provide better mass transit is a good fix?  No, it's penalizing people for your own failure to provide good mass transit.  Plus, like many government fees, congestion pricing impacts poorer people to a greater degree than wealthier ones.

 
But getting back to BEGIN:  What has history told us about this then-groundbreaking program?  Has it worked?  How many New Yorkers have been moved from welfare to work? 

Well, of course, a lot of the answer depends on who is running the statistics.  Overall, however, the numbers aren't terribly favorable for BEGIN.  And as I've already noted, the program as I knew it does not exist today.  The City of New York used to have a report on its website stating that approximately 100,000 people, or 10% of the eligible BEGIN participants, transitioned from welfare into work, but that report has been taken down.  

Several years after the program began, a city leader went under-cover, posing as a welfare recipient to see for herself what going through the BEGIN program was like.  And what she found wasn't pretty.  In addition to being shocked at the physical conditions of some BEGIN sites, she complained that city employees simply didn't advocate harder for her (actually, the welfare recipient she was impersonating).  

It's hard to tell how much of her account to take seriously, however, since this particular city leader had her own problems with the public's perception of her, as well as one of the unions representing the city's social workers.  Indeed, for most city executives, popularity is not going to be a reward for all of one's work and devotion, especially in as contentious a place as New York.

In this case, the city leader was Barbara Sabol, a Black transplant from Kansas - of all places - who was quoted by union leader Charles Ensley as saying the city's promotion list for social workers was "too White and too male".  Mayor Dinkins had hired Sabol to run Gotham's vast Human Resources Administration during his tenure, but Ensley was trying to root out corruption in the city's unions.  Ensley, himself African-American, believed the best way to do that was to promote based on merit, not quotas.  Needless to say, there was deep friction taking place even beyond our offices on 16th Street and our client service sites.

During my internship, I was unaware of all this sociopolitical drama behind the scenes, but when I learned of it later, I remembered Richard's off-handed comment to me during my interview, about me having two strikes against me because I was both White and male.

I did end up back in Gotham, however, within several months.  During the winter, I received a call-back from where I'd interviewed after my internship.  So I moved up to the city of my birth and lived there another two and a half years.  

Looking back now, I can safely say I've long since gotten New York City out of my system.  I'm grateful for the time I was able to spend there, and for all the people I met, and for all the experiences I had.  Especially the folks back at BEGIN who were part of something bigger in my life than they probably realized.

Since they participated in making me the person I am today, perhaps that helps explain a lot!

_____