Who is Arthur Brisbane?

A couple of months ago, I wrote about the nascent Occupy Wall Street movement citing The New York Times coverage of the protest that almost didn't happen. Since then I have read much, spoken with occupiers and people whom I call “Occupy who not occupy” (of which I am one). I have engaged many in conversation about what the point of the movement is, what is isn't, and  why we should care.

I just read Arthur Brisbane's article Who is Occupy Wall Street? and have had my crucial conjecture confirmed: Occupy does not conform to the conventional framework of modern journalism and will continue to defy the ability of the press to speak coherently about it.

Fortunately, answering my title question is easy as Mr. Brisbane has already done it for me. According to his trade biography, he acts in the role of editorial ombudsman at The New York Times and his credentials and work are formidable. Unfortunately, he has fallen into the trap of attempting to coerce the story into a traditional narrative and in his professional role so guide the work of other journalists. To continue this course does a disservice to the movement and to journalism and I hope to show Mr. Brisbane that there is a more useful way to proceed.

what if they held a protest and nobody was allowed to go?

As noted in the New York Times article “Wall Street Protest Begins, With Demonstrators Blocked”:

For months the protesters had planned to descend on Wall Street on a Saturday and occupy parts of it as an expression of anger over a financial system that they say favors the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary citizens.
As it turned out, the demonstrators found much of their target off limits on Saturday as the city shut down sections of Wall Street near the New York Stock Exchange and Federal Hall well before their arrival.

I had been only dimly aware of the protest better documented at its home site than I can do justice to. A brief except from their intent I do much agree with:

We need to address the core facts: these corporations, even if they were unable to compete in the electoral arena, would still remain control of society. They would retain economic control, which would allow them to retain political control. Term limits would, again, not solve this, as many in the political class already leave politics to find themselves as part of the corporate elites.

I've yet to see how the members of the protest make sense of what transpired today, but I think they were witness to an archetypal example of that which they are opposed to.

…getting ready for breast cancer awareness month

I was trying to figure out what ribbon to get, being bored with the pink (and it clashes with almost nothing I own) so I think I shall either get a purple or pink/blue/yellow with clouds, one of which may be for Alzheimer's awareness but I forget which since they've run out of colors. Contrariwise, I can raise awareness of very many worthwhile causes with just one ribbon, so it is highly economical too.

Then I ran into the Think Before You Pink Campaign and am now confused as to whether to subscribe to the beliefs of the Breast Cancer Action Project or the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Partnership.

...exploring a world of legos

Usually late to a trend, I was reading too many references to a game called Minecraft that seems to have captured many hard-core gamers despite its comical simplicity.

Well perhaps it is comically simple for some as I am an abject failure so far and have resisted the temptation to look up "Minecraft for the Pathetic Dummy" as I think there is hope.

At present, my first goal is to "attack a tree until it yields a block of wood". Where "attack" means pound with your fist. You can see the representation of my fist in the lower right corner of the image.

Although I've beaten upon trees until my hand substitute ought be bloody, the wood eludes me. However, all is not lost as I have learned valuable skills upon the way:

• I can punch flowers and sugar cane very effectively
• I can punch the wool right off of sheep
• Same for the feathers off a duck
• I can annoy cows and pigs at will
• I can dig up sand
• I can shred tree leaves like a panda

But I think I am most proud of:

• my ability to pound upon a tree until it explodes, nearly killing me, creating a hole, clods of dirt, and not a single block of wood

And at night Kokopelli comes and shoots me to death with arrows. But my will is strong, and life is but an illusion and so I continue in my days of constant desperation seeking exactly the right tree.

Spoiler after the fold:

Zur Einführung des Narzißmus

A disciple of another sect once came to Drescher as he was eating his morning meal, “I would like to give you this personality test”, said the outsider, “because I want you to be happy.”

Drescher took the paper that was offered him and put it into the toaster, saying: “I wish the toaster to be happy, too.”

– Gary Drescher legendarily in MIT folklore

On the recommendation of friends, I have recently listed myself on an on-line site to ostensibly meet people. This is a bit of a novelty for me as I've not ever actually dated. I've had friends that have turned into lovers and actually find it hard to imagine myself seeking out a person with the intention of mating. So I'm imagining myself as trying to make friends (who are coincidentally female and not romantically attached) because it seems more plausible.


I've looked at a variety of sites from one-night-stands.r.us to seeking-stupid-old-men.with.money to desperation.and.needi.er (Eritrea's Hottest Spot for Singles) with limited success.

Each site has their gimmick, and one that I looked at claims to do a personality assessment, yielded in the form of an astrological "reading" but with worse grammar and punctuation. If you've never heard of the Forer Effect, then I have prepared this profile just for you:

You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.

Pretty accurate, neh? Well, of course it is as it defines the human condition in a way both vague and pointed.

So this site asked me some questions and then yielded a profile of me. I was vaguely impressed for about the first two sentences and then remembered Forer. So I put the question to you, dear reader, which of these three profiles best describes the me that you know?

flat affect and semantics in Communication 2.0

The exchange between us was brief:

me: I can still give you a ride there if desired.
him: thx, I'll be going straight there anyway
me: Kk

I didn't even mean to capitalize the first "K" of "Kk", my communicator did it for me. I thought about what my reply meant and had a McLuhanesque realization that, as with any new medium a new variety of discourse is created. And the affordances of text messaging, like every other new technology are slightly different than those that preceded it.

What does "kk" mean and is it different than "ok"? I believe there is a difference, both subtle and useful.

A lexicographer would probably point to the "kk" having entered the lexicon of quick messaging as it was quicker to type on limited keyboards. While that origin may well be true, "kk" has since acquired a new semantic which hearkens back to the earliest days of remote communication: simple acknowledgement that a communication has been received and understood.

the story of true: or how to copyright nothing

I stole this logo off the net.

I wish I could find an authoritative reference for this, but as will become clear, it is very hard to search for the relevant bits, so I'll just stroke my hypothetical grey beard and reminisce.

In Version 7 Unix, affectionately known as V7, there was a programmable shell interpreter known at the time as sh or what we now call the Bourne Shell because it was written by Steve Bourne of Bell Labs.

Although programmable, sh didn't have many intrinsics, in large part because memory on a PDP-11 was quite limited and added features would have made the shell too big when its primary purpose was as a user interface for entering commands. It is funny to think of a plain $ as a user interface, but if you had seen the toggle switches, punch cards and Job Control Language contemporary to it, you probably would have been struck by the elegant improvement too.