CounterResponse

Counterresponse:

While I certainly agree with the dynamic that Matt has suggested for the relationship of the Generation Xers to the outside world, I would challange his characterization of the outcome of this dynamic, and how it applies to the Generation Y aesthetic.

Insofar as we can agree on this much: the Gen Xers fundamental M.O. is to vigorously deny the outside world in favor of a kind of pseduo-elitist self-satisfying internal value system that validates their actions. Indeed, we can view the entireity of Kevin Smith's work along that line. Certainly Clerks 2 directly follows this line, as well as the antiestablishment message of Mallrats, and, to some greater or lesser extent, Dogma.

However, I'd argue that the consequence of all this isn't the creation of some self-assured existential superhero that has successfully made the confident choice to part with societies values and adhere to their own. As Gen X art makes obvious, it's not even particularly clear what that value system is in any real, concrete sense. That is, they have certainly rejected, but it seems anyone's guess to see what Gen X adopted it its place. Indeed, the pivotal moment of Clerks 2 isn't Dante coming to some kind of assured, self-motivated decision, but an ambiguous sense that "this is right." Natural Born Killers posits no system of value at all, and Grunge, arguably the best picture of the Gen X mindset was defined by a fundamentally nihilistic, or at best, impotently furious outlook. Even a quick reading of the Kurt Cobain diaries, is enough to put this point at the fore.

Even asserting that the Gen Xers did develop a self-reliant system, the position they assumed was inherently atomistic. Asserting that "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is certainly good, but ultimately self-destructive and isolating. Ultimately, I feel, much of Gen X art has a yearning for a need to have some kind of autheticity or connection to something larger floating just below the surface. Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction, if nothing else, is that most apparent example, but his character appears throughout the work of the period. (e.g. Silent Bob, the movie kids at the end of "Slacker," etc)

Generation Y faces the same emotional problems generated by a suburban, middle-class society. But, rather than opt for straight rejectionism, a new strategy has been taken to avoid the problems confronting the outlook taken up by the Xers. This has created a novel aesthetic that we can uniquely mark as part of a generation distinguishable from the previous one.

First, Gen Y rejected out of hand the idea, and therefore the explicit search for, authenticity as a impossible goal, if not completely ridiculous. There are a number of movies in the "Gen Y" vein that all stress the acceptance of superficiality or artifice as a fact of life and, indeed, as a basis for the formation of an identity. "Royal Tenenbaums" if nothing else, is a clear representative of this. Despite all the searching by all the characters for their ideals, Royal find his identity in precisely his distortions. (His epitaph, of course, being the best one) "Big Fish," also very much in the Gen Y movement, also exemplifies this.

Second, rather than isolating the world that made them feel alienated and awkward, Gen Yers fully embraced the flaws. In a world that was somehow inherently false and, only the unintentionally awkward or eccentric or kitschy could be an "authentic" expression. This was not the painful embrassment that we would see in the positively Gen Xy "Welcome to the Dollhouse" of Dawn Weiners failed and awkward attempts in living, but the sparking eccenticity of Napoleon in "Napoleon Dynamite." In the former, Dawn's alienation and awkwardness are self-defeating reminders of a victimized Gen X mindset. In the latter, it is precisely this same eccentricity that allows Napoleon to overcome and to triumph against superficiality.

Insofar as the Gen Yers have accepted the world, they have also accepted a modality which allows them to celebrate the contradictions of the contemporary world. Far from being the "empty melancholy shells of human beings with lives devoid of purpose or meaning," which is, I would argue, predominantly a Gen X mode, Gen Y has found a pattern more progressive and infinitely more interesting that that before it.

After all, remember the end of "Garden State," Largeman turns away from his urge to escape and run away from what he has found, and instead faces the oddities and ambiguities of the world without irony or self-detachment.

This is, perhaps, what some social critics have labelled, The New Sincerity

More here and here

As one blogger wrote, "What is The New Sincerity? Think of it as irony and sincerity combined like Voltron, to form a new movement of astonishing power. Or think of it as the absence of irony and sincerity, where less is (obviously) more. If those strain the brain, just think of Evel Knievel."

And so there was a name.

Responses to Gen Y /Gen X

Sorry about the delay all, the last weekend was completely hectic with handling things and working on new projects. However, lots of interesting responses have come in to the Gen X/Gen Y article, the most comprhensive of which is one by the un-fatiguable Matt McFarlane. I've posted his response below and I'm working on a counter-response presently.

Enjoy!

Also: To the Umbrella Political Team, we will be working on setting up a meeting presently. E-mail will be forthcoming (probably this afternoon).

--------------------

Hey Tim...I wrote this as a response to your "note" but it said it was too long to post. anyways...here it is.

I'd like to add that it insofar as it is the nature of art for the art of one generation to extend and expand the art of the prior generation, it doesn't seem at all odd that the genY filmmakers to take the door of angst and frustration that the genX filmmakers had opened, and walk right through it, taking awkwardness and alienation and portraying them the essence of teenage experience, rather than the unfortunate consequence.

An interesting aspect of this transition, however, is that characters who abandon that "deeper desire for purity" also seem less human. Take Smith's characters Randall and Dante: no doubt they are frustrated and angst-filled by their place in the world, but there is nothing of resignation or acceptance of a lesser status. Rather than acknowledge their own lowly position, they enhance it by denouncing everything outside of them as empty and superficial. There's an anger, an "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" about their attitudes; these are not men who are excluded from the adult world, but who reject it, who, as you say, are bitter towards it, which is, I think, the natural reaction for a human being in a situation like that. If there is a mode of appreciation that ranks you poorly, you don't accept it and move on, you denounce the scale outright, find one in which you come out on top, and cling to it, defend it with all your might.

As a sidenote, this has recently been theorized (see latest scientific american) to be a significant element in the impression of the importance of "innate ability" -- kids that, for one reason or another, are good at one thing, tend to spend much more time doing that thing, because it gives them self-satisfaction Tthis allows them to quickly become much better at said task than the kids who get off to a slow start and get discouraged, not because they are innately better at it, but simply they, like all humans seek out the activities that fullfill us, and getting really good at something requires the practice that only time can give. In rejecting the outside world as empty and superficial, Dante and Randall construct a world in which they have status.

Anderson's characters, by contrast, do no such thing. Rather than reject the world around them, favoring their own viewpoints and vision, they accept it, and their place in it, and without this spark...this rejection of any establishment that would give you a low ranking. As a result, I think, they seem much less human, like empty melancholy shells of human beings with lives devoid of purpose or meaning (i.e. Garden State).

What Makes Generation Y Generation Y?

First, to lend some concrete definition to what I'm talking about -- sociologists define the Generation X period to include those (generally) born between the period 1961-1981, and whose teen/young adult experience was defined primarily by the 1980s. Generation Y, on the other hand, includes those born 1981 and onwards, and therefore has much of their formative youth experience based in the 1990s.

When my brother and I get down to talk, we almost inevitably end up touching upon a few favorite themes, one of which is the relationship between the most recent two generations in American culture, the Xs and the Ys. It's brought alot of interesting questions to the fore, but perhaps the most intriguing is how best to deliniate the line between the two groups.

After all, the use of the term "generation" is by itself a pretty artificial construct. It's not like people are born in great honkin' blocks that just appear at sporadic points in the world. The idea of a "generation" just functions as a useful way of slicing up people born at different times to distinguish them.

Obviously, you can cut "slice" this rhetorically many different ways. "Technology," for example, has been one theme harped on by countless marketing experts in their neverending rush to figuring out how to sell to the newest batch of kids. However, I think ultimately, no matter what you point to as the casual factor, what defines a generation is the aggregate result of these factors. That is, how do the commonly experienced events of a period create broad outlooks that mark one group of people from another? How does the fundamental self-identity of what generation differ from another?

I've been mulling over this one for awhile, and I think today on the commute I came up a good way of verbalizing the distinction that I've had for awhile.

Perhaps the easiest way to describe it is through the art that we could define as definitively belonging to either generation. To present a brief thumbnail list of media that comes to mind --

Generation X: Kurt Cobain, Pearl Jam, Pulp Fiction, Chasing Amy, Natural Born Killers, High Fidelity, Election, Mr. Show

Generation Y: Rushmore, Garden State, Death Cab For Cutie, Arrested Development, Requiem For A Dream, Snakes on a Plane, Ghost World

Approaching the problem aesthetically, we can compare what are arguably the two most archtypal film directors of the two generations: Kevin Smith and Wes Anderson.

In Smith's work, most notably in "Chasing Amy" and "Clerks," the central themes are (arguably) individual awkwardness and a frusturation with the social demands of living a suburban cliche. Even when the characters are engaged in a humorous moment, there seem to be flashes of deep bitterness towards. In fact, it is that bitterness from which Smith draws much of his humor. His characters are usually caught in dead end situations, and remain ambiguous as to their direction.

In Anderson's films, the themes are still very much that of alienation (Life Aquatic), the cliche of social demands (Rushmore), and eccentricity (Tenenbaums), but taken in a quite different light. While the plight of the characters in a movie like "Tenenbaums" is certainly dysfunctional and tragic, Anderson takes pains to stress the oddity of the characters in a playful celebration of those idiosycracies. Here, rather than being at odds or resignedly accepting their condition, the characters embrace their strangeness, and, indeed, come to enjoy that. To this end, one recalls the end of "Rushmore," where Max Fischer says,

Ultimately, I think this is also the differentiating line between the outlook between Generation X and Y. Where Generation X wallowed in a degree of embarassment and anger at awkwardness, alienation, and cliche, Generation Y loudly celebrated it. In point of fact, Generation Y internalized it as THE framework they built their identity around. The inauthenticity and ambiguity that both generations felt became a kind of authenticity unto itself in Ys. They were willing to play with stereotype and existential angst in a way that the Gen Xers only revolted against in movements like grunge. Rather than fight, Gen Y co-opted it happily into themselves.

Interestingly, this has certain consequences for that particular breed of youth hipster. In many ways, he presents a kind of transitional figure between the two generations (which is probably why members of both generations are found in that subculture). While employing irony and kitsch as their tools, the hipster still retains a deeper desire for purity that is indicative of their Generation X origins. Moreover, the constant mode of detatched irony as a mode of engagement bespeaks the deeper disdain of their marginalization characteristic of the Xers. Eventually, if this theory is right, we should see the hipster become "Y-ster," that is, to come to accept the love of kitsch itself (in the finest Susan Sontag tradition) as the central core of enjoyment, rather than the superficial irony of the experience. The hipster pretentsion that writers like Chuck Klosterman have only now begun to criticize, I feel, augurs this sea change. "Seeing" will replace "Being Seen."

Sam mentioned to me over dinner at the Eagle Rock Diner last night that Ghost World by Daniel Clowes was his life. Indeed, that awkward people and things were the things he liked the most. He turned his eyes to the left, and then started to relate to me the plot of a movie featuring lesbians, seances, lies, slapping, horses, and drowning. Later, we watch Plan 9 From Outer Space. Which, of course, comes in at a close second to watching "From Justin To Kelly"

One sunny day, Clancy, sporting a hideous thermal hood-thing, turns to me and remarks simply, "I'm in love with ugly things" while doing some kind of dance-thing that I will never be able to replicate.

Somewhere online, Megan thanks me for sending her a host of silly, black-and-white Victorian era erotica punctuated by a ragtime soundtrack. Meanwhile, her obsession with WFMU's Seven Second Delay continues.

No doubt in my mind that the revolution has already begun.

In fact, I think it's been going on for quite awhile.

In Praise of Desensitization

By now, one of the traditional arguments against the press of modern media is that it inevitably desensitizes us to violence or suffering. This is a pretty common argument to a whole range of arguably distasteful material. Porn, for example, is argued to make us desensitized to the act of sex, leading to disrespect of significant others in a sexual relationship.

However, this connection is unclear, since it essentially makes the assertion that being desensitized to these things is somehow an inherently negative force. Though that's basically speculative, if you think about it, because there's no real reason why that should be the case.

In fact, you might even say that being desensitized to these violence and sex are actually great things. Only by removing the emotional and visceral impact from these experiences can we strip the illusion away that they are "special" or "unique" to our condition. This places them in perspective, prevents us from idealizing our lives in a way that causes us to make unwise decisions. Furthermore, we can deal with these the issues and ideas surrounding these phenomenon is a infititely more reserved and objective way.

Moreover, not only does desensitization allow us to remove the things that usually make us generate incorrect or unwise decisions, but you could argue that it actually helps us make better ones. Only through continual exposure do we learn to appreciate the finer details and subtleties of the subject that we're examining. Seeing violence in the media all the time gives us the unique luxury of reflecting on the nature of violence without the cost of placing ourselves at danger. As a result, we can learn to more effectively experience those moments, like we would train ourselves to critique art. As a result, we are not suprised when we are confronted and can competently deal with them with confidence.

Just struck me as an interesting point.

Postmodernism Shot First

(taking a brief break from the cosmology problem to deal with a more pressing one)

I've been obsessing lately for some reason over perhaps the most classic in the pantheon of classic geek controversies: the Han Shot First issue. Second only to the Batman v. Superman/Kirk v. Picard/Flintstones v. Jetsons battle-royale variety of hypotheticals, the Han Shot First issue really struck me as a really sweet way to deliniate a larger break between varying outlooks on the universe. (the answers, of course, are Superman -- though Batman would be way cooler about it --, Kirk, and the Flintstones -- by virtue of the Great Wazoo)

First, and most obviously, is that the Han Shot First controversy represents a split in a conception of the human condition on one hand as arising from a Judeo-Christian conception of Man beset by nature and rising above it (e.g. Greedo shooting first/Solo retaliating), and on the other as a postmodern, existential idea of Man as the aggresive motivating mechanism of existence. (e.g. Han shooting first).

Second, and probably more interesting, is the questions it raises about the larger Western outlook in fiction and art. I mean, why do we think that having Greedo Shoot First is way lame? Culturally, that hasn't always been the case. John Wayne, for example, in the 1950s. But now, 50 years later, we have the grittyness of Jack Bauer(I mean, to use another Harrison Ford character, even the President in Air Force One feels dated) or the explicitly criminal 50 Cent. In other words, Lucas isn't inherently a goofus for changing the scene, he's just had the misfortune in moving in a way counter to the cultural current. Are we just more jaded? Still, that's kind of non-unique. Life has ALWAYS been tough and unfortunate.

As a phrase though, "Han Shot First" is really great, since it touches on the deeper ambiguity of conflict itself. How do we know, in historical record, who is the aggressor in conflict? Is it a function of our perspective?

My new rallying cry in a conversation that has degenerated into a raw argument over who landed the first blow or who is perpetuating the conflict or who made a pre-emptive is "Han Shot First." It's a "Han Shot First" argument.(Cold War? "Han Shot First" Israel-Palestine? "Han Shot First" Troubled Romantic Relationship? "Han Shot First")

Deerhoof Is the Problem / Basic Laws

Deerhoof is the problem.

As soon as the cosmology of cool has been invented, it was brought to my attention that Deerhoof doesn't neatly fit into a category in our theoretical framework. So, the big question is, how do we deal with it?

Since we have the discrete particles of a new physics, it's important that we come to some natural laws that we can start manipulating to create predictions about the new wave of cool. Moreover, if our theory can come to some kind of strong narrative in understanding the evolution of Deerhoof as a musical phenomenon, our current cosmology lives to fight another day.

One observation that I think would be worth ruminating on is the cyclical transformation of cool throughout history. Namely, the history of cool follows a dialectic, each phase becoming a inverse reflection of the last. In doing so, it moves through our four categories, beginning with hardcore as follows,

First comes HARDCORE, the raw, unadulterated need to express human thought & emotion. In its inherent passion, the style is serious, externalized, expressive.

This gives rise to DYLAN-CORE, which responds to this particular need and eschews the need for externalization to show seriousness and contemplation. This raw need becomes internalized.

In response, FABCORE refuses to accept basic seriousness of its earlier cousins, instead feeling that an insistence on seriousness and convoluted introspection is inof itself inauthentic. Rather than running from frivolousness, it embraces it in an externalized rebellion.

Finally, WARHOL-CORE sythesizes the earlier three into a single piece, which accepts Fabcore critique of embracing humor and absurdity, while accepting the social critique and passion idolized by the earlier -cores in an introspective way.

However, as this balance is precarious and itself a kind of meta-identity, this soon collapses once again into the search for deep authenticity in another Hardcore mode.

To that end, we can understand Deerhoof as part of this move from Warholcore back to a new phase of Hardcore. While maintaining the absurd musicial gestures of a Warholcore band, they are serious and passionate enough to show their colors as a hardcore phenomenon. They, in essence, are a bridging band between two phases of the orbit of the cosmology of the cool.

Thoughts?

Peace In Our Time

So I saw Snakes on a Motherfucking-Plane. I came away with two feelings.

First, it was completely, entirely, awesomely up to the hype. The movie itself is pitch perfect in its absolute willingness to employ every ridiculous plot device and mechanism of absurd staging. Hell, it's almost McGuyver-esque in giving the audience a big "screw you" and just not apologizing for anything. (e.g. "There's only one illegal snake dealer that could be behind this...")

Second, despite its ridiculous packaging and absolute dedication to the gods of Tongue-In-Cheek. (Including what must be some of the most ridiculous piece of merchandising EVAR created -- namely, the "Snakes on a Sudoku" book), I definitely came away feeling that we had, seriously, seen the first movie of our generation. The audience was largely within the +/- 5 year of our age group,. If nothing else, large scale skepticism
coupled with large-scale youth enthusiasm recalls the experience of "Pulp Fiction" or "Chasing Amy" to the Generation Xers.

Moreover, SOAP is the first large scale covergence of many developing trends in technology, business, media, and advertising. In one movie, we saw the simultaneous bridging of word of mouth advertising, internet culture, youtube promotion, AND pop culture irony all together in one. Hipster is finally going Y-ster.

Furthermore (and most notably) for once, movie companies have started to become more coversant with their customer body. Not only has the rights to generating merchandise been largely allowed to their fan base (about time!), but internet culture itself has become powerful enough to influence the content of the movies being produced. Notably, the fan competition to create a theme song featured in the movie credits actually allowed internet fans themselves to be in the film. In many ways, I think we're going to see the business model applied to SOAP to many movies to come. And my bet is certainly on the movie hitting the largest profit to cost ratio of the summer.

In short: We're here. We're finally here.

We're saying, "Get these motherfucking snakes off my motherfucking plane."

--------
I'll be out this weekend in Cape Cod with the Fam. We'll be back to our regularly scheduled programming Sunday night.

Cosmology of Cool

It's always an interesting fact to consider that despite our culture's obesssion with certain ideas or concepts, our language in many cases possesses only a rough, rudimentary delineation of the subtleties of that particular idea.

In particular, I'm thinking about the idea of "cool." Despite the fetishization of celebrity, media, and fashion (a la Project Runway), the linguistic impact of that concept has never seems to stray far from synomyms. ("hot," "awesome," "sweet," "phat," "tight," "clutch," "deck"). What we need is a good cosmology of cool to better formulate and narrow discussion so as to separate out different "species." Theoretically, you should be able to generate a whole physics of "cool" from postulating different bodies. The definitions are key.

To that end, Clancy and I have developed a framework based around two dimensions -- externalized/internalized, and serious/kitsch. With these, we can create four categories that create a foundation for talking about cool. These are --

Hardcore (Externalized/Serious) -- Ex: The Clash, heyday Jimmy Page

Dylan-Core (Internalized/Serious) -- Ex: Bob Dylan, William S. Burroughs, Rufus Wainwright

Fab-Core (Externalized/Kitsch) -- Ex: Rupaul

Warhol-Core (Internalized/Kitsch) -- Ex: Andy Warhol, Colin Melloy (of the decemberists)

More on this later...

New Product Idea -- Transparency

If you've been keeping up with the news, you've probably been hearing quite alot about the massive airport backups occurring currently throughout Britain in lieu of the allegedly huge terrorist plot to bomb cross-Atlantic planes headed for the US. From a quick glance at the security restrictions and the various ridiculous stories that have come out of this issue, I think it's safe to say that airport security has reached an all time high of maximum impact to travelers with lowest efficacy to protection. (See Schneiers Analysis)

But probably the most amusing part of the story is the most recent demand that all airline travelers carry clear plastic bags to transport their belongings in. It's pretty striking that world paranoia has reached a high enough level to warrant those demands.

Fashion is interesting insofar as it, like art, usually comes to reflect in some way the larger social currents of the times. Clothing styles are a sign of identity -- a signaling to others of allegiance to a ideological construct. Or, more recently, a cynical, ironic comment in the finest indie-boy mode.

So it occured to me, why don't we manufacture a whole line of clear vinyl luggage with completely transparent hard plastic? Not only do I think it'd be aesthetically really cool, it would be a terrifically fun response to the current crisis. Handbags, suitcases, rolling-tote bags, completely done in clear plastic. The clothing would look like it was "floating" in this translucent baggage. Our deluxe editions could even have lights lines in 'em so as to better illuminate the contents of your bag to the Security Men.

You should also do clothing too, with the pockets done in clear plastic so as to clearly reveal all their contents, with the normal material underneath it so as to not reveal any skin. Pants, jackets, shirts, you name it. Practical AND Clever.

announcing "Surveillance/Movement: Clothing & Styles For the New American Century."

We Need Fucking Awesome Locks

Silvs and I got together today and, for some reason, picked up an old copy of "Con-Air" starring Nick Cage, Steve Buschemi (sp?), and, oddly, Dave Chapelle. Now, if you haven't seen this movie before: you should. It's this take-no-prisoners-absolutely ridiculous plot that features Cage as a burnt-out soldier turned convict that attempts to take back a rogue prisoner plane stolen by John Malkovich. They eventually crash a plan into Las Vegas and call it a day.

At any rate, Steve B plays a tremendously mild-mannered serial killer (a la Hannibal Lecter) who at one point is kept inside a big armored box. But, the super thing is this: the door to the box is secured, incongruously, with a two-key lock that has to have two keys turned simultaneously to open.

Yes, like they have in "Goldeneye" to arm the EMP satillite.

At that point, it occured to me that I hadn't posted this mind-staggeringly bodacious idea that we had a little while back.

We should have those fucking awesome locks on everything.

I swear, in this era of security, we need to replace all our existing puny locks with a full on nuclear-launch-code simultaneous key lock that explodes if you don't do it right.

Front doors, bathrooms, laptop locks, car doors, hell, we should even have them to secure things that we don't normally. Like Oreo or Ding-Dong packaging.

Think Tank

Ostensibly, a thinktank is really just that -- a bunch of people who get paid to think. Arguably, there's no real reason why anyone can't go on the marketplace as a thinktank. After all, there's certainly no license or some certifying agency that regulates that sort of thing. (Partially inspired by an article in the recent Economist fowarded to me by Buck about the creation of a completely fake think-tank being used by Russia to support their political allies in Moldovia)

I've been toying with the idea of soliciting the embassies of small governments to offer the research and policy paper generating services of "The Umbrella Insititute." If we play it confidently enough and we hook the Harvard name to it, I think there's a -small- but palpable chance that some embassy would at least ask us for more information. Nations would have an interest in having an independent thinktank produce research that supported their positions from the brightest young minds in America (us), and we would have a good time putting it together.

I'm in the process of compiling a list of small countries that might potentially be attracted by the offer, especially if our services are free or really cheap. So far --

Brunei, Qatar, Hondorus, Belize, Nicaragua, Laos, Equatorial Guinea, Mongolia, Ecuador, and Micronesia

More soon...

Poster Sketches For Smash the State

As promised, here's some potential poster/banner ideas for the UC Presidential bid. I think it conveys the general aesthetic of what I'm envisioning for the project. Comments?

Some interest has been brought up regarding our long term political plans. I'll send out an e-mail shortly contacting people so we can set up an online meeting and discuss the agenda.

The Washington Plan

Took a trip up to Washington DC this weekend to visit one Garett Rose, who is a long time ally of the Umbrella movement. Beyond doing all the normal catching up and visiting of various locations in our Nation's Capital, we discussed some long-term strategy for the Umbrella.

Since the central framework of the Umbrella Institute will be a non-profit thinktank that interacts heavily with a group of lobbyists and financiers to influence public policy, the question of how we should structure our long-term manuvering is pretty important and bears discussion. Ideally, we should seek to retain a core group of individuals who will serve both as senior fellows in our thinktank (developing new policy proposals), and who have significant previous experience in the government to act as connectors and lobbyists themselves.

To that end, I feel that the Umbrella should move to synergistically coordinate the members of our organization that are interested in working in government for a period of time. This brings up the particular issue of what fields, areas, and strategy we should target. I feel we should launch an initiative to create connections in the Senate though we still need to work out the geographics and broad directions we should pursue.

Issues to consider...we should hold an online meeting at some point to discuss this.

Operation: Smash the State

After some due consideration and strategizing, I've decided that it would be an amusing exercise to run for UC (Harvard's Student Government) President this coming year in November and December. According to the rules, I only need 150 names and a running mate to make it on to the ballot.

Beyond the simple amusement of running as an outsider, I think it's an interesting way to set up an experiment to test the validity of Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism," which I've been reading lately. If you haven't checked it out, her thesis essentially attributes the rise of dictatorial power in the 1940s and 1950s to the interaction between the mass and the mob. The former is the body of largely silent, frusturated, and apathetic individuals that make up the majority of society. They desire to act out their sadistic tendencies, but lack an outlet. The latter consists of the disaffected and marginalized "elites" of society that spill their anger into the mass and mobilize them to take action.

While I won't be wielding power dictatorially, she essentially presents an interesting model for tapping power and support. My constitutency will depend on --

a) The Disaffected Mass (Quick analysis demonstrates that over 80% of the student body doesn't vote)
b) The Disaffected Mob (Failed UC Candidates from years past, disgrunted House Committees)

My position will be simple -- pare down the UC, dismantle it, and give more money to the Houses to do with as they will.

But more important than any real positions I would actually hold about student life, will be the aesthetic sell of the campaign. Most apathetic people will weigh their support of me based on amusing they think I am and how sadistic they feel in screwing with the UC. (Since the UC tends to be associated with a special brand of smarmy Harvard child, I don't think this will be a problem.)

Our aesthetic will be notably awesome and eyecatching in comparison to the recycled posters of years past. Examples to be forthcoming.

I'm thinking for a uniform, it'll be a black jumpsuit with a collared button-up and a black tie. The logo of our campaign will be "$"

---
Also, highly recommended: Killing Yourself To Live, Chuck Klosterman.

[I'll be on hiatus until Sunday. Headed up to Washington D.C. to visit one Garret Rose, a long-time ally of the Umbrella movement, this weekend. We'll be discussing long-term policy, details to follow]

Event Idea: Ambiguous Drug Abuse?

While intoxicants have inevitable biochemical consequences, it occured to me the other day that much of the "experience" of doing drugs & alcohol has to do with the enviroment and setting in which it occurs. That is to say, it's not so much the effects of an intoxicant so much as the fact that everyone is doing it together that adds the fun to the evening.

This even takes place on a pretty basic level. Cigarettes, for example, have relatively minor (compared to other things you might potentially do), but partially what makes them so enjoyable is the fact that you're standing around with people doing it together.

I think it'd be interesting to try to isolate this particular factor and separate it out from the biochemical effect by experimenting with a variety of conceptual events where people all do some unconventional benign chemical together and hang out while they take their effect.

For example, one could imagine an event where everyone takes sleeping pills together and eventually drifts off to sleep. Or, alternatively, everyone takes three or four caffine pills and drinks Vault and hangs out. Or, Vicks Vapo-Rub. You get the idea.

New Contributors!

The Umbrella cordially welcomes two new blog contributors --

Justin Silver -- Connected to the Umbrella through Newark Academy. In the advocacy wing of the Umbrella's think-tank, Justin will eventually serve as our agent in fundraising and lobbying for the development of space technology.

Jon Napolitano -- Connected to the Umbrella through CTY. In the operations wing of the Umbrella's network, Jon will eventually serve as a recruiter, special operations agent, and technical advisor.

As always, if you think there would be someone who would be clever and interesting contributors to the Umbrella blog, do tell and I'll fire off an invite.

Holy Land USA

So we did it. Clancy and I took the 50-mile detour on the way up to Megan's house in Tiverton, RI and checked out the insanity that is Holy Land USA. We were only in there for about an hour since it started to rain, but it was enough to get the ambiance of the place. First off, it's WEIRD. The place is absolutely huge and empty. The huge metal cross completely dominates the skyline of Waterbury. Apparently, it even used to light up at night. The grounds are just filled with these bizzare sites that are all overgrown. At one point, we actually ran into a Tower of Babel in an area that had been overrun by forest.

Unfortunately, the thunderstorm closed down Swan Point Graveyard early, where H.P. Lovecraft is buried, so we just shambled along to Tiverton instead in Clancy's jankity crank Bug. All told though, it was ridiculously entertaining.