WHAT I DESPISE ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA

          One of the more annoying phenomena of modern times is the need for more and more Americans to come across as witty, smart, and funny, a desire that increases exponentially in the age of social media.  Unfortunately, this yearning to impress is problematic for the constituents of a country whose creativity today as a collective whole resembles that of an eight-year old who repeats the same thing over and over because it got a laugh the first time.  Therefore, on social media (especially, but not limited to Twitter), the inevitable use and reuse and reuse and reuse of what this author calls internet clichés rears its ugly head, a particularly vexing annoyance for anyone who appreciates originality and strives to be a true individual thinker.  Below are some of the clichés that have passed their sell-by dates long before their users became the two thousandth person typing this onto their cell phones, along with some unasked-for commentary by yours truly:

"This!" Usage of this! followed by the sharing of a link or someone else's tweet or comment means you apparently need someone to articulate what you, yourself, are incapable of expressing.

"Asking for a friend" Of course.  Your friend is too shy to create a Twitter profile under an alias and is, therefore, quite grateful to you for asking this question on social media.

"That's it- that's the tweet"  That's it- conclusive proof that you have nothing to offer.

"This.Is.Not.Normal."  Correct.  Normally, this.is.to.be.written.as.one.sentence.

"Let me fix that headline for you."  No, thank you.  I created my own headline.  You can write your own.  On second thought, why don't you swim with piranhas to scratch that off of your bucket list?

"This is gold."  I can assure you that, 99 out of 100 times, it is probably not gold.  Or silver. Or bronze.  Probably, non-biodegradable plastic at best, non-biodegradable plastic that smells like an unchanged litter box in most instances.

"Winning the Internet."  Okay, great.  What's my prize?

"Breaking the Internet."  I can't even...

"My (say, 2020 COVID Pandemic) Bingo Card did not have (insert stupid event here) on it."  When this author sees this one recycled constantly, he wonders whether each person who uses it believes that no prior person has come across this.

"Hold my beer."  How about holding onto......This!

"I'm just going to leave this here."  Quite symbolic of the collective American attitude towards recycling.

"I don't know who needs to hear this."  First, you're typing this, not speaking, so you really do not know who needs to see this.  Second, if you do not know who needs to "hear" this, then shut up and proceed no further.

"I'm not crying, you're crying."  No, really, it's just you crying.  Seeing a clip of a U.S. solider serving overseas surprising their daughter (it's ALWAYS a daughter, never a son) at their high school or college graduation loses its emotional impact after the 72nd time seeing it.

"But here we are."  Actually, I am over here, and you are where you are.

"I will wait."  Patience is a virtue.  I respect that about you. If your waiting means you will hold your breath until you get a response, so much the better.

"History will not be kind" or some variation of this, usually followed by some liberal admonishment of Republicans doing alleged evil on the national stage.  Like "this is not who we are," "history..." is a cliche overused these days by liberals that means zero upon analysis.  Please consult this author's all-time favorite poem, Shelley's "Ozymandias," for more information.  Also, Republicans committing evil are worried about the accumulation of power and wealth on earth while they are alive and not about posterity.  (Obviously, their actions also support the idea that, public statements to the contrary, they also do not believe in an afterlife.)

"Your daily reminder that," every day, people will use the same lines over and over.

           Like new COVID mutations, new cliches are sprouting as we speak that have not yet become commonplace.  Meanwhile, thoughtful people have to deal with  "(Person) is the (Person) of (Person)" (Sample seen on Twitter: "Scott Baio is the Tim Allen of Chuck Woolerys"), "Remember when (event that did not happen or some false notion)?  Oh wait, (what actually did happen or what actually is allegedly true)," and a particularly insidious one where a Tweeter types a few words, then types the words ("checks notes") in parenthesis, and then finishes their thought, as if Americans today have the intellectual motivation to actually take notes on anything.

         What to do about this scourge?  In his 1997 book Braindroppings, George Carlin titled a section "More general lame overused expressions for which the users ought to be slain" (his use of lowercase, not mine), followed by such nightmares as "tell us how you really feel," "don't try this at home," "what's wrong with this picture?," etc.  Now, despite my piranha line above, I do NOT agree that people who regurgitate internet cliches should pay with their lives.  However, I will say....THIS!:  those (checks notes) who resort to their usage are lazy hacks, followers whoring for "likes," and not those who will move philosophy or critical commentary forward.  

        I'm just going to leave this here.

LET THE MEME BUYER BEWARE

          Memes can be fun!  When created with responsibility and forethought, memes can also be a visually appealing medium to drive home a point using logic or humor, educating and delighting with the brevity of a picture more efficiently than an essay or video ever could.  However, unfortunately, too many "informative" memes posted today in the netherworld of social media are, at best, half-truths not fully vetted, using tenuous or disemboweled logic to the extent that reasonable, thoughtful people simply move on to the next post. However, some memes are so absurd, so fatuous, and incomprehensible that even this author takes pause and, when the meme emphasizes a political point to which blind acquiescence can result in great harm to the greater public welfare, it's time to sharpen the daggers.

          Unobjective, misleading or outright false memes being shared from one person to another is not the exclusive domain of only one political point-of-view.  For instance, a meme shared on social media by more than one friend claimed that Donald Trump told People Magazine in 1998 that "If I were to run (for President), I'd run as a Republican.  They're the dumbest group of voters in the country.  They believe everything on Fox News.  I could lie and they'd still eat it up.  I bet my numbers would be terrific."  When this author and others pointed out this meme (despite its plausibility) was blatantly false, even citing research, the memes remained on their social media pages.

           Another blatantly false post (not quite a meme) shared by more than one person on the Left was from an obvious parody account on Twitter of someone pretending to be ZM Willem-Alexander, King of the Netherlands (replete with a crown icon right next to the name!) that said, "Dear mister Trump.  You see this beautiful building?  It's the International Court of Justice in Our residency The Hague, the Netherlands.  It's waiting for you.  It might take a while. But it's waiting..."  The absurdity of an actual king of a first-world country posting such a message alone, to say nothing of the grammar (None of the original punctuation or capitalization- or lack thereof- of the faux post was altered by me) should have alerted most would-be post sharers, but when this writer told a friend who shared this on their social media page of its dubious origins, the response was, "Oh, well!"  The post stayed.

          However, it has been this author's experience that the majority of misleading, thoughtless posts come from the Right and the post that particularly made me pause was the following, which I guess is supposed to offer some type of commentary on press bias or something.  Let's break down this simple meme, listing some of the problems with it:

1. Timing:  The statistics (more on the veracity of these numbers in a moment) presented are virtually worthless, for they compare numbers for the United States near the end of the H1N1 virus pandemic to those at the onset of COVID-19.  Doing this to demonstrate some type of proportion to make a statement on press bias is intellectually dishonest, as no one could guess the final statistics of the corona virus at the time the meme was first crafted at or around March 10, 2020.

2. Lack of Logic: Presenting statistics that mathematically show the lethal potency of the very pandemic you're trying to downplay is rather myopic.  Highlighting numbers that demonstrate a fatality rate of only .0003695 for the pandemic you're trying to emphasize and then right above that offer numbers showing a fatality rate of 6.7% for the pandemic you're trying to minimize seems rather counterproductive to the point you're trying to make.

3. Panic Level, Part I: The quote "Swine flu sickened 57 million Americans," offered by the meme's creator to demonstrate that, during a pandemic, NBC News and other biased news agencies were using minimalist language to protect the Obama Administration, demonstrates nothing.  The quote in question was the headline of an online article that, in its body, gave a simple recitation of statistics and was not intended at all to be a definitive statement on either the public's or the media's attitudes on the H1N1 pandemic.   (Also, the sentence itself, when standing on its own, is not minimal at all.  Just read it in this paragraph, outside the context of the meme.)

4. Panic Level, Part II: The panic level of "Totally chill" during the H1N1 pandemic (although this assertion is not true- there are numerous stories that survive detailing public anxiety) versus the "Mass hysteria" at the onset of COVID-19 can also be explained in part by knowledege that, unlike the Obama Administration, it is understood by a majority of Americans that the current administration is totally incompetent and in way over their heads.  Time has certainly borne this out.  Just suggesting this as a possibility.  

5. Panic Level, Part III: Highlighting the quote "Swine flu sickened 57 million Americans" is pointless for another reason.  Is the meme's creator attempting to imply that, of all press coverage of the H1N1 virus circa 2009-10, there were no more foreboding quotes or headlines than this?  For a hilarious three minutes of right-wing media using minimalist language to downplay COVID-19, please do a YouTube search for The Daily Show's video "Saluting the Heroes of the Coronavirus Pandumbic," posted April 3, 2020.

6. Bogus Statistics: Never taking something at face value, this author attempted to verify the "22,469" number.  According to their website, the Center of Disease Control (CDC) estimated that 12,469 Americans died from the H1N1 virus based on a range of 8,888-18,306 possible deaths from the pandemic.  Why 12,469 and not the mean of 13,587 was used by the CDC is unknown to this author; that said, the 22,469 statistic is simply made up.  In response to the Right's inevitable complaint that adding 10,000 to the estimated total accounts for all the unreported U.S. H1N1 deaths, one most also hold U.S. COVID-19 statistics to that same liberal standard.

          The only things honest about this meme are its colors and the grammar.  

          Three days (3/13/2020) after this first meme was created and posted, a statistically more accurate meme citing the aforementioned 12,469 U.S. H1N1 deaths, 1,329 U.S. COVID-19 cases and 38 U.S. COVID-19 deaths graced Facebook, with the NBC News headline replaced by the unsupported assertion, "Do you all see how the media can manipulate your life?"  Even this more accurate post was flagged by Facebook in its half-hearted efforts to combat misinformation.  Unfortunately, what is relentlessly accurate are CDC figures as of May 8, 2020:  1,248,040 U.S. COVID-19 cases resulting in 75,477 U.S. COVID-19 deaths.  How many of these lives could have been saved if the COVID-19 pandemic was taken more seriously at the onset instead of being downplayed for transparent political purposes will, unfortunately, never be known.  Let the meme buyer beware.

I WANT MY HAND SANITIZER!!!!!!!!!

   
     Shortly after the onset of the Trump Administration, I found myself on a Facebook thread reading a question posed by an apparent Trump supporter in response to some liberal overemoting on a topic lost to memory that asked, in essence, "How has Trump becoming president affected YOU negatively?," and then went on to say that, macro issues aside, is it really so bad having Trump as president if YOUR life hasn't changed for the worse?  Seeing the concept of evaluating an issue or action solely on its personal impacts, I thought, was the perfect description of the 21st century Republican.  You now, Dick Cheney caring about Gay Rights because one of his daughters came out or rich Republicans who care not a whit about the environment except in their own backyard, etc.

     My mind involuntarily harkened back to these thoughts when I first read the story of Matt Colvin, a Tennessee man who, the day after the news broke of the first American death from COVID-19, decided with his brother to capitalize on the forthcoming tragic pandemic and anticipated panic by buying approximately 18,000 bottles of hand sanitizer in the surrounding Kentucky and Tennessee areas with intentions of selling their wares on Amazon for highly inflated prices.  The price gougers were stopped by Jeff Bezos' evil monolith after 300 bottles were already sold at an obscene profit.  The subsequent national outcry over this and stories of others in Pennsylvania and Canada doing the same wicked (to be blunt) thing shamed Mr. Colvin into donating the remaining approximately 17,700 bottles for the public good.

     All's well that ends well, one might incorrectly say, but where was the similar national public outcry when news stories broke out publicizing the skyrocketing, price gouging costs of insulin brands such as Levemir, Novolog, Lantus, and Humalog?  I mean, after all, while one can debate the effectiveness of hand sanitizer alone as a weapon against COVID-19, there is a direct causal relationship between insulin and life for diabetics.  And then I recalled, aha!, the hand sanitizer story sparked outrage because the entire nation as a whole were fruitlessly searching for bottles of it.  They could relate to this shortage- it affected THEM.  Whereas, the need for insulin does not affect everyone, even indirectly.

     What was equally troubling was the number of social media posts that emphasized that COVID-19 was, in general, nothing to fear because most of us are relatively healthy enough to ultimately combat it.  More than one post emphasized the elderly and/or those with heart disease, diabetes, chronic lung disease, or issues with the immune system as the people who really needed to worry about COVID-19.  Very rarely did these posts not stop there to DEMAND (my emphasis) that all of us need to take precautions to not contract COVID-19, not just for self-preservation, but to ensure that we do not pass it on to those more vulnerable.  Most just left it at the observation that YOU are most likely not vulnerable, a sort of perverse combination of forces of Darwinism and Bentham utilitarianism at play.  The pre-crisis John Stuart Mill would be proud (I can't knock Mill for Wordsworth's poetry being the catalyst for Mill overcoming his crisis- the Beach Boys' Endless Summer had the same impact on me during a personal crisis many moons ago).

     Oh, back to the thesis statement-less, first paragraph:  were the toilet paper hoarding, hand sanitizing price gouging, and strictly self-preservation COVID-19 perspectives examples of a solely a Republican mindset?  No, snatches from all ends of the political spectrum are exhibiting this behavior.  With a broad brush is this, then, an American mindset?  This writer doesn't know and cannot quite make out what the ghost of John F. Kennedy is trying to say, but it sounds like, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for you."

Why Boston is the Most Successful Sports City

While whittling away my existence on Twitter back in December, I came across a tweet from Keith Olbermann stating


“Yankees 27

+ NFL Giants 8

+ Rangers 4

+ Mets 2

+ Knicks 2

+ Jets 1

= 44 


Shall we add in the ex-NY teams?  Dodgers (1), MLB Giants (8)?  Make it 53?” and then added, in blunt fashion, “You guys are morons.”


This, as my scanning eyes would soon confirm, was in response to a picture tweeted by Joe Giza of a Dunkin’ Donuts sign in Boston stating, “Boston Runs on Dunkin’, Hard Work, The Sweat From 37 Championships #Titletown!  And the Tears of New Yorkers.”

Now, setting aside the fact that the New York (MLB) Giants won five and not eight World Series titles before moving to San Francisco following the 1957 season (the other three were won in 2010, 2012, and 2014) and that Olbermann did not mention the Boston (Miracle) Braves’ World Series title in 1914, 44 championships certainly beats 37, no? (To say nothing of 50 (not 53) beating 38.)

I obviously assumed New York would be the more successful sports town but, as is my wont, decided to try to come up with an interesting counterpoint.  After rudimentary research, I tweeted back that Boston was ahead 27-19 in championships won after Olbermann was born (January 27, 1959).  Looking further, I noticed that it was only going back to 1940 (before Citizen Kane was released, before Teddy Ballgame batted .406, before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor) when New York pulls decisively ahead of Boston in the championship count, 31-30, (or 1947, if you include the Brooklyn Dodgers 1955 and NY Giants 1954 World Series titles) to get to the ultimate 44-37 totals (or 50-38 totals, if you include the relocated franchises.)


And, yet, despite the 44-37 (or 50-38) difference, Boston is still the more successful sports town when one considers how many championships have been won as a percentage of opportunities each city had.  As of December 31, 2018, the New York Yankees have played in all 115 seasons that a World Series has been played (excluding the 1994 strike year- I’ll get to the non-1904 World Series later), the Mets in 56 seasons (as of 1962), the NFL Giants in 94 seasons since 1925, the New York Jets in 53 seasons from Super Bowl I on, the New York Knicks in 72 seasons of NBA Championships from 1947 on, the Brooklyn Nets in six seasons from 2012, and the New York Rangers in 92 seasons from the 1926-27 season, which means that New York teams in the four major sports won only 44 championships out of 488 opportunities, or 9.016%.  Contrast this with Boston, who won 37 championships (Boston Red Sox: 9 World Series titles, New England Patriots: 5 Super Bowls, Boston Celtics: 17 NBA Championships, Boston Bruins: 6 Stanley Cups) in only 334 opportunities (the Boston Red Sox played in the same 115 seasons as the Yankees, the New England Patriots in the same 53 seasons as the Jets, the Boston Celtics in the same 72 seasons as the Knicks, and the Boston Bruins in 94 seasons from the 1924-25 season), or 11.078%.


Adding the five World Series titles won by the New York Giants and the one Series won by Brooklyn does not help because you’re adding six titles, yes, but you are also adding 55 seasons for each team (50/598= 8.361%).  The gap narrows if you include the Boston Braves (1 title in 50 years before that franchise moved to Milwaukee), which Olbermann overlooked, but Boston still comes out ahead, 38/384= 9.896%.  And none of this even counts 1904, when the BOSTON baseball team should have been declared World Champions after the NEW YORK Giants refused to play them for the title!  


Of the cities with teams in all four major sports leagues, Boston is #1. (Postscript:  since the Olbermann tweet, the New England Patriots won Super Bowl LIII to end the 53^rd season of Super Bowls, thus improving Boston’s superior winning percentage still further, franchise relocations or not.)

Donald Trump is My President

You may not like it.  As an environmentalist, I CERTAINLY do not like it, but it is an irrefutable fact that Donald J. Trump is our duly-elected U.S. President, and attempts by some on the Left (even two years later- I’m talking to you, Michael Moore) to delegitimize this by pointing out that Trump lost the popular vote are ultimately found wanting.

The Electoral College is delineated in Article 2, Section 1 and in the 12^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Donald Trump, by the only legal barometer both major parties were aware of prior to Election Day, earned 304 electoral votes versus the 227 won by Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton to win the presidency.  There are arguments for and against the Electoral College which I do not wish to rehash here.  Instead, I’d like to stress that one cannot repudiate a victory reached under the lawful rules both sides were playing under initially by pointing out that a different result could have been achieved using a different barometer.  

To demonstrate this, a Reddit user cited (in the Reddit user’s words) “a great analogy” from Rush Limbaugh’s November 14, 2016 show (a segment I heard live, by the way) that, predictably, is simple enough for his core audience to grasp but not subtle enough to truly drive the point home.  Rush recalled the classic 1960 baseball World Series when the heavily-favored New York Yankees (Mantle, Berra, Ford, Maris, Richardson, Howard, et al) were beaten by the Pittsburgh Pirates in seven games, despite outscoring the National League representatives 55-27 in the seven games.  Rush’s simple point is to say, hey, the ground rule to determine the World Series winner is the first team to win four games in a best-of-seven series and, if we change the rule post-Series to say, na’ah, let’s declare the Bronx Bombers (Hillary) the Series winner because they scored more runs in the Series than the Pirates (Trump).  A simple analogy, yes, but not “great” because strategy (What do I need to do to get to 270 electoral votes?) is ignored.

A better, deeper (for me) analogy would be to compare the 2016 Election to one single baseball game.  Current official baseball rules dictate the winner of a game to be the team that scores the most runs.  Usually, but not always, the baseball team (or presidential candidate) who gets the most hits (votes) wins the game (the election).  However, as five U.S. Presidential elections and countless baseball games show, the candidate (team) who gets the most votes (hits) does not always win the election (game).  Just as there is strategy involved in earning the most electoral votes (what are the swing states, and which are in play for us?  How do I allocate my time and resources?  What message do I craft to appeal to those states?) beyond winning the popular vote, there’s strategy to winning a baseball game beyond getting the most hits.  In some situations, laying down a sacrifice bunt or grounding out to the right side of the infield to advance a baserunner into better scoring position makes strategic sense, although you are giving up an out (in other words, a chance to get a hit).  Trying to hit a sacrifice fly to score a baserunner from third, although again giving up an opportunity for a hit, makes strategic sense.  Ordering a stolen base attempt to move a runner into scoring position is another strategy that, depending on circumstances, might make sense even though the subsequent opening of a base may lead to an intentional walk to the next hitter, thus “taking the bat out of their hands,” or the runner may even get thrown out, which means your team has one less opportunity to get a hit.  In these examples, a team is implementing strategies (and I can think of multiple others that would also apply to this analogy) to attempt to win in ways other than focusing on getting hits alone because they realize that hits alone do not ensure victory, just like getting the most popular votes ensures nothing.  It would be absurd for a team that wins 4 runs to 3 to have the result overturned because they were outhit 8-6.

So, anti-Trumpers:  please stop alluding to the popular vote!  Antiquated or not, the Electoral College determines our U.S. President and will continue to do so in perpetuity.  So, learn the lessons of the bitter 2016 defeat (which, if my Twitter feed is any indication, pundits on the Left have not yet fully grasped), draw the necessary conclusions as to why the Rust Belt states who decided the election favored the message of a scion whose businesses filed bankruptcy on multiple occasions over the message (or lack thereof) of the more progressive party, cease with the stupid “Drumpf” stuff, and win an election.

Enigma: the Mystery of Phil Ochs

Like "superstars" in sports, the moniker "enigma" in music circles has been rendered virtually superfluous by its overuse.  Marc Eliot's Death of a Rebel:  A Biography of Phil Ochs delineates the all-too brief life of a GENUINE musical enigma, Phil Ochs, who hanged himself to death at age 36.  Eliot's work transcends mere biographical rehashes of career vicissitudes; it presents a compelling psychological profile of a revered lyricist/folk singer possessing personality contradictions comparable to Shakespeare's Hamlet.  Eliot's character dissection is twofold:  coverage of Phil's musical career is adroitly complimented by discussion of Phil's political activism.  Through warm, personal reminisces of Phil by friends and peers and an exemplary presentation of the ambience of the Sixties, Eliot challenges the reader to diagnose the cause(s) of Phil's psychological breakdown.  All explanations inherently possess a paucity of conviction, highlighting Eliot's characterization of Phil as an unsolvable enigma.

The book first and foremost presents Phil as a superlative lyricist, capable of protest and introspective songs of high quality.  Pete Seeger, author of 'Where Have All the Flowers Gone?' and (w/ Lee Hays) 'If I Had a Hammer," wrote to Phil:  "I wish I had one-tenth your talent as a songwriter."  London's Melody Maker, the most analytical of music periodicals, cited Phil for his synergism of "Beatles' musicality and Dylan's poetry."  His lyrics expressed an intrinsic part of his personality.  Eliot quotes Phil:  "I write about (issues) out of an inner need for expression, not to change the world.  The roots of my songs are psychological, not political."  This explains Phil's lyrical inconsistency; i.e., some songs variously laud or condemn the protest movement, liberals, JFK, etc.  The wit and creativity of Phil's songs is partially explained by Eliot's characterization of the preadolescent Phil as a dreamer too absorbed with movie screen images of Brando (whom he meets- pages 74-4), Wayne, and Dean to discern reality; the innate ability to simplify and satirize issues to their bare essentials stems partly from Phil's college days at Ohio St. (straight A's) and the political indoctrination espoused by the Marxist father of a college friend.

Phil's true musical roots lied not with folk/protest but with rock-n-roll as practiced by Elvis and Buddy Holly, and his ultimate goals were the decidedly unfolkish ideals of riches and superstardom.  Phil quickly realized he couldn't acquire Dylan's status as institution solely through folk.  Eliot quotes Paul Rothchild, producer of Phil's first three albums:  "(Phil's voice) was too cultured.  It wasn't 'of the people' enough.  It wasn't Pete Seeger or Woody Guthrie; it sounded too trained."  So, Phil rejected Dylan's abandoned throne, and followed the latter's conversion to folk-rock.  After signing a lucrative contract with A&M Records and the release of two successful records, Phil destroyed his pop commercial viability through his (to me) heroic role in the fiasco of Chicago, 1968, and alienated his legions of folk fans by dressing in a gold lame suit in Carnegie Hall in 1970 by singing Elvis and Buddy Holly tunes.  Phil had great talent and, yet, couldn't find a suitable musical genre to express himself- an unpalatable proposition for a genius.

Politics were truly a double-edged sword for Phil, providing fodder for some of his best songs and planting the seeds for the irreversible writer's block, paranoia, manic depression, and split personas that plagued Phil's final years.  Eliot gives the reader the flavor of the Sixties' student movement through the eyes of one of its leading practitioners.  Eliot shows how the ideals and dreams Phil possessed were shattered many times and the personal trauma this created- in Mississippi, in Chicago '68, and in Chile in 1973 with the overthrow and murder of that country's elected socialist president Salvador Allende.  Phil's frustration and resignation with the failure of the Left had a masochistic effect, leading to self-effacing and self-destructive behavior.  Eliot also highlights fascinating political idiosyncrasies of Phil's; he implicitly understood music and students couldn't change the attitude of the middle class and yet publicly espoused its value.  He later proclaimed the need for an Elvis Presley-type to become a Che Guevara of the Left, leading to the lame suit concert whose negative response confused and hurt Phil deeply.  Political and social issues made Phil musically and broke him spiritually.

The most attractive feature of the book is its objective feel.  The author's love of Phil's music, wit, activism, and sincerity is balanced by discussion of the repugnant last years of Phil's life.  Phil's excessive drinking, spurts of anger and violence at loved ones, and his creation of an evil alter ego, John Train ("I live outside of the law!") are discussed in an intimate manner that allows the reader to spiral and careen with Phil/John to the bitter end.  Eliot passes no opinions or judgments; instead, he allows the readers to draw their own conclusions.

Eliot spent 18 months tracking down colleagues of Phil and retracting Phil's steps.  The result is a thorough, in-depth profile unprecedented in pop literature.  Phil will always remain an enigma, but Eliot gives us warm, personal clues to solve an unsolvable genius.  Phil will forever be remembered for his music, his candidness, and his mystique.

 

 

 

 

 

The Perils of Going Viral

These days, much of social media frustrates and vexes me. Uncouth language, a lack of compassion, an annoying overuse of internet clichés ("epic fail," etc.), and an inability to read past the headline all tempt me to raise my voice- a voice crying in the wilderness, but a voice nonetheless. However, it took a letter written by a self-congratulatory parent to a school administrator that (wait for it) "went viral" which spurred me to write my first blog in over two years.

  

A Pennsylvania parent named Mike Rossi, apparently vexed at a brief, didactic letter mailed to him by an elementary school principal informing him that the three days missed by his children during the school year for a family trip to Boston to watch him run in the 2015 Boston Marathon would not be excused, decided to post onto Facebook the letter and his written response.

  

Mr. Rossi's response began with, in essence, a belittling of the value of going to school by claiming his children "learned as much in the five days (in Boston) as they would in an entire year of school." Hmmm.  Interesting. Is he saying that we can phase out the 180-day school year in favor of a five-day sojourn to Boston (a pleasant notion for most kids)?  Is this the secret of those countries currently ranked ahead of the United States in education?

  

More trip rationalization followed: "Our children had a once-in-a-lifetime experience (that) can't be duplicated in a classroom or read in a book." Echoing this notion, mirabile dictu, schools agree that some educational experiences cannot be duplicated in a classroom setting, which is why field (class) trips, where school officials agree to let a class or an entire grade enjoy a common learning experience outside of school grounds, were invented.

  

Mr. Rossi continued: "In the 3 days of school they missed (which consisted of standardized testing that they could take any time) they learned about dedication, commitment, love, perseverance, overcoming adversity, civic pride, patriotism, American history, culinary arts (culinary arts?), and physical education." Generally speaking, for obvious reasons, "standardized testing" should be administered to each student at the same time, which is why the same S.A.T. questions are not given on different test days.  However, as the exact nature of the standardized testing was not made clear, let's move along...

  

The next paragraph explained the true motivation for this entire enterprise: "(My kids) watched their father overcome injury, bad weather, the death of a loved one and many other obstacles to achieve an important personal goal." Actually, Mr. Rossi is not alone in the running community in attaching great importance to the value of their somewhat (I have to admit, being a runner myself- albeit one who will not qualify for the Boston Marathon anytime soon) self-indulgent running endeavors. More than one runner believes that each run they complete is a lasting inspiration to the lives of others.

  

One cannot quibble with the next three paragraphs: "They also experienced first-hand the love and support of thousands of others cheering on people with a common goal.

  

At the marathon, they watched blind runners, runners with prosthetic limbs and debilitating diseases and people running to raise money for great causes run in the most prestigious and historic marathon in the world.

  

They also paid tribute to the victims of a senseless act of terrorism and learned that no matter what evil may occur, terrorists can not deter the American spirit."

  

Redundancy followed ("These are things they won't ever truly learn in the classroom"), in case one did not understand beforehand that certain things cannot be learned in a classroom, or read in a book.

  

Details on the part of the vacation that most closely resembled a school class trip came next: "Our children walked the Freedom Trail, visited the site of the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre and the graves of several signers of the Declaration of Independence... They also visited an aquarium (presumably the New England Aquarium), sampled great cuisine (presumably not the marine life at the New England Aquarium. Stop. Wait. Is this what he meant by "culinary arts"?) and spent many hours of physical activity walking and swimming." Now, I certainly see great educational merit in walking the Freedom Trail, which I did back in 1998, and I loved the New England Aquarium, by far the best aquarium I ever saw, and I encourage all families to travel to Historic Boston during spring or summer vacation.

  

However, making this trek during the school year is another matter. I wonder if the conservatives (the faction that responded most favorably to this letter, and who probably to a person consider themselves those who "play by the rules.") who relished both the subtle devaluation of education and the patriotic images of the letter would have responded as favorably if a parent had instead posted a letter explaining why they decided to pull their child out of school for three days to drive to Washington D.C. for a mass protest against, say, police brutality or a war and to drive around poorer neighborhoods, an experience that some would find just as patriotic and educational as the Boston trip of the Family Rossi.

After a brief blurb contradicting the first two paragraphs of the letter ("We appreciate the efforts of the wonderful teachers and staff and cherish the education they are receiving at Rydal Elementary School. We truly love our school"), Mr. Rossi reaffirmed the validity of the trip ("But I wouldn't hesitate to pull them out of school again for an experience like the one they had this past week."), a voyage that would have never been made if he hadn't "qualified" for the Boston Marathon (see epilogue), auxiliary benefits of the excursion aside.

  

He ended the letter with "Michael Rossi, Father," presumably because the elementary school principal dared to end her letter with "Rochelle Marbury, Principal," as if the principal should not have identified her position to distinguish herself from, say, the assistant principal or the janitor.

  

(Epilogue: there is now some doubt as to whether Mr. Rossi had even legitimately qualified for the Boston Marathon.  Please visit the website Letsrun dot com for some interesting circumstantial evidence. The lesson is this: if you take great pains to glorify yourself through Social Media, "haters" will take great pains of sometimes greater proportion to nullify these efforts.)