Bedside Manner
Two Nurses
by
Ian Frazier April 25, 2011Keywords Mary Jane Seacole; Nurses; Jamaicans; Tributes; Florence Nightingale; St. Francis College; Minna Hamilton LaFortune
Florence Nightingale strongly disapproved of Mary Jane Seacole, but that did not stop either of them. The former invented the profession of nursing and became famous for her work on the battlefields of the Crimean War. The latter grew up in Jamaica, knew native remedies learned from her Jamaican mother, had light skin because of her Scottish father, married a man named Edwin Horatio Hamilton Seacole (said to be the godson, or possibly the illegitimate son, of Admiral Nelson), supported herself by selling jams, pickles, and spices after her husband's death, travelled widely, and offered to nurse soldiers in the Crimean War with Nightingale. Turned down, Mary Seacole went to the Crimea anyway. She paid her own expenses, tended the wounded on both sides, constructed a hotel-clinic from scrap, and handed out wine and hot tea to the soldiers. They loved her. Nightingale wished she would go elsewhere.
These days, if you're from Jamaica, and you're a nurse, you know of Mary Seacole. "In our modern global society, she is someone we as Caribbean women model ourselves on," said Minna Hamilton LaFortune, the president of the Society for the Advancement of the Caribbean Diaspora, the other night. The event was a tribute to Mary Seacole, part of a celebration of Women's History Month, at St. Francis College, in Brooklyn. LaFortune, the mistress of ceremonies, wore a bright-red blazer, black slacks, and a hemispherical gold lapel pin.
Bullet points of the evening:
· Mary Seacole was also an author. Her autobiography, "Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands," became a best-seller in 1857.
· Claudette Powell, R.N., M.A., the president of the Jamaica Nurses Group of New York and the vice-president of the Caribbean-American Nurses Association, served as moderator: "This evening, we also want to recognize the noble profession of nursing."
· A prayer led by the Reverend Gloria Wells, of the Joy Church Deeper Life Christian Fellowship Ministries, asked that the evening's presentations "give a good educational feeling."
· Mary Seacole spent her life helping others to be healthy, and, in light of that, Donareen Denny, R.N., a nurse educator at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, made a short speech about the higher risk of stroke among black women. Time is critical, she said. Carefully note the onset of stroke symptoms (weakness or numbness on one side of the body, loss of vision, confusion, difficulty speaking, a headache like you never felt before). If you can get to an emergency room within an hour, the chances of limiting the stroke's damage are better. That hour is sometimes called the golden hour.
· Audience participation was encouraged. A woman named Miss Ruby stood up and said that while working at a senior center she had begun shaking all over, the result of exposure to insecticide. She switched to an insecticide-free all-natural diet, and had recently turned eighty-three. Another woman said that she had experienced a bad reaction to the smell of cigarette smoke on the clothing of health-care aides. Arlene George, R.N., told her that some of the most competent nurses in the world might happen to be smokers, so she should keep an open mind.
http://www.cartoonbank.com/invt/126841?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYarticlehttp://www.cartoonbank.com/invt/126841?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYarticle
·
Dr. Pamella Hosang, the unofficial dean of Caribbean nurses in New York, now retired, who nursed and taught nursing for fifty-two years, said that she'd had a difficult trip on the subway coming to the event. Service had been cut and the train was packed, and then it ran local. Her burgundy outfit looked elegant nonetheless. The title of her talk was "Opportunities in Nursing." There are many, because nurses are everywhere. Dr. Hosang didn't decide to be a nurse; she just sort of jumped into it in Jamaica when she was eighteen. She began as a registered nurse, kept studying, and became a community health nurse, a nurse researcher, a midwife, and a public-health nurse. She got her Ed.D. in nursing from Columbia. Beyond hospitals and doctors' offices, nurses also work in industry, in schools, and in informatics (computer sciences). There are nurses at airports. "Nothing is more exciting than being a nurse," she said, to nods of approval. Personally, she added, she was an admirer of Mary Seacole, but her lifelong hero had been Florence Nightingale. "She raised nurses from their previous lowly status as domestic servants, or even prostitutes, and made nursing a great calling," Dr. Hosang said.· Mary Seacole, later in life, became a masseuse to Alexandra, Princess of Wales.
· Mary Seacole died in 1881, probably of a stroke. There is, or soon will be, a statue of her in London. ♦
This American Life
The making and remaking of Malcolm X.
by David Remnick April 25, 2011
"You're another of the white man's tools sent to spy!" Malcolm told Alex Haley when they first met. Photograph by Eve Arnold.
Keywords Malcolm X; Manning Marable; "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention" (Viking; $30); "The Autobiography of Malcolm X"; Alex Haley; Biographies; Elijah Muhammad
On summer nights, in 1963, Malcolm X drove his blue Oldsmobile from Mosque No. 7, the Harlem headquarters of the Nation of Islam, to an apartment building on Grove Street, in Greenwich Village, where a freelance writer named Alex Haley sat waiting for him in an eight-by-ten-foot studio. There, the two would remain until early morning. Haley sat at a desk typing notes while Malcolm—tall, austere, dressed always in a dark suit, a white shirt, and a narrow dark tie—drank cup after cup of coffee, paced the room, and talked. What emerged was the hegira of Malcolm's life as a black man in mid-century America: his transformation from Malcolm Little, born in Omaha to troubled parents whose salve against racist harassment and violence was the black-nationalist creed of Marcus Garvey; to Detroit Red, a numbers-running hustler on the streets of Boston and New York; to a convicted felon known among fellow-prisoners as Satan; to Malcolm X, a charismatic deputy to the Nation of Islam's leader, Elijah Muhammad, and the most electrifying proponent of black nationalism alive. "My whole life has been a chronology of changes," Malcolm told Haley one night, and, in a few months, he would transform himself yet again, becoming El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, a Sunni Muslim.
When Haley first met Malcolm, in 1959, he had recently retired from a twenty-year career in the Coast Guard, and had embarked on a career as a journalist. He soon published articles about the Nation of Islam and Malcolm in Reader's Digest and The Saturday Evening Post. Haley was not at all in accord with the Nation's theology or its vehement ideology of racial separatism. He was a liberal Republican, an integrationist, who admired A. Philip Randolph, Roy Wilkins, and Martin Luther King, Jr.—the mainstream civil-rights leaders whom Malcolm denounced as "stooges" and "lackeys."
"You're another of the white man's tools sent to spy!" Malcolm told Haley at their first meeting. Despite their obvious differences, though, Malcolm thought that Haley's articles had been fair. After interviewing Malcolm for Playboy, Haley persuaded him to collaborate on an "as told to" autobiography. They would split a twenty-thousand-dollar advance from Doubleday.
The first sessions on Grove Street were frustrating, as Malcolm spent countless hours praising the wisdom of Elijah Muhammad, and avoided all mention of his own life. Then came a night when Haley asked Malcolm, "I wonder if you'd tell me something about your mother?" Malcolm's voice softened. Walking in a tight circle, he said, "She was always standing over the stove, trying to stretch whatever we had to eat." He began to tell the story of his life, how the family's house was burned to the ground by the white racists of the Black Legion, how his white teacher told him he could never be a lawyer ("That's no realistic goal for a nigger!"). They talked until dawn, accumulating much of a first chapter, which Haley titled "Nightmare."
http://www.cartoonbank.com/invt/127298?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYarticlehttp://www.cartoonbank.com/invt/127298?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYarticle
Haley's ambition was to write a bestseller; in Malcolm, he recognized not a great man, necessarily, but a great story, even a dangerous one. By 1964, Malcolm had fallen out with the Nation of Islam, and he became convinced, rightly, that he did not have long to live. Followed all his public life by the F.B.I. and the police, Malcolm was now being pursued by the Nation, with its thuggish "pipe squads," the Fruit of Islam. Haley cared for Malcolm, but he cared for the book no less. "I sometimes think that you do not really understand what will be the effect of this book," he wrote Malcolm in a long letter. "There has never been, at least not in our time, any other book like it. Do you realize that to do these things you will have to be alive?" In order to fend off deadlines, meanwhile, Haley wrote buoyantly to his agent and editors, insisting that the book would "sweep the market like wildfire": "For this man is so hot, so HOT, a subject . . . this book is so pregnant with millions or more sales potential, including to make foreign rights hotly bid for!"
On February 21, 1965, at the Audubon Ballroom, in Washington Heights, multiple assassins fired shotguns and pistols at Malcolm as he stepped to the lectern for a speech. Two hours after hearing the news, Haley wrote to his agent, "None of us would have had it be this way, but since this book represent's [sic] Malcolm's sole financial legacy to his widow and four little daughters . . . I'm just glad that it's ready for the press now at a peak of interest for what will be international large sales, and paperback, and all."
The publisher, Nelson Doubleday, fearing for the lives of his staff, cancelled his deal with Haley; Barney Rosset, the bold and ingenious proprietor of Grove Press, picked up the contract. He would not be sorry. Between 1965 and 1977, "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" sold six million copies worldwide, and the book continues to sell briskly, both to general readers and to students for whom it is required reading. In 1992, Spike Lee set off a bout of "Malcolmania," with his three-hour-plus film. In its wake, people as unlikely as Dan Quayle talked sympathetically about Malcolm. A poll showed that eighty-four per cent of African-Americans between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four saw Malcolm as "a hero for black Americans today." The video for Public Enemy's "Shut 'Em Down" put Malcolm's face on the dollar bill. A vivid but secondary figure in his own time, Malcolm X had achieved the status of an icon. And he did it with a book that he never lived to see published.
For nearly twenty years, Manning Marable, a historian at Columbia, labored on what he hoped would be a definitive scholarly work on Malcolm X. During this period, Marable struggled with sarcoidosis, a pulmonary disease, and even underwent a double lung transplant. Recently, he completed his rigorous and evenhanded biography, "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention" (Viking; $30), but, in an echo of his subject's fate, he died on the eve of publication. One of his goals was to grapple with Malcolm's autobiography, and although he finds much to admire about Malcolm, he makes it clear that the book's drama sometimes comes at the expense of fact. Haley wanted to write a "potboiler that would sell," Marable observes, and Malcolm was accustomed to exaggerating his exploits—"the number of his burglaries, the amount of marijuana he sold to musicians, and the like." Malcolm, like St. Augustine, embellished his sins in order to heighten the drama of his reform.
The literary urge outran the knowable facts even in the most crucial episode in Malcolm's childhood. One evening, in 1931, in Lansing, Michigan, when Malcolm was six, his father, Earl Little, a part-time Garveyite teacher, went to collect "chicken money" from families who bought poultry from him. That night, he was found bleeding to death on the streetcar tracks. The authorities ruled his death an accident, but Malcolm's mother, Louise, was sure he had been beaten by the Black Legion and laid on the tracks to be run over and killed. Perhaps he had been, but, as Marable notes, nobody knew for sure. The autobiography (and Lee's film) presents the ostensible murder as established fact, and yet Malcolm himself, in a 1963 speech at Michigan State University, referred to the death as accidental.
It's indisputable that the family suffered terribly, from both racism and humiliating poverty. This was an era of lynchings, Jim Crow, and economic depression. Malcolm says he was sometimes "dizzy" with hunger. His mother became a barely functional depressive, given to mumbling to herself for hours in a rocking chair; she was eventually institutionalized. Malcolm, who was sent off to a series of foster homes and an all-white school, scarcely saw her for twenty-five years. Even if Malcolm's autobiography intensified the colors of his story, the general grimness of "Nightmare"—his sense of deprivation and hurt, his rage at white society—is borne out by Marable's scholarship.
Malcolm worked for a while on Pullman trains, clowning for the passengers, and eventually landed in Roxbury and Harlem, where he was a small-time gangster, with a conk and a zoot suit, pimping and selling dope, hanging out with musicians, hustlers, and prostitutes at famous nightspots like the Roseland Ballroom and Small's Paradise. Like Charlie Parker before him, he washed dishes at Jimmy's Chicken Shack. He not only ran numbers but wagered on them, too: "Every day I would gamble all of my tips—as high as fifteen and twenty dollars—on the numbers, and dream of what I would do when I hit."
Although the autobiography portrays him as apolitical during these years, this seems to have been a dramatic device to signal ignorance before enlightenment. Marable tracked down a reliable witness who says that Malcolm "would talk often about how his father used to get brutalized and beat up on the corner selling Marcus Garvey's paper, and he would talk a lot about Garvey's concepts in terms of how they could benefit us as a people."
In Boston, Malcolm worked for William Paul Lennon, the son of a successful Rhode Island merchant. In 1944, Malcolm was a "butler and occasional house worker" at Lennon's house on Arlington Street, near the Public Garden. In the autobiography, he writes about his friend Rudy, who went to see the "blueblood" every week: "He paid Rudy to undress them both, then pick up the old man like a baby, lay him on his bed, then stand over him, and sprinkle him all over with talcum powder. Rudy said the old man would actually reach his climax from that." Marable writes that, "based on circumstantial but strong evidence, Malcolm was probably describing his own homosexual encounters with Paul Lennon." When this suggestion first surfaced, in a tendentious 1991 biography by Bruce Perry, the criticism was huge, but Marable insists that the evidence is now more compelling.
The days of Detroit Red came to an end in 1946. Malcolm and another hustler named Shorty Jarvis, along with their two white girlfriends, went on a robbery spree, and Malcolm was arrested trying to get a stolen watch repaired. After the judge gave him and Jarvis concurrent eight-to-ten-year sentences, Malcolm's lawyer told him, "You had no business with white girls!"
At Charlestown State Prison, Malcolm boasted about his criminal exploits, got high on nutmeg, and met a jailhouse autodidact who convinced him of the virtues of books. Malcolm started reading Kant and Nietzsche, H. G. Wells and Herodotus; he even tried to memorize the dictionary. In 1948, he received a letter from his older brother Philbert saying that he and others in the family had converted to the Nation of Islam—"a program designed to help black people." After reading up on the Nation, Malcolm sat in his cell and wrote twenty-five drafts of a one-page letter to Elijah Muhammad, pledging his spiritual loyalty. In a welcoming reply, Elijah Muhammad enclosed a five-dollar bill.
If you are a believer (and very few are these days), the origins of the Nation of Islam stretch back thousands of years, to a time when blacks, the "original people," were assaulted by a mutant white race created by an evil "Big Head" scientist named Yacub. The whites achieved dominion over the earth and blacks "went to sleep," mentally and spiritually. The purpose of the Nation of Islam was to rouse the black man from his slumber. (Armed spaceships come into it, too.) Such were the teachings of Wallace D. Fard, an ex-con, silk salesman, and eccentric storefront preacher who turned up in a Detroit ghetto around 1930. Fard also had more earthly advice. He told his followers to avoid alcohol, to work hard and save money, to own their own businesses, and to regain a sense of the nobility of their race. His Nation of Islam represented a cultish offshoot of a venerable American movement, black nationalism.
One summer night, in 1931, at a former Garveyite meeting hall in Detroit, a onetime sharecropper from Georgia with a fourth-grade education named Elijah Poole came to hear Fard preach, and afterward told him, "I know who you are, you are God himself." "That's right," Fard said. "But don't tell it now. It is not yet time for me to be known." Fard set up operations in Chicago, and Poole became his minister. In 1934, Fard mysteriously disappeared and the apostle, now called Elijah Muhammad, took command of the Nation of Islam.
The Nation that Malcolm joined when he was released, in 1952, was tiny and largely apolitical. Its members, who numbered in the hundreds, were instructed not to vote. Elijah Muhammad, who was remarkably uncharismatic, quickly recognized in Malcolm a dynamic and tireless organizer and speaker, and dispatched him to Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia, and, finally, Harlem, to establish new temples. While the civil-rights movement developed in the South, Malcolm went from ghetto to ghetto in the North, the Midwest, and California. He turned white supremacy on its head—whites were "blue-eyed devils"—and urged solidarity with the emerging independence movements of Africa and Asia. His early appeal was based less on the coherence of his political ideas than on the raw excitement of his presence at the lectern, the fierce clarity of his rhetoric, and (for all his verbal ferocity) a certain cool charm, even toward white reporters. For many poor, young, urban blacks, King was too middle-class and genteel, too Southern, too churchly and high-flown; Malcolm had lived as they had. "Nobody could handle Malcolm," Louis Farrakhan, his protégé and eventual enemy, said. "I never saw Malcolm smoke. I never saw Malcolm curse. I never saw Malcolm wink at a woman. I never saw Malcolm eat in between meals. He ate one meal a day. He got up at 5 o'clock in the morning to say his prayers. I never saw Malcolm late for an appointment. Malcolm was like a clock." By 1961, according to Marable, the Nation had as many as seventy-five thousand members.
Even outsiders were impressed. Malcolm "is an excellent speaker, forceful and convincing," one F.B.I. informant said, in 1958. "He is an expert organizer and an untiring worker," whose hatred for whites "is not likely to erupt in violence as he is much too clever and intelligent for that."
Malcolm was not above appealing to the worst instincts of his followers. "Jews run the country," he said. Women were "tricky, deceitful, untrustworthy flesh." As a way to mock the passive resisters of the mainstream civil-rights movement, he distinguished between the honest masses, the "field Negroes," and the perfidious "house Negroes," who were forever looking to their white masters for privilege and approval. (The political scientist Adolph Reed points out that the famous slave-revolt leaders—Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, and Gabriel Prosser—were house slaves.) Malcolm's desire to rouse his followers and scandalize the white majority could lead him to disastrous miscalculations: in January, 1961, he met with representatives of the Klan, in Atlanta, confiding to his hooded interlocutors, "The Jew is behind the integration movement, using the Negro as a tool."
But the former numbers runner had an appetite for the high-stakes gamble. While King sought to enlist the sympathies of the white majority in order to achieve racial integration, Malcolm, the incendiary separatist, freely indulged his penchant for outrage. In June, 1962, a plane crashed in Paris carrying mostly well-to-do white passengers from Atlanta. In front of more than a thousand people in Los Angeles, Malcolm said that the disaster was "a very beautiful thing": "We call on our God—he gets rid of a hundred and twenty of them."
By 1959, fissures had emerged between Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad. Some of Elijah's lieutenants resented Malcolm's fame, his appearances with Mike Wallace and other television interviewers; others worried that Malcolm was angling to take over the Nation when Elijah died. But the tensions took on seamier aspects. In 1958, Malcolm married a woman named Betty Sanders, but by the following year the marriage (which is portrayed sentimentally in Lee's film) was foundering. Malcolm sent a distressed letter to Elijah Muhammad:
The main source of our trouble was based on SEX. . . . She placed a great deal more stress upon it than I was physically capable of doing. . . . At a time when I was going all out to keep her satisfied (sexually), one day she told me that we were incompatible sexually because I had never given her any real satisfaction. From then on, try as I may, I began to become very cool toward her. . . . She later said she was going to seek satisfaction elsewhere.
Somehow, Elijah's lieutenants learned about Malcolm's problems, and did not hesitate to spread humiliating rumors.
Later that year, Malcolm heard that a young secretary at the Nation's headquarters with whom he had had a romance before he married Betty was pregnant, and, he subsequently learned, with Elijah Muhammad's child. Indeed, Elijah had impregnated other young women. When the woman asked Elijah for money, he was cruel and dismissive, saying, "You must think I'm a fool or Santa Claus." When she called again, he told a minister who heard the exchange, "It looks like she will have to be put down." By the early sixties, Malcolm had confronted Elijah about his sexual behavior, further offending the leadership of the Nation.
Finally, the relationship between Malcolm and his mentor exploded. Following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm defied the Nation's instructions to stay quiet and said that the murder in Dallas represented "the chickens coming home to roost." He added, "Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad. They've always made me glad." Elijah Muhammad "silenced" Malcolm X. Officially, the punishment was supposed to last just three months, but there seemed no chance of resolution. Malcolm was on his own. "I hadn't hustled in the streets for years for nothing," Malcolm told Haley. "I knew when I was being set up."
In 1964, Malcolm decided to reform his soul, alter his politics, and refashion his public image. After touring Africa and the Middle East for two months, during which he made the hajj, he returned to Harlem an orthodox Muslim, a man in flux. His Garveyite belief in entrepreneurial capitalism shifted to socialism. He disavowed separatism. In a letter to a Times reporter, M. S. Handler, he wrote, "Some of my very dearest friends are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and even atheists—some are capitalists, socialists, conservatives, extremists . . . some are even Uncle Toms—some are black, brown, red, yellow and some are even white."
Malcolm's shift in the last year of his life, as dramatized in his autobiography, is what allowed middle-class blacks and white liberals to admire him. When Bill Clinton wore an "X" cap, he was not railing against blue-eyed devils; he was gesturing to this late, "humanistic" Malcolm. (He was also making a fashion statement.) Yet even in the final passage of his life Malcolm failed to build a serious political movement or create a coherent point of view. He had only a brief time left to him; everything was not resolved or reconciled. He was still full of contradictions, praising King one day, ridiculing him the next, hailing Elijah Muhammad before one audience, then denouncing him before another. He still could not accept nonviolent revolution. Three days before his death, Malcolm said, "I'm man enough to tell you that I can't put my finger on exactly what my philosophy is now."
Malcolm clearly made his deepest impression on the American consciousness through his collaboration with Alex Haley. By joining Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Richard Wright in the act of literary testimony, Malcolm became part of the most essential genre of African-American literature. With its depiction of racism and struggle, with its search for purpose, identity, community, and a name, Malcolm's autobiography followed a familiar pattern—what the scholar Robert B. Stepto calls the "narrative of ascent." "Autobiographies do not form indisputable authorities," W. E. B. Du Bois wrote. "They are always incomplete, and often unreliable. Eager as I am to put down the truth, there are difficulties; memory fails especially in small details, so that it becomes finally but a theory of my life."
But what do Malcolm's readers see in him? Writing two decades ago, Cornel West called Malcolm "the skeleton in the closet lodged in the racial memory of most black professionals." Consider the foremost black professional in the country—the President of the United States. After Barack Obama was inaugurated, he returned to the British government a bust of Winston Churchill that was on display in the Oval Office and installed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. King is rightly regarded as the singular hero of the era that lasted from the Montgomery bus boycott, in 1955, to his death, in April, 1968. Malcolm was an electrifying spokesman for black dignity and selfhood, a radical prod to the mainstream movement, but his role in the civil-rights movement was marginal.
Yet, when Obama was young and trying to come to terms with his own identity, he read the autobiography and it affected him more deeply than even the works of Richard Wright and James Baldwin. In balmy Hawaii, at the most prestigious private school west of the Rockies, Obama found something in the narrative of a man who was also of mixed race, had lost his father, and needed to create a self. "His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me," Obama wrote of Malcolm in "Dreams from My Father." "The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will." Obama, who adored his white mother and grandparents, was disturbed by Malcolm's desire to "expunge" the white blood in him. What he admired was the book's depiction of Malcolm's redemptive journey and his redemptive, universalist final year.
"I was never taken with some of his theorizing," Obama told me last year. "I think that what Malcolm X did, though, was to tap into a long-running tradition within the African-American community, which is that, at certain moments, it's important for African-Americans to assert their manhood, their worth. . . . That affirmation that I am a man, I am worth something, I think was important. And I think Malcolm X probably captured that better than anybody."
Obama dealt with black nationalists on Chicago's South Side both as an organizer and as a state senator. Louis Farrakhan's headquarters were within his district. When he first got to Chicago, he heard the nationalists on the radio and read their publication The Final Call. He came to see that their message had "twin strands," one that was an affirmation of pride and self-reliance and one that depended on hatred, a form of "magical thinking" that deluded those who "could least afford such make-believe." Of course, the complexities of that world reflect Malcolm X's own complexities, his contradictions and resentments and hopes.
The narrative that Alex Haley crafted is, in certain respects, profoundly comforting: it transforms those twin strands into a distinct before and after. Here was a Malcolm who could still embody the legitimate rage of a humiliated people but also become part of the very cultural firmament he anathematized—a Malcolm who could, and did, end up on a postage stamp. Although Manning Marable may not have succeeded in writing a definitive work, his considerable scholarship does remind us how much is elided by any tale of a pilgrim's progress. If the autobiography simplified reality, however, it kept faith with its subject's ambitions. By choosing to entrust his story to Alex Haley, Malcolm assured himself a lasting place in American culture. It was his most brilliant wager. ♦
Reality Replay
by
Laurie Winer April 25, 2011Bill and Pat Loud
Keywords Craig Gilbert; "An American Family"; Television; HBO; "Cinema Verite"; James Gandolfini; Pat Loud
Craig Gilbert, the creator of "An American Family," the PBS series that documented the Loud family of Santa Barbara for seven months in 1971 and was a premonition of reality TV, has lived in a one-bedroom apartment on Jane Street for twenty-one years. He has the same patrician hair and beard that he had when he appeared on "The Dick Cavett Show," thirty-eight years ago, sitting uncomfortably alongside Pat and Bill Loud. On the show, he defended himself against charges that he had exploited the family and betrayed their trust. One recent morning, Gilbert, who is eighty-five, sat at his dining table peering at eight bottles of pills. A home-care nurse hovered nearby with a clipboard. He had just been released from the hospital after accidentally overdosing on Mucinex. Framed on a wall in the living room was an old cartoon from this magazine showing two couples at a dinner table. One woman smiles as she says, "I'm probably old-fashioned, but I felt much more at home with the Forsytes than I do with the Louds."
Gilbert talked about a dinner he'd recently had with James Gandolfini, who was doing research for his role as Craig Gilbert in "Cinema Verite," HBO's new docudrama about the making of "An American Family." Gandolfini had asked about an old rumor that Gilbert and Pat Loud had had an affair during the filming.
"I told him no in twenty ways," Gilbert said.
In 1973, American viewers were consumed with the five Loud children and their parents, who handled their travails with a composure that, depending on your point of view, was either admirable or chilling. Gilbert never worked again after "An American Family" aired, and he has spent the years since then trying to avoid the notoriety that came with his creation.
" 'An American Family' changed the lives of the Louds, and it changed my life," he said. "It was pretty damn tumultuous, and I don't want to go over it anymore." He went on, "The Mucinex episode was the climax of a six-month nightmare." Last year, one of the Loud children sent him a copy of HBO's script. "The story line was essentially fallacious," Gilbert said. He hired a lawyer to represent both his and the Loud family's interests, but although he voiced his displeasure, he did not sue. (The Louds, who also were reportedly unhappy with the script, ended up accepting a financial settlement from HBO for agreeing not to discuss it publicly.) "Cinema Verite" depicts Gilbert showing Pat Loud (played by Diane Lane) evidence of her husband's infidelity (Bill Loud is played by Tim Robbins), and then taking her up to his hotel room—all, the movie suggests, in the service of capturing their divorce on camera. Like Gilbert, Pat Loud has always maintained that the two did not have an affair. "If you are given the assignment to write a two-hour film that exposes the making of 'An American Family,' the only avenue to take is that the producer is corrupt," Gilbert said.
http://www.cartoonbank.com/invt/129654?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYarticlehttp://www.cartoonbank.com/invt/129654?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYarticle
"Cinema Verite" depicts another behind-the-scenes drama, between Gilbert and a married couple who worked on the series with him, Alan and Susan Raymond. Gilbert hired them to film and record sound for "An American Family." But the Raymonds balked at capturing several of the series' rawest moments. In the HBO version, Gilbert and Alan Raymond have a fistfight over whether to film what became a famous and painful scene between Bill and Pat at a restaurant, in which Pat finally loses her cool and calls her husband "a goddamned asshole."
Both men insist that they didn't come to blows. When asked to comment on this scene, Alan Raymond said, "I did push him. I should have punched him." Susan Raymond claims that Gilbert had a "Svengali hold" on Pat Loud, and said, "Craig destroyed that family."
Looking back, Gilbert blames the Raymonds for not being willing to observe the first rule of the form: never stop filming. "What did they think cinéma vérité is?" Gilbert said. "You shoot only certain things?" He also fought with the couple about their credit on the series. The Raymonds are still bitter that they weren't given proper credit for effectively creating reality TV, and Gilbert seems crushed by the knowledge that he did.
When "An American Family" began its broadcast, in January, 1973, the Loud family was devastated by the public's response. One critic called the family "affluent zombies," and the Times described Lance Loud, the gay son, as "camping and queening about like a pathetic court jester, a Goya-esque emotional dwarf." Gilbert remembers getting a late-night phone call from Pat after she had read the first of many scathing articles that would be written about her family.
"Pat was screaming," Gilbert said. "She'd taken a below-the-belt hit, and it hurt. That, right there, was the beginning of my own confusion. What have I done? What do I do?" He paused. "I've never resolved it. I didn't know what I had wrought. I still don't." ♦
The Rich Boys
An ultra-secretive network rules independent oil trading. Its mentor: Marc Rich
One brisk day last fall, globe-trotting oil executive Benjamin R. Pollner was leaving his luxury prewar apartment building on Manhattan's Park Avenue when detectives from Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau's office approached. They began asking him about his alleged involvement in the unfolding U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal. Pollner, a tall, lean sixtysomething who wears European-cut clothes and a world-weary visage, was taken aback, say investigators familiar with the incident.
He snapped that he was in a hurry to make an overseas flight and refused to answer questions. Before hopping into a car that whisked him off to John F. Kennedy International airport, Morgenthau's investigators say Pollner delivered a parting shot: "I did nothing in New York or the U.S. that would be considered illegal." To them, Pollner was admitting he had done something wrong -- just not in their jurisdiction. Pollner, who runs Taurus Petroleum mainly from offices in Geneva and London, hasn't set foot in the U.S. since, investigators believe. He didn't reply to several calls and e-mails.
On the morning of Apr. 14, David Bay Chalmers Jr., 51, who owns privately held oil-trading company Bayoil U.S.A. Inc., emerged handcuffed and bleary-eyed from his high-security mansion in Houston's ritzy River Oaks neighborhood. He had just been indicted by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy, wire fraud, and trading with a country that supports terrorism -- Iraq -- during the U.N. program. Chalmers has pleaded not guilty.
Another trader, Patrick Maugein, nonexecutive chairman of London's SOCO International PLC oil-trading company, has been under scrutiny by the U.N. for his alleged role in a complex oil-smuggling scheme during Oil-for-Food, the U.N. program that allowed Iraq to sell oil for humanitarian purposes during a period of strict sanctions. Although many deals were legitimate, Saddam Hussein at times demanded illegal surcharges for the right to buy oil at below-market prices. Friends of Saddam's regime allegedly received sweetheart oil allocations, investigators say. Maugein denies violating sanctions or paying illegal surcharges.
LEARNING FROM EL MATADOR
What do the three men have in common, aside from their dubious deals with Iraq? They all belong to the ultrasecretive informal network of traders who dominate global independent oil trading. They don't necessarily act in concert with each other, but they often chase the same opportunities. They are the Rich Boys. All operate in the world of onetime fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, the most-wanted white-collar criminal in U.S. history until his controversial pardon on President Bill Clinton's last day in office in 2001.
Rich came to prominence in the 1970s, when he worked at Phillips Bros. (later Phibro), then the biggest trader. With veteran partner Pincus "Pinky" Green, he pioneered "combat trading" -- getting trading rights from countries in turmoil. Rich, called El Matador for his killer instinct, did the deals. Pinky, "The Admiral," arranged shipping.
Traders soon learned the art of the Rich deal: Do whatever it takes. After Rich and Green left Phibro in 1973 to form their own company, they bought a house in the South of France and "stocked it with hookers from Paris and flew in oil guys who spent a week at their expense," says a former U.S. oil executive who knows Rich. "They got the oil contracts they wanted." A former Rich partner corroborates this. Green, who retired in 1992 after heart surgery, could not be reached for comment.
Rich is notorious for trading with Iran during the hostage crisis, South Africa during apartheid, and Cuba and Libya during U.S. trade embargoes. In 1983 he fled to Switzerland after being indicted by the Justice Dept. for racketeering, trading with the enemy (Iran), dodging a $48 million corporate tax bill, and other violations that could have resulted in 300 years of jail time. Rich's companies pleaded guilty to some charges and paid about $200 million in fines, penalties, and taxes, but the case remained open until the pardon. "Rich's philosophy is that no law applies to him," says Morris "Sandy" Weinberg Jr., the former U.S. prosecutor who pursued and indicted Rich in 1983.
Over the years, Rich has mentored scores of traders. Although the 70-year-old is past his peak in the business, according to industry experts, his protégés are thriving. "You could call it the University of Marc Rich," says a Senate investigator. As Alaskan and North Sea oil production declines, new supplies increasingly come from some of the most corrupt or politically unstable places on earth, such as Equatorial Guinea and Sudan. These are the new frontiers where major U.S. oil companies fear to tread because of sanctions, embargoes, and antibribery and anti-terrorism laws. But it's where these traders, many like characters out of the James Bond flick Goldfinger, make good money, especially when oil tops $60 a barrel.
Governments and law enforcers have long been suspicious of some Rich Boys. In a six-month investigation, BusinessWeek has pieced together the first comprehensive look at their sprawling and deliberately elusive operations. Our findings:
-- Rich has spawned the most powerful informal network of independent commodities traders on earth. He did it primarily by funding spin-offs and startups around the globe for decades, and by training scores of traders who have set up their own shops. Although Rich no longer maintains stakes in most of these outfits, he has helped create a network that, in sum, is far more formidable than his own company in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was the world's premier commodities trader.
-- The Rich Boys' often controversial activities are on the rise. They buy oil from places where corruption is extensive: Some of the Rich Boys have been named in scandals in Nigeria and Venezuela. They also sell oil from pariah states to U.S. refiners.
-- Although Rich testified in writing in March, 2005, to a House committee investigating the U.N. program that he was not in any way active in the Oil-for-Food program, documents suggest that he bought Iraqi oil in 2001 from various front companies, which BusinessWeek has identified. This took place just one month after his pardon. If so, it seems that Rich may have misled Congress. The CIA, the Senate, and others have concluded that from September, 2000, until September, 2002, buyers in the Oil-for-Food oil program had to pay illegal surcharges that Saddam used in part to buy weapons, though no documents show Rich made such payments. Some investigators believe Iraqi insurgents are now using that money.
-- One company from which Rich bought crude during this period was a front for extremist Russian and Ukrainian organizations. All were pro-Saddam; one was a staunch supporter of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. Another company was tied to a major money launderer for Saddam.
To reach these conclusions, BusinessWeek traced crucial connections from a number of official inquiries and documents. Key among these documents: shipping tables from the Middle East Economic Survey (MEES), the preeminent authority on tanker activity in the Middle East. These detail the ports, tankers, destinations, and buyers of Iraqi crude. Other insights came from a 2004 CIA report on Iraq, data from Switzerland's Federal Commercial Registry Office, and the many inquiries launched into Oil-for-Food. The Justice Dept., six congressional committees, a U.N. commission, Morgenthau's office, and several countries, including Switzerland, are all investigating the program. Extensive interviews with dozens of oil traders, government investigators, and energy experts around the globe helped form a clearer picture of how the network operates.
Rich did not respond to numerous requests for interviews. But Thomas Frutig, CEO of his major holding company, Marc Rich + Co. Holding, denied to BusinessWeek involvement in Oil-for-Food. Frutig declined to respond to other allegations, despite repeated phone and e-mail requests. Trader Clyde Meltzer, one of Rich's business partners in the 1970s who remains close to him, says: "Marc is the most upstanding guy you'll ever meet. It's untrue he ever did anything dishonest."
Rich's trading in 2001 sheds a harsh new light on his pardon, which is limited to his 1983 indictment. To revoke it would require a constitutional amendment. Even so, it's possible authorities could levy new criminal charges against Rich, who is worth up to $8 billion by some estimates, for activities not included in the pardon. A federal grand jury in New York is apparently still investigating whether any of the money Rich and other traders allegedly funneled to Saddam was used to fund terrorism. The U.S. Attorney's office declined to comment. In 2001, New York State sued Rich for tax evasion, seeking $137 million they say he owes. But given Rich's clout -- he is a major philanthropist, one of Switzerland's largest taxpayers, and extremely well connected -- he'll likely continue to enjoy the good life abroad.
MAVERICKS IN THE MIDDLE
Like Marc Rich + Co. holding, most of the Rich Boys have offices in the tiny Swiss canton of Zug, with its quaint stores, Gothic architecture, and low tax rates. These maverick middlemen typically don't own or operate oil refineries or wells. Instead, they buy oil from producers, line up buyers to refine it, and charter tankers to ship it. Oil trading is often nebulous and opaque. Title to a tanker's oil, for example, may change a dozen times before the ship reaches port.
Some of the Rich Boys, like Pollner and Chalmers, have never worked for Rich. They've merely done business with him or have connections to him through other traders. Typically, Rich has bankrolled or owned stakes in the traders' companies, or sold them to close associates. Among the mightiest is commodities giant Glencore International, based in a suburb of Zug, which boasts annual turnover of $72 billion, according to its financial disclosures, making it one of the world's largest private companies. Glencore owns scores of other commodities companies from Spain to Australia. Rich sold the firm to its management in 1994, and the company says it now has no connection with Rich. It is run by former Rich lieutenants Ivan Glasenberg and Willy Strothotte, according to its Web site.
Companies run by the Rich Boys span the globe. Consider Netherlands-based Trafigura Group, one of the world's top trading companies. According to industry experts and investigators, it was founded in 1993 by former Rich traders with money from Rich. Experts say he invested in companies like Trafigura to expand his empire, though most contend he no longer has a stake in them. Zug-based Masefield Group was also founded by former Rich traders. In Moscow, there's Milio International Ltd., formed by Rich traders in 1997. Rich's flight to Switzerland in 1983 didn't stop him from financing companies in the U.S., among them Novarco, a White Plains (N.Y.) commodities-trading business he established in 1997. He sold its oil contracts in 2002 to Richmond (Va.)-based Dominion Resources Inc. (
Many of the Rich Boys' tactics may be hyperaggressive, but they're perfectly legal. One way they do business: exploiting opportunity in Eastern European or Third World countries in dire need of funding. Rich taught his disciples -- called Lehrlings, German for apprentices -- to lend cash-strapped companies money and get the right to buy their commodities, industry experts say. Last year, for example, Glencore loaned $40 million to Peru's second-largest zinc miner, Volcan Compañia Minera. Volcan agreed to sell zinc and other minerals to Glencore from 2004 to 2010.
At times, some Rich boys apparently use front companies -- opaque holding entities -- to disguise deals. According to Senate documents, they have set up fronts with innocuous names such as Rescor Inc. or Plasco Shipping. Based in tax havens with strong banking secrecy such as Panama, Liechtenstein, and Gibraltar, they come and go like flickering harbor lights once a deal is done.
David Chalmers found such companies useful in trading Iraqi crude during sanctions, according to the Senate subcommittee on permanent investigations. It alleged he routinely used a company called Italtech to do business in Iraq. The submarine-engine outfit was started in the late '80s by Chilean-Italian arms dealer Augusto Giangrandi, who headed the Bermuda subsidiary of Chalmers' Bayoil. Italtech opportunistically morphed into an oil trader in 1999. Chalmers' lawyer, Bart Dalton, says Italtech "was not a front company."
Ben Pollner, law enforcement officials believe, was behind Fenar Petroleum and Alcon Petroleum, registered in Liechtenstein in 1999, according to corporate registry documents. They were among the largest oil purchasers during Oil-for-Food, together exporting $2.47 billion worth of crude, according to a report by the U.N. Independent Inquiry Committee, chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker. Investigators allege they paid tens of millions in illegal surcharges. The companies sold almost exclusively to Pollner's company, Taurus, MEES shows. "We've interviewed more than a dozen traders who claim [that although] Pollner was working on his own deals, he was often acting on behalf of Rich, too," says a senior prosecutor investigating possible Oil-for-Food violations.
THRIVING IN TROUBLE SPOTS
One reason the rich boys are so busy these days is because they thrive in a world of high oil prices and scarce reserves. Big U.S. oil companies are desperate for crude yet don't want to dirty their hands getting it from global trouble spots. Says a former partner of Rich's, who requested anonymity because he routinely trades with Big Oil: "Majors don't want to touch the oil, yet they want to buy it. If you think Pablo Escobar [the Colombian drug king] was guilty, weren't people who used cocaine, too?" In fact, half the crude on which Oil-for-Food surcharges were paid ultimately ended up with U.S. majors, according to the Senate. Says Richard Perkins, former director of worldwide oil trading at Chevron Corp.: "The majors are the bread and butter" of traders like the Rich Boys.
U.S. companies are forbidden from bribing officials. If they do, it can prove damaging. The Securities & Exchange Commission, for example, is probing Marathon Oil (MRO ), ExxonMobil (XOM ), Amerada Hess (AHC ), Chevron (CVX ), and others for allegedly bribing President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea and his relatives for oil rights. The companies say they're cooperating with the SEC and that they acted lawfully.
Oil majors are also under pressure to shun pariah states. For instance, there are tight limits on deals with war-torn Sudan because it backs terrorism and engages in genocide. But companies set up by the Rich Boys, including Trafigura and Glencore, are among those buying crude there, trade reports say. China is a big customer for the Rich Boys there and elsewhere. Still, says Hal C. Eren, principal attorney at Washington's Eren Law Firm and a former U.S. Treasury Dept. official, tighter controls have "created a situation that's definitely helping independent traders."
Because the Rich Boys operate in such secrecy, one of the few ways to see how they work is when they get busted or investigated. For example, in Nigeria last year, Petrodel, a firm run by former top Rich trader Michael Prest, Glencore, Trafigura, and several other firms, were accused by Nigeria's state oil company of inflating shipping costs by doctoring documents. The Nigerians demanded repayments of more than $100 million. Trafigura denies the allegations and says that all past problems have been resolved. A Glencore spokesman "vigorously disputes" the charges. Petrodel officials and Prest could not be reached for comment.
Some Rich Boys also have their hand in oil-rich Venezuela, whose leftist leader, President Hugo Chávez, is at odds with the Bush Administration. After an oil workers' strike in 2003, Glencore and two U.S. traders allegedly paid kickbacks to secure deals with oil monopoly Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), according to The Wall Street Journal. PDVSA denied accepting bribes and Glencore denied making any illegal payments.
THE SADDAM CONNECTION
Some of the most compelling details to emerge from Oil-for-Food probes revolve around Rich himself. BusinessWeek has pieced together information suggesting that, despite his denials, Rich did buy Iraqi crude from several questionable companies during the program. His name appears in shipping records compiled by MEES. These show he bought from four separate companies, starting in February, 2001: Onako Oil Co., a subsidiary of Alfa Group, one of Russia's largest conglomerates; an Egyptian company called International Company for Petroleum & Industrial Services (or INCOME, for short); and a Swiss company, Zerich, with ties to some extremist groups. The fourth, EOTC, remains a mystery. Hesham Sheta, vice-chairman of INCOME's parent company in Cairo, Egypt, International Group for Investments, confirmed that "Marc Rich has been INCOME's 'agent' [oil trader] since 1990" and that Rich bought Iraqi crude from INCOME in 2001. Zerich has since been liquidated. Alfa denies paying surcharges.
Rich tells a different story. In March he acknowledged his company was on the U.N.'s list of "approved" crude buyers but insisted in written answers to House International Relations Committee questions that "nothing ever came of it." A committee spokesman remarked at the time: "We believe [Rich] knows more than he wishes to acknowledge." Marc Rich + Co.'s Frutig reiterated an earlier press statement: "Marc Rich Holdings reject all the allegations relating to its involvement in the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program in Iraq."
Even with the new information, it may be difficult for the authorities to prove that Rich did anything illegal. At the time, Saddam offered oil at cut-rate prices to his supporters, who would then sell it for a huge profit on the market. For two years leading up to September, 2002, the dictator demanded surcharges of up to 50 cents a barrel that he deposited in secret bank accounts, according to the CIA, the Volcker committee, and Senate documents.
While Rich's company bought crude from companies acting on behalf of those with allocations, no documents show he paid illegal surcharges. However, allocation holders would typically "pass on the cost of that surcharge," according to a recent Senate report. "[Buyers] were informed of the required surcharges, and either paid them directly or reimbursed the allocation holder." Hesham denies that INCOME paid illegal surcharges.
Saddam banked about $10 billion from oil surcharges and smuggling, says the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Initially it enabled him to live large, buying fleets of Mercedes and the finest wine, according to the CIA. But when pressure from the Bush Administration mounted in 2001, Saddam earmarked the money for a war chest that "is likely funding the current insurgents," says John Fawcett, an independent investigator tracking Iraqi funds who recently testified to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce.
Some Rich Boys were heavy hitters in Oil-for-Food. In February, 2001, for example, the U.N. Security Council reported that Glencore bought 1 million barrels of Iraqi crude destined for the U.S. The oil was diverted to Croatia, where it was sold for a $3 million premium, that went into a secret bank account. Glencore was caught by U.N. overseers, and later agreed to refund the money to the U.N. A Glencore spokeswoman says the oil was shipped to Croatia for storage and later shipment to the U.S. A CIA report alleges that Glencore paid more than $3.2 million in surcharges to Iraq, something it denies.
The numerous investigations into the U.N. program paint a complex picture of how Rich Boys allegedly work. In September, 2001, U.S. and U.N. authorities were tipped off by a Greek shipping captain, who feared his tanker chartered by Trafigura was involved in sanctions busting. Trafigura, run by former Rich traders Claude Dauphin and Eric de Turckheim, bought Iraqi oil from a Bermuda company called Ibex Energy, according to a U.N. report. Ibex was owned by another former Rich trader, Jean-Paul Cayré. SOCO's Patrick Maugein, once a top Rich trader, was close to former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. The CIA alleges Maugein received oil allocations that he sold through Trafigura. Maugein denies paying illegal surcharges. Maugein says he knows one of Trafigura's founders. Investigators allege he had a contract with or a stake in Trafigura, something both the company and Maugein deny. Maugein and Trafigura also deny having commercial ties to Ibex.
DEALS WITH EXTREMISTS
Rich and those like him are so successful because they'll do business with virtually anyone if there are big bucks to be made. Both Rich and Pollner's Taurus Petroleum bought Iraqi crude in 2001 through the now-defunct Zerich, according to MEES shipping records. Zerich was a front for various groups that received oil allocations, a CIA report says.
Some of them, BusinessWeek has learned, are extremists, including Ukranian and Russian outfits that strongly supported Saddam -- as well as North Korean strongman Kim Jong Il. One, Russia's Peace & Unity Party, threw a birthday bash in Moscow in January, 2004, in honor of Kim. At it, Peace & Unity Chairwoman Sazhi Zaindinova Umalatova called Kim "an all-powerful treasured sword...when the imperialists are getting more undisguised in their military ambition," according to North Korea's news agency. Zerich also acted for the Ukraine Communist Party and the Ukraine Socialist Party. In all, Zerich bought $422 million worth of oil from Iraq, according to the Volcker committee.
In the early 1990s after the Soviet Union collapsed, Rich quickly became the most powerful trader there. He was "a coach and sort of a godfather for several of the oligarchs," says Vladimir L. Kvint, a professor at American University's Kogod School of Business. Pollner worked for Chalmers at Bayoil then, and all of them sold Russian crude that they got through the oligarchs.
Rich has long had ties to Mikhail Fridman and his mammoth Alfa Group, says Kvint. In 2001, Rich nearly sold his company to an Alfa division: Zug-based Crown Resources Corp. (now called ERC Trading). During the U.N. program both Rich and Chalmers bought oil from Alfa units, according to MEES: Onako and Tyumen Oil Co., respectively. The CIA report alleges that Alfa paid illegal surcharges to Saddam during Oil-for-Food, which Alfa denies.
Rich is legendary for cultivating people in high places. Traders say he could reach practically any diplomat, oil minister, or dictator in an instant with a phone that some joked seemed surgically attached to his ear. Two of his key Mideast connections were the powerful Bakhtiar brothers, Esfandiar and Bahman. The Bakhtiars -- whose father, investigators believe, headed the Shah of Iran's secret police -- fled to Iraq after the Shah's ouster. Thanks to family ties, Saddam treated them like "adopted sons," says Jules B. Kroll, founder of Kroll Inc., hired by Kuwait to investigate Saddam's finances in 1991.
The Bakhtiar link helped Rich forge links with the Iraqi dictator, says the Kroll report. Kroll says it obtained faxes between Rich and the Bakhtiars describing Rich's intent to trade Iraqi crude through the brothers. Over two decades, Rich traded allegedly through two companies linked with the Bakhtiars: Jaraco and Dynatrade (now owned by INCOME's parent, IGI). The Bakhtiars set up Jaraco in Geneva in 1981. In 2004, the U.S. Treasury identified Jaraco as a major money-laundering conduit for Saddam's billions. Hesham Sheta says, "[One of the] Bakhtiars still acts as a consultant" to IGI, which in turn owns INCOME, from which Rich bought Iraqi crude during Oil-for-Food.
Rich, along with Pollner and Bayoil's Chalmers, were "very trusted by the Iraqi Oil Ministry," says Axel Busch, chief correspondent for industry newsletter Energy Intelligence. A street-smart Staten Island boy, "Pollner is considered a brilliant trader," says Busch. Cultivating relations with small refineries, particularly in the U.S., enabled him to handle big quantities of Iraqi oil by breaking it into smaller cargoes, say industry experts. Pollner, they say, began trading with Iraq before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and continued after a U.N. embargo.
For his part, Chalmers had loaned money to Iraq since the 1980s and received repayment in oil, according to industry experts. The scion of a wealthy Houston oil family, Chalmers, a tight-lipped trader and tennis ace with a taste for fancy cigars, was used to rubbing shoulders with the elite. But he never worked for Rich. Indeed, his lawyer Dalton says they were always "competitors" and "didn't act together in Oil-for-Food." Still, trade reports and CIA documents show they often did deals with the same people in the same places. Chalmers' deep pockets apparently appealed to Iraq's Oil Ministry. After the U.S. lifted its embargo in May, 2003, the ministry said it would sell only to major refiners, but it still allowed two traders to get supplies -- Bayoil and Taurus.
"EERIE" EXISTENCE
These days rich has opulent digs in several countries. He owns a palatial Moorish villa on Spain's ritzy Costa del Sol and a ski chalet in Saint Moritz, Switzerland. His powerful pals have included opera star Placido Domingo and former hedge-fund guru Michael Steinhardt, who, in a letter backing the pardon, called Rich "my friend...who has been punished enough." Former traders say Rich spends most of his time at Villa Rosa, his compound on Switzerland's glistening Lake Lucerne, surrounded by Picassos, van Goghs, and Mirós.
Rich still keeps offices in Zug. "It's eerie," says a financial executive who recently paid a call. "You go up in an elevator and step into a vestibule where you're asked over an intercom if you have an appointment and whom you're there to see. If you're on the list, a security guard opens a door to another room. There you see a receptionist who scrutinizes you. Then you're escorted into another elevator that takes you to a different floor."
Rich has slowed down since his pardon. He sold Marc Rich Investments in 2003 but still runs Marc Rich + Co. Holding, which has a trading operation and a real estate arm. U.S. authorities -- the Justice Dept., in particular -- are on Rich's case. As for some of the Rich Boys, it's possible that the U.N. or even the Swiss government, which is conducting its own investigation into Oil-for-Food, may act if they can prove wrongdoing.
Maybe Rich will once again elude his pursuers. He is fast becoming a mythic persona: Word is a TV series based on his life may be in the works. And the Rich Boys -- his legacy -- rule.
The Possibilian
What a brush with death taught David Eagleman about the mysteries of time and the brain.
by Burkhard Bilger April 25, 2011
"Time is this rubbery thing," Eagleman said. The best example of that is the so-called oddball effect. Photograph by Dan Winters.
Related Links Ask the Author: Join a live chat with Burkhard Bilger about the brain on Friday, April 22nd, at 1 P.M. E.T.
Keywords David Eagleman; Neuroscientists; Time Perception; Brain; Baylor College of Medicine; Falls; Timing
When David Eagleman was eight years old, he fell off a roof and kept on falling. Or so it seemed at the time. His family was living outside Albuquerque, in the foothills of the Sandia Mountains. There were only a few other houses around, scattered among the bunchgrass and the cholla cactus, and a new construction site was the Eagleman boys' idea of a perfect playground. David and his older brother, Joel, had ridden their dirt bikes to a half-finished adobe house about a quarter of a mile away. When they'd explored the rooms below, David scrambled up a wooden ladder to the roof. He stood there for a few minutes taking in the view—west across desert and subdivision to the city rising in the distance—then walked over the newly laid tar paper to a ledge above the living room. "It looked stiff," he told me recently. "So I stepped onto the edge of it."
In the years since, Eagleman has collected hundreds of stories like his, and they almost all share the same quality: in life-threatening situations, time seems to slow down. He remembers the feeling clearly, he says. His body stumbles forward as the tar paper tears free at his feet. His hands stretch toward the ledge, but it's out of reach. The brick floor floats upward—some shiny nails are scattered across it—as his body rotates weightlessly above the ground. It's a moment of absolute calm and eerie mental acuity. But the thing he remembers best is the thought that struck him in midair: this must be how Alice felt when she was tumbling down the rabbit hole.
Eagleman is thirty-nine now and an assistant professor of neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston. Physically, he seems no worse for the fall. He did a belly flop on the bricks, he says, and his nose took most of the impact. "He made a one-point landing," as his father puts it. The cartilage was so badly smashed that an emergency-room surgeon had to remove it all, leaving Eagleman with a rubbery proboscis that he could bend in any direction. But it stiffened up eventually, and it's hard to tell that it was ever injured. Eagleman has puckish, neatly carved features, with a lantern jaw and modish sideburns. In Baylor's lab-coated corridors, he wears designer jeans and square-toed ankle boots, and walks with a bounce in his step that's suspiciously close to a strut, like Pinocchio heading off to Pleasure Island.
If Eagleman's body bears no marks of his childhood accident, his mind has been deeply imprinted by it. He is a man obsessed by time. As the head of a lab at Baylor, Eagleman has spent the past decade tracing the neural and psychological circuitry of the brain's biological clocks. He has had the good fortune to arrive in his field at the same time as fMRI scanners, which allow neuroscientists to observe the brain at work, in the act of thinking. But his best results have often come through more inventive means: video games, optical illusions, physical challenges. Eagleman has a talent for testing the untestable, for taking seemingly sophomoric notions and using them to nail down the slippery stuff of consciousness. "There are an infinite number of boring things to do in science," he told me. "But we live these short life spans. Why not do the thing that's the coolest thing in the world to do?"
http://www.cartoonbank.com/invt/126225?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYarticlehttp://www.cartoonbank.com/invt/126225?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYarticle
from the issue cartoon bank e-mail thisThe Eagleman lab, on the ground floor of Baylor's Ben Taub General Hospital, could be the lair of a precocious but highly distractible teen-ager. The doors are pinned with cartoons, the counters strewn with joysticks and other gizmos. The conference table is flanked by a large red rubber ball, for use as a chair or a Hippity Hop. When Eagleman first moved in, he had the walls painted baby blue, with a shiny finish designed to be erasable. By now, they've been covered from floor to ceiling with equations, graphs, time lines, to-do lists, aphorisms, and sketches of brain waves—a Pollocky palimpsest of red, green, purple, and black scribblings. "The old stuff is really hard to erase," Eagleman told me. "It's like memory that way."
Although Eagleman and his students study timing in the brain, their own sense of time tends to be somewhat unreliable. Eagleman wears a Russian wristwatch to work every morning, though it's been broken for months. "The other day, I was in the lab," he told me, "and I said to Daisy, who sits in the corner, 'Hey, what time is it?' And she said, 'I don't know. My watch is broken.' It turns out that we're all wearing broken watches." Scientists are often drawn to things that bedevil them, he said. "I know one lab that studies nicotine receptors and all the scientists are smokers, and another lab that studies impulse control and they're all overweight." But Eagleman's ambivalence goes deeper. Clocks offer at best a convenient fiction, he says. They imply that time ticks steadily, predictably forward, when our experience shows that it often does the opposite: it stretches and compresses, skips a beat and doubles back.
The brain is a remarkably capable chronometer for most purposes. It can track seconds, minutes, days, and weeks, set off alarms in the morning, at bedtime, on birthdays and anniversaries. Timing is so essential to our survival that it may be the most finely tuned of our senses. In lab tests, people can distinguish between sounds as little as five milliseconds apart, and our involuntary timing is even quicker. If you're hiking through a jungle and a tiger growls in the underbrush, your brain will instantly home in on the sound by comparing when it reached each of your ears, and triangulating between the three points. The difference can be as little as nine-millionths of a second.
Yet "brain time," as Eagleman calls it, is intrinsically subjective. "Try this exercise," he suggests in a recent essay. "Put this book down and go look in a mirror. Now move your eyes back and forth, so that you're looking at your left eye, then at your right eye, then at your left eye again. When your eyes shift from one position to the other, they take time to move and land on the other location. But here's the kicker: you never see your eyes move." There's no evidence of any gaps in your perception—no darkened stretches like bits of blank film—yet much of what you see has been edited out. Your brain has taken a complicated scene of eyes darting back and forth and recut it as a simple one: your eyes stare straight ahead. Where did the missing moments go?
The question raises a fundamental issue of consciousness: how much of what we perceive exists outside of us and how much is a product of our minds? Time is a dimension like any other, fixed and defined down to its tiniest increments: millennia to microseconds, aeons to quartz oscillations. Yet the data rarely matches our reality. The rapid eye movements in the mirror, known as saccades, aren't the only things that get edited out. The jittery camera shake of everyday vision is similarly smoothed over, and our memories are often radically revised. What else are we missing? When Eagleman was a boy, his favorite joke had a turtle walking into a sheriff's office. "I've just been attacked by three snails!" he shouts. "Tell me what happened," the sheriff replies. The turtle shakes his head: "I don't know, it all happened so fast."
A few years ago, Eagleman thought back on his fall from the roof and decided that it posed an interesting research question. Why does time slow down when we fear for our lives? Does the brain shift gears for a few suspended seconds and perceive the world at half speed, or is some other mechanism at work? The only way to know for sure was to re-create the situation in a controlled setting. Eagleman and one of his graduate students, Chess Stetson, who is now at Caltech, began by designing and programming a "perceptual chronometer." About the size of a pack of cards, it had an L.E.D. display connected to a circuit board and powered by a nine-volt battery. The unit could be strapped to a subject's wrist, where it would flash a number at a rate just beyond the threshold of perception. If time slowed down, Eagleman reasoned, the number would become visible. Now he just needed a good, life-threatening situation.
Late one afternoon in October, Eagleman and I pulled into a gravel parking lot northwest of Dallas. A dingy cinder-block ticket office stood to one side, with a sign above the door that said "Zero Gravity." Inside, past a low chain-link fence, a collection of giant steel structures rose several stories into the sky. To the left was a rickety-looking platform with a rubber rope dangling from it; to the right, a monstrous orange windmill with seats attached to the tips of its blades. "We had to shut down the Scraper," one of the park attendants told me, pointing at it. "It's waitin' for a part from Germany."
Zero Gravity was billed as a thrill park, but it looked more like an abandoned construction site—or an arena for death matches in a post-apocalyptic film. When Eagleman first went there, five years ago, he knew it was the place for him. He had tried to test the chronometer on his grad students, on a field trip to Six Flags AstroWorld, in Houston, but even the largest roller coasters proved insufficiently terrifying. He needed something completely safe yet plausibly deadly. "I really chewed on this for a while," he told me. "I couldn't put people in a car accident." Then he heard about the SCAD.
The ride stood in the middle of the lot at Zero Gravity, like a half-built oil derrick. A steel gondola hung between its four legs and could be lifted to the top by thick cables. SCAD was short for suspended catch air device—a phrase more confusing than its acronym. But the idea was simple: when the rider reached the top of the tower, he'd be hooked to a cable and lowered through a hole in the floor of the gondola. His back would be to the ground, his eyes looking straight up. When the cable was released, he would plummet a hundred and ten feet, in pure free fall, until a net caught him near the bottom. "I've been up this thing three times, and it's gotten scarier every time," Eagleman said. "The second you drop, every part of you locks up. Your abs are rock solid, and you can't breathe. You're falling backward, going fifty miles an hour when you hit the net."
We scanned the lot for potential volunteers, but the park was deserted. There are only two SCADs in the country, both of which, until recently, had pristine safety records. Then, in July, a SCAD operator in the Wisconsin Dells triggered a drop before the net had been lifted fully into place. When the rider—a twelve-year-old girl named Teagan Marti—landed in the net, her momentum stretched it to the ground. The impact fractured her skull and broke her spine in ten places. Afterward, the SCAD operator was put on leave for reasons of mental health. "It was just human error," the attendant in Dallas assured us. Nothing like that had happened here.
Just then, a young couple wandered into the park. They were both in their early twenties, moonfaced and a little fidgety. April had small round glasses and a long ponytail; T.J. had a baggy black T-shirt with a purple sword on it, and a modest mullet combed back on top. They'd met at the Walmart in Weatherford, an hour away, they told us. April had found this place online but already seemed to regret it: she clutched T.J.'s hand and peered at the SCAD, her shoulders hunched up around her ears. He followed her gaze. "I've jumped off cliffs into lakes before," he said. "But that's about it."
When Eagleman showed them the perceptual chronometer, they looked a little dubious. Eagleman's excitement about his research is usually infectious. He's a good talker, with a gift for distillation and off-the-cuff analogy, and he tends to gather steam as he goes, leaping from idea to idea until his voice is hoarse and his mind is catapulting off to distant dimensions. ("What if we were to land on a planet with aliens who live at a different time scale from us?" he asked me at one point. "Would we seem like statues to them the way trees do to us?") In this setting, though, it was a little hard to take him seriously. The more sober and scientific he tried to sound, the more April and T.J. seemed to take him for some unhinged Trekkie babbling on about his time machine.
Still, they agreed to give it a try. The attendant fitted them with harnesses, latched them into the gondola, and sent them lurching into the Texas sky. I could see April's ponytail whipping around above her head like a wind sock. "What is it, Tuesday?" Eagleman said. "How does someone, on a Tuesday, wake up and decide, 'This is the day that I'm going to scare myself to death'?" Then he pulled a stopwatch from his pocket and waited for the bodies to drop.
Eagleman traces his research back to psychophysicists in Germany in the late eighteen-hundreds, but his true forefather may be the American physiologist Hudson Hoagland. In the early nineteen-thirties, Hoagland proposed one of the first models for how the brain keeps time, based partly on his wife's behavior when she had the flu. She complained that he'd been away from her bedside too long, he later recalled, when he'd been gone only a short while. So Hoagland proposed an experiment: she would count off sixty seconds while he timed her with his watch. It's not hard to imagine her annoyance at this suggestion, or his smugness afterward: when her minute was up, his clock showed thirty-seven seconds. Hoagland went on to repeat the experiment again and again, presumably over his wife's delirious objections (her fever rose above a hundred and three). The result was one of the classic graphs of time-perception literature: the higher his wife's temperature, Hoagland found, the shorter her time estimate. Like a racing engine, her mental clock went faster the hotter it got.
Psychologists spent the next few decades trying to identify this mechanism. They worked with mice, rats, fish, turtles, cats, and pigeons, then moved on to monkeys, children, and brain-damaged adults. They shocked their subjects with electrodes, strapped them into heated helmets, dunked them in water baths, and irritated them with insistent clicks, hoping to speed up or slow down their internal clocks. Hoagland believed that timing was a "unitary chemical process" tied to metabolism. But later studies suggested a hodgepodge of systems, each devoted to a different time scale—the cerebral equivalent of a sundial, an hourglass, and an atomic clock. "Mother Nature's a tinkerer instead of an engineer," Eagleman says. "She doesn't just invent something and check it off the list. Everything is layers on layers built on top of each other, and that provides tremendous robustness." Parkinson's disease can impair our ability to time intervals of a few seconds, for instance, but leave split-second timing intact.
Just how many clocks we contain still isn't clear. The most recent neuroscience papers make the brain sound like a Victorian attic, full of odd, vaguely labelled objects ticking away in every corner. The circadian clock, which tracks the cycle of day and night, lurks in the suprachiasmatic nucleus, in the hypothalamus. The cerebellum, which governs muscle movements, may control timing on the order of a few seconds or minutes. The basal ganglia and various parts of the cortex have all been nominated as timekeepers, though there's some disagreement on the details. The standard model, proposed by the late Columbia psychologist John Gibbon in the nineteen-seventies, holds that the brain has "pacemaker" neurons that release steady pulses of neurotransmitters. More recently, at Duke, the neuroscientist Warren Meck has suggested that timing is governed by groups of neurons that oscillate at different frequencies. At U.C.L.A., Dean Buonomano believes that areas throughout the brain function as clocks, their tissue ticking with neural networks that change in predictable patterns. "Imagine a skyscraper at night," he told me. "Some people on the top floor work till midnight, while some on the lower floors may go to bed early. If you studied the patterns long enough, you could tell the time just by looking at which lights are on."
Time isn't like the other senses, Eagleman says. Sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing are relatively easy to isolate in the brain. They have discrete functions that rarely overlap: it's hard to describe the taste of a sound, the color of a smell, or the scent of a feeling. (Unless, of course, you have synesthesia—another of Eagleman's obsessions.) But a sense of time is threaded through everything we perceive. It's there in the length of a song, the persistence of a scent, the flash of a light bulb. "There's always an impulse toward phrenology in neuroscience—toward saying, 'Here is the spot where it's happening,' " Eagleman told me. "But the interesting thing about time is that there is no spot. It's a distributed property. It's metasensory; it rides on top of all the others."
The real mystery is how all this is coördinated. When you watch a ballgame or bite into a hot dog, your senses are in perfect synch: they see and hear, touch and taste the same thing at the same moment. Yet they operate at fundamentally different speeds, with different inputs. Sound travels more slowly than light, and aromas and tastes more slowly still. Even if the signals reached your brain at the same time, they would get processed at different rates. The reason that a hundred-metre dash starts with a pistol shot rather than a burst of light, Eagleman pointed out, is that the body reacts much more quickly to sound. Our ears and auditory cortex can process a signal forty milliseconds faster than our eyes and visual cortex—more than making up for the speed of light. It's another vestige, perhaps, of our days in the jungle, when we'd hear the tiger long before we'd see it.
In Eagleman's essay "Brain Time," published in the 2009 collection "What's Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science," he borrows a conceit from Italo Calvino's "Invisible Cities." The brain, he writes, is like Kublai Khan, the great Mongol emperor of the thirteenth century. It sits enthroned in its skull, "encased in darkness and silence," at a lofty remove from brute reality. Messengers stream in from every corner of the sensory kingdom, bringing word of distant sights, sounds, and smells. Their reports arrive at different rates, often long out of date, yet the details are all stitched together into a seamless chronology. The difference is that Kublai Khan was piecing together the past. The brain is describing the present—processing reams of disjointed data on the fly, editing everything down to an instantaneous now. How does it manage it?
The mind-body problem has been vexing Eagleman longer than most. Even as a boy, his mother told me, he had a tendency to "dissociate himself"—to assess his own inner workings from a cool, analytical distance. "My brain can do this," he'd say. His mother was a biology teacher, his father a psychiatrist often called upon to evaluate insanity pleas, but their son was a creature outside their usual experience. "There were things about Dave that were a little bit funny," his mother says. He wrote his first words at the age of two, on an Underwood typewriter. At twelve, he was explaining relativity to them. One of his favorite tricks was to ask for a list of random objects, then repeat it back from memory—in reverse order, if people wished. His record was four hundred items.
As an undergraduate at Rice, Eagleman wanted to be a writer, but his parents persuaded him to major in electrical engineering instead. "It was like chewing on autumn leaves," he says. An extended sabbatical ensued. After his sophomore year, Eagleman joined the Israeli Army as a volunteer, then spent a semester at Oxford studying political science and literature, and finally moved to Los Angeles to become a screenwriter and a standup comic. Nothing took. "I knew I had some intellectual horsepower," he says. "But I didn't know where my tires would catch purchase." Back at Rice, he began to read books about the brain in his spare time and decided to take a course in neurolinguistics. "I was immediately enchanted just by the idea of it," Eagleman says. "Here was this three-pound organ that was the seat of everything we are—our hopes and desires and our loves. They had me at page one."
Mathematicians, like rock musicians, tend to do their best work in their twenties and thirties. Not so neuroscientists. The Nobel Prizes in the field are usually earned in mid-career, after a few false starts and fruitless sidetracks. "Biology is special that way," Eagleman says. "It takes years for people to get a feeling for the organism—for how nature actually works. Young people come in all the time knowing a bunch of fancy math. They say, 'What if it's like this computational model, this physical problem?' They're terrific ideas, but they're wrong. Nothing works the way you think it should."
Eagleman was speaking from experience. As a grad student at Baylor, he leaned especially hard on his math skills at first, having had so little training in biology. ("I would ask the professors what they were doing, and they would say, 'Yes, yes . . . Greek, Greek, Latin, Latin," he says of his admissions interview.) For his doctoral work, he programmed a piece of virtual neural tissue so complex that it tied up the Texas Medical Center's new supercomputer for days, prompting complaints from all over the university. "I remember, when he was writing it, he had a sack of raw potatoes under his desk," his dissertation adviser, Read Montague, told me. "He would cook a potato in the microwave, put it in a cup, and lean over and bite it while he was typing. It kind of set the tone for my lab for the succeeding decade. It chased away the faint of heart."
Eagleman's program was a theoretical as well as a technical feat: it showed that brain cells can exchange information not just through neurotransmitters but through the ebb and flow of calcium atoms. He went on to earn a postdoc at the prestigious Salk Institute, near San Diego. Once there, though, he fell under the spell of Francis Crick, a biologist interested in more than clever simulations. Crick was eighty-three when Eagleman met him, in 1999. He had won the Nobel Prize with James Watson almost forty years earlier, for deciphering the structure of DNA, but his research had taken a hard left turn since then, from genetics to the study of consciousness. "We'd have these seminars and he'd sit there and his head would nod, and I'd think, Oh, poor guy, the tolls of senescence," Eagleman recalls. "Then he'd get this smile on his face and raise his hand—and just disembowel the speaker. I'd never seen anything like that."
For decades, brain researchers had taken their lead from behaviorists like B. F. Skinner. They treated their subject as a machine like any other, with inputs, outputs, and a shadowy mechanism in between. But Crick and a handful of other researchers believed that it was time to pry open Skinner's black box—to at least begin to identify the mechanics of individual awareness. "When I started out, you basically weren't allowed to talk about it," Eagleman says. "Why does it feel like something to be alive? Why, when you put together millions of parts, does something suddenly have a sense of itself? All of this went out the window after B. F. Skinner. And it took a guy with Crick's gravitas to come in and say, 'You know what? This is a scientific problem—the most exciting of our time.' " Crick called it the scientific search for the soul.
Eagleman had to wait a few weeks to be granted an audience with Crick. ("I kind of became pals with his secretary," he told me.) But they quickly hit it off and met regularly after that. Like Crick, Eagleman was fascinated by consciousness. He thought of time not just as a neuronal computation—a matter for biological clocks—but as a window on the movements of the mind. In a paper published in Science in 2000, for instance, Eagleman looked at an optical illusion known as the flash-lag effect. The illusion could take many forms, but in Eagleman's version it consisted of a white dot flashing on a screen as a green circle passed over it. To determine where the dot hit the circle, Eagleman found, his subjects' minds had to travel back and forth in time. They saw the dot flash, then watched the circle move and calculated its trajectory, then went back and placed the dot on the circle. It wasn't a matter of prediction, he wrote, but of postdiction.
Something similar happens in language all the time, Dean Buonomano told me. If someone says, "The mouse on the desk is broken," your mind calls forth a different image than if you hear, "The mouse on the desk is eating cheese." Your brain registers the word "mouse," waits for its context, and only then goes back to visualize it. But language leaves time for second thoughts. The flash-lag effect seems instantaneous. It's as if the word "mouse" were changed to "track pad" before you even heard it.
The explanation for this is both simple and profoundly strange. Eagleman first described it to me on the way from Houston to the Zero Gravity thrill park in Dallas. "Imagine that there's an accident on the highway up ahead," he began. "One of these cars runs into that bridge." If the crash were to occur a hundred yards away, we'd see the car hit the bridge in silence. The sound, like a peal of thunder, would take a moment to reach us. The closer the impact, the shorter the delay, but only up to a point: at a hundred and ten feet, sight and sound would suddenly lock together. Under that threshold, Eagleman explained, the signals reach the brain within a hundred milliseconds of one another, and any differences in processing are erased. In the early days of television, Eagleman told me, broadcasters noticed a similar phenomenon. Their engineers went to a great deal of trouble to synchronize sound and image, but it soon became clear that perfectionism was pointless. As long as the delay was less than a hundred milliseconds, no one noticed it.
The margin of error is surprisingly wide. If the brain can distinguish sounds as little as five milliseconds apart, why don't we notice a delay twenty times longer? A possible answer began to emerge in the late nineteen-fifties, in the work of Benjamin Libet, a physiologist at the University of California, San Francisco. Libet worked with patients at a local hospital who had been admitted for neurosurgery and had had a hole drilled into their skull to expose the cortex. In one experiment, he used an electrode to shock the brain tissue with electrical pulses. The cortex is wired straight to the skin and various body parts, so the subjects would feel a tingle in the corresponding area. But not right away: the shock didn't register for up to half a second—an eternity in brain time. "The implications are quite astounding," Libet later wrote. "We are not conscious of the actual moment of the present. We are always a little late."
Libet's findings have been hard to replicate (zapping a patient's exposed brain is frowned upon these days), and they remain controversial. But to Eagleman they make a good deal of sense. Like Kublai Khan, he says, the brain needs time to get its story straight. It gathers up all the evidence of our senses, and only then reveals it to us. It's a deeply counterintuitive idea in some ways. Touch your finger to an ember or prick it on a needle and the pain is immediate. You feel it now—not in half a second. But perception and reality are often a little out of register, as the saccade experiment showed. If all our senses are slightly delayed, we have no context by which to measure a given lag. Reality is a tape-delayed broadcast, carefully censored before it reaches us.
"Living in the past may seem like a disadvantage, but it's a cost that the brain is willing to pay," Eagleman said. "It's trying to put together the best possible story about what's going on in the world, and that takes time." Touch is the slowest of the senses, since the signal has to travel up the spinal cord from as far away as the big toe. That could mean that the over-all delay is a function of body size: elephants may live a little farther in the past than hummingbirds, with humans somewhere in between. The smaller you are, the more you live in the moment. (Eagleman suspects that the speed of an animal's mating call—from the piping of a chickadee to the plainchant of a humpback—is a proxy for its sense of time.) "I once mentioned this in an NPR interview and I got flooded by e-mails from short people," Eagleman said. "They were so pleased. For about a day, I was the hero of the short people."
A lot can happen in half a second. At fifty miles an hour, for instance, a body can fall almost forty feet. April, the young woman from Weatherford, Texas, seemed well aware of this when she rode the SCAD later that afternoon. I could hear her strangled "Ayiiiiiiiiii!" as she plummeted from the top of the tower. Eagleman watched her streak past, then punched his stopwatch. "That's funny," he said. "They never scream." April took a moment to extricate herself from the safety net and walked unsteadily to a nearby bench. When we joined her, she was blinking and glancing vaguely around—she'd taken off her glasses before the ride—her eyes wide with shock.
"Was it worth it?" Eagleman asked.
"No," she said.
"It wasn't thrilling when you landed?"
"No. It hurt."
A few minutes later, her boyfriend, T.J., joined her on the bench. He'd jammed a Budweiser cap backward on his head, and his features had a shiny, blown-back look. When Eagleman asked him how the ride went, he held his forearms out in front of him: his fingers were shaking uncontrollably.
Eagleman and Chess Stetson, his grad student, ran the first round of SCAD experiments in 2007, with twenty subjects. They programmed the perceptual chronometer to flash its numbers just a little too fast to be legible. Then they stationed one observer at the top of the tower, to make sure the riders looked at the chronometer as they fell, and another on the ground. Afterward, the riders would report their chronometer readings, then take a stopwatch and go back over the experience in their minds, timing it from start to finish. Eagleman knew how long the fall had taken in real time; now he wanted to know how long it felt. April was too jittery to manage this at first, but then she took a deep breath and tried again. When she opened her eyes, the stopwatch showed just over three and a half seconds—about thirty per cent longer than the actual drop.
April's timing was typical: on average, Eagleman's subjects overestimate the length of their fall by thirty-six per cent. To his surprise, though, the speed of their perception doesn't change as they drop: no matter how hard they stare at the chronometer, they can't read the numbers. "In some sense, that's more interesting than what we thought was going on," Eagleman told me. "It suggests that time and memory are so tightly intertwined that they may be impossible to tease apart."
One of the seats of emotion and memory in the brain is the amygdala, he explained. When something threatens your life, this area seems to kick into overdrive, recording every last detail of the experience. The more detailed the memory, the longer the moment seems to last. "This explains why we think that time speeds up when we grow older," Eagleman said—why childhood summers seem to go on forever, while old age slips by while we're dozing. The more familiar the world becomes, the less information your brain writes down, and the more quickly time seems to pass.
Like Eagleman's comments about short people, the SCAD study triggered a flood of correspondence when it was published, by the Public Library of Science, four years ago. "It was like a propagating shock wave," he told me. "I got e-mails from paratroopers and cops and race-car drivers, people in motorcycle accidents and car accidents." One letter was from a former curator at a museum who had accidentally knocked over a Ming vase. "He said the thing took fucking forever to fall," Eagleman said. During the next few years, he plans to study the stories—some two hundred so far—by going back to the authors with a questionnaire. In the meantime, it's easy to pick out the common threads—not just the sense of time slowing down but the strange calm and the touch of the surreal that he remembers from his own childhood fall. In one story, a man is thrown off his motorcycle after colliding with a car. As he's sliding across the road, perhaps to his death, he hears his helmet bouncing against the asphalt. The sound has a catchy rhythm, he thinks, and he finds himself composing a little ditty to it in his head.
"Time is this rubbery thing," Eagleman said. "It stretches out when you really turn your brain resources on, and when you say, 'Oh, I got this, everything is as expected,' it shrinks up." The best example of this is the so-called oddball effect—an optical illusion that Eagleman had shown me in his lab. It consisted of a series of simple images flashing on a computer screen. Most of the time, the same picture was repeated again and again: a plain brown shoe. But every so often a flower would appear instead. To my mind, the change was a matter of timing as well as of content: the flower would stay onscreen much longer than the shoe. But Eagleman insisted that all the pictures appeared for the same length of time. The only difference was the degree of attention that I paid to them. The shoe, by its third or fourth appearance, barely made an impression. The flower, more rare, lingered and blossomed, like those childhood summers.
Before Francis Crick died, in 2004, he gave Eagleman some advice. "Look," he said. "The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he'll fight and die for it. The way real science goes is that you come up with lots of ideas, and most of them will be wrong."
Eagleman may have taken the words a little too much to heart. When I was in Houston, he had more than a dozen studies running simultaneously, and spent his time racing from laboratory to lecture hall to MRI machine to brain-surgery ward and back. "We're using the full armamentarium of modern neuroscience," he told me. One of his nine lab members was studying the neurological roots of empathy; another was looking at free will. Two were studying timing disorders in schizophrenics; one had helped create the world's foremost database of synesthetes. Eagleman had projects on epilepsy, counterfeiting, decision-making in courts, and timing deficits among brain-damaged veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as four books at various stages of completion. In early April, Eagleman was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for his work on synesthesia. In May, Pantheon will publish "Incognito," his popular account of the unconscious.
"Did I mention my paper on the asp caterpillar?" he asked me one day. He pulled up a picture on his computer of what looked like a grub in a fancy fur coat. It was a highly venomous insect, he assured me. He knew this because one of them had crawled up his leg seven years earlier. "It felt like someone had just poured a glass of acid on my shin," he said. In the hospital that night, an emergency-room doctor called him a wimp. "Haven't you been bitten by a bug before?" he said. So Eagleman, by way of reply, spent the next few years rounding up every known case report of asp-caterpillar envenomation. He created the first map of the caterpillar's distribution in North America, as well as graphs of a hundred and eighty-eight attacks, broken down by month and symptom. Then he published his report, extensively footnoted, in the journal Clinical Toxicology. "It turns out that I'm the world's expert on this thing," he told me, grinning.
Eagleman's colleagues occasionally grumble that he's overreaching, or seeking publicity. But he has an impressive record of peer-reviewed publications, and even his wackiest projects tend to bear up under scrutiny. "The data are solid," Dean Buonomano told me. "The interpretations can sometimes be a bit dreamy." Eagleman's bigger problem is time, in a practical as well as a theoretical sense. He gets seven hours of sleep a night, he says, but only by working seven days a week, mostly without pause. (His last vacation was three years ago, a weekend wedding in Hawaii.) For years, Eagleman was a confirmed bachelor and "serial dater," as one of his friends put it, with a tidy bungalow that he liked to call the Eagle's Nest. Then, last October, he surprised everyone by marrying Sarah Alwin, a twenty-six-year-old doctoral candidate who studies the electrophysiology of vision at the University of Texas in Houston. "We're a terrific match," he told me. "She's as much of a workaholic as I am." They hope to have children soon, before the DNA in his sperm deteriorates too much with age. "I used to be such a cynic about marriage," he said. "Now I even want to spawn!"
Eagleman has never lost his childhood tendency to observe himself from a distance, treating his own brain as a research subject. When we were winding our way through Baylor's labyrinthine corridors, he credited his sense of direction to a fine hippocampus. And when we sat down to a meal at a restaurant he complained that he'd much rather ingest a "compressed bar of nutrients." As for his wildly varied research: it's just another version of the oddball effect, he told me. By leaping from topic to topic, he forces his brain to give each problem far more attention than familiarity would allow. "Emerson did the same thing," he said. "He had a lazy Susan with multiple projects on it. When he'd get bored, he would just spin it and start on something else."
Early this winter, I joined Eagleman in London for his most recent project: a study of time perception in drummers. Timing studies tend to be performed on groups of random subjects or on patients with brain injuries or disorders. They've given us a good sense of average human abilities, but not the extremes: just how precise can a person's timing be? "In neuroscience, you usually look for animals that are best at something," Eagleman told me, over dinner at an Italian restaurant in Notting Hill. "If it's memory, you study songbirds; if it's olfaction, you look at rats and dogs. If I were studying athletes, I'd want to find the guy who can run a four-minute mile. I wouldn't want a bunch of chubby high-school kids."
The idea of studying drummers had come from Brian Eno, the composer, record producer, and former member of the band Roxy Music. Over the years, Eno had worked with U2, David Byrne, David Bowie, and some of the world's most rhythmically gifted musicians. He owned a studio a few blocks away, in a converted stable on a cobblestoned cul-de-sac, and had sent an e-mail inviting a number of players to participate in Eagleman's study. "The question is: do drummers have different brains from the rest of us?" Eno said. "Everyone who has ever worked in a band is sure that they do."
Eno first met Eagleman two years ago, after a publisher he knew sent him a book of Eagleman's short stories, called "Sum." Modelled on the cerebral fiction of Borges and Calvino, "Sum" is a natural outgrowth of Eagleman's scientific concerns—another spin of the lazy Susan that has circled back to the subject of time. Each of its forty chapters is a kind of thought experiment, describing a different version of the afterlife. Eagleman establishes a set of initial conditions, then lets the implications unfold logically. In one chapter, the dead are doomed to spend eternity playing bit parts in the dreams of the living. In another, they share the hereafter with all possible versions of themselves—from the depressing failures to the irritating successes. "I'm a minimalist at heart. I like short, big ideas," Eno said. "I asked my friend when he was publishing it, and he said, 'Next February.' We had a big argument. I said, 'Just get the bloody thing out!' "
"Sum" had taken years to find a publisher—Eagleman began writing it while still in graduate school—but it quickly found an audience. In England, it was praised by publications as disparate as Nature ("rigorous and imaginative") and the Observer, where the author Geoff Dyer called it "stunningly original" and saw in it "the unaccountable, jaw-dropping quality of genius." Eagleman had considered writing under a pseudonym, thinking that he'd be vilified by scientists and religious readers alike. Instead, both groups claimed the book for their own. Atheists like Philip Pullman wrote enthusiastic blurbs, while the editors of an interfaith Web site named it one of the best spiritual books of 2009. At a Unitarian church in Massachusetts, members of the congregation took turns reading chapters from the pulpit.
Eno and Eagleman had struck up an e-mail correspondence by then, and Eno had suggested that they collaborate on a staged reading of the book. The production premièred at the Sydney Opera House in June, 2009, with an ambient score by Eno. (A full-fledged operatic version, with music by Max Richter, is scheduled to be produced by the Royal Opera House, in London, in 2012.) It was while they were there that Eno told Eagleman the story that inspired the drumming study.
"I was working with Larry Mullen, Jr., on one of the U2 albums," Eno told me. " 'All That You Don't Leave Behind,' or whatever it's called." Mullen was playing drums over a recording of the band and a click track—a computer-generated beat that was meant to keep all the overdubbed parts in synch. In this case, however, Mullen thought that the click track was slightly off: it was a fraction of a beat behind the rest of the band. "I said, 'No, that can't be so, Larry,' " Eno recalled. " 'We've all worked to that track, so it must be right.' But he said, 'Sorry, I just can't play to it.' "
Eno eventually adjusted the click to Mullen's satisfaction, but he was just humoring him. It was only later, after the drummer had left, that Eno checked the original track again and realized that Mullen was right: the click was off by six milliseconds. "The thing is," Eno told me, "when we were adjusting it I once had it two milliseconds to the wrong side of the beat, and he said, 'No, you've got to come back a bit.' Which I think is absolutely staggering."
Eagleman arrived at Eno's studio late the next morning, carrying a pair of laptops and a wireless EEG monitor. "This thing is so cool!" he said, pulling the latter from its foam-cushioned case. "They did the full T.S.A. search on me at the airport." He clamped the EEG on his head—it looked like a giant tarantula perched there—then watched as sixteen wavering lines appeared onscreen, in candy-stripe colors. Each line represented the electrical activity at a different point in his brain. The drummers would wear this while taking a set of four tests, Eagleman explained. The tests were like simple video games, designed by his lab to measure different forms of timing: keeping a steady beat, comparing the lengths of two tones, synchronizing a beat to an image, and comparing visual or audible rhythms to one another. "The EEG can pick up twenty-thousandths of a second," he said. "Brain activity doesn't even go that fast, so we're oversampling by a lot. But why not?"
While Eagleman set up testing areas in two rooms, Eno bustled around the studio tidying up, talking to his cats, and brewing tea. The stable had been converted into an airy, skylit space with a circular staircase that led to the former hayloft, now filled with computer workstations. The back corner was flanked by a pair of enormous monochords: single-stringed electric instruments of Eno's design, made of railroad ties. Eno was clean-shaven and dressed all in black. He had a round, impish face and rectangular glasses with a pixellated pattern punched along the temples.
"Drummers are very hard to control," he said, stuffing some Christmas cards into their envelopes. "I didn't hear anything for days. Then suddenly everybody decided to come, and to bring their friends. So we may have a flood of drummers. Or we may have no one at all." He was a little worried that they'd get hungry or bored. ("They're probably more likely to come if there's a sort of 'scene' going on," he'd written Eagleman a few weeks earlier.) So he sent an assistant to buy pastries and mixed nuts, and brought out "various entertainments" for the drummers to play with, including a drum synthesizer.
"The more competitive they feel about this, the better," Eagleman said. "A big part of it is making sure they pay attention."
"That will be hard," Eno replied.
The first subject wandered in at around noon—a scruffy, swivel-hipped young redhead named Daniel Maiden-Wood, who played drums for the singer Anna Calvi. By midafternoon, the place was full. Larry Mullen, Jr., was on tour in Australia, but the makings of a remarkable rhythm section were sprawled on Eno's sofas and chairs. Among them were jazz musicians, Afro-Cuban percussionists, and the drummer for Razorlight, a British band with a pair of multi-platinum albums. Will Champion, of Coldplay, came in looking like a lumberjack who'd taken a wrong turn. (When he removed his yarn cap to reveal a large bullet head, Eagleman said it was perfect for the EEG.) Champion had worked with Eno on "Viva la Vida," the 2008 album that topped both the British and the American charts, solidifying Coldplay's standing as the world's best-selling rock group. "He's like a human metronome," Eno said. "If you say to him, 'What is seventy-eight beats per minute?,' he will go tap, tap, tap. And he's dead on."
The friendly rivalry that Eagleman had imagined among players never quite materialized. (He might have had better luck with a roomful of lead singers.) Instead, they told drummer jokes. How do you know when there's a drummer at your door? The knocking gets faster and faster. Had we heard about the drummer who tried to commit suicide? He threw himself behind a train. Eno had been recording drum parts most of his life, but he claimed to be rhythmically challenged. "I suffer from what my friend Leo Abrahams calls the honky offset—the tendency of white players to be early on the beat," he said. "It's eleven milliseconds. If you delay the recording by that much, it sounds much better."
Nevertheless, as pairs of drummers shuffled back and forth from the testing stations, a certain wounded professional pride was in evidence. The players had no trouble comparing a tone or keeping a steady beat, but the visual-timing tests were giving them fits. Eagleman had promised that the results would be kept anonymous, but he'd programmed each battery of tests to end with a cheeky evaluation: "You're a rock star," for those who scored in the top twenty-five per cent; "Ready for the big time," for the second quartile; "Ready for open-mike night," for those in the next group; and "Go back to band camp," for the bottom quarter. No one wanted to go to band camp.
A drummer's timing is a physical thing, they agreed, like dancing. Tapping a rhythm on a trackpad robs it of all sense of movement or muscle memory. Yet many of them played to click tracks even onstage, and their sense of tempo had been conditioned and codified by years in the studio. Hip-hop was eighty or ninety beats per minute, they said, Afrobeat around a hundred and ten. Disco stuck so insistently to a hundred and twenty that you could run the songs one after another without missing a beat. "There wasn't a fraction of deviance," Eno said. In the heat of a performance, drummers sometimes rushed the beat or hung back a little, to suit the mood. But as click tracks became more common such deviations had to be re-created artificially. To Champion's amusement, Coldplay had lately taken to programming elaborate "tempo maps" for its live shows, with click tracks designed to speed up or slow down during a song. "It re-creates the excitement of a track that's not so rigid," Champion said.
When it was his turn to take Eagleman's test, Champion spent nearly twice as long at the computer as the others—his competitive spirit roused at last. He needn't have worried. Eagleman's results later showed a "huge statistical difference," as he put it, between the drummers' timing and that of the random control subjects he'd tested back in Houston. When asked to keep a steady beat, for instance, the controls wavered by an average of thirty-five milliseconds; the best drummer was off by less than ten. Eno was right: drummers do have different brains from the rest. "They kicked ass over the controls," Eagleman said. His next task would be to use the EEG data to locate the most active areas of the drummers' brains, then target them with bursts of magnetic stimulation to see if he could disrupt their timing. "Now that we know that there is something anatomically different about them," he said, "we want to see if we can mess it up."
Whether they'd want to participate again was another matter. Champion, for one, looked a little punch-drunk after his test. "It's hard not to feel like it's a sort of personal evaluation," he said, as he was putting on his coat. "Hopefully, it will be useful for some larger purpose. But you still want to feel like you're up to snuff." He shrugged. "Luckily, it told me that I should be a rock star. So it's nice to know that that wasn't wasted."
It was close to midnight when Eagleman and I finally left Eno's studio, the laptops and the EEG tucked under our arms. The streets felt muffled and close beneath the starless sky; the sidewalks were slick with snow. Walking back to our hotel, I thought of the countless sensory signals careering around me: the glimmer of street lamps off pub windows, the rumble of tube trains underground, the scent of wood smoke and spilled beer, and the curve of cobblestones beneath my feet. From billions of such fragments my brain had pieced together this simple story—a winter's night in Notting Hill—and I was happy to have it.
What would it be like to have a drummer's timing? I wondered. Would you hear the hidden rhythms of everyday life, the syncopations of the street? When I asked the players at Eno's studio this, they seemed to find their ability as much an annoyance as a gift. Like perfect pitch, which dooms the possessor to hear every false note and flat car horn, perfect timing may just make a drummer more sensitive to the world's arrhythmias and repeated patterns, Eagleman said—to the flicker of computer screens and fluorescent lights. Reality, stripped of an extra beat in which the brain orchestrates its signals, isn't necessarily a livelier place. It's just filled with badly dubbed television shows.
"We're stuck in time like fish in water," Eagleman said, oblivious of its currents until a bubble floats by. It's usually best that way. He had spent the past ten years peering at the world through such gaps in our perception, he said. "But sometimes you get so far down deep into reality that you want to pull back. Sometimes, in a great while, I'll think, What if I find out that this is all an illusion?" He felt this most keenly with his schizophrenic subjects, who tended to do poorly on timing tests. The voices in their heads, he suspected, were no different from anyone else's internal monologues; their brains just processed them a little out of sequence, so that the thoughts seemed to belong to someone else. "All it takes is this tiny tweak in the brain, this tiny change in perception," he said, "and what you see as real isn't real to anyone else."
Eagleman was brought up as a secular Jew and became an atheist in his teens. Lately, though, he'd taken to calling himself a Possibilian—a denomination of his own invention. Science had taught him to be skeptical of cosmic certainties, he told me. From the unfathomed complexity of brain tissue—"essentially an alien computational material"—to the mystery of dark matter, we know too little about our own minds and the universe around us to insist on strict atheism, he said. "And we know far too much to commit to a particular religious story." Why not revel in the alternatives? Why not imagine ourselves, as he did in "Sum," as bits of networked hardware in a cosmic program, or as particles of some celestial organism, or any of a thousand other possibilities, and then test those ideas against the available evidence? "Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time," he said. "As Voltaire said, uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one."
A garden-variety agnostic might have left it at that. But Eagleman, as usual, took things a step further. Two years ago, in an interview on a radio show, he declared himself the founder of a new movement. Possibilianism had a membership of one, he said, but he hoped to attract more. "I'm not saying here is the answer," he told me. "I'm just celebrating the vastness of our ignorance." The announcement was only half serious, so Eagleman was shocked to find, when he came home from his lab later that night, that his e-mail in-box was filled, once again, with messages from listeners. "You know what?" most of them said. "I'm a Possibilian, too!" The movement has since drawn press from as far away as India and Uganda. At last count, close to a thousand Facebook members had switched their religious affiliation to Possibilianism.
Francis Crick, the patron saint of intellectual long shots, might have approved. ♦
No comments:
Post a Comment