Richard Cox was a tough man who, over the past forty years in Journalism, caused many admirers and detractors to come to light both here and overseas.

As a young Journalist he was sharp, fearless and brazen and one remembers well when challenged by one of his “bosses” to desist from “drinking on the job” his retort (“Why should you tell me stop drinking … does anybody tell you stop bulling?”) landed him a suspension from work.

For 22 of the last 40 years he ingratiated himself into a metro pole country, acquiring many of the trappings associated with first world living; however, on return to his native land he seemed to have found difficulty maintaining a balance between a lifestyle and work style more akin to living in a metropolis with that of a third world developing nation which calls for leadership by example rather than by decree.

He was never afraid to function in any capacity and this was may be brooked on his oft used expression: “This is not rocket science … this is easy … if I can do it you can do it too.” On closer examination, though, he often opted out of the challenge of performing in such capacities for any given length of time and so measurement of his capabilities may be skewed if one uses the criteria of “consistently good performances” but an accurate performance appraised would always speak well of his capability based on singular achievements derived from one time performances.

Against this background, Mr. Cox held two very personal and interesting opinions -  (1) He thought that he needed few friends in life and in fact he held the belief that if one really needed a friend he should get a dog and (2) he also held firm to advice given to him by his doctor in Canada that one should stay away from stressful situations in life.

He was very well read and in the absence of any children of his own he was wont to pass on much of this knowledge to those with whom he came into relatively close contact or those willing to engage him in argument; and he love an argument.

Of late, however, he was often accused of “unfair intellectual tactics” of introducing false facts coupled with “personal exploits” which could not be challenged before retreating to what he considered to be his “lair” at work to prepare for the next mental battle.

Richard Cox enjoyed being seen as a mentor for young people but equally enjoyed having it recognized that he also possessed the power to “pull the rug from under your feet” and I think it’s safe to say this demonstration of power and authority encouraged those who wanted to get ahead quickly “to carry to him tales which should have stayed at school.”

The late dreamer should be considered as “a work in progress on which time has elapsed on a malfunctioning clock.”

Head of news at the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation Richard Cox passed away yesterday after an illness.

The Barbados Advocate’s Sunday edition has the story.

CRUISING av William Friedkin (1980)
Med Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, Karen Allen, Richard Cox, Don Scardino, Joe Spinell, Jay Acovone, Randy Jurgensen

Härförleden skrev jag i recensionen av Scent of a Woman om den endimensionelle Al Pacino. Den vrålande tuffingen som antingen är skurk eller snut, men alltid Al Pacino. Han är snut i Cruising också men gör den rätt förbluffande helomvändningen att även spela bög. I filmen, alltså. Han arbetar under täckmantel som bög för att lösa en rad mord på bögar som ser ut ungefär som han. Och det verkligt förbluffande är att den italienskättade machoikonen Al Pacino inför ögonen på oss tittare förvandlas till övertygande bög. Inte så begåvat och inkännande som Sean Penn i Milk, men tillräckligt begåvat och inkännande för att man ska börja inse att den vrålande tuffingen Al Pacino som alltid bara spelar Al Pacino trots allt kan spela någon annan också. Möjligen för att hans roll då han arbetar under täckmantel i Cruising är så diametralt motsatt hans egen personlighet – genom att göra en helomvändning kan han så att säga utnyttja sin mycket endimensionella skådespelarförmåga till att tämligen övertygande gestalta en helt annan persona, genom att göra det med uppbringande av all sin ensidighet men med kraften inriktad på den personan. Kanske. Jag vet inte. Men jag vet att han går på ett helt annat sätt, talar annorlunda och använder ett kroppsspråk som gör att han framstår som mycket trovärdig bög.

Cruising utspelar sig bland läderbögar och redan under inspelningen drabbades filmen av så stor motvilja att grupper av bögar försökte sabotera arbetet när man spelade in på autentiska bögklubbar. Den är därför försedd med en brasklapp i början. Fast eftersom den handlar om läderbögar som dessutom är lagda åt S/M-hållet är det kanske inte så konstigt att den inte är representativ för bögvärlden i helhet och i själva verket är det inte ens särskilt intressant huruvida den är det eller inte. Hur många spelfilmer porträtterar i varje detalj verklighetstroget de föregivna miljöer där de utspelar sig? Omständigheter som rör både intrig och inspelningsförhållanden dikterar inte så sällan avsteg från verkligheten, vilket för det mesta inte är mycket att orda om – film är film, inte verklighet.

Fast å andra sidan kan man undra vilka omständigheter kring i alla fall intrigen som kan ha föreskrivit sådana avsteg den här gången, eftersom filmen på det planet inte på minsta vis lever upp till Al Pacinos skådespelarinsats. Det här är en skäligen enkel kriminalhistoria som mycket väl skulle kunna vara ett avsnitt i någon av de mindre begåvade deckarserierna på tv. Den där som sänds på tidiga tisdagkvällar i stället för på bästa sändningstid på lördagkvällen.

Och därför känns Cruising trots allt mycket ambivalent och inte fullt begriplig.

För givet den generande klichéfyllda kriminalintrigen, varför gjorde man sig allt besväret med att under protester och sabotageförsök låta filmen utspelas i läderbögvärlden? När det nu ändå inte i någon intressant mening påverkar intrig och tema, alltså?

Kör hårt,
Bellis

Es algo frustrante leer un libro que se supone que trata de algún experimento molón con un acelerador de partículas y encontrarme páginas y más páginas sin que acabe de llegar. Seguramente es culpa mía, pero en un libro con este título, en cuya portada aparece un átomo enorme y en el que se menciona a un físico que busca la partícula divina, me esperaba algo más de ciencia. Pero ojo, no quiero decir que esté mal, sino simplemente que no resultó exactamente como me lo esperaba.

Lo que me encontré fue que la novela habla principalmente de las relaciones de pareja de los protagonistas, en sus motivaciones, inseguridades, celos,  lo que pasa por su cabeza durante el ligue…

Por ejemplo, tenemos a Steve, en una visita de negocios en Suiza, resistiendose a los intentos de seducción de Serena, su compañera de trabajo. También está Mike, que se encuentra con la atractiva Kelly en un aeropuerto y tras muchas dudas decide iniciar una conversación con ella sin saber que es una famosa presentadora de informativos. Está Larry, el compañero de trabajo de Mike y gran amigo suyo, que en realidad es un perturbado que envidia su éxito en las relaciones y en el trabajo…

No he leído ninguna todavía, pero ¿no es así como suelen ser las novelas románticas? ¿Qué es esto? ¿Danielle Steel salpicada con un poco de Stephen Hawking?

¿Y cuál es la parte de Stephen Hawking? Bueno, pues ocurre que Steve, cuando descubre que está siendo engañado por su prometida, acude a un club de Zurich a ahogar sus penas. Allí alguien acaba tirándole por la ventana de un tercer piso y, cuando se despierta, se encuentra con que le han operado el cerebro en un misterioso hospital. Steve se recupera, pero empieza a sufrir extrañas alucinaciones que van aumentando hasta afectar completamente su percepción del mundo a su alrededor. De repente, es consciente de un campo que lo rodea todo. También es capaz de sintonizar con otras personas hasta el punto de saber lo que están pensando.

En su viaje en avión, Mike le cuenta a Kelly que el ser humano está adaptado para percibir el mundo de cierta forma. Somos capaces de percibir los fotones, es decir, la radiación electromagnética en cierto rango de frecuencias, pero ¿qué pasaría si fuesemos capaces de percibir otro tipo de partículas? El cerebro puede emitir esta radiación, ¿seríamos capaces de leer las emisiones de otras personas?

Mike está a punto de encontrar el bosón de Higgs, pese a los sabotajes que sufre sin saberlo por parte de su envidioso amigo Larry y de Samantha, la nueva física que amenaza con arrebatarle el premio Nobel. En cuanto se hace el anuncio del inminente descubrimiento,  Kelly acude a hacer un reportaje y gracias a esa emisión Steve consigue atar cabos. En el acelerador de partículas donde trabaja Mike, Steve descubre quién está detrás de sus nuevos poderes y su pontencial de destrucción, ante la incredulidad de Mike y de Kelly.

¿Opinión final? Una novela romántica camuflada. Sin embargo, los toques de ciencia me la han hecho bastante entretenida.

Recently I completed a research paper on the Nicholson Baker – Richard Cox newspaper preservation debate. This debate was made all the more interesting, and accessible, by the use of digital mediums by both authors. In the paper I argued that a true understanding of the debate would first require an understanding of the society in which the debate was created, that is one in which information has become more readily accessible through the Internet, and the use of digital technologies . Although it was not the purpose of this paper to address accessibility of information I would like to use it as an example of issues we have investigated in class
Googling Baker and Cox, or their books, Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper and Vandals in the Stacks a Response to Nicholson Baker’s Assault on Libraries, respectively, will provide many links through which the debate can be investigated. This essentially open discussion (minus Baker’s book which must be paid for even in digital medium) resulted in an inserting and rather unorthodox debate. Rather than a private one known only to academics, this debate could be (and still can be) viewed by millions of people, some with academic backgrounds in the subject and many with no background in it at all.
This openness of information is at the heart of some the most interesting conversations we have had in class. We have discussed for example the negative and positive repercussions of Wikipedia, anyone can gain access to information but is the information accurately representing the topic? The first link provided by a Google search of Nicholson Baker is a Wikipedia page which makes no mention of the Baker Cox debate in its “summary” of Double Fold but provides a link to Cox’s book under “further readings” as well as an “external link” to one of his First Monday articles (Richard Cox as of yet does not have a Wikipedia page). This example also highlights what I would term the “pop-culture focus” of Wikipedia, which often neglects to address issues objectively and focuses predominately on issues that are of interest to current society. For example Nicholson Baker (a novelist) is much more of a pop-culture icon than Richard Cox, (an academic) and therefore warrants a Wikipedia page. In her article “Know It all” Stacy Schiff explained that this occurs because “the bulk of Wikipedia’s content originates not in the stacks but on the Web, which offers up everything from breaking news, spin, and gossip to proof that the moon landings never took place.” This results in pop-culture as the motivating factor in the creation of many of the Wikipedia entries.
Another topic we have addressed is the accessibility of academic and scholarly work through the Internet. Many online journals and journal databases (such as JSTOR) require a membership, academic libraries can purchase these and make them available to their users, however the use of the documents is still restricted to those attending the academy. Thanks to online peer-reviewed journals such as First Monday (in which many of Cox’s original responses were printed) everyone can have access to scholarly resources (which as Prof. Turkle pointed out are often developed through research funded by the public).
Paul N Corant also addressed the need to make information accessible in his work “Scholarship and the Academic libraries (and their kin) In the World of Google” he says: “Take an idea. If you don’t write it down, the thought will have had no public effect. If you write it down in a way that no one reads it (at least not until they get to your attic a hundred years later) it has no effect. That is to say if you don’t publish (or at least teach) then you almost certainly have no effect, not even on the life of the mind.” Cox seems to have followed this philosophy and as a result allowed a debate that otherwise might have gone unheard to become a subject of public interest, he also provided an accessible opinion countering that of Baker, resulting in an open and perhaps more level discussion of the issues surrounding their debate.
Based on my experience of what I have termed a Public Academic Conversation, I would like to state that making scholarly information accessible through the Internet and digital media is key to furthering the public understanding of both the practice and subject of history. In class we often take issue with the ideas of openness and authority, and I agree that there are issues surrounding these ideas that must still be addressed. That being said I don’t think we should let this stop our use of the Internet, but rather provide a reminder that we must always question the information we receive, no matter what the form of that information is.

By BRAD STONE
New York Times

The Federal Trade Commission won a preliminary legal victory against what it called one of the largest spam gangs on the Internet, persuading a federal court in Chicago on Tuesday to freeze the group’s assets and order the spam network to shut down.

The group, which used several names but was known among spam-fighting organizations as HerbalKing, sent billions of unsolicited messages to Internet users over the last 20 months, promoting replica watches and a variety of pharmaceuticals, including weight-loss drugs and herbal pills that supposedly enhanced the male anatomy, according to the commission.

“This is pretty major. At one point these guys delivered up to one-third of all spam,” said Richard Cox, chief information officer at SpamHaus, a nonprofit antispam research group.

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY:      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/technology/internet/15spam.html?th&emc=th  

~Sandy G.

I’ve been reading more stories, lately, about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which is the European Organization for Nuclear Research (its acronym refers to the French Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire, which was its original provisional body before it became an organization in 1954). CERN is on the Franco-Swiss border in Geneva, and its reason for being is fundamental physics.

I’ve always been fascinated by physics, though in specific ways; I always sucked at math, and indeed nearly flunked physics in college, but I’ve always loved the study of black holes and relativity (at least, so nearly as I can understand them). When I was in high school, I read Leon Lederman’s The God Particle; I got through the first few chapters but then gave up when it started with its equations (which has always been where my brain shuts off. Numbers, fine, but I can’t handle letters if they’re not in writing and books).

The LHC is the latest in a series of 8 particle accelerators, which use electric fields to propel charged particles at high speeds. Basically, I think of it like if two bullets struck each other to explode and you studied the fragments, which is probably overly simplistic, but I’m no physicist. But the general idea, I think, is that, like, two protons or quarks or whathaveyou will collide to explode, thereby freeing the particles that make them up, and scientists are most excited about one theoretical particle in particular: the Higgs boson. It is, so far, theoretical, but it’s the only particle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics that hasn’t been observed; scientists hypothesize that it may be the particle behind the property of mass.

They are excited because, as it is the largest, most advanced, and most powerful accelerator ever, they believe that the LHC experiments might produce one.

Some, however, have speculated it’s not all the LHC might produce.

As with everything that very few people fully understand, one of the things I’ve been reading about the LHC is the catastrophic results that may or may not occur. Everything from some wild speculation that it might cause a microscopic blackhole that could, in turn, suck the planet through it to the wilder speculation that one of its explosions might release enough energy to cause a small tear in the fabric of spacetime that would actually be a doorway into Hell and allow Satan and his legions of demons through to initiate the endtimes. In his novel FlashForward, Robert Sawyer wrote a story in which, for 8 minutes, all of human consciousness flashed forward a certain amount of years (I’d link to it, but I ultimately thought it was pretty bad). Richard Cox explored the idea of the Higgs in his novel The God Particle, which is more of a technothriller (and, to my tastes, better [though not quite as good as Cox's other book, Rift]).

But the coolest, most awesome speculation I’ve heard?

That the LHC won’t actually work.

Because apparently, if it does work when they fire it up, the effects it produces might cause backward ripples in time, which could prevent its previous self from properly functioning.

I’ll give you a second to read that sentence again.

Z. O. M. G.

It’s one of the most exciting ideas I’ve ever heard in my life.

Of course, admittedly, the chances of its occurring are probably slim to none, and Slim just left. But even still, just the fact that a couple of major scientists (one from the University of Copenhagen, the other from Kyoto University, so it ain’t like they’re academic slouches, or anything) think it’s possible just blows my frickin’ mind.

I’ll admit I’m also excited for a rather selfish reason. You see, both the Higgs boson and CERN figure into The Prodigal Hour as major plot points. And yes, I tell you that to tease.

You can read more about CERN and the LHC here.

This, I think, would be the Internet’s definition of humility.

For the most part.

(Neil Gaiman muses on his spot at #3 on this list.)

Actually, I think Neil’s right. The list seems a little… off. I mean, J.R.R. “motherfuckers walking, my novel’s are the literary definition of plot coupon” Tolkien at number 2?

I do like Pratchett, though.

My top five, in no particular order, would be Neil, Terry, Stephen King, Jo Rowling, and Jonathan Carroll. With a further five to Joe Hill, Jo Walton, Richard Cox, Will Shetterly, and Audrey Niffenegger.

Over the weekend, I caught an article at The New York Times.com concerning Jill Bolte Taylor, a Harvard neuroscientist who claims to have experienced nirvana when she had a stroke. She’s written a memoir called My Stroke of Insight, which was just published by Viking, about the experience.

Basically, according to the article, which means, I assume, according to Taylor, after a blood vessel in her brain burst, her left hemisphere began to fail her. Doctors who operated found a golf-ball sized clot in her head and removed it. After surgery and eight years of recovery, apparently, Taylor is basically fully recovered, continues to study neuoroanatomy at Harvard, and wrote her book.

She had been a neuroscientist prior to her stroke, her work concentrating on the different functions the left and the right brain perform. Scientists attribute logic, ego, and perception of time to the left brain (or, at least, Taylor does), with the right brain taking care of creativity and empathy. Taylor believes that cutting her off from her left brain forced her to accept the consciousness of her right brain, which created that heightened sense of empathy, cultivated a sense of blissful nirvana, and, even, allowed her to:

see that the atoms and molecules making up her body blended with the space around her; the whole world and the creatures in it were all part of the same magnificent field of shimmering energy.

Which is fascinating. I’ve always been fascinated by it, anyway. A friend of mine, Richard Cox, even wrote a novel called The God Particle, which includes a sort of shimmering energy field as a plot point (it’s a good novel, too, although I’ve always liked his first, Rift, better.

I’m a little . . . well, confused isn’t quite the word for the science mentioned in the article, but I think I understood the brain and how it worked differently. For example, I knew the left brain and the right brain generally control different functions, but I thought scientists had proven that people don’t use one or the other but rather both in tandem years ago. It reminds me of what I had thought was an old wives’ tale about how we human beings only use 10% of our brains; while it may be technically accurate at any one time, the 10% we use changes according to the activities we are performing. I’ve always though I suck at math mainly because I write so much; I can feel that doing math requires thinking differently than I’m used to.

Then again, I tend to be a mostly happy person, and I wonder if that’s because I spend more time thinking using the areas of the brain that contribute to this “nirvana” Bolte Taylor is writing about. Who says:

Today, she says, she is a new person, one who “can step into the consciousness of my right hemisphere” on command and be “one with all that is.”

And she certainly looks happy.

But something else in the article caught my attention, first in the way it was treated and second in what it means for Bolte Taylor; Bolte Taylor’s brother was diagnosed with brain disorder schizophrenia (according to her Amazon.com page; I’ll link at the end of this post). According to the article’s second page:

Originally, Dr. Taylor became a brain scientist — she has a Ph.D. in life sciences with a specialty in neuroanatomy — because she has a mentally ill brother who suffers from delusions that he is in direct contact with Jesus. And for her old research lab at Harvard, she continues to speak on behalf of the mentally ill.

So, apparently, if a blood vessel bursts in your brain, causing a golf ball-sized clot that cuts you off from your left hemisphere, you get to experience nirvana and the unity of the universe, as well as perceive the shimmering energy field that includes all the atoms and molecules in your body, before you sell a book about the experience to Viking, go on speaking tours, and receive fan mail from all the people who believe in what you’re saying, but if you’re in direct contact with Jesus, you have delusional, brain disorder-based schizophrenia and are mentally ill.

There’s a huge disconnect there, I think.

Now provided, I don’t know about Bolte Taylor’s brother one way or the other. I don’t know what direct contact with Jesus means, nor what Jesus is telling him through said direct contact.

But I will note that, from my three years working as an editor of a clinical psychiatric nursing journal, I could swear I’ve read theories that mental illness can be genetic and run in families.

I know I’m backhandedly implying Bolte Taylor has a mental illness here, but really I’m being disengenuous, for a very specific reason: I tend to believe there might be something to her experience and her perceptions, and what bothers me is the disconnect between the way the media (and perhaps the scientific community) and certainly that article treats her experience versus her brother’s. The article is full of careful explanation and detail describing both her symptomatology and the physiological, neurological, and psychological effects thereof, but when it comes to her brother, he is “mentally ill” and “suffers from delusions.” I get that further mention of his illness or its symptoms are probably both beyond the point and scope of the article, or perhaps even that Bolte Taylor didn’t want to talk too much about it, but you’d think it would have been at least a little more sensitive.

Really, though, it reminds me of this comic by Lore Sjoberg:

(you can find others by clicking on the comic, and find more by Sjoberg here)

Here’s that link to Bolte Taylor’s book I promised. It certainly looks interesting.

What do you think? Of Bolte Taylor’s experience, the science behind it, or the article? I’m really curious to know what other people think of questions regarding science and faith. Is contact with Jesus really less believable than nirvana via a burst brain vessel?

Dick Sargent (vero nome Richard Cox) è apparso in varie serie televisive come Gunsmoke e Wagon Train nel 1963 e 1964.
Al cinema ha recitato, tra gli altri, in The Great Impostor (Il grande impostore, 1960, con il nome di Richard Sargeant) e in The Touch of Mink (Il visone sulla pelle, 1962).
Dopo Bewitched ha proseguito con la partecipazione a serie televisive come Murder She Wrote (La signora in giallo), nel 1987, in Charlie’s Angels, in vari episodi. Nel corso della sua carriera è apparso nelle sitcom Family Ties (Casa Keaton, 1982-1989), nell’episodioNo Nukes is Good Nukes del 1982, Taxi (1978-1983), nell’episodio Jim’s Inheritance del 1982, I Dream of Jeannie (Strega per amore, 1965-1970), nell’episodio Jeannie for the Defense del 1969 e in The Lucy Show (1962-1974), nell’episodio Lucy Plays Cops and Robbers del 1973.
E’ morto nel 1994.

He de reconocer que no he leído (todavía) nada de Richard J. Cox, profesor de archivística y catedrático de la School of Information Sciences de la Universidad de Pittsburgh. Y eso que tengo donde elegir, como he podido comprobar en la base de datos bibliográfica del CIDA. Pero, o bien no he tenido la necesidad de leer ninguno de sus escritos, o no han caído en mis manos. O, sencillamente, no me ha apetecido.

Pero de un tiempo a esta parte se ha convertido en una especie de espinita que tengo clavada. De asignatura pendiente, vamos. Y todo porque las entradas de su blog, Reading Archives, no hacen más que acumularse (sin leer, todo hay que decirlo) en la bandeja de mi agregador. La verdad es que es un blog bastante peculiar, teniendo en cuenta su temática; como dice el propio Cox:

Con este blog pienso ofrecer, tan regularmente como sea posible, observaciones críticas sobre la literatura escolar y popular, analizando la naturaleza de los archivos o contribuyendo a nuestra comprensión de los archivos en la sociedad. No estoy planeando comentar los manuales básicos de la práctica [archivística], las guías técnicas o los informes sobre buenas prácticas…

[la traducción es mía, así que perdón por los desperfectos]

Como decía arriba, apenas he leído alguna que otra entrada. Más bien he echado un vistazo a aquellas que trataban de algún libro con título (o portada, lo reconozco) llamativo: uno sobre los expolios de obras de arte; una obra colectiva sobre preservación digital; otro libro le lleva a escribir sobre la relación entre la arquelogía y el mundo de los archivos; y hace la enésima reflexión sobre la imagen de los/as archiveros/as, centrada en este caso en la literatura, por citar algunas de sus últimas entradas.

Gracias a este blog me he preocupado por buscar las obras del Richard J. Cox. He encontrado algún artículo que parece interesante y que presumiblemente leeré (el primero de ellos creo que será “La valoración como un acto de memoria” -ver resumen-, publicado en el número 6 de Tábula, dedicado a “El refinado arte de la destrucción: la selección de documentos. Actas del III Congreso de Archivos de Castilla y León”). ¿Acaso alguien dudaba de la utilidad de los blogs?

¿Y si en lugar de un autor, de una persona, se tratase de una institución? ¿Aumentaría la visibilidad de un archivo si contase con un blog? Seguramente sí, tanto para el público externo, como en el seno de su propia organización. Naturalmente, tiene que ser un blog con una cierta calidad y actualizado con bastante periodicidad (por ejemplo, voy a leer algo de Cox -independientemente de su calidad científica- y casi no me acuerdo de Michel Roberge, cuyo blog hace tiempo que está parado); y eso lleva tiempo. Por probar que no quede.

Actualización (19 de enero de 2007): parece que el blog de Michel Roberge vuelve a funcionar, así que rectifico lo dicho… en parte: una periodicidad más o menos estable es necesaria, ¿no?

Un último detalle: puede que uno de los libros que me auto-regale estas Navidades sea alguno de los reseñados por Richad J. Cox en su blog.

¿No deberíamos hacer más hincapié en los blogs cuando hablamos de difusión, o incluso de marketing en los archivos?