Dion McGregor – Recordings of the world most famous sleeptalker: otherworldly, deeply fascinating and sexually disturbing





Dion McGregor, The Dream World of Dion McGregor, Bernard Geis 1964.

„Dion McGregor was a sleeptalker like no other. It’s always entertaining to listen on occasion to the REM ramblings of a loved one, family member or roommate, as long as it doesn’t disrupt one’s own sleep — but these recordings are otherworldly, deeply fascinating and sexually disturbing, to list but a few descriptions. The Guardian sez:
There is a delicious irony to the story of musician Dion McGregor. A bohemian chancer who struggled for years to produce a hit record, he finally released an album on Decca in 1964, except it didn’t feature songs, but dreams. For McGregor is probably the world’s most famous sleep-talker. He was a man who could speak in complete, comprehensible sentences while asleep, painstakingly describing the events of his hallucinations as they unfolded, before, more often than not, his nightmares would conclude with a howl. Whether he was a conman or the genuine article, it’s certainly an unusual take on the American Dream.
After hearing these records quite a few times, I’m unconvinced that anyone could make this stuff up out of any conscious desire. My absolute favorite parts are the dreams’ finales, when Dion inevitably lets forth a truly terrifying, bloodcurdling shrieky blurts.
The first album, “The Dream World of Dion McGregor”, was released in the ’60s, and is rather tame, compared to the freaky uncensored realms of the two later compilations.“

"Somewhere between Jonathan Winters and Brother Theodore on the one hand, and William Burroughs and Terry Southern on the other, there existed a totally un-famous yet incredibly imaginative failed songwriter who happened to “sleeptalk” very odd material in the early morning hours. Dion McGregor was the gent’s name, and he is about as forgotten in pop culture circles as Murray Roman.
However, those who have listened to his amazing spoken-word 1964 LP The Dream World of Dion McGregor know that McGregor was a seminally weird performer — who just happened to never have once performed on a stage (he acted in several films in his early years, but gave up the craft by the 1950s). The mythology on McGregor was that he “sleeptalked” these bizarrely surreal vignettes, which run the gamut from laidback moments of oddball discussion, to vague and hazy trips through queerly-inhabited landscapes, to incidents rife with melodramatic and cartoonish peril. The Dream Life album contained 10 of these dreams, which were taped on reel-to-reel by his songwriting collaborator Mike Barr in their apartment at First Avenue and 53rd St. in NYC, from 1961-1967.
I had heard the album for the first time more than a decade ago, but wasn’t aware until about two weeks back that two CD sequels existed, culled from the same material. All three albums are available online for free (although, of course, I recommend you buy the CDs if you like the material) — but more about that below. First, let me consider the obvious question: what is this stuff? It definitely qualifies as humor of a sort, but it’s not a standard comedy LP. At times one can be convinced that McGregor is insane but, as with Brother Theodore and Jonathan Winters, this is actually a creative person *playing the role* of a crazy person — or, more appropriately, given the mythology, a creative person’s subconscious running wild, on tape.
The question of whether McGregor was for real is addressed in the best biographical article on the man ever published, which can be found here. Author Phil Milstein maintains that he interviewed several people who knew McGregor and saw him actually sleeptalk. He swears that it’s for real. As you listen to the original LP and its CD sequels, however, it’s sorta hard to believe that contention, since McGregor’s pieces, while scattershot (like the best Winters improv sessions), are developed vignettes that have specific characterizations, take their bizarre premises as far as they can possibly go, and have a weird internal rhythm that suggests they weren’t just (ahem) dreamed up out of the blue. The dreams were in fact also converted into print — Dream Life of Dion McGregor book was published in 1964 by Bernard Geis, with illustrations by a very appropriate artist, Edward Gorey.
The most interesting aspect of McGregor’s life to me, is the revelation in Milstein’s article that McGregor was part of the NYC “private film society” scene in the 1950s and ’60s — the folks who where the American equivalent of the Cinematheque/Cahiers crowd, who gathered at various apartments to watch 16mm prints of old movies and attended Manhattan’s many repertory houses together to check out Golden Age classics. McGregor, in fact, had an encyclopedic knowledge of old movies, and had a very large still collection which he supplied to the Citadel Films of… series (he gets co-author credit on The Films of Greta Garbo), which at that time was supervised by Mark Ricci of the Memory Shop (where McGregor worked when he needed dough – and which he mentions in one of his “trips” represented on YouTube [see below]).
I urge you to listen to all of McGregor’s work linked to below, and yes, check the vids and the MySpace if you want a quick fix. Also, read Milstein’s article, which gives you the full story behind the recordings. The long and the short of it was that McGregor was an aspiring songwriter who wanted his work to appear on Broadway, but the closest he got was to have a few songs included in various performers’ nightclub acts and have a few shows mounted off-Broadway (one, co-written by Robert Cobert of Dark Shadows fame, actually made its bow as an “original cast album” of a show that was never actually produced!). His single biggest moment of fame was having Barbra Streisand include one of his and Barr’s tunes (“Where is the Wonder”) on her My Name is Barbra LP and TV special. Dion (his parents named him for Dionysus — little more needs be added) lived from 1922-94, was a New Yorker by birth and disposition, but lived on the West Coast in his latter years with his last partner, whom he met (surprise) at an old movie screening.
The three McGregor albums are truly unlike anything you’ve ever heard. Which is not to say they’re hysterically, laugh-out loud funny. They’re more strange than anything, and in fact, do neatly fit with both the “sick humor” of Lenny Bruce and co., as well as the “black humor” of Southern, Bruce Jay Friedman, Joseph Heller, and friends. While re-listening to the albums today, I was struck by how the stuff could easily be described as the kind of thing that drug-taking artistes would come up with, but to all accounts McGregor was a straight arrow (well, maybe not straight, but…). I wondered if maybe the gent imbibed, because at times he does sound like the later Truman Capote (who was always as sharp as a tack while he was stewed to the gills). Apparently, though, McGregor didn’t indulge in that fashion either. Milstein notes that a few tapes of his real speaking voice exist — among them, an appearance promoting the LP and the hardback book on the Long John Nebel show. On those tapes he speaks differently, so perhaps the somewhat liquored-up effect or slow speech pattern was indeed what he sounded like when he was sleeptalking. Or, of course, the last option: that the voice was just another aspect of his performing and he, along with his friends (and publisher and record producer "witnesses"), made the whole sleeptalking thing up. In any case, whatever the truth may be, the albums are worth hearing, and so we move to the audio portion of the program.
The three albums have been uploaded by Bret B. at Egg City Radio (those who are familiar with the TV scripts of Stanley Ralph Ross will notice that I didn’t go for “eggs-cellent”). I heavily recommend Bret’s blog, which also has links to Lester Bangs’ Jook Savages on the Brazos LP, as well as several National Lampoon Radio Hours. The latter are as fresh and vibrant as when they were recorded in 1973-74, with any single hour as funny as the cumulative Saturday Night Live output for the last 24 years. Lorne Michaels should thank his lucky stars that Mr. Mike existed (as should we).
But back to McGregor. The first album, as noted, is the 1964 Decca LP The Dream Life of Dion McGregor. The dreams are all joined in media res, with McGregor just launching into his character, whether he be a guy reminiscing about a magical girl he knew years before, or a man lamenting “Terrible Town” and wanting to visit “Lovely-ville,” or the greedy relative who wants to write a letter to his uncle using the word “perspicacity,” which he can’t spell. Since there are no samples of this available for fast perusal, I put up the most grisly vision, “The Swimming Pool” on YouTube (“well, that lady died rather uselessly, didn’t she?”). It ends with his stock in trade, a frenzied scream:
The second album was released in 1999.It contained additional “dreams” from the original reel-to-reel tapes, which were apparently kept by Mike Barr all those many years. It is called Dion McGregor Dreams Again, and features dreams that are surreally dirty (I’m thinking Dion was well-aware of not only Lenny but Mr. Burroughs’ mid-day repast). The album is well worth your time, and has its own little website here. The album’s stranger tracks include: “Vulvina,” a visit to see a stripper/psychic who demands that Dion’s character (a frustrated husband) put his head in her vagina; a collector of mythological creatures who finally finds a gryphon (yeah sure, this stuff was all improv-ed from the subconscious); and Dion working as a tattoo artist who has to put “LOVE” and “HATE” on either side of a fat woman’s tongue.
I would recommend that you check out the page put up on MySpace for McGregor which contains a few choice cuts. Also, you can immediately hear the weirdest tracks on Youtube. This is one of the filthier flights of fancy, “The Wagon”:
This one, which mentions TONS of now-long-gone Manhattan movie theaters (and the Memory Shop), is a MUST-LISTEN for New Yorkers who remember what used to be in the way of movie palaces around this burg (“Do you want to go to the Thalia — do you want to go to the Thalia?”):
And a little “thought for the day”:
The third and final album (so far) is from 2004. It’s called The Further Somniloquies of Dion McGregor. My personal fave bit is a loooong routine called "Midget City," but he also has a wonderful trip through a mansion being offered for sale — with different implements of murder in every room. There’s no better way to end this survey of McGregor’s insane fancies than his account of a battle to avoid “the poison éclair,” the exceedingly nutsy “Food Roulette.” And one final question: how come those loud car horns never woke our sleeptalker up?" -
mediafunhouse.blogspot.com


"DION McGREGOR IS the greatest sleeptalker in recorded history. In another age, the brilliance of his slumbered monologues would have seen him branded a spirit medium or a sorcerer, subjected him to persecution for demonic possession, or led to his being declared insane. But in this slightly more enlightened era, sleeptalking as sparkling as Dion McGregor's can only be celebrated. His dream-stories are so unique that a special word had to be coined just to describe them. And so, what you're about to hear are the somniloquies of DION McGREGOR.
Unlike your average garden-variety sleeptalker, whose utterings rarely go beyond a few indistinct words here and there or perhaps the occasional semi-coherent mumbled sentence, Dion McGregor actually dreams out loud, verbalizing fully-realized miniature dramas of the subconscious. His clear articulation is underscored by the noises of the New York City street traffic outside his open second-storey window. The somniloquies of Dion McGregor are among the damnedest sounds you'll ever hear.
In one sense, Dion McGregor's dreams are not really all that different from those of us mortals. Like ours, the premises of his dreams are unearthly takes on real-life events and thoughts, their plots prone to labyrinthine twists and broad leaps of logic. The premise is always resolved (although, alas, in his case almost never happily so). But this is where the similarity to the dreams of ordinary people the dreams of Dion McGregor end. Quite unlike the rest of us, Dion McGregor narrated his dreams, in a fey, slightly distracted and sometimes insolent voice, the irregularity of his cadences only amplifying the hypnotic effect. Only Dion McGregor's dreams were incessantly tape recorded. And only Dion McGregor's dreams were the end-products of such an unbridled subvoluntary imagination.
McGregor's special brand of nocturnal emissions includes puns, rhymes, internal dialogues, made-up songs, sound effects, brogues and dialects, spelling games, existential dilemmas, chase scenes, violent arguments, and even nonsensical "tongues." The characters that inhabit his somniloquies include an ugly woman who'd been married 28 times, a woman with an orifice large enough to house a sideshow tip, an array of post-endangered animal species, various faded screen stars, and the perspicacious old Uncle Horace. His sleeptalking sessions conjure such fantastical scenarios as a cemetery for midgets, a martini eyewash, the Candy of Knowledge, a contest for cunnilinguists, a balloon ride to the moon, the Thumb Your Nose club (founded by Lenny Bruce), and a pastry table that starts its own food fight.
W E GO BACK. Picture New York, New York in its great grey Cold War period -- the city of Automats and Polo Grounds and Flatiron Buildings. The year is 1953, the address 255 E. 50th Street at 2nd Avenue, on the east side of midtown Manhattan. Our protagonist, an indigent wit, lyricist and movie buff named Dion McGregor, has just set himself up as the uninvited houseguest of yet another friend, this one a multitalented, semi-famous entertainer named Carleton Carpenter, who has just been granted his release from an MGM acting contract. McGregor and Carpenter have recently begun writing songs together, McGregor handling the words and Carpenter the music. McGregor, known to his friends as an "inveterate freeloader," an "international freebie," and "the man who came to dinner," has made a temporary home for himself on a slide-out ottoman in Carpenter's living room.
Despite the extravagant street noises intruding into their apartment, and despite the fact that the living room was a long hallway away from Carpenter's bedroom, midnight mutterings were heard. But McGregor's utterances were not yet the clear, spoken-aloud dreams of the sort that comprise this album - the true epiphany was yet to come. McGregor himself would later tell a radio audience (appropriately, in the middle of the night) that he'd been talking in his sleep since he was five years old, but we can presume that back then, too, his talent was not a very well-defined one.
In the late summer or early autumn of 1955, Carpenter's actual roommate returned to New York and McGregor was forced to find another couch to call home. He hiked the few blocks to 961 1st AVENUE (photo courtesy Ellery Eskelin), a nondescript five-storey walkup near the corner of 53rd Street, where another new songwriting partner of his named MICHAEL BARR had an apartment on the second floor. McGregor's sleeptalking was still a very occasional and unremarkable thing, and during this period Barr never even got to hear any of it. McGregor eventually moved (or was moved) up three flights to the apartment of yet another friend, Peter de Rome, a British writer and filmmaker (and later a prominent director of gay erotic films), where he lasted for a year or so as a resident of de Rome's couch.
It was during this year -- 1960, give or take a few months -- that McGregor's sleeptalking finally blossomed, and was ready to be recognized as the rare and marvelous beast that it was. Not having to hear his somniloquies himself, McGregor wasn't especially moved one way or another by them, but de Rome was intrigued. According to the introductory notes McGregor wrote to the book version of The Dream World Of Dion McGregor, de Rome "tried taking the dreams down in longhand, but the words came faster than he could write. I had a good laugh about it and then forgot it." But when de Rome told Barr about the sleeptalking, Barr immediately recognized that he had stumbled onto something special. Barr, a budding composer whose hobby was tape-recording the audio portions of movie musicals off late-night TV, was eager to turn his microphone on McGregor's dreams. McGregor, on the other hand, was not quite so eager to have his dreams turned upon, but for the historical record -- as well as for a more-or-less permanent address -- he would endure. All that he hoped to directly gain from having his dreams recorded were ideas for potential song lyrics. McGregor moved back to the spare twin bed in Barr's living room, where his exceptional talent would be voluminously documented over the course of the next seven years.
Barr's fascination with making these tapes quickly grew to an obsession. The somniloquies would typically arrive just prior to McGregor's awakening, not every morning like clockwork but rather, as if to keep Barr on his toes, four or five days per week. To compensate for their inconstancy, he would sometimes emit more than one dream in a day, amounting to as many as seven separate somniloquies in a single session.
By the time McGregor began speaking each morning, Barr would already be up and waiting for him, the microphone of his second-hand Pentron reel-to-reel recorder (soon upgraded to an Ampex) resting on a pink table behind and slightly above the sleeper's head, his own breath at half-speed in anticipation of the weirdness that was about to arise. The phone would be taken off the hook so its ring -- you never know when someone might need to call you at 6 a.m. -- would not interfere with the dream, nor with the taping of it. The tape deck itself rested in the hallway near Barr's bedroom, the better to smother his face in his pillow to stifle waves of laughter from leaking onto the tape.
By Barr's estimate, he eventually recorded over 500 of his roommate's somniloquies. McGregor complained (lightheartedly, one assumes) in the book's introduction about "the miles of tape that have taken over the apartment." In reality, the 7" reels were stored neatly in their boxes, the boxes stacked in bookshelves along the walls of the living room -- but there were a lot of boxes.
As the collection of tape reels grew, Barr began playing them for some of their friends in New York's theatrical whirl. They eventually reached the ears of producer and talent agent Jules Green, a co-creator of The Tonight Show and manager of Steve Allen, still a hot property at the time. At that point, things quickly moved into high gear. Green was struck by the alien notion of a man who dreams out loud, and by the compounded strangeness of being able to eavesdrop on those dreams. He approached Milt Gabler, A&R director of Decca Records, to suggest that Decca release an audio verité album of the best of the somniloquy tapes.
Gabler was a savvy industry insider with an ear for unique material. He had been the founder of Commodore Records, the world's first independent jazz label, which in 1939 released Billie Holiday singing "Strange Fruit," a song that directly and chillingly addressed the topic of racial lynchings in the South. "Strange Fruit" was so withering that Billie's contracted label, Columbia, had shied away from releasing it. Gabler jumped at the opportunity, and his release of "Strange Fruit" put Commodore on the map. The song's impact remains powerful enough that it merited a full-length article in the September 1998 issue of Vanity Fair, a rare achievement for a single song.
In 1954, by then a member of Decca's A&R staff, Gabler produced a New Jersey-based hillbilly combo doing their best imitation of a rhythm and blues number. The band was Bill Haley & The Comets, the song was "Rock Around The Clock," and alongside a few of Elvis Presley's early RCA releases it ignited the rocknroll era.
To finally make the point, Milt Gabler was a truly wild cat, who decided to release THE DREAM WORLD OF DION McGREGOR (HE TALKS IN HIS SLEEP) (left: album cover), "because I was a nut!" Gabler had no expectation nor even reasonable hope that such a strange album might do any significant business. "I knew it wouldn't be a gigantic seller," he says today, "but I thought I should do it just to show that some people talk in their sleep. This guy told complete stories and that's what I wanted to prove." Gabler adds, as if the point weren't inherently clear, "I did it because it was different." The album of ten dream-tapes was released in January of 1964.
Green also played the tapes for Bernard Geis, a respected book publisher whose imprint was distributed by Random House. Unlike Gabler, Geis was looking for sales. "I thought it might catch on as a novelty," he remembers. "I thought it was quite an unusual book and took a flyer on it." On May 27, 1964, Bernard Geis Associates published THE DREAM WORLD OF DION McGREGOR (right: book cover), a collection of transcriptions of 70 of McGregor's somniloquies.
To render the gorgeous three-color (red, black and a near-golden yellow) cover illustration and the 30 black-and-white line drawings inside, Geis hired Edward Gorey, a high school classmate of his wife's who was just beginning his rise to fame as an illustrator of the whimsical and the macabre. The album jacket used virtually the same cover art as the book, but because of its different shape had to be redrawn from scratch. Gorey lettered both covers by hand, but the album bore a subtitle, (He Talks In His Sleep), that was not conferred to the book. The reason for this difference is uncertain, but it was probably just a matter of space. At a glance, however, it's hard to tell the two covers apart.
The releases were given sparse promotion. On the same day Bernard Geis Associates published The Dream World Of Dion McGregor, they also released a biography of Jean Harlow that was a tie-in to a big-budget movie starring the bombshell Carroll Baker. The Harlow book (which, by perverse irony, included several stills supplied by McGregor) got the lion's share of the company's publicity muscle, but a wee bit still managed to spill over onto their quirky little sleeptalking volume. A bookstore devoted an entire Fifth Avenue window to a display of both the album and the book. The New York Times ran a small ad. In a clever endorsement concept, McGregor was scheduled to appear at a trade show booth sponsored by the Simmons Mattress company, but that fell through. Some television appearances were planned, but they too never came to pass. The few press reviews that trickled in were mixed -- one particularly glowing one in a Tampa newspaper, of all unexpected places, seemed to get it.
The one thing that does remain is a tape of an overnight radio program which aired on July 8, 1964, hosted by bizarro New York talkmaster LONG JOHN NEBEL. Over the course of a midnight-to-5 a.m. roundtable discussion, Nebel subjected McGregor to the taunts of his gang of smug know-it-alls, who alternately play along with and patronize our sleeptalker. But McGregor emerged imperturbed. His wall of defense was erected automatically by the fact that he was never "into" the sleeptalking nearly as much as Barr was, and so he wryly agreed with Nebel's goons that these releases were indeed fairly ridiculous. His bemused detachment allowed him to maintain dignity in the face of a barrage of misdirected spitballs. In typical fashion, Nebel even produced a hypnotist, who brought McGregor under for a while. He elicited snatches of two dreams, one a repeat of a portion of "Peony" (a dream about "a Chinese-Austrian dwarf" which appears both in the book and on the first album), the other a recreation of McGregor's failed attempt to levitate two tables and a roomful of friends. It was the levitation portion that finally impressed the panel, although it's hard to tell whether they were responding more to the dream they heard or to McGregor's telling them, after coming out of the state and hearing a playback of it, that the events he dreamt of actually happened. [transcript]
The album and the book both stiffed. Geis recalls, "I don't think we sold more than six, seven thousand copies," out of an initial press run of ten thousand. The remains were remaindered. Gabler (who really does speak in exclamation points) doesn't recall any numbers on the record, but it still stands out in his memory as "one of the biggest flops I ever put out!" He seemed more proud of the fact than distressed by it.
W ITH McGREGOR'S COOPERATION and Green's supervision, Barr had pulled off a most subversive stunt: he had taken a set of utterly anti-commercial tape recordings and had snookered two major publishing firms into releasing versions of them. Although still as fascinated as ever by their haunting occurrence, there was little more to be accomplished by his taping of further dreams. In 1967 McGregor finally got a place of his own, on E. 3rd Street in a building directly across from the Hell's Angels' stomping ground. He referred to the place as Fear Village, and so naturally didn't spend a whole lot of time there, but he wasn't spending many nights at Barr's apartment anymore, either. Mike Barr was finally forced to hit the Stop button on his tapings of the somniloquies of Dion McGregor.
To this day, though, Michael Barr refers to those tapes as "the paramount thing in my life." Early on, Barr and McGregor started thinking of them as the basis for a musical they would write. They even had a serious nibble towards getting a show produced, but, in a fashion that would repeat itself over and over again in McGregor's professional life, nothing came of it. But it is an idea which Barr has continued to develop over the years. He has finally completed a musical version of The Dream World Of Dion McGregor, which will interweave the original dream-tapes with his own songs and those he and McGregor wrote together. He is currently shopping around a demo tape in the hopes of finding a producer." - Phil Milstein


Download his three albums

Frank Hinton - He is made. In the chapbook he is made when a father dies. He is a kind of child idea, a child born into fiction

Frank Hinton, I Don’t Respect Female Expression, Safety Third Enterprises, 2011.

"Who is Frank Hinton? The author of the newest chapbook from Safety Third Enterprises? Why yes, but more so Frank, a manifested male character, is the voice of a woman searching out for masculinity while on an island of femininity.
“He is made. In the chapbook he is made when a father dies. He is a kind of child idea, a child born into fiction,” Hinton says of her own creation within the narrative walls of I Don’t Respect Female Expression.
Can men and women ever truly understand each other? At our best social moments we come to claim victory by only grasping at the patterns of our sexual opposites. In the grand scheme we stumble clueless. Hinton seeks to get past that, all the while enjoying the juxtaposition of female power and female powerlessness as they stand as a cage and weapon mixed together, a modern cocktail."

“I’s a way and I’s a way to know. I’s not forty thousand dead crabs on a beach. I’s not the dog Will Smith kills in the movie or the photo of your dad’s old paddle boat. But sometimes I is soft and lonely, and sometimes I makes the hole that makes more holes. Frank Hinton makes the I that knows what it holds. Knows without affect, affected by tenderness. When this chapbook asks you to dance, you’ll shake your head no and dance anyway. There’s a lot to be kissed on our trip to the shore.”- Mike Young

"I have focused on Steve Roggenbuck’s latest endeavor, Internet Poetry on this blog before. While the whole site offers a plethora of material yanked from the internet’s general indifference, one piece got stuck in my head. That was Frank Hinton’s piece, which apparently is called “unrequested livejasmin.com pop-up”. I thought about it a lot and decided to find out a little more about this person.
Frank Hinton keeps busy. Halifax, Nova Scotia doesn’t really offer a great deal of activities, excluding an airline (Air Canada Jazz) which elicits some of the angriest emotions I can muster out of my near-uniform polite attitude. I reckon Frank Hinton is the chief exporter of poetry and literature for the general Halifax metropolitan area. Besides writing her own poetry, she’s also an editor and founder of the online literary journal Metazen. Metazen is probably one of the best places to publish literature online, since they tend to curate the work and apply such abnormal things like standards. Originally it started as a place to post her drunken writing. As someone who created a Facebook group for this sole purpose, it is reassuring to know some drunken thoughts transform themselves into full-bodied literary journals.
Obviously she is a female and writes under a male pseudonym Frank who she refers to as “A sad man, a pathetic man”. How she explains it is her enjoyment of ambiguity. Living on a gender pendulum, it allows a greater amount of freedom than simply being thought of as a ‘male’ or ‘female’ writer. There are countless articles explaining how this kind of perception (either as a male or female writer) can create a certain expectation. By using an obvious pseudonym, it makes things more interesting. Her online persona is extremely shadowy, mysterious. We don’t really know much about her besides her writing. Keeping mysterious yet accessible makes the work more interesting, as I find it can be easier to write something when I know I’m anonymous. The pain of writing something with your actual name attached probably contributes to a great deal of dishonesty within literature, as if the writer is trying to impress you in some small way. Frank Hinton’s writing is direct painfully so at times.
She has a few poems lying around in odds and ends. Apparently she also has a chapbook called “I don’t respect female expression” coming out around the end of April from Safety Third Enterprises. But I haven’t read it. So I won’t go over it. Instead, I’ll go over her poems she’s had lying around, whatever I could find basically. Most of these I found on her Spartan-style Tumblr which you can access here. Though I won’t review every one of these, I do recommend reading all of them.
Her piece for Lamination Colony, called “How to be Me, an Instructional Video narrated by Frank Hinton” shows a certain playfulness. In here you learn how to hate people on a bus, chew off your fingernail in public (which is an actual skill) and how to avoid negative thinking upon waking up. Since she does have this on the internet, she explains how to post online in order to flame or remain anonymous (both good choices). Along with these apparent instructions is the final sentence which states “You were once a child and you had it all”. That’s probably one of my favorite lines of hers. Children get lucky with the amount of happiness they get. Then come teenage years they grow overly angst-ridden and depressed. Finally, in their twenties they begin trying to improve themselves through questionable practices of self-help, self-improvement and other endeavors of dubious merit.
Relationships get a lot of attention in her poetry. Every word she uses has a distinct meaning or conveys a particular meaning. In “I’d be a Barbie without him” she takes on a female persona. Frank becomes one of the antagonists in this story/poem. Jumping between ages, you see the evolving attitude and increasing knowledge of sexuality. Some of it is humorous, like at age 17 when she tried to return the rock to Glenn but Glenn didn’t live there anymore. Other instances show Frank as a 12 year old, then what I’d think was a first-time at 18, I could be wrong. Everything is in shadows here. Nothing really is fully explained, but as time progresses; certain numbness sets in followed by a plea at the end.
Part of my joy reading these are how well she describes various feelings about love. Love is a difficult thing to write about without falling into the extremes of anger, sadness, despair, happiness, coy, and so on. Frank Hinton avoids these. She writes things with an honesty that’s hard to find. Being honest could be funny or tragic, it depends on the circumstances and often her work can be both. Her chapbook will explore these themes even further." - Beach Sloth

"If you are at all involved in the online lit community you have most likely heard (or read, as it might be) the name Frank Hinton. Hinton is the mastermind behind Metazen, but she is also one of the community’s most vibrant voices. Now, with her first chapbook, I Don’t Respect Female Expression Hinton is poised to take an even larger share of the community into the folds of her words, her vision.
Coming from Safety Third Enterprises, the folks behind the wildly successful He Is Talking to the Fat Lady by xTx, Hinton’s chapbook feels like a natural follow-up direction to xTx’s collection. What the two share as writers is stark honesty, the inability to pussyfoot around, and a fearlessness when it comes to the words they choose to put to paper. For instance in “Father/Daughter” Hinton writes from the perspective of a girl who is remembering seeing her father’s penis.
Hinton writes with a poet’s sensibility. Her stories are fragments of realism wrapped in dream sequences. “I want to create a machine with our tongues revolving around one another,” she writes in “Something Pure and Good.” And you will find yourself nodding, hoping along with Hinton’s narrator that such a thing could be possible.
Like any good chapbook, I Don’t Respect Female Expression will make you ache for more of Hinton’s work. It will make you feel Hinton’s loneliness, uncertainty, and yes, bravery. It will tell you of the promise in Hinton’s words, and it will make you believe that she will continue to deliver."- Ryan W. Bradley

"The collection is comprised of eleven fiction pieces of varying shapes and sizes, and Hinton writes with a somber, meditative ease.
From A Starting Place:
“In the curl of the banister I rest my head. I put two slugs of clementine into my mouth and wish they’d melt. Of course, I need to chew. This is my favorite place in the house. My back fits well on the wood. My head feels good on the curl.”
It’s the simple observations of this piece that make it so damn endearing despite its brevity. That’s not to say that short work can’t be good; it’s just not always easy, and some of the shorter works in this collection don’t always break off cleanly.
I felt the struggles for depth in the short form were most apparent in Father/Daughter and Make a Man. In the former, a young daughter sees her father’s penis, and, years later, reflects on the incident and the overall bond the two of them shared. It’s a good idea and it strives to be a touching story, but in this instance I felt the brevity worked against it, as did the emotional, telling catch-all, “I loved my father very much.” I enjoyed this story, I simply wanted more.
The concise pieces in this collection challenge us to accept them, oftentimes earning their way with addictive architectures like the one found in A Material That Doesn’t Exist,
“I put in a cherry tomato and took it out. I put a baby carrot up there and took it out. I put an egg up there and pushed it out and the eggshell didn’t break.”
or with expertly executed verse fiction like the kind found in Fake Kiss,
“You took me to a beach. You put me on a blanket where I shivered in the wind. You pointed at the playing children and laughed. You kicked a castle back to sand.”
My favorite piece in this collection is the lengthier All Of The People In These Pictures Are Dead Now, a wonderfully crafted study of tragedy and loss. Hinton gave herself some room to move here, and it served the work well:
“Here’s a picture of Janice Baker sitting on a wooden bench at the park holding her exposed left breast. This might be my favorite picture. I’ve looked at it so many times. Janice won’t care that I’m showing you this, at least not in this realm because she’s dead.”
Overall, this is a solid collection that employs themes of love, loss, and impermanence, and it’s at its best when stretching its legs, rolling in the poetry of second person, or simply relaxing. Frank Hinton and Safety Third Enterprises have done it again, and I can’t wait to see what both of them have in store for us down the road." - Mel Bosworth

A Conversation with Frank Hinton By Brad Green

Emotionally dissonant but solvable: An interview with Frank Hinton

Metazen

Frank Hinton's blog

Who Is Really "Bullying?" - Academic Leaders and the Stifling of Critics of Conflicts of Interests

Universities, which are supposed to discover and disseminate knowledge, ought to be the foremost defenders of free speech and a free press.  However, in the past decades, university executives have become notorious for trying to control speech that offends their political sensibilities (for numerous examples, see the FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education web-site.) 

It seems that academic leaders get even more upset when their or their faculties' conflicts of interest are criticized, as demonstrated by updates about two important cases we have discussed.

Columbia University

We recently posted about reactions at the university to revelations in the movie "Inside Job" that the Dean of the Business School and one of its prominent professors failed to disclose pay they received that might have motivated their enthusiastic promotion of economic policies that helped contribute to the Great Recession. 

These reactions occurred six months after the movie came out.  A Columbia Spectator student columnist asked why it took so long:
Why have students waited until April to address the consequences of “Inside Job” when the film was released in October? Why has our reaction been delayed by seven months?

Her postulated answer:

Why should Columbia need an outside documentary to point out its ethical failures?

Embedded in the Spectator news article about the film—published April 15— is a quote from University Senator Liya Yu that offers a frightening answer to our question about the delayed student reaction. 'I think people in the Business School haven’t responded because they are afraid,' Yu was quoted saying. 'If you are the dean of a school, obviously all the students are going to be dependent on you for their careers and futures. It’s hard for them to do anything.' I think this explanation extends to students beyond those currently enrolled in the Business School. In fact, its implications pose a threat to student journalism as a whole. For the first time in history, everything that a student journalist writes during his or her time in college is published on the Internet. This is a good thing for many reasons: It increases readership, allows writers to cross-reference easily, etc. But it also creates a permanent, compromising memory that is available forever to anyone who seeks it.

From the moment the college application process began, we were told that the content of our Facebook profiles could be used against us in admissions. We have learned to censor our traceable online behavior so as not to compromise our professional or educational prospects. Unfortunately, this has led to journalistic over-caution. We fear that anything we say now will be used against us later. And maybe it’s true. After all, not enough time has passed for us to take a careful account of the degree to which students’ first publications can affect their futures. Even editors have advised me to mitigate the strongest claims in my columns for fear of consequences to come. Perhaps they are right. But the most insidious kind of censorship—the hardest to recognize, the hardest to combat—is self-censorship, the persistent imaginative failure that prevents us from even recognizing what we should be writing about.

In the Internet age, bravery in student journalism is not trailing a military unit on the Iraqi front lines. Rather, it is the willingness to address controversial issues as they surface, not once these points of view have become popular. Our brand of fear—which is frankly selfish—censors our thoughts almost unnoticed. Next time, let’s skip the delayed reaction. I for one hope to do better.

So students may fear challenging conflicted faculty or administrators for fear of immediate academic punishment and future harm to career prospects in a society in which criticism of acquisitive leaders is decreasingly tolerated.

University of Minnesota

Earlier this year we posted about the troubling case of the death of an ostensibly voluntary participant in a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota years ago.  A particular concern was whether the money they received from the trial's sponsor influenced faculty and university leaders to overlook problems that might have put patients at risk in a trial whose main goal was marketing, not science.

The case got recent attention in an article by Dr Carl Elliott, a university professor of bioethics, and a letter he signed with other faculty requesting a new university inquiry into the case.  Not only did the university administration rebuff this request, but it now seems to be looking for ways to deter any future criticism of the institution's human research.  As reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education,
At the prompting of the University of Minnesota's general counsel, a committee of the University Senate has taken up the question of how faculty should collectively respond to "factually incorrect attacks" on particular faculty research.

Some faculty members say that direct appeal from the general counsel, Mark B. Rotenberg, is an attempt to quiet some faculty members' criticism of drug trials conducted at the university, including one seven years ago in which a participant, Dan Markingson, committed suicide. Before they took up the general counsel's question at a meeting this month, members of the university's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee were provided with copies of material related to that case, including a letter sent by eight bioethicists to the Board of Regents last fall, asking it to appoint a panel of outside experts to examine the ethical issues raised by the death.

Committee members discussed with two administrators who attended that meeting, on April 8, whether faculty members have a responsibility to respond to attacks on fellow faculty members, according to minutes from the meeting; failure to do so, one professor said, could be seen as parallel to 'bullying.'

Professor Carl Elliott, who wrote the Mother Jones article that brought the recent unpleasantness of the Markingson case back into the public view, was concerned:
In an interview, Mr. Elliott said the general counsel's actions are troubling. Instead of fostering an open discussion about research practices, Mr. Rotenberg, and by extension the university administration, is attempting to use the faculty senate as a 'stalking horse' for intimidation and punitive action, Mr. Elliott said.

It defies common sense that Dr Elliott, representing only his own intellect and knowledge of ethics, was the "bully" in this case, while Mr Rotenberg, representing the university hierarchy, and the faculty members who ran the trial in which Mr Markingson died were the victims. As University of Minnesota faculty member Karen-Sue Taussig, a medical anthropologist, said per the Bioethics Forum:
I was worried the committee might be being used to intimidate a member of the faculty who was critical of the University. It seemed to me that there was a logical inconsistency in the University counsel's position: he did not provide any evidence that any individual faculty member felt chilled by Carl's work, yet his bringing up the issue clearly posed the threat of chilling Carl's speech. . . . In short, I was concerned about the possibility of an Orwellian attempt to invoke academic freedom in order to chill academic freedom.

By the way, there is also nothing to suggest that Dr Elliott's work was "factually incorrect."  Per the Bioethics Forum:
Philosopher and historian of science Ken Waters, who also attended the second meeting, was just as concerned. 'The University's general council planted a false question, the implicature of which [the committee] seemed to be uncritically accepting (that Carl was advancing factually incorrect claims),' he wrote to me in an e-mail. 'And in planting the question, the counsel was trying to turn the tables and squelch my colleagues' academic freedom by somehow suggesting that they were impinging upon the academic freedom of others.'

In the 1980s and 1990s, university administrators tended to attack speech they felt was hurtful to minorities and women, using speech codes (again as has been amply demonstrated by FIRE). Now they seem most sensitive to speech critical of their own exercise of power, and of the cozy financial relationships that generate conflicts of interest and threaten the academic mission.  Furthermore, now that it has become fashionable to decry "bullying," "anti-bullying" initiatives may become the chief way to quell criticism that make academic leaders uncomfortable.

Summary

At one time, university administrators and favored faculty justified attacks on free enquiry, a crucial part of the academic, by claiming a higher political or social purpose.  Now they seem to be willing to trash the core values of academia to stifle critics of their own actions, especially those involving lucrative conflicts of interest.   Such actions may be a major cause of the anechoic effect.
Increasingly, academic institutuions seem to be run more for the personal benefit of their leaders and their cronies than to discover and disseminate knowledge.  True health care reform would return academic medicine to its fundamental purpose, and return its leadership to those who would uphold the mission rather than fill their pockets.  

Hat tip to Ed Silverman in the PharmaLot blog re the University of Minnesota case.  See also comments by Prof William Gleason in the Periodic Table blog, e.g., here and here, and by Gary Schwitzer in the HealthNewsReview blog.

Richard Froude - At first seem like high-stakes non-sequiturs, then a study in perfect, surprising aphorism, then a deftly woven web of profundity

Richard Froude, Fabric, Horse Less Press, 2011.

"The complexities of alienation hybridize the mouth, double the tongue. The logic of Froude’s syntax gives us, mercifully, the poetics of the divided tongue: in the space between multiple possibilities, we are invited to trespass our own borders . . . that we might – finally – hear (and learn to speak) radical change and transformation. FABRIC is a remarkable and necessary book, a wonderful achievement." - Selah Saterstrom

"Of FABRIC: Accepting whatever its elegant sentences say, in their not conventional logic, I’m convinced it contains whatever I need to understand it. It says it’s about memory, numbers (sequence), consciousness. . . And I guess it is, I really like reading it (a big compliment). Being in the fabric of it, though it is so mysterious – an amazing book." - Alice Notley

"I love Richard Froude’s declarative, incandescently plain sentences, which at first seem like high-stakes non-sequiturs, then a study in perfect, surprising aphorism, then a deftly woven web of profundity. The formal distillation and intellectual range of this book are impressive enough; even more so is Froude’s gentle but insistent touching on questions of God, mortality, war, memory, family, intimacy, and history. Froude sets up poetic shop in the fraught space between ‘terror and fertility,’ and wrests from it this exceptionally beautiful, intelligent book." - Maggie Nelson

"This is a British blurb, because we were both born in England. Richard Froude is sort of brilliant. To translate: he is a complete and utter bloody genius. I am thrilled to stand behind this gorgeous, fused book. I remember when I met Richard, and we sat on some stairs at Naropa. I tried to explain to him that he was doing something strange and beautiful in his writing, that was different to other kinds of writing. I said: 'Have you ever considered the possibility that you're actually a novelist?' He looked at me blankly, but now I think the prediction has come true. What is a novel? That's separate. Ask Richard. Ask the person who mutates the given form." - Bhanu Kapil

“The United States contains at least ten cities of Bristol. Each is in a different state: Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Maine.
We flew home from Orlando International on July 17th, 1992. I took everything: pamphlets, menus, cups, even a toilet roll wrapped in Mickey Mouse paper. I believed that if I carried these things with me, then they would stay with me, become part of me. I mention this in relation to Frank Sinatra, Howard Carter and the realization that in these rooms inside apartments we are collecting the items that will grant us passage.
This is how Bristol, Indiana exists as the dream of Bristol, England. And America, as it is known, as the waking dream of all who have arrived. What is known as the American Dream is a reduction. The common and singular dream of these dreams simplified into linear narrative. I am trying to write the perfect American story: the book whose name is God.
It becomes difficult to explain just what is happening in American poet Richard Froude’s first trade collection Fabric without wanting to quote from large swaths of this extended narrative, this extended essay-poem.
Subtitled “Preludes to the Last American Book,” Froude’s Fabric is even difficult to describe in terms of straight lyric poetry, despite the many qualities they share, existing somewhere between prose and poetry, but something other than the straight “prose poem.”
There is a sharp and deepening wisdom here, writing out a series of narrative threads that begin to reveal themselves, later on in the book, and wrap around each other, swirling across breathless pages. How do his poems manage to know so much? As he writes:
I have tried to understand death as related to the idea of waking. I am not certain of the name for this relation. It may be more appropriate to ask somebody better acquainted with mathematics.
We drove to a beach where the rock was said to be rich with fossils. I knew about ammonites and trilobites and harbored dreams of owning a metal detector.
Fossils, like windows, are moments of discourse. Music is distinct from the measurement and transcription of sound. It is a form of recurrence.
I have tried to understand waking as the moment when the world ceases to make sense. Maybe one day everything with be collected in sequence and bound with leather.” - Rob McLennan

„I just got a copy two days ago and read it in two sittings: the first in the downstairs handicapped bathroom at my college’s student center, and the second while wrangling my youngest daughter. In both sessions, it seemed like time well spent, with essayistic entries–prose poems, poetic prose, linked and lovely and learned–dancing from page to page. It’s more lean and perhaps less ambitious than other poetic prose meditations, and yet it is that small scale, that personal cabaret performance, that makes this a cut above for me.
“Every book is an account of its own failure,” Froude writes.
But what a failure! I haven’t looked up who Froude is, other that he is on the young side (gleaned from the bio) and has blurbs from the right people to get this book in the right hands (Alice Notley, Maggie Nelson, others). Here’s hoping you’ll pick it up.“ - Daniel Nester

„Prediction:
Richard Froude’s FABRIC: Preludes to the Last American Book is a sentence you will be hearing.
Wolf in a Field heard it from Seth Landman, and we hear it here (or you heard it from ____ _______ or from Selah Saterstrom, Alice Notley, Maggie Nelson, or Bhanu Khapil, who gets it just right in her “British blurb”:
I tried to explain to [the author] that he was doing something strange and beautiful in his writing, that was different to other kinds of writing. I said: “Have you ever considered the possibility that you’re actually a novelist?” He looked at me blankly, but now I think the prediction has come true. What is a novel? That’s separate. Ask Richard. Ask the person who mutates the given form.
Yesterday I tore FABRIC–its subtitle calls to mind, as does, at first crack, the blocks of poem and days inside, Claudia Rankine’s Don’t Let Me Be Lonely: An American Lyric; its title, in turn, reminds one of another Richard (Rick Myersº) and the other Mayer, Rosemary, whose 41 Fabric Swatches I recently cataloged: does anyone know if there were ever swatches?–from an envelope, in which it was buffered by Thuggery and Grace (ed. Froude, Anne Waldman, & Erik Anderson), which is mailed to you, while it lasts, if you ask for it. Ask for it. Thing starts with Renee Gladman’s “Syntax and the Event of Reading”, which starts “I want to talk to you today about two possibilities of the sentence”: when Renee Gladman–who was reading, when I first read FABRIC, in the City where Lutz will be reading, as I read it again, with Lisa Robertson at SpaceSpace in the Poetry Time between; damn “I do not live in New York” (meaning: move) is a lonely sentence: at least there’s now a Poetry Time audio archive and there’s always when Gladman–wants to talk to you about the possibilities of the sentence, you listen. (Gladman: “It is usually from this perspective that the sentence begins to align itself with the city.” Froude in FABRIC: “I tried but could not write the city.”)
Also inside are two hearted Ohio poems by Sasha Steensen, Ohio’s own Merrill Gilfillan, goodgraphs from Noah Eli Gordon‘s Dysgraphia, Laura Elrick, and more, including two poems by Susan Scarlata, whose It Might Turn Out We Are Real is the other first full-length offering from Horse Less Press, of chapbook fame: Tobin, Cohen, Schapira, Schomburg, Starkweather, Browning, Rexilius, Becker, and so many more, including forthcomers Brian Foley, and Jennifer Denrow (four poems in T&G, and more at Brave Men Press), who took just the right photograph on the cover of FABRIC, which does everything I like to see a book do. Hear it go:
FABRIC: A Prelude to the Last American Book. A preliminary catalog.
• Memorable epigraphs from Jabes, WCW, Woolf, Dock Ellis (…”I was zeroed in on the glove, but I didn’t hit the glove too much.”…), Jabes, etc.
• It has four sections (the fourth, anti-first, has three parts, the fifth section is a Preface), begins alphabetically (“At Bristol Zoo”) enough and ends equally. The sixth section is a blank canvas dashes everything forever
• St. George, New Year’s Day, all the days of the week, all the days/months/years, Deleuze/Cortazar/Darwin/Lincoln, The Great Fire of London and Portland stone, Wittgenstein’s (sister/perfection/design) “genius”/”failure,” Emerson/Sappho, Giotto, Caravaggio, Sartre, Satie:
From the first section, TYPE:
What is 1982?
A silent movie.
What is silence?
Simultaneously a window and a bird. Like similar movies, it would have often been accompanied by piano. When Erik Satie claimed to be a phonometrician rather than a musician, he meant that he measured and wrote down sounds. The word ‘poet’ makes me uncomfortable.
Like Satie (like Cage after, like Duchamp and Dickinson and Coolidge during), like Gladman, like Lutz, like Robertson, like Jabes, like Rosmarie Waldrop, like WC(like Diane)W, like Woolf (before Borges before Homer before Joyce), like Dock Ellis (like Eliot Weinberger), like Genya Turovskaya‘s DEAR JENNY (like Jenny Boully, like Jennifer Martenson’s UNSOUND), like Jean Day, like Stephen Rodefer, like Steve Benson, like Michelle Taransky, like Blake Butler & Dana Ward (Happyesterday), like Gertrude Stein, like Donald Sutherland (tho I guess Gallop said: “Pigeons on the granite, damn it.”), like Judy Garland (Wizard of Oz is all over FABRIC and vice versa), Richard Froude is a writer who makes lines (“straight and jagged”: between blanks, between other lines, between poetry and prose) uncomfortable.
{Placeholder: perhaps this post is a prelude to a new breed of Hybrid, measured with due louditude to New Wave/York/School(s) and (Big Other’s) New Sentence, & on the analogy of Vila-Matas’ Writers of the No, Writers of the Third Word? Probably not, tho I just read in Lewis Freedman’s notebook from when he was writing The Third Word: “measure / meant”}
When Satie enters, early in the book, I put on his furniture music, and was rewarded four pages later:
What is night?
It is best understood as rhythm. We gave most of our furniture away.
On the back of FABRIC, Khapil asks, What is a novel? In the first section alone, the book answers: What is 1982? What is silence? What is night? Another answer:
What is transition?
A movement between states. I am trying to remember the various ways I’ve understood the afterlife. For example, my uncle [...]
In Sartre’s No Exit, it takes the form of what the Eagles sing about in Hotel Californi–a strange boarding house from which departure is deceptively impossible. [...]
Similarly, I believed that when I died my mind would freeze. Whatever I was thinking at that moment I would think forever. At times when I suspected mortal danger (before a rollercoaster, on a plane) I would think only the best thoughts I could. This still seems reasonable. What troubles me is that I can’t remember what any of those thoughts were.
What follows are four more answers to “What is 1982?” (A Dorothy, Atari, Apocalpyse, and Augustine are not the answers, but close.)
In the second section, CONTEXTURE, another type of answer:
So, it is a work of becoming?
It is a work of straight and jagged lines onto which language is superimposed. The chamber does not exist in the original pattern but in the curvature that language affords. Such was the response of the patent office. Such is the story of the drugstore.
Midway through A Confederate General from Big Sur, Richard Brautigan refers to the ‘rivets in Ecclesiastes.’ Specifically, this is a reference to his lead character Jesse’s method of reading by punctuation. When I started writing this I understood its relation to the preceding although now it isn’t as clear. I think I am remembering Erik Satie: reading (as well as writing) can exist as a practice of measurement.
And another:
On a website where users post questions for others to answer, between ‘What does your birthday mean?’ and ‘How do Volcanoes work?’ I found ‘Have you ever seen a dead body?’
The third section, THE DASHES (A SILENT MOVIE, A DREAM) has answers by the name of Alfred:
Insistence on decisive battle will be retained into the twenty first century. I can offer no illustration but this mirror. Am I to play Alfred? I think so, for now.
In place of logic, may I offer you these trinkets?
Here are my medals. Here is my gun. Her silence is white. / Cut with a dah or needle. / Dear Marjorie: These are my wishes of the season.
I want to type everything that plays out between Alfred and Marjorie and THE DASHES, but I will stop short. I will type only three more pieces of many:
This disrupts the logic of prayer. The text becomes deranged, split into its constituent parts (though these parts are themselves deranged: one molecule strontium, one molecule zinc).
These are weak bonds, the likes of:
DASH#1 Sticks
DASH #2 Straw
DASH#3 An old brick shithouse

After he was born it took Yuri Gagarin 34 years to die. It took Alfred only 40.
In the corresponding illustration, a garden. Alfred leads me down a path lined with pink rhododendron. he has led me this way before. Beneath a yew tree we stop at the bust of a gorilla. Its name is Alfred. We stare at it for days.
Such a prayer is conceived without discernible truth value.
I chew these terms until they turn to powder.
_ _ _
There was a rumor that ‘all’ meant ‘everything.’
There was a rumor that to breathe was forbidden.
Don’t you have a machine that puts food in the mouth and pushes it down?
In that excerpt, the three (actual) dashes (which actually top every page in every section) represent a page break. The next page looks (partly) like this:
What is a novel? The third section, like the whole book, begins with a book (a “prayer book”: but turning the page we learn that “The first eighty consist of three short plays”) and ends (after eleven wildly entertaining pages) almost as it began (“By January”). In between, it asks “Is this the argument?” (The third dash is offstage, but answers anyway.)
The fourth section, OCEANOGRAPHY (ANTI-TYPE) has two enviable epigraphs (Jabes, again–What, in fact, haunts me, is the last book: the one we will never write and which all our books try to look like, just as the universe in its becoming each day resembles a little more the pre-existing universe.–and Hejinian: Sway is built into skyscrapers, since it is natural to trees.) and three numbered parts (dashes?). One paragraph, respectively, from each:

1. Typically, recollections such as these are misconstrued. I first caught sight of her through stained glass windows. Her arms colored orange, her neck a deep blue and the twelve apostles danced sadly upon her saffron forehead. She drew my attention away from the vestry. Led it out onto the lawn. I followed her through the dusky streets as the last operational lighthouse, suspected of barbituate manufacture, quietly roused the trawlers.
2. Dear Gretl: I know that an American book is a book of movement. I know that movement is only seldom accompanied by silence. On her first night in the hospital, Marjorie heard a heart monitor flatline. It was the heart monitor of a woman two beds down on the opposite side of the ward. This is the ward to which I always return.
3. The last book is the unwritable book. The book that by its absence enables aperture, the means by which we touch the world. Jackie says that dying is like waking then realizing the life you thought you’d lived was a dream. And from this, instead of a new day, all that begins is your own absence. I have been calling him Jackie but his name is also Alfred. I can carry him no further.
Finally, a paragraph from 5. APOLOGIES FOR THE TIN MAN (A PREFACE), the last section of the book (at least the last with words) and the first with blanks:



What is a novel? What it’s not is not new.
Whatever else it is, FABRIC is a BOOK.
GO, etc.
ºI don’t know if Rick Myers is actually named Richard, but I’ve been wanting to remind myself to write about his work as well and why not now. After all, it fits this post that the work currently at the top of his page is called (in part) “(Afterimage Prologue)”- Nathaniel Otting

„ How did your first book change your life? How does your most recent work compare to your previous? How does it feel different?
- In a way my first book was Tarnished Mirrors, my translation of Baudelaire. Then followed two chapbooks. Although the second of these—The History of Zero—was a book length manuscript, it always felt like stuff I had to work through before I wrote a “first book.” So I’m going to talk about FABRIC in this question. That’s what I think of as my first book.
It stopped the anxious feeling that nobody would ever deem a book I wrote publishable. Other than that, if anything changed my life it was the circumstances in which I wrote the book forcing me to face things I had avoided for a long time. This was not because of the book, but the book was because of these circumstances. In the time I was writing most of FABRIC I often found myself overcome with sadness and anxiety. I was meeting with a counsellor who encouraged me to address the things I was feeling by writing: chiefly, absence from my home country, issues with my health and ultimately my own mortality. These were not things I wanted to think about. It’s not like I’m “over that” now, but you could say that being present with those thoughts has changed my life, that is, my interior and imaginary life. Day to day things are pretty much the same.
I think the biggest difference I feel in my recent work comes from allowing myself to stop consciously trying to be a poet because it was something I felt I should do. I have divorced that title. I don’t need it and, of course, it doesn’t need me. If people say I am a poet that’s fine. I just don’t need them to. Now I can write whatever I want.
How did you come to poetry first, as opposed to, say, fiction or non-fiction?
- Well, I don’t think I really did come to poetry first. I don’t necessarily consider FABRIC to be a book of poetry. I’ve been more comfortable thinking about it as nonfiction. I have been to school twice for writing and only applied to those two schools. The first time I had to decide what genre I was writing in was when I applied to the MFA at Naropa. I applied to poetry because you only needed 15 pages of writing rather than 30 for fiction. I was only confident in 15 of my pages. Then when I applied to the DU PhD, although I had not written what I considered to be a poem for two or three years, I applied in poetry because I generally prefer the conversations that happen around poetry over those around fiction or nonfiction. I think the conversation around nonfiction is changing for the better and is now more interesting to me than poetry. But things change all the time.
How long does it take to start any particular writing project? Does your writing initially come quickly, or is it a slow process? Do first drafts appear looking close to their final shape, or does your work come out of copious notes?
- I make lots of notes. I love notes. I don’t know about how long things take to get started, it really varies from piece to piece. But when it happens, it happens very quickly, then nothing for weeks, then an amazing three hours.
Where does a poem usually begin for you? Are you an author of short pieces that end up combining into a larger project, or are you working on a "book" from the very beginning?
- I nearly always write with the larger work in mind. I think perhaps I write more like a novelist in that way. Am I a novelist? A nonfiction novelist? Maybe I am. I very rarely write shorter pieces that are not part of my larger work. When I do, they often find their way into the project.
Are public readings part of or counter to your creative process? Are you the sort of writer who enjoys doing readings?
- That’s interesting to think of readings as part of the creative process. I hadn’t thought of that but yes, absolutely, they are part of my creative process. They press me to make my work as good as it can be. It’s one thing to have it on my computer or even published in a book or magazine. It’s another to stand up in the flesh and deliver it to people. I do enjoy giving readings. I think I’m quite good at them and I love doing things I think I’m good at. Shooting pool, Gameboy Tetris, Facebook Scrabble.
Do you have any theoretical concerns behind your writing? What kinds of questions are you trying to answer with your work? What do you even think the current questions are?
- I don’t know what the current questions are. More important to me is that I know what some of my questions are. I do not anticipate satisfactory answers. I think there are also questions I am addressing that I don’t even know I am addressing, or am unable to articulate. I don’t mean to suggest these questions originate with me. They are just the things I come back to:

What does it mean to be alive? What happens when we die? Why do we die? What does “God” mean? Where have I come from? Why do I think I am the person I think I am? Why does this feel like that which also feels like the other? Why do I miss everyone so much? How will all this information around me help? How can I express any of this in language?
I think of these questions less as theoretical concerns and more as just concerns. I mean, qualifying them as theoretical (even if it’s correct) feels unnecessary. I do not come to writing with a theory of how any of these questions might be answered. I want to think of writing as begetting theory in its own becoming. I want to, so I do.
What do you see the current role of the writer being in larger culture? Does s/he even have one? What do you think the role of the writer should be?
- Yes, writers have a role in larger culture. Everyone has a role in culture.
I think the writer’s role should be to discern and express things that matter, undertaken with brutal and disarming honesty about these things and themselves. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done in fiction. I think the core of fiction is honesty.
What matters? Well, do you feel something deeply and powerfully? Does it frighten or overwhelm you? Does it fill you with joy, dread, love, compassion etc.? Does it feel like premonition? Does it not leave you alone? If the answer to any of these questions is yes then it probably matters. When Pound famously said that literature is news that stays news he was pretty much on it.
But, all this said, whatever role you want, that’s your role. You decide. Who am I to tell any writer—or anyone—what they should be doing?
Do you find the process of working with an outside editor difficult or essential (or both)?
- I’ve only had to do it twice and both times I found it difficult, although I must say that the two people I worked with were very intelligent, talented, generous people. It didn’t matter. It was still very difficult for me. Both of these occasions were journal publications. I’m still open to the process. I think I can see how it could be amazing.
What is the best piece of advice you've heard (not necessarily given to you directly)?
- “In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. ‘Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,’ he told me, ‘just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.’”
That’s what came to mind. My own literary pretensions aside, it certainly bears remembering, especially if, like me, you happen to be a straight, white male.
How easy has it been for you to move between genres (poetry to translation)? What do you see as the appeal?
- The notion of genre has very little appeal to me as a writer. As such, movement between genres appeals as an act of quiet subversion, especially when that movement can occur without moving at all. That is, to stay still and let other’s ideas of genres move around you. This may seem passive. I’m fine with that because I don’t think it is. Imagine there’s no country. It isn’t hard to do. I love how John Lennon described that song as the Communist Manifesto set to music. I also love how in this interview (http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/book/?fa=customcontent&GCOI=15647100621780&extrasfile=A09F76BE-B0D0-B086-B653FFBC137719A6.html) Kathy Acker talks about Pasolini’s refusal of separation as an approach to genre. It turns the passive into active: an intentional act of refusal.
Excerpts from the project I’ve been working on have been published as fiction, nonfiction and poetry. I see no generic distinction between these excerpts, now or as I was writing them. I mentioned my strained relation to the title of “poet.” My major trouble was thinking of it as something I could call myself. I prefer to think of it as a destination, something others can attribute to you.
I was talking to a writer in New York about this and he said that by choosing to publish writing as a particular genre you are giving instructions on how it should be read. I respect this but I do not feel the need to give that particular instruction. It feels more like a limit. I don’t want limits. Open the doors! Go crazy!
I think moving between translation and my own work is a different question. To me, translation is the greatest apprenticeship I could possibly take on. It feels very different to my own writing. In translation, I am much more concerned with the text beginning at the level of the word rather than the sentence. I love how the intimacy with a text I have translated leaks into my own work. For example, I translated the “Song of Songs” last year. I have found that syntax possessing my current writing in the strangest ways.
What kind of writing routine do you tend to keep, or do you even have one? How does a typical day (for you) begin?
- I wake up, use the bathroom, feed the cats, read the internet (email, Facebook, ESPN, BBC, Wikipedia), eat toast and Marmite. Most days I don’t physically write. I mean, I write emails and lists and all that, but I don’t generate writing that is part of my creative practice. I make this physical distinction because every day I think about it and this thinking constitutes the largest part of my creative practice.
When your writing gets stalled, where do you turn or return for (for lack of a better word) inspiration?
- I tend to just let it stall. It has taken me a lot of time and anxiety to get to a place where I am OK to do that. I think I’m there now. The writing always comes back. If I notice that I’m not writing a lot then I make a conscious effort to read more.
What fragrance reminds you of home?
- I have no real answer so I will tell you this: the year after college I moved back to live with my mum. I drove to work every morning at 6am past the docks and the industrial estates. On one side of the highway was a huge bakery (more like a bread factory), on the other side a chemical works. The smell was amazing but something wasn’t right. I’d always get a whiff of chemical scent mixed with the fresh bread. I couldn’t tell where one smell ended and the other began. That was in Bristol in 2001. I’ve lived in Colorado now on and off for 6 years. Whenever it’s about to snow, Denver smells like dogshit.
David W. McFadden once said that books come from books, but are there any other forms that influence your work, whether nature, music, science or visual art?
- The books I am interested in reading and writing come from everything. I wrote out a huge long list of things I am influenced by then deleted it because I realized I was trying to write down everything that I can remember. I tried to answered this question in depth in conversation with Selah Saterstrom (www.zeroducats.com/resources/Conversation.pdf). But, to address the idea that books come from books: books have to originate in engagement, engagement doesn’t have to originate in a book.
What other writers or writings are important for your work, or simply your life outside of your work?
- I’m going to make this list that will surely leave off many I should have included. The most important writers to me have been: Allen Ginsberg, Alice Notley, James Joyce, William Blake, Marie Redonnet, Kathy Acker, Kenneth Patchen (especially The Journal of Albion Moonlight), Neil Young, Bob Dylan, William Carlos Williams, Richard Brautigan, Roland Barthes, Edmond Jabès, Jack Kerouac, Virginia Woolf, Whitman, Emerson, JD Salinger, Donald Barthelme, The Bible. Then the other hundred I didn’t mention.
Thinking of contemporary writers, I am energized by the writing of (among others) Renee Gladman, Erik Anderson, Bhanu Kapil, Maggie Nelson, Claudia Rankine and Selah Saterstrom. Anne Waldman is a writer who has made my world a lot better by her very existence in it.
What would you like to do that you haven't yet done?
- See England win the World Cup. I’d also like to go to a posh restaurant and order a porterhouse with a lobster tail. One day I’d like to drive to Alaska. Maybe for a year I could live in Tokyo?
If you could pick any other occupation to attempt, what would it be? Or, alternately, what do you think you would have ended up doing had you not been a writer?
- If all goes to plan, I finish my PhD on April 22nd this year. This summer I am teaching at Naropa’s Summer Writing Program and starting pre-med classes at UC Denver. This, in earnest, will mark the beginning of my attempt to be a physician.
I don’t think of being a writer as an occupation. Not that it doesn’t involve a lot of work, it does. And yes, there are people who earn their living just by writing, so I suppose I don’t consider my writing as my occupation. It’s in one of Salinger’s books (I think Seymour, I throw this around a lot so I should probably check) where the narrator, Buddy, gives his occupation as “writer” and Seymour tells him that writer isn’t something you do, it’s something you are.
Why did I get a PhD in English/Creative Writing if I wanted to be a physician? Well, I didn’t know I was actually going to follow through with medicine when I started the PhD. And they paid me to read and write for 4 years. After all, they don’t teach you about Blanchot in medical school.
If I wasn’t going to do this I would like to be a carpenter, a professional cricketer or a spaceman. Or maybe all three. Imagine watching the earth rise from a wooden rocket ship you had built with your own two hands after playing a crisp cover drive off the bowling of Glenn McGrath. Doesn’t get much better than that.
What made you write, as opposed to doing something else?
- I like this question a lot but I don’t think I know how answer it. I write rather than draw, paint, play music etc. because I am better at writing than any of those other things. Creativity is a function of consciousness and as such I don’t think it is in opposition to doing something else but just a part of it. What is that other thing? Being a college professor, being a librarian, an attorney, a physician, a schoolteacher, a secretary, a mother, a father, an insurance salesman, a bartender etc. I do not mean for these to be exclusive. That is, I am interested in people who embrace the overlaps.
What was the last great book you read? What was the last great film?
- I read The Sound and The Fury in December. A little late to that party but holy shit! Last week I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey again. I cannot get over that movie. The last recently published book I read that I thought was really great was Bluets by Maggie Nelson. I really liked There Will Be Blood.
What are you currently working on?
- I just finished CAST, a book that orbits Carlo Collodi’s wooden boy Pinocchio. It’s the second in a series of three thematically connected books. FABRIC was the first. I’m about to start the third one which I think will be called RISE. It’s not really a trilogy. Maybe a triptych in the way Redonnet uses the term. The three definitely go together.“ – Interview by Rob McLennan

Excerpt

and here

Richard Froude: Apocrypha #9a

From The History of Zero

The Perils of Physicians Practicing as Corporate Employees: the Contract Trap

A seriously chilling cautionary tale corroborated some of my previously expressed fears about the perils of physicians practicing as corporate employees.  It unlikely venue was the April 25, 2011 issue of Medical Economics.  The article, not yet on the web, was "Selling to a Corporation Poses Challenges," by Todd R C Neely.

Here is how the case started:
A start-up company with a new medical treatment became a publicly traded corporation. The company's top managers were not physicians; they were finance and business experts familiar with the ways of Wall Street.

To meet the corporation's goals and Wall Street expectations, the company used stock sale proceeds to aggressively market itself to doctors and buy established physician practices around the country. It quickly captured market share, exponentially raised the number of patients by the practices it owned, and developed substantial revenue streams.

The physicians who sold their practices thought that selling would be a win-win situation for them and for the corporation. As marketed to them, the company would handle the business aspects of owning a medical practice - the ubiquitous paperwork, employee issues, and all the rest of the nonclinical task so distasteful to doctors. The physicians would spend all their work time practicing medicine using the latest technology. Benefiting from the company's promotion to the public, they would see an increase in their patient base. They would receive a base salary and, most significantly, a percentage of the profits of their practice.

But here is how things turned out:
Everything was great until the end of the first year. The physicians expected large payments from their practices' increased profits, but the large bonuses never came.

What went wrong? The physicians were so blinded by the marketing pitch that they apparently never read the fine print:
In negotiating the sale of the practices and the employee contracts, the doctors had not required the company to specify in writing what expenses the corporation would charge an individual practice and what accounting rules would be followed. So the corporation charged the practices for marketing, accounting, human resources, financing, and other services, wiping out the profits of each practice.

The contracts were apparently designed by the corporation to favor all its interests (which should not have been surprising), but was accepted as is by the physicians:
The contracts specified in precise terms the physicians' responsibilities, noncompete provisions, confidentiality, dispute resolution and the like. But although the contracts stated the corporation's initial responsibilities - mainly making payment on the negotiated purchase price - it phrased the company's other obligations in remarkably vague terms, or, astonishingly, did not specify them at all. The company was to make its 'best efforts' to accomplish certain goals, but the contract left the phrase 'best efforts' undefined. The phrase turned out to be quite malleable. The company's other responsibilities were to be determined at a later, unspecified time.

The company's best efforts always turned out to be whatever efforts it chose to make.

It was a trap,baited by marketing, into which the physicians neatly fell:
Many sought legal advice and were told they had no legal resource. The noncompete clauses - fair provisions under the contract terms to which the physicians thought they were agreeing but that were disastrous under the terms (or lack thereof) of the actual contract - were broad, tight, specific, and ironclad. Many of the physicians even were barred from practicing medicine within the geographic area in which they lived. And under the equally ironclad confidentiality clause, the doctors could not publicly discuss their situations or, for that matter, anything else of significance about the corporation; if they did, they would be subject to high fines and penalties.

What had appeared to the doctors as a mutually beneficial situation turned into a nightmare for them. They lost their practices and money and took years to recover. They had no legal recourse. They could not even warn others. The corporation could, and did, continue with impunity.

Note that it is now obvious why the article was so vague about the identity of the corporation and the physicians it ensnared, and why it took so long for even such a vague version of this story to surface. The confidentiality (and probably anti-disparagement) clauses made it hazardous for anyone who signed these contracts to be forthright witnesses. 

Obviously, the willingness of corporations to employ such clauses means that there may be many more cases like this out there, hidden behind the veil of contractual restrictions on free speech.

We previously discussed how physicians often seem willing to blithely sign contracts without fully understanding them, thereby sacrificing their economic well-being and core values.  Here is another striking case of this phenomenon.  We previously attributed this tendency to learned helplessness. 

The author of this article, however, suggested  that physicians were victims of carefully targeted marketing based on psychological manipulation.  It was meant to capitalize on three major factors: physicians' naive belief that everyone involved with medicine is interested in helping people by behaving rationally and logically; physicians' over-confidence in their ability to avoid failure (presumably including failure due to ignorance or misinterpretation of legal contracts); and physicians' feelings of entitlement. 

In addition, the physicians seemed (probably foolishly) unaware that corporate executives are not interested in physicians' core values:
Unlike physicians, the corporation and its top executives, non-doctors all, were involved in the practice of medicine solely to make money; the medical practices, and the very practice of medicine, were just commodities [to them].

This observation corresponds with numerous observations about how leaders of health care organizations may ignore, or be expressly hostile towards physicians' core values. Thus, while the article went on to give some straight-forward advice about negotiating combined practice buy-out and corporate employment agreements, it becomes obvious that the main lesson is: physicians should not practice medicine as corporate employees. They should not sell their practices to and become employees of for-profit corporations as a way to practice medicine.  Otherwise, rather than being practitioners, they will end up as medical assembly line workers for bosses who only care about the revenue they generate.

Physicians who have already inadvertently, foolishly, or under duress signed contracts that could threaten their professionalism and their patients' welfare need to do the right thing and challenge these contracts.  , or else there will soon be nothing left of the medical profession, and no one left to ethically care for patients. 

With each new anecdote, it becomes clearer that the corporate practice of medicine will end up exploiting physicians and patients alike. So there is also a main lesson for patients: you should not go to doctors who are corporate employees, or practices or clinics that are run by corporations. If you do, you will end up being used only as a means for the bosses to make money.

At a policy level, if we do not stop the corporate practice of medicine, we will all end up as increasingly unhealthy cogs in the corporate health care machine. 

The Continuing Parade of Legal Settlements by Health Care Organizations: Cardinal, Cerberus, Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Masonicare

Here is our latest round-up of the more colorful legal settlements made by some US health care organizations.

Cardinal Health

Cardinal Health is a pharmaceutical services company. Per the Kansas City Star:
A pharmaceutical distributor has settled a federal anti-kickback lawsuit by agreeing, in part, to pay $760,000 to former Kansas City Chiefs player Dan Saleaumua and a consultant.

That money is part of an $8 million settlement that Cardinal Health Inc. of Ohio agreed to pay the U.S. government to settle the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged that Cardinal offered Saleaumua and consultant Kevin Rinne an illegal $440,000 kickback so it could supply prescription drugs to seven Kansas City area Medicine Shoppe pharmacies that Saleaumua owned at the time.

Cerberus Capital Management/ Dyncorp/ Steward Health Care

This will require some explanation. Cerberus Capital Management now owns Steward Health Care, mostly composed of what was formerly known as Caritas Christi hospital system of Massachusetts, and a large group of physician practices now known as Caritas Christi Network Services (see posts here and here). Cerberus Capital Management now also owns DynCorp (see their web-site), which has been called one of the "leading mercenary firms," by an article in the Nation.

As reported by Bloomberg about DynCorp, and hence indirectly about Cerberus, and Steward Health Care:
DynCorp International Inc., the largest U.S. contractor in Afghanistan, agreed to pay $7.7 million to resolve allegations it submitted inflated claims for construction work in Iraq, the U.S. said.

The Justice Department said yesterday that DynCorp and its subcontractor, The Sandi Group, will settle a whistleblower case filed in federal court in Washington. The Sandi Group, accused of submitting false claims on a police-training contract in Iraq, will pay more than $1 million.

'The hard work of stabilizing Iraq is challenging enough without contractors and subcontractors inflating the cost of rebuilding by making false claims at taxpayers’ expense' Assistant Attorney General Tony West, who oversees the department’s civil division, said in an e-mailed statement.

DynCorp inflated the costs of building camps at various locations in Iraq, the U.S. said.

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center is a prestigious medical center. Per the New Hampshire Union-Leader:
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center has settled a case of alleged billing fraud to various federal health programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Affairs.

DHMC, which denied any liability in the matter, agreed to pay $2,227,075. The federal government recovers $1.5 million, Vermont $80,396, and New Hampshire $61,541, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Vermont announced Tuesday.

The investigation began in 2007 following a complaint filed by Dr. Thomas J. Prendergast, who was a physician in the DHMC pulmonary department in Lebanon. The complaint alleged the hospital improperly billed federal health care programs for services performed by resident staff without sufficient supervision by physicians. Regulations allow physicians to bill for certain services by resident staff, but only if the services are performed in the presence of a physician.

The investigation, conducted with the hospital's cooperation, found alleged improper billing in the anesthesiology department, pain clinic and radiology, according to the government. The billings at issue were from 2001 to 2007.

Masonicare

Masonicare is a not-for-profit "senior services provider." Per the Meriden (CT) Record-Journal:
A settlement agreement was reached today where Masonicare Health Center will pay the government almost $450,000 to resolve allegations the facility violated the False Claims Act, according to an announcement from U.S. States Attorney David B. Fein.

Fein explained the allegations against the senior-focused inpatient and outpatient health care facility involved improper billing to Medicare and Medicaid for injections of leuprolide acetate, or Lupron. The medication is used to treat prostate cancer in men and endometriosis and fibroids in women. The billing code for the female-related dosage has a higher reimbursement rate than the code for male-related doses, according to the statement.


The government alleges that Masonicare regularly billed for the female-related code for male patients who were being treated for prostate cancer, so they received a substantially higher reimbursement than it should have received, according to the statement.

Further, the government alleges that in 2009, the company realized it had improperly coded the Lupron injections services but never self-disclosed its improper bulling to the government or made any attempt to pay the money back to the Medicare and Medicaid programs, Fein said.

Summary

So in the last 10 days or so, we have seen legal settlements of charges of kickbacks by a pharmaceutical services provider, submitting inflated claims to the federal government made by a subsidiary of a private equity group which also owns a large hospital system and group of physicians' practices, billing fraud by an academic medical center, and false claims by a senior health care services provider. 

I begin to think that if we keep this blog going long enough, the parade of legal settlements will include the majority of US health care organizations.  Again, such legal settlements serve as markers of the scope of bad behavior by a wide variety of health care organizations, including some of the largest and/or most prestigious, but also including many organizations that work regionally or at the community level.  Bad behavior indicated by these settlements seems so prevalent that it must be an important reason for the chronic problems that afflict US health care, rising costs, diminishing access, and stagnant quality.  However, it still seems to be politically incorrect to discuss such mismanagement, malfeasance and/or corruption as important causes of US health care problems. 

Although sometime in the past there may have been a general societal understanding that health care organizations ought to be held to the highest standards, and ought to be lead by people with the best character and of the best reputation, now one seldom hears an expression of shame when such organizations settle claims alleging fraud, over-billing, etc, etc, etc.

Like nearly all such cases we have previously reported, none of these cases seemed to involve any negative consequences for any persons who authorized, directed, or implemented the questionable acts.  While the fines involved may seem large to ordinary folk, they are not big enough to markedly affect the organizations involved.  So the parade of legal settlements has had little deterrent effect. 

Once again, I say: we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable.

Label