I just finished reading Game Change about the 2008 Presidential election and I was struck by how similar the world of politics is to the world of professional wrestling. And soap operas. I loved every page of the book, but felt mildly dirty for enjoying it.
A majority of the book deals with the Democratic primaries for obvious reasons. The Democrats had a much longer and more intense fight for the party's nomination. The book focuses on the three top candidates: Obama, Clinton and John Edwards. It also breaks down the Republican primary and the general, but the Democratic primary took the majority.
The reason this book made me think of professional wrestling is not simply my recent reading of Hitman. I thought of wrestling because of how much of campaigning is BS and how both sides of a given story KNOW it's BS, yet turn the political knife anyway. For example, in the general election between Obama and McCain, the book stated unequivocally that the McCain campaign knew darn well that Obama's famous "lipstick on a pig" comment had nothing to do with Sarah Palin. They demanded an apology to court Hillary supporters and women in general and to put the Obama campaign on the defensive. I single this story out because of how explicitly the book stated that no one in the McCain camp actually thought Obama meant Palin. I must mention, that Republicans certainly were not alone in this tactic.
Each campaign would be both embarrassed and flattered by its portrayal in this book. There were tales of opportunism, brilliance and underhandedness everywhere and no campaign was spared. The Obama campaign looked the best, but was clearly not immune from playing in the mud.
Some observations:
-- I was shocked that the title of "craziest person" in any campaign was not won by the odds-on favorites (Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin in whatever order), but rather by Elizabeth Edwards. This shocked me because I never saw Mrs. Edwards as a candidate in the race for nut-job of the campaign season. Trust me when I say it took a cancer diagnosis for anyone associated with the Edwards campaign to feel a twinge of sympathy for her. Of course, it's not every day that a multi-millionaire angrily threatens to suspend the health insurance of all campaign workers until hers is secured. Even less predictable would be someone doing so on a national call attended by many of the lowest paid / hardest working organizers hitting the pavement. Multi-millionaires also do not often expose themselves while in an argument. Like I said, it wasn't even close.
(Just a few more Elizabeth stories because I can't resist: She called John a "hick" in front of other people and derided his parents as rednecks; and She laughed at the idea that John would read a book and claimed to be the smart one.)
-- Bill Clinton is a hothead, but he appreciates evil genius even when he's the victim. When the Obama campaign called him on his reference to Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina, clearly implying something, Clinton was now portrayed as a racist, at least by implication. The book says that "though it infuriated (Clinton), he could not help but respect the artfulness of the play... I wish our people were more like that, Bill said." He's an angry, bitter man, but he appreciates a good move. Of course Bill also said the Ted Kennedy: "the only reason you're endorsing him is because he's black. Let's just be clear." So, it's not like Bill didn't give the Obama camp any openings.
-- With whom did Clinton counsel about being essentially called a racist? George W. Bush. Clinton bitched to W about the betrayals he suffered for 15 minutes and W said "I know you aren't a racist." This was like seeing King Kong Bundy and Hulk Hogan laughing over a few beers at a local pub in the mid 80s or something. This is why wrestling is more like politics than we'd like to admit. They play up the hatred in public, but they're all just colleagues behind the scenes. W and Bill apparently talked "more often than almost anyone knew" during W's reign. THE CURTAIN HAS BEEN LIFTED! I mean... what can I possibly add? Talk about breaking the fourth wall. We are all being had.
-- Obama is absolutely as cool as the other side of the pillow, just as commonly perceived. His best quote was before his 2004 keynote address at the DNC nominating Kerry. "I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Another was before his first debate with McCain when he calmed one nervous aid by putting his hand on her shoulder and saying calmly one-hour before go-time "Don't worry. I got this." Obama seemed to never let anger rattle him, but he was portrayed as whiny regarding the rigorous schedule and could be passive-aggressive. Still, he is the only one who seemed genuinely loved by his staff.
-- Hillary avoids conflict like the plague when dealing with individuals and yet is prone to fits of anger at her staff as a whole. She also does nothing to diffuse internal problems and tends to let them simmer. Her and Bill held a deep belief that the press was in the tank for Obama (which is probably true) and a never-ending suspicion of foul play. Even after it was all over they were both convinced Obama bused people into Iowa from Illinois.
-- The second-place finisher for crazy person of the campaign is actually Judi Giuliani, and she was only second because she was mentioned so infrequently. But, stories of her instability were potent, if brief. She had worked for a medical supply firm that exterminated puppies as part of its sales demonstration. That's right, she somehow was linked to puppy murder. You can't make this stuff up. Her only response was that it was a long time ago and she couldn't remember her involvement. I would think one would know if one was or was not involved in the murder of puppies. Had Rudy been a bigger threat to win, her stories would have been the highlight of the book.
(Giuliani had to answer her cell phone calls EVEN IF IN THE MIDDLE OF A SPEECH - and he did - because, in his words "it's a lot better that way." I am not kidding, she finishes second.)
-- Sarah Palin's lack of preparation, absence of mental curiosity and basic inability to grasp ground-level concepts actually and literally frightened McCain's staff. Preparing her for the debate took on the kind of prep work normally reserved for moon landings and her "success" at parroting the talking points they made her memorize (and calling Biden "Joe" because she could NOT stop calling him Obiden in rehearsal) was celebrated as a major accomplishment. The fact she may be third on the crazy chart is a testament to Elizabeth and Judi and should not be seen as a vindication of Sarahcuda. McCain advisers actually surreptitiously had her monitored by a doctor to see if she was "mentally unstable."
(It should be noted that Bill Clinton is easily the third-craziest spouse and gives Palin a run for her money. His clear edge in brain power puts him fourth behind Palin, but it's closer than one would think).
-- Huckabee actually questioned whether Romney had a soul. Coming from a former pastor, that made me chuckle.
-- Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Joe Lieberman could not stop watching the Youtube video of John Edwards fixing his hair. They watched it over and over and laughed until they had tears in their eyes. "Let's look at it again!" McCain would command. Again, this made me chuckle.
-- Obama's amazing ability to put the bitterness of the primary campaign was awe-inspiring. He was literally the only one of his entire staff (including Michelle) who was willing to give Hillary a position in the administration. His reasoning? "She's going to be really good at this job." He would not take "No" for an answer and made a compelling case to Hillary. He told her that the economy was going to command his focus and he would require someone to hold down the foreign policy part of things. He said she was the only one he could really trust to do this. After reading all the amazing battles their campaigns fought, this is nothing short of amazing and made me think of Team of Rivals and how Lincoln kept back-stabbing rival Soloman Chase around because he was such a good Treasury Secretary. All he cared is that she would be the best person for the job. Same with Biden for VP.
So, there you have it. Campaigning is a business, it is entertaining, it involves steel chairs upon the heads of unsuspecting victims and they all end up having beers together in the end. It's like I read the Hitman book all over again. And, just like a wrestling book, it feels like a guilty pleasure or like I got caught watching a soap opera. I loved this book, and that makes me feel dirty.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
A Heartbreaking Work
I just finished Dave Eggers' book, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. It's one heck of a book, and heartbreaking is certainly a good description of it.
The book is a biopic about the author and his little brother. Their parents both die within a short time and Eggers has to raise his much younger brother. They are 21 and 9, which leads to exactly the kinds of house rules one would imagine.
This book was very well written and, most unique, the story was creatively told. The book hit home a bit, and will do so for anyone who has lived through a traumatic family death.
Eggers used a unique voice throughout, and he really made the story interesting even when fairly mundane events were taking place. Sometimes, the story is the feeling, rather than the events. This book is an early favorite for top-5 of the year. This year may be my toughest decision yet as to top five.
I feel obligated to put Churchill #1 if for no other reason that it was like living history and because it is the only first hand account I will read this year about probably the most important time in modern history. Yet, from pure enjoyment (Eggers' work) to life lessons (Predictably Irrational), I could put any number of those at number 1. Eggers will have to strive for number two, and its a dead heat. From pure joy of reading, Eggers wins. Time to let the decision simmer for awhile.
OTHER UPDATES
... I am working diligently on my story and am up to 12 pages or so. I have mapped much of the story and feel like I it will probably be about 30 pages when done. I have completed the back stories of three characters, and need to complete two more as well as the "event" at the end.
... We went sledding last week, and I have some pictures below. Jacob went down the hill about three times before deciding he would rather just run down the hill. I also threw in some more pictures that we have taken since Christmas. Enjoy.
The book is a biopic about the author and his little brother. Their parents both die within a short time and Eggers has to raise his much younger brother. They are 21 and 9, which leads to exactly the kinds of house rules one would imagine.
This book was very well written and, most unique, the story was creatively told. The book hit home a bit, and will do so for anyone who has lived through a traumatic family death.
Eggers used a unique voice throughout, and he really made the story interesting even when fairly mundane events were taking place. Sometimes, the story is the feeling, rather than the events. This book is an early favorite for top-5 of the year. This year may be my toughest decision yet as to top five.
I feel obligated to put Churchill #1 if for no other reason that it was like living history and because it is the only first hand account I will read this year about probably the most important time in modern history. Yet, from pure enjoyment (Eggers' work) to life lessons (Predictably Irrational), I could put any number of those at number 1. Eggers will have to strive for number two, and its a dead heat. From pure joy of reading, Eggers wins. Time to let the decision simmer for awhile.
OTHER UPDATES
... I am working diligently on my story and am up to 12 pages or so. I have mapped much of the story and feel like I it will probably be about 30 pages when done. I have completed the back stories of three characters, and need to complete two more as well as the "event" at the end.
... We went sledding last week, and I have some pictures below. Jacob went down the hill about three times before deciding he would rather just run down the hill. I also threw in some more pictures that we have taken since Christmas. Enjoy.
Playing with Mom's Clarinet
Jacob and Maerron
Running down the hill
Posing in the cold
All bundled up
My Jen
Helping Dad Shovel
Mom and Jacob
Shoveling
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Ego Maniac
As I write this, I'm keeping tabs on the Nuggets vs. Cleveland game. It just went into overtime. I am also awaiting Jacob's bedtime so I can relax with a blu-ray movie. Maybe Dark Knight... maybe Star Trek. It's a nice relaxing evening.
Anyway, I just finished book number six on the year, and it again pushed my interest in behavioral science (specifically dissonance theory) to new heights. We have all taken an introductory course in psychology or sociology that mentioned the "ego" and the "super ego," and we have all mocked such things incessantly. I know I have.
I'm not real big into Freud or anything of that nature, but I am quickly taking a liking to cognitive dissonance. The two books that set my fire most recently are "Mistakes were Made (but not by me)" and "Predictably Irrational."
Although neither book expresses ideas of the Super ego, they do illustrate that our perceptions of ourselves justify our actions. At times, even irrationally.
The theory, in short, is that we have an opinion of ourselves; actions happen that challenge that view of ourselves (we appear to have been less than honest, as an example); this creates discomfort to us; we use justifications to restore our notion of who we are; and, this rarely leads to admissions of mistakes. This can also explain why person already standing in a deep hole can somehow manage to dig deeper. This is done with what I'll call the "self-justification Shovel."
I love books that help me on a daily basis, and both of these titles do just that.
This may sound like a justification for manipulation, but it also taught me how to better recognize dissonance in myself and others and how to "influence" a person to feeling consonance (comfort), which lessens the need for self-justification.
(Carmelo Anthony just hit the game winner in the face of LeBron James. I am now pumped. Justify that LeBron!!).
OTHER UPDATES
.... Now that my reading pace has taken me through March, I have created the space necessary to make a real push for a first draft of my story. I have pushed forward and written another 5 or 6 pages, and I have done a lot more mapping. Now is my big writing push.
.... Jacob has been doing well. He's as playful as ever. We have decided to take more pictures and I will try to post some soon.
.... I am tired of this winter.
Anyway, I just finished book number six on the year, and it again pushed my interest in behavioral science (specifically dissonance theory) to new heights. We have all taken an introductory course in psychology or sociology that mentioned the "ego" and the "super ego," and we have all mocked such things incessantly. I know I have.
I'm not real big into Freud or anything of that nature, but I am quickly taking a liking to cognitive dissonance. The two books that set my fire most recently are "Mistakes were Made (but not by me)" and "Predictably Irrational."
Although neither book expresses ideas of the Super ego, they do illustrate that our perceptions of ourselves justify our actions. At times, even irrationally.
The theory, in short, is that we have an opinion of ourselves; actions happen that challenge that view of ourselves (we appear to have been less than honest, as an example); this creates discomfort to us; we use justifications to restore our notion of who we are; and, this rarely leads to admissions of mistakes. This can also explain why person already standing in a deep hole can somehow manage to dig deeper. This is done with what I'll call the "self-justification Shovel."
I love books that help me on a daily basis, and both of these titles do just that.
This may sound like a justification for manipulation, but it also taught me how to better recognize dissonance in myself and others and how to "influence" a person to feeling consonance (comfort), which lessens the need for self-justification.
(Carmelo Anthony just hit the game winner in the face of LeBron James. I am now pumped. Justify that LeBron!!).
OTHER UPDATES
.... Now that my reading pace has taken me through March, I have created the space necessary to make a real push for a first draft of my story. I have pushed forward and written another 5 or 6 pages, and I have done a lot more mapping. Now is my big writing push.
.... Jacob has been doing well. He's as playful as ever. We have decided to take more pictures and I will try to post some soon.
.... I am tired of this winter.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Book Report
I posted this at my book blog, but I'll repost it here since I've been too busy trying to write my story to blog as must as usual. I just finished book 4 on the year and am currently reading two more while I plod through my story.
This one is about pro wrestling:
Approximately once a year, I have a weird craving to relive the old days when I watched pro wrestling as a kid. We even once organized "viewings" of Wrestlemanias I through III at rotating locations within the last few years. (I will spare naming all involved in this delicious travesty of taste.)
This makes me neither proud nor ashamed. It really just amuses me.
I don't watch wrestling today. I don't enjoy what it has become. Hell, I laugh at 80s wrestling today and enjoy it now for very different (mostly mocking and nostalgic) reasons. But, for the second year in a row, I read a book about old-school wrestling from the days of my youth. This year, I read "Hitman," by Bret "The Hitman" Hart.
Ironically, I used to hate Bret Hart and his evil Hart Foundation. I loved the British Bulldogs, who were arch rivals with the Hart Foundation.
"Hitman" is a great book. It takes you into the "cartoon" world of pro wrestling. I learned a lot about the history of wrestling, and, most interesting, how it works behind the scenes. Hart takes the position that the wrestling business grinds its workers up and spits them out. I think there is some truth to that, but that there is also a tendency for unstable people to explore such a career. There is definitely truth in both perspectives.
The stories are funny, depressing, strange and just odd at times. I recommend reading this book near a computer so you can youtube the various matches he describes in detail. For example, I watched Hart take the kick to the head that ended his career. I also watched the online footage of the "Montreal Screwjob," complete with Vince McMahon wobbling out of the locker room after being knocked silly by Hart.
Although the "Montreal Screwjob" has been a source of great sympathy for Hart, I actually began to think of how Hart may have put himself over a little too well in the book. My take: A promoter has to deal with moody, roided up alpha-males on a regular basis. He has a business to run and didn't get rich by letting wrestlers who decided to go to his rival (WCW) while champion keep the belt and march out triumphant. Promoter lies (not OK, but also... well, Hart makes it clear wrestlers are a bit moody and difficult) and screws over his champion. In the process he damages the goods being received by the rival and collects enough checks to more than pay for the broken jaw.
Pardon my sarcasm, but being "screwed" out of a title defense while 1) leaving the company and 2) ITS STAGED didn't garner as much sympathy from me as I know others feel about this incident. Sorry, but he was 5 time champ because that got ratings. He was a good "wrestler" in that he preformed well, but popularity is what mattered. Stuff happens.
Most interesting to me were the stories of what some of my favorites were like behind the scenes. Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, Macho Man, Dynamite Kid, etc. I also loved the stories of the road and all the ribbing. Just kinda guy stories. It was a fun book, but I can't get all broken up about losing a belt that changes hands based on projected ratings draws. Shoot me.
As for steroids, Hart basically makes the strong case that a career would be over without them for someone of his stature (he wasn't exactly a giant). I took this to mean he simply used the "recommended" dosage. It was that or a different career... he rolled the dice and got rich. He only mentions it once when he decided to do it and never again brings it up, although its implied he was on them his whole career (never explicitly says so, though). He later confuses his own use by suggesting he was a desired champ because he wasn't a roided up freak like so many others at a time when people were angry about steroids. I guess its appropriate my next book is about self-justification.
Overall, a fun read. Much longer than expected, and he has some points to make. Much like actual wrestling shows, it's like reading 500 pages of one long description of a train wreck. You see all the twisted metal and all the carnage vividly after reading this book.
This one is about pro wrestling:
Approximately once a year, I have a weird craving to relive the old days when I watched pro wrestling as a kid. We even once organized "viewings" of Wrestlemanias I through III at rotating locations within the last few years. (I will spare naming all involved in this delicious travesty of taste.)
This makes me neither proud nor ashamed. It really just amuses me.
I don't watch wrestling today. I don't enjoy what it has become. Hell, I laugh at 80s wrestling today and enjoy it now for very different (mostly mocking and nostalgic) reasons. But, for the second year in a row, I read a book about old-school wrestling from the days of my youth. This year, I read "Hitman," by Bret "The Hitman" Hart.
Ironically, I used to hate Bret Hart and his evil Hart Foundation. I loved the British Bulldogs, who were arch rivals with the Hart Foundation.
"Hitman" is a great book. It takes you into the "cartoon" world of pro wrestling. I learned a lot about the history of wrestling, and, most interesting, how it works behind the scenes. Hart takes the position that the wrestling business grinds its workers up and spits them out. I think there is some truth to that, but that there is also a tendency for unstable people to explore such a career. There is definitely truth in both perspectives.
The stories are funny, depressing, strange and just odd at times. I recommend reading this book near a computer so you can youtube the various matches he describes in detail. For example, I watched Hart take the kick to the head that ended his career. I also watched the online footage of the "Montreal Screwjob," complete with Vince McMahon wobbling out of the locker room after being knocked silly by Hart.
Although the "Montreal Screwjob" has been a source of great sympathy for Hart, I actually began to think of how Hart may have put himself over a little too well in the book. My take: A promoter has to deal with moody, roided up alpha-males on a regular basis. He has a business to run and didn't get rich by letting wrestlers who decided to go to his rival (WCW) while champion keep the belt and march out triumphant. Promoter lies (not OK, but also... well, Hart makes it clear wrestlers are a bit moody and difficult) and screws over his champion. In the process he damages the goods being received by the rival and collects enough checks to more than pay for the broken jaw.
Pardon my sarcasm, but being "screwed" out of a title defense while 1) leaving the company and 2) ITS STAGED didn't garner as much sympathy from me as I know others feel about this incident. Sorry, but he was 5 time champ because that got ratings. He was a good "wrestler" in that he preformed well, but popularity is what mattered. Stuff happens.
Most interesting to me were the stories of what some of my favorites were like behind the scenes. Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, Macho Man, Dynamite Kid, etc. I also loved the stories of the road and all the ribbing. Just kinda guy stories. It was a fun book, but I can't get all broken up about losing a belt that changes hands based on projected ratings draws. Shoot me.
As for steroids, Hart basically makes the strong case that a career would be over without them for someone of his stature (he wasn't exactly a giant). I took this to mean he simply used the "recommended" dosage. It was that or a different career... he rolled the dice and got rich. He only mentions it once when he decided to do it and never again brings it up, although its implied he was on them his whole career (never explicitly says so, though). He later confuses his own use by suggesting he was a desired champ because he wasn't a roided up freak like so many others at a time when people were angry about steroids. I guess its appropriate my next book is about self-justification.
Overall, a fun read. Much longer than expected, and he has some points to make. Much like actual wrestling shows, it's like reading 500 pages of one long description of a train wreck. You see all the twisted metal and all the carnage vividly after reading this book.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Churchill
I am reposting what I posted on my reading blog (25booksayear.blogspot.com) here. I am doing this because I am lazy.
I have enjoyed reading Winston Churchill. Not only because he is one of the greatest leaders of all time, but because he is simply a fun author to read. He keeps a sense of humor, makes grand proclamations and tells the tale through anecdotes. What more would you expect from a man who took great pride in urinating on the Siegfried line along with some of his generals? These are a few memorable quotes from Winston Churchill:
-- FINAL THOUGHTS: "The broadening of thought is a process which acquires momentum by seeking opportunity for all who claim it. And it may well be if wisdom and patience are practiced that Opportunity-for-all will conquer the minds and restrain the passions of mankind."
-- ON FRUSTRATIONS AT THE END -- "As war waged by a coalition draws to its end political aspects have a mounting importance. It is true that American thought is at least disinterested in matters which seem to relate to territorial acquisitions, but when wolves are about the shepherd must guard his flock, even if he does not himself care for mutton."
-- ON AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY -- "But we never succeeded in deflecting the Americans from their purpose. Their national psychology is such that the bigger the Idea the more wholeheartedly and obstinately do they throw themselves into making it a success. It is an admirable characteristic, provided the Idea is good."
-- ON A FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR -- "Some people did not like this ceremonial style (of declaring war on Japan). But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
-- ON THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK -- "Silly people, and there were many, not only in enemy countries, might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyse their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Gray had made to me more than thirty years before - that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate." Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."
-- TO THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT WHILE VISITING ROOSEVELT -- "When I warned (French leaders) that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Some chicken! Some neck!"
I have enjoyed reading Winston Churchill. Not only because he is one of the greatest leaders of all time, but because he is simply a fun author to read. He keeps a sense of humor, makes grand proclamations and tells the tale through anecdotes. What more would you expect from a man who took great pride in urinating on the Siegfried line along with some of his generals? These are a few memorable quotes from Winston Churchill:
-- FINAL THOUGHTS: "The broadening of thought is a process which acquires momentum by seeking opportunity for all who claim it. And it may well be if wisdom and patience are practiced that Opportunity-for-all will conquer the minds and restrain the passions of mankind."
-- ON FRUSTRATIONS AT THE END -- "As war waged by a coalition draws to its end political aspects have a mounting importance. It is true that American thought is at least disinterested in matters which seem to relate to territorial acquisitions, but when wolves are about the shepherd must guard his flock, even if he does not himself care for mutton."
-- ON AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY -- "But we never succeeded in deflecting the Americans from their purpose. Their national psychology is such that the bigger the Idea the more wholeheartedly and obstinately do they throw themselves into making it a success. It is an admirable characteristic, provided the Idea is good."
-- ON A FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR -- "Some people did not like this ceremonial style (of declaring war on Japan). But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
-- ON THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK -- "Silly people, and there were many, not only in enemy countries, might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyse their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Gray had made to me more than thirty years before - that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate." Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."
-- TO THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT WHILE VISITING ROOSEVELT -- "When I warned (French leaders) that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Some chicken! Some neck!"
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Never Surrender
A funny thing happened when I started reading the abridged Memoirs of the Second World War by Winston S. Churchill.
This book takes the six books written by Churchill about the war and combines them into one abridged work. Churchill won the Nobel Prize for Literature for his epic work documenting the earth's most destructive war.
But the part that made me stop was his description on pages 20 and 21 of events that led to the Great Depression. Mr. Churchill reminded me that there are not many things in the world that are truly unique. And, during this time of uncertainty for many, the tried-and-true methods will help get us through. For starters, remember to extend a helping hand, stave off surrender and band together.
In 1959, Churchill wrote the following about the 1920s (complete with British spelling):
Sound familiar? Eerily familiar?
I am not predicting a depression, but I certainly was not comforted by reading the above passage. It made me recall the main theme from the new TV series Battlestar Galactica, which is "All of this has happened before and all of it will happen again."
The economy is bigger than politics, so I am not going to use this post to assign blame or to prescribe some sort of solution. I will even resist the temptation to badger over the glut of non-regulators manning the positions of regulators. The fact remains that our foundational financial institutions found ways to over-indulge and would have found a way in any event.
What matters is that many people are really hurting out there. We all know people who are being ground to dust by circumstances. It's a scary time and unemployment has been rampant.
I am not sure where we go from here, but I hope our populace will resist the usual mud slinging and band together. I hope our leaders can find the strength to tell us what the truth is and not try to sugarcoat it. I hope we can embrace real solutions even if they are difficult or non-compliant with our ideological beliefs.
In any case, such things will take time and no solution will work quickly.
In the meantime, its time for all hands on deck. While bigger solutions are sought to the extent possible in Washington, it's time to help each other. None of us are in this alone and today's hard luck neighbors may end up being the ones who pull you out of the abyss if or when fate changes hands.
I always talk about bootstraps. We can control events to a point. We can make opportunities into successes by our efforts, but we never do anything alone. And, now more than ever, we need each other.
Another lesson we can take from Mr. Churchill is that no matter how bad things get, we must persevere to the end. No one can say that with more authority than the man who rescued England from perils we cannot understand today. His favorite term was "KBO," which means "keep buggering on."
We may not be fighting on the beaches or in the air, but we can fight for homes and for each other. The message is the same in war as in economic turmoil: Never Surrender. And hang in there.
This book takes the six books written by Churchill about the war and combines them into one abridged work. Churchill won the Nobel Prize for Literature for his epic work documenting the earth's most destructive war.
But the part that made me stop was his description on pages 20 and 21 of events that led to the Great Depression. Mr. Churchill reminded me that there are not many things in the world that are truly unique. And, during this time of uncertainty for many, the tried-and-true methods will help get us through. For starters, remember to extend a helping hand, stave off surrender and band together.
In 1959, Churchill wrote the following about the 1920s (complete with British spelling):
"The year 1929 reached almost the end of its third quarter under the promise and appearance of increasing prosperity, particularly in the United States. Extraordinary optimism sustained an orgy of speculation. Books were written to prove that economic crisis was a phase which expanding business organisation and science had at last mastered. "We are apparently finished and done with economic cycles as we have known them," said the President of the New York Stock Exchange in September. But in October a sudden and violent tempest swept over Wall Street. The intervention of the most powerful agencies failed to stem the tide of panic sales. A group of leading banks constituted a milliard-dollar pool to maintain and stabilise the market. All was vain.
"The whole wealth so swiftly gathered in the paper values of previous years vanished. <The prosperity of millions of American homes had grown upon a gigantic structure of inflated credit now suddenly proved phantom. Apart from the nation-wide speculation in shares which even the most famous banks had encouraged by easy loans, a vast system of purchase by instalment of houses, furniture, cars, and numberless kinds of household conveniences and indulgences had grown up. All now fell together. The mighty production plants were thrown into confusion and paralysis. But yesterday there had been the urgent question of parking the motorcars in which thousands of artisans and craftsmen were beginning to travel to their daily work. Today, the grievous pangs of falling wages and rising unemployment afflicted the whole community, engaged till this moment in the most active creation of all kinds of desirable articles for the enjoyment of millions. The American banking system was far less concentrated and solidly based than the British. Twenty thousand local banks suspended payment. The means of exchange of goods and services between man and man was smitten to the ground, and the crash on Wall Street reverberated in modest and rich households alike.
"It should not however be supposed that the fair vision of far greater wealth and comfort ever more widely shared which had entranced the people of the United States had nothing behind it but delusion and market frenzy. Never before had such immense quantities of goods of all kinds been produced, shared, and exchanged in any society. There is in fact no limit to the benefits which human being may bestow upon one another by the highest exertion of their diligence and skill. This splendid manifestation had been shattered and cast down by vain imaginative processes and greed of gain which far outstripped the great achievement itself. In the wake of the collapse of the stock market came during the years between 1929 and 1932 an unrelenting fall in prices and consequent cuts in production causing widespread unemployment."
-- Memoirs of the Second World War, an abridgment of the six volumes of The Second World War, by Winston S. Churchill, pp. 20-21. Mariner Books.(emphasis added)
Sound familiar? Eerily familiar?
I am not predicting a depression, but I certainly was not comforted by reading the above passage. It made me recall the main theme from the new TV series Battlestar Galactica, which is "All of this has happened before and all of it will happen again."
The economy is bigger than politics, so I am not going to use this post to assign blame or to prescribe some sort of solution. I will even resist the temptation to badger over the glut of non-regulators manning the positions of regulators. The fact remains that our foundational financial institutions found ways to over-indulge and would have found a way in any event.
What matters is that many people are really hurting out there. We all know people who are being ground to dust by circumstances. It's a scary time and unemployment has been rampant.
I am not sure where we go from here, but I hope our populace will resist the usual mud slinging and band together. I hope our leaders can find the strength to tell us what the truth is and not try to sugarcoat it. I hope we can embrace real solutions even if they are difficult or non-compliant with our ideological beliefs.
In any case, such things will take time and no solution will work quickly.
In the meantime, its time for all hands on deck. While bigger solutions are sought to the extent possible in Washington, it's time to help each other. None of us are in this alone and today's hard luck neighbors may end up being the ones who pull you out of the abyss if or when fate changes hands.
I always talk about bootstraps. We can control events to a point. We can make opportunities into successes by our efforts, but we never do anything alone. And, now more than ever, we need each other.
Another lesson we can take from Mr. Churchill is that no matter how bad things get, we must persevere to the end. No one can say that with more authority than the man who rescued England from perils we cannot understand today. His favorite term was "KBO," which means "keep buggering on."
We may not be fighting on the beaches or in the air, but we can fight for homes and for each other. The message is the same in war as in economic turmoil: Never Surrender. And hang in there.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Mapping the Gray
As the new year dawns, I realize that there is almost nothing I really want to change. Yet, like everyone, I will probably make a list of resolutions.
Resolutions are good at "sharpening the saw" and encourage "re dedication" to positive habits that have waned. I'm all for resolutions and no one in the world has attained perfection.
This New Year, however, has me focused on attempts to understand our species. What began as an elaborate attempt to learn about human behavior for a short story has turned into an obsession. I can't stop trying to learn about the rationality employed by people. I'm now getting a second wind on writing, but my study is nowhere close to done.
I recently was exposed to behavior that shocked my conscience, and, as a result, intensified my curiosity. The thought process that followed led to a hashing-out of my concept of truth. I have settled on a "modern" view for now. Allow me to explain.
I was introduced to a situation involving a mother who gave birth to a child while high on meth - and thus imposing upon that child the most uncertain and difficult of futures. My introduction into the scene was on the periphery and I do not really know any of the people involved, but it brought back memories of a similar case I argued and set my mind aflutter.
For reasons I cannot explain, I have never needed to learn the hard way. That is not to say I always learn easily, gracefully or with any special aptitude. I just don't tend to dabble in areas clearly shown to be dangerous. It may be from over-caution; from adept parenting provided to me; or it may be out of cowardice, but I have never flirted with rock bottom. I have never tried any illegal drug, I never picked up smoking, and I do not drink regularly or to excess. Heck, I haven't even gotten a speeding ticket since college and I will do anything possible to avoid snow driving. I guess I play the odds.
I am certain that none of my choices come from any personal superiority, and that is why I have a deep fascination with those who make terrible decisions in life and how that reflects upon greater truths. I always wonder what drives those decisions.
Is it a chemical or biological urge that comes from DNA? Does upbringing overpower nature? More specifically, would someone of my own temperament submit to the pressures if placed in a specific environment? I am sure the answer would be so variable as to be no better than a shrug. All of the above? None of the above? Some of each, but all of none? Every possible answer is on the table.
The mother who gave birth to a child while high on meth can appear normal and even pleasant in casual conversation. I cannot pretend to understand her station in life. I cannot know what the world looks like through her eyes or what she learned (or didn't learn) from her parents or family. But, I do know this: what she did was just about the worst display of judgment I can imagine.
Yet, somehow, decisions like hers aren't nearly as rare as they should be. I know because I can still see the image of a dead child from the file of my first-ever case.
My case involved a mother who was crashing from a meth high. Although a malfunctioning electric blanket inflicted the fatal heat levels, it was the mother who caused a death by placing her drug addiction ahead of the needs of an 11-week-old baby.
Some might call for execution as the only remedy to such horrible judgment as a violation of a basic and indisputable truth. Others will view the mother as a victim who must be rehabilitated as a nod to the uncertainty of greater truths in light of circumstances. Still others will grudgingly advocate rehab to avoid the unhappy consequence of a child without a mother (the pragmatic approach). I have no idea how to look at it, but I will not rationalize her behavior.
I simply cannot fathom such judgment and decision making. All attempts to explain seem like rationalization, which leads me to my greater point and how that relates to a greater truth.
The variations of poor judgment run the gamut. The examples above are extreme, of course. But, I have been considering the notion that we are less a rational species than a "rationalizing" one. This notion is not unique (I read an overview in one of Malcolm Gladwell's many brilliant books), but it is a harsh one that I hope to find unfitting.
When we discuss judgment, degrees are often used to justify behavior we know to be wrong. Maybe one person will say, "well, I did meth, but not while pregnant." Another may say, "I only drink and drive, but I've never killed anyone and I always took the back roads." Degrees aside, all the above involve poor judgment and dangerous behavior no matter how explained. Taken further, this example could lead to, "well, I didn't outright lie by leaving out the obvious relevant tidbit" to justify deception. Each degree takes us closer to what could be labeled the "actual truth."
In years past, I have contemplated some of the post-modern philosophical ideas and their general notion of subjective truths. Specifically, the idea that we can never really know if an action was "wrong" in the greater sense because we can't know all that is behind a given fact pattern. But, although some of those arguments are clever, I cannot shake the older (ironically titled "modern") belief in a firm right and wrong.
There is a lot of gray area between "right" and "wrong." I am certain of that. I am also certain it is not all gray.
I have decided that much of what we all consider gray area is constructed by our own rationalization. There is gray area, but it is smaller than many are willing to accept. That gray area can become as wide as we need it to be so as to justify ourselves. Although every person's map is unique, the larger the gray area, the more we fool ourselves.
My view of the gray area includes the unknowable (such as many religion-based arguments) and moral ambiguities (the "do you kill to potentially save?" type issues). I am sure there are more, but no matter where that difficult-to-find line is, the clearly marked areas cannot be missed.
Not doing drugs is clearly right. Driving while clearly sober is clearly right. Telling the truth even when it hurts is right.
We will all land squarely in the wrong at times. It will always happen. Only when we shade that side with gray and make ourselves comfortable therein do we perpetuate poor judgment. Sometimes we have to accept that "bad things happen," feel shame and re-settle in the clearly marked areas.
Of course, I'm already thinking of rationalizations to broaden my gray area so as not to offend ... and I think maybe therein lies the problem.
Resolutions are good at "sharpening the saw" and encourage "re dedication" to positive habits that have waned. I'm all for resolutions and no one in the world has attained perfection.
This New Year, however, has me focused on attempts to understand our species. What began as an elaborate attempt to learn about human behavior for a short story has turned into an obsession. I can't stop trying to learn about the rationality employed by people. I'm now getting a second wind on writing, but my study is nowhere close to done.
I recently was exposed to behavior that shocked my conscience, and, as a result, intensified my curiosity. The thought process that followed led to a hashing-out of my concept of truth. I have settled on a "modern" view for now. Allow me to explain.
I was introduced to a situation involving a mother who gave birth to a child while high on meth - and thus imposing upon that child the most uncertain and difficult of futures. My introduction into the scene was on the periphery and I do not really know any of the people involved, but it brought back memories of a similar case I argued and set my mind aflutter.
For reasons I cannot explain, I have never needed to learn the hard way. That is not to say I always learn easily, gracefully or with any special aptitude. I just don't tend to dabble in areas clearly shown to be dangerous. It may be from over-caution; from adept parenting provided to me; or it may be out of cowardice, but I have never flirted with rock bottom. I have never tried any illegal drug, I never picked up smoking, and I do not drink regularly or to excess. Heck, I haven't even gotten a speeding ticket since college and I will do anything possible to avoid snow driving. I guess I play the odds.
I am certain that none of my choices come from any personal superiority, and that is why I have a deep fascination with those who make terrible decisions in life and how that reflects upon greater truths. I always wonder what drives those decisions.
Is it a chemical or biological urge that comes from DNA? Does upbringing overpower nature? More specifically, would someone of my own temperament submit to the pressures if placed in a specific environment? I am sure the answer would be so variable as to be no better than a shrug. All of the above? None of the above? Some of each, but all of none? Every possible answer is on the table.
The mother who gave birth to a child while high on meth can appear normal and even pleasant in casual conversation. I cannot pretend to understand her station in life. I cannot know what the world looks like through her eyes or what she learned (or didn't learn) from her parents or family. But, I do know this: what she did was just about the worst display of judgment I can imagine.
Yet, somehow, decisions like hers aren't nearly as rare as they should be. I know because I can still see the image of a dead child from the file of my first-ever case.
My case involved a mother who was crashing from a meth high. Although a malfunctioning electric blanket inflicted the fatal heat levels, it was the mother who caused a death by placing her drug addiction ahead of the needs of an 11-week-old baby.
Some might call for execution as the only remedy to such horrible judgment as a violation of a basic and indisputable truth. Others will view the mother as a victim who must be rehabilitated as a nod to the uncertainty of greater truths in light of circumstances. Still others will grudgingly advocate rehab to avoid the unhappy consequence of a child without a mother (the pragmatic approach). I have no idea how to look at it, but I will not rationalize her behavior.
I simply cannot fathom such judgment and decision making. All attempts to explain seem like rationalization, which leads me to my greater point and how that relates to a greater truth.
The variations of poor judgment run the gamut. The examples above are extreme, of course. But, I have been considering the notion that we are less a rational species than a "rationalizing" one. This notion is not unique (I read an overview in one of Malcolm Gladwell's many brilliant books), but it is a harsh one that I hope to find unfitting.
When we discuss judgment, degrees are often used to justify behavior we know to be wrong. Maybe one person will say, "well, I did meth, but not while pregnant." Another may say, "I only drink and drive, but I've never killed anyone and I always took the back roads." Degrees aside, all the above involve poor judgment and dangerous behavior no matter how explained. Taken further, this example could lead to, "well, I didn't outright lie by leaving out the obvious relevant tidbit" to justify deception. Each degree takes us closer to what could be labeled the "actual truth."
In years past, I have contemplated some of the post-modern philosophical ideas and their general notion of subjective truths. Specifically, the idea that we can never really know if an action was "wrong" in the greater sense because we can't know all that is behind a given fact pattern. But, although some of those arguments are clever, I cannot shake the older (ironically titled "modern") belief in a firm right and wrong.
There is a lot of gray area between "right" and "wrong." I am certain of that. I am also certain it is not all gray.
I have decided that much of what we all consider gray area is constructed by our own rationalization. There is gray area, but it is smaller than many are willing to accept. That gray area can become as wide as we need it to be so as to justify ourselves. Although every person's map is unique, the larger the gray area, the more we fool ourselves.
My view of the gray area includes the unknowable (such as many religion-based arguments) and moral ambiguities (the "do you kill to potentially save?" type issues). I am sure there are more, but no matter where that difficult-to-find line is, the clearly marked areas cannot be missed.
Not doing drugs is clearly right. Driving while clearly sober is clearly right. Telling the truth even when it hurts is right.
We will all land squarely in the wrong at times. It will always happen. Only when we shade that side with gray and make ourselves comfortable therein do we perpetuate poor judgment. Sometimes we have to accept that "bad things happen," feel shame and re-settle in the clearly marked areas.
Of course, I'm already thinking of rationalizations to broaden my gray area so as not to offend ... and I think maybe therein lies the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)