The Slide Into Oblivion Continues

I've just returned from signing my son up for pre-school in what can only be called a "highly competitive" environment. We're applying at three different schools, and we're not confident that we'll get into any of them. You'd think school in this country was actually something impressive. But no matter how bad we have it, there's always someone who has it worse.

I'd consider myself a pretty cynical guy when it comes to observing the general public in action, but even I am knocked back on my heels occasionally by the sheer idiocy that comes from supposedly educated and enlightened people. Check this out.

A school in London has banned children from raising their hands to get the attention of teachers. It appears that these erudite (and proper, to be sure) school administrators have determined that some kids shoot their hands up before they actually consider the question. The result? Catastrophe!!! When the teacher calls on the kid and he (It's usually boys, they point out.) doesn't know the answer, you can just imagine the damage being done. It's probably right up there with witnessing the murder of his parents. He gets it wrong - in front of everyone. And...if that weren't enough...

The same school has instituted a "phone a friend" program for kids who don't know the answers. That way, they're spared the victimization that comes with being unable to answer questions in public. This MUST be a joke, but I fear it is not.

Folks, this goes hand in hand with the inane focus on self-esteem at any price. The consequence that these short-sighted morons completely fail to see is that helping a child to avoid any discomfort early in life just guarantees that he or she will be paralyzed to deal with it later - when the price of burying one's head in the sand is orders of magnitude higher. The bottom line is that failure is the single best tool to motivate and improve a human being. Yes, it has to be interpreted appropriately by adults - isn't that what they're there for? - but failure is essential. If things keep going in this direction, the folks that single-handedly stood up to Hitler for three years during WWII won't be able to stand up to a blister on their toe. Pathetic.

Ethical Capitalism

This happens to me from time to time. Over a span of no more than a few weeks, without any preconceived agenda or plan, I come across several disparate pieces of information (books, articles, movies, websites, etc.) that all inadvertantly conspire to solidify concepts that have previously been loosely floating around my brain. The last time it happened was when I started getting the feeling that evolutionary psychology was approaching a tipping point on its way to becoming a set of ideas that would have applicability beyond the walls of academia. (Click here for the result.) This time, the focus is on capitalism - specifically, whether it is possible to have a long-term capitalist system that does not ultimately cause more problems that it solves. To start with my conclusion, the answer is a resounding yes.

As the ten or so folks who visit this site regularly know, I've suffered some painful disillusionment recently with respect to America's behavior on the international stage over the last few decades. (See this and this.) That was the start. Then, I saw the documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room, which essentially explains the whole debacle from Enron's inception to its eventual demise. Not pretty, to say the very least, and as the trial of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling gets underway, it would be very easy to look at all this and come away with the feeling that capitalism is just another band in a spectrum of insidious human institutions. However, it's tough to square that with the irrefutable fact that those populations that have embraced free market capitalism have, on pretty much any measure you care to examine, enjoyed more prosperity than they did under any other system. Still, there must be something going on here. That something is the constant of human corruption.

I think it's critical to recognize that some systems, such as communism, are inherently flawed, which is to say that no cadre of saints could ever wring success from them. Even if you were to hypothetically (read: impossibly) factor out all manner of human corruption, the result would be the same - mass suffering and a general decline in overall prosperity. In the case of communism and its cousin, socialism, the culprit is the necessary role of information in the execution of decisions regarding the means of production and the distribution of that which is produced. As Friedrich Hayek tells us in, The Fatal Conceit, it is simply impossible for a centralized authority to have the information it needs to make good decisions across a panoply of individual situations. That's how you end up with a surplus of plates, but a shortage of forks. But capitalism is not one of those institutions.

Capitalism, as an institution, is perfectly sound. It works with human nature, which is why it works at all. But like all other institutions that involve our species, it is always at risk of being corrupted from within. As Brian Tracy so clearly writes in, Something for Nothing, all humans are hardwired to be lazy, greedy, ambitious, selfish, vain, ignorant, and impatient. In addition, all humans have the same basic heirarchy of needs - safety, security, comfort, leisure, love, respect, and fulfillment - in that order. The question is how we get from our inherent attributes to the satisfaction of our needs. It would be easy to say that good institutions are the answer. In a sense, they are, but I think we're now seeing that our good institutions could still use some work.

Is capitalism bad because big oil has enough money and enough influence to push our leaders to embrace wholly unethical practices when dealing with underdeveloped countries? After all, it was capitalism that made it possible for big oil to get where it is today. Is capitalism bad because a few nefarious fellows (like Lay, Skilling, and Fastow) can conspire to plunge California into an energy crisis and hoodwink Wall Street and the rest of the world into losing billions of dollars on a house of cards? No and no. The problem is ethics.

I have recently come across a company called LRN. Here's what they do:

LRN helps leading companies around the world inspire do-it-right cultures. We provide everyone in the enterprise with the legal and ethics knowledge needed to make better decisions and take appropriate actions.

The founder and CEO of the company is a guy called, Dov Seidman. He's a Harvard Law grad (The company has its roots as a legal services provider.), and it appears that his mission in life (and business) is to bring ethics to the forefront of corporate American culture. What intrigues me is that it appears that the business environment in this country following all of the scandals of late is becoming more and more receptive to this. Sounds good, right? So how does it work?

The basic idea is that companies, especially large ones, have to embrace a culture of ethics. That means they can't just look at regulatory and legal issues as hindrances to business as usual. They, meaning the employees at large, have to internalize what it means to operate ethically. Again, it sounds great, but how do you make it happen?

It takes a commitment from the very top to instruct every member of the organization on what it means to do business ethically, and it takes a system that is designed to penalize unethical behavior, and, more importantly, to reward ethical behavior. The idea is not to determine some universal set of ethics across all industries and then chip away at getting more and more companies to buy into them. It's about getting each and every company out there to settle on a set of values and then implement systems that ensure that they are observed at all levels. This is no easy task, but it can happen.

Up until summer of 2005, I worked for IBM. One thing that I really appreciated about working for Big Blue was the fact that every employee had to commit to a set of Business Conduct Guidelines. Every year, we had to login to the IBM intranet, read the guidelines, and acknowledge our commitment to them. Though I can't speak for everyone, I can certainly say that I took those guidelines seriously. They meant a lot to me, and I was all too happy to share them with customers.

As a business development professional (read: sales guy), I was constantly competing with other big names for business. I often emphasized the fact that IBM is an ethical company with a commitment to doing the right thing by its customers. To some, this no doubt came off as standard sales fluff. However, given the fact that no complex business relationship is hiccup-free, savvy customers are comforted to know that when things go wrong, the company on the other end has a policy of being on the up and up. Culturally-speaking, we at IBM believed we held the moral high ground, and I can tell you that we were often rewarded for it. This is what Seidman envisions for corporate America.

In fact, in 2004, Seidman testified before the United States Sentencing Commission. Here's the deal with the commission:

The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of government. Its principal purposes are: (1) to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including guidelines to be consulted regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes; (2) to advise and assist Congress and the executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy; and (3) to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing issues, serving as an information resource for Congress, the executive branch, the courts, criminal justice practitioners, the academic community, and the public.

At the time of Seidman's testimony, they were considering the role of ethics in determining how to handle legal infractions by business, large and small. Here's a link to the whole transript. It's a bit long, but Seidman's arguments are really compelling. Here's a snapshot:

Compliance is about self-governance by its very nature. And therefore, if we believe that the most powerful form of self-governance is further down the spectrum of culture beyond mere acquiescence with law, then only ethics can get us there. I'm also rejecting as unfeasible in today's world is that a set of corporate mechanisms and bureaucracies can be created, indeed pure compliance programs that attempt to ensure that everyone acquiesces and complies with the law. Instead, I believe that compliance with law is, in fact, an outcome - an outcome of a true self-governing culture.

Quite right. In terms of Tracy's basic human attributes, we can say that the system that positively harnesses our inherent greed and selfishness in the pursuit of our aims is ethics. And when the right ethics are in place, we find that our needs for love, respect, and fulfillment are more easily satisfied. You see, as social animals, we thrive on the acceptance of others. Having a common set of values and a system that illuminates breaches in those values is the key to keeping the dark side of human nature in check. It's a kinder, gentler version of the public hanging.

If, during my says at IBM, I had chosen to do as many competitors did, offering kick-backs to decision-makers for choosing IBM, I would have been met with raised eyebrows at the very least (and, more likely, disciplinary action). My colleagues would have thought less of me for taking the easy wrong over the hard right. Though we were co-workers, we were also competing with one another in some ways - in terms of quota attainment and such. By operating unethically, I would have given myself an edge, which was tantamount to cheating. Yes, I lost deals to competitors who delivered big screen TVs to CIOs who bought their wares, but I could always hold my head up, and that was ultimately more important to me than getting the deal or my acknowledgement of the IBM Business Conduct Guidelines. That's an ethical culture, and it came about because I was working within a system that would not allow me to overly satisfy my needs for security and comfort (by way of sales commissions) without jeopardizing my need for respect. A good ethical system creates checks and balances between human attributes and human needs - breaches mean that needs don't get met. Simple, and completely consistent with human nature.

The bottom line is that the solution to the problems of capitalism are out there. They're not easy, and they have costs, but the benefits far outweigh them. Indeed, as Seidman says, compliance with the law is an outcome of an ethical culture. But there are many others, the best of which is the value of being known for doing the right thing. That means that we have to reject the understandable, but intellectually lazy, conclusion that capitalism in itself is the problem. As always, it is our implacable human nature that poses the challenge. Fortunately, just as the invisible hand co-opts our nature to produce the best of all possible environments, so can ethics keep the invisible hand from reaching in the cookie jar when no one is looking.

Grizzly Man - Must See Documentary

This isn't what you'd call a formal review. It's more of a recommendation to check out this DVD I watched a couple of nights ago. Holy crap! That's all I can say. Grizzly Man is the story of Timothy Treadwell, a troubled guy who found salvation in spending thirteen consecutive summers in Alaska, unarmed and in the company of grizzly bears. The director of the film, Werner Herzog, uses actual footage taken by Treadwell during his last five years to string together a commentary on the man, his mission, and the relationship between human civilization and the wildness of nature.

Let me go ahead and spoil the thing by saying that Treadwell was eaten by a grizzly in 2003, along with his then girlfriend, who he, it appears, cajoled into staying longer than she really wanted to. (Talk about regrettable decisions.) Actually, I'm not really spoiling anything - Herzog brings it up right away. There were three things that had me glued to the screen the whole time the film was playing.

For starters, the fact is that what Treadwell did was flat-out unbelievable. He really did live right there in the wilderness with the bears, in their territory, and he interacted with them. (In some scenes, he actually got close enough to touch them on the nose.) Amazing to watch. As I said, he was a troubled guy. In grizzly bears, he found a cause that he could immerse himself in, thus taking the focus off his own demons. This is standard fanatic behavior - a la Hoffer's The True Believer .

As I was talking about this last night with a couple of people, we jokingly concluded that the story almost writes itself. Guy goes to Hollywood looking for fame and meaning in life, gets close but ultimately fails, spirals downhill with drugs, alcohol, and bad crowds, and...grizzly bears. Yes, that's pretty much how it happened. Treadwell, presumably on the back-end of some bender, somehow decided that the bears needed a protector, an advocate, if you will, so he made his way to Alaska and the rest is history.

The second thing that sucked me in was the way Herzog told the story. He was, by no means, a Timothy Treadwell cheerleader. He was genuinely trying to understand what was going with this guy. Did he just have a screw loose? Was he a sane, but courageous environmental activist? (I turned to my wife less than 30 seconds into the film and said, "This guy has obvious emotional problems. Of that much, I am already sure.") More compelling was the way Herzog juxtaposed the people who thought Treadwell had a positive impact on bears versus the people who said he hurt more than he helped. There were plenty of both, although those who said he did good things had that nutty, disconnected with reality kind of feel to them. I found the treatment of the subject very similar to the way Jon Krakauer wrote, Into The Wild - you know, that of the impartial journalist, just trying to make sense of things. In my view, that's the best way to deal with these kinds of stories - to take one side or the other eliminates the real value of telling them.

The last thing that kept me attentive throughout Grizzly Man was the suspense. Though Herzog tells you right away that Treadwell was killed in 2003, he leaves you wondering whether Treadwell ever really accomplished anything. After all, he wasn't a scientist, and he wasn't conducting any sort of research. He was spending his summers amongst the bears, supposedly protecting them from the humans who would seek to harm them. (But did they really need help? And if so, did he give it to them?) Then, in other seasons, he'd travel around to schools giving free presentations to kids about his experiences. I can only imagine what a treat it must have been to children to have a damned near bi-polar guy like Treadwell come and tell fantastic stories of living with and interacting with bears, and other animals. (He actually befriended a family of foxes - they would come right up to him and follow him around. Very cute.)

In the end, I'll leave it to you to decide whether he accomplished anything. No matter what, it's clear that he enjoyed what he was doing, and that he died doing something he loved. Nutty or not, there's something to be said for that. My interest, however, is piqued most by the relationship between people like Treadwell and reality.

Being a guy who didn't find himself living the life he expected, Treadwell turned to whatever he could to cope. First, it was alcohol and drugs. Eventually, it ended up being bears. He had this vision of nature as being something that was not ugly like human civilization. His vision of nature was filled with egalitarian beauty, with justice and respect for all life forms. You really get a sense of this when you watch the scenes he filmed. At times, he gushes so much about his love for the animals that you feel certain he's either on ecstasy or he's nuts. Oh course, reality inevitably crashes in, shattering his illusions, if only for a while. (He finds the severed claw of a bear cub and realizes that the bears have eaten one of their own. Talk about red in tooth and claw!) I love to see the look on this face at times like this. It's that bewildered look, the one that says, "This just doesn't add up." I don't love it because I'm a sadist. I love it because it reinforces one of my most prized axioms - reality will ALWAYS have her way with you.

Ultimately, I came away from this film with an added appreciation for how much humans can accomplish when they want to. Thirteen summers, a stone's throw from ferocious grizzly bears, staring and shouting them down when confronted, and no gun. Astounding! At the same time, I came away feeling more concrete about the idea that when life sucks, you have to stare it down, figure it out, and turn it around. You can't run out in the woods where all your problems don't exist and expect that all will be well. You'll eventually get eaten by a freaking bear.

Google China - Commercial Practicality Versus Ethical Idealism

I'll admit that my first response when I read that Google has agreed to censor some of its content in China was a resounding, "WTF"??!!! But then I settled down a bit and considered the situation. Here's a blurb from the article on Reuters:

Google said on Tuesday it will block politically sensitive terms on its new China search site and not offer e-mail, chat and blog publishing services, which authorities fear can become flashpoints for social or political protest. Those actions go further than many of its biggest rivals in China.

"I didn't think I would come to this conclusion -- but eventually I came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see," Brin told Reuters in an interview in Switzerland.

Brin is Sergey Brin, the Co-Founder and President of Technology at Google, and he makes a good point. Or does he? On the surface, the issue seems simple - a choice between no Google or a censored version of Google. In that context, one can hardly blame Brin and pals. After all, half of something is always better than all of nothing. That makes the decision to offer a limited version of the 800 lb search gorilla seem almost altruistic. One might even wonder why it took them so long. But suppose the premise that China needs Google, even if only abbreviated, is bunk. Then what?

Reportedly censored are search terms regarding Taiwan's independence and the massacre at Tiananmen Square in 1989, among many other freedom/democracy/human rights topics. It is also important to note that Google has already been subject to censorship for some time now because of what is called the Great Firewall - China's state-run censorship program (nice). So again, the question - does China really need Google so much that it is ultimately worth it to give it to them with these restrictions? According to CNN, If you can believe one of Google's lawyers, then yes.

"We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.

Whatever you have to tell yourself, Andy. Let me break this down for you. Google is good, really good, but for the average internet user, the qualitative difference between Google and some other search engine is about nil. Maybe it's a little faster, but so what - I'd bet that most people can't even tell you why everyone uses Google. Hell, back in the days when I thought I was cool using MetaCrawler (believe it or not, it's still around), it never occurred to me that I could have been getting even better results than I was getting. I got results, I clicked, and away I went. Just like everyone else. So to suggest that the execs at Google finally decided to be pragmatic about crossing what used to be a fairly distinct line in the sand (Their motto is, "Don't be evil."), simply because China needs better search capabilities is pretty flimsy.

To understand why, you only need to know how Google makes money. Ads, ads, and more ads. If you look at the most recent SEC submission, you'll notice that in the first nine months of 2005, Google made over $4 Billion (yes, with a B) in ad revenues, versus a little over $50 Million in other revenues. They accomplish this because everyone uses Google to search, which means Google can sell contextual ads for everything you can possibly imagine. (You know the little text ads you see everywhere? Advertisers pay a few pennies every time you click one. You can literally hear the cha-ching at Google HQ in Mountain View, California.) Now, all they have to do to generate even more incredible revenues is to start selling ads to folks in places where online advertising is just waking up, just becoming useful.

It's about the Asian land grab. Period. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft know that as China and the rest of Asia continue to grow, what has happened here is going to happen there. And right now, there is no 800 lb Gorilla (or even 500 lb Panda), so this is a profit deal disguised as an altruism deal. Or maybe that's pushing it a bit. I don't think anyone at Google would characterize this as some Internet Ghandi thing. But there's no question that they have resisted the requests of the Chinese government in the past, and now, after an "excruciating decision," they're on board, and they're saying that the change is because they'll do some good. Bunk.

And here we are at the business ethics turning point. On one hand, we (I'll be Google for a moment.) have the potential to stake out what looks to be another gold rush in the coming years. On the other hand, as the largest, most respected Internet company on the planet, we are in a position to make a statement about why we're where we are. You think Google would be anything if an oppressive Uncle Sam controlled the internet?

I recognize that, in terms of quality of internet experience, it is immaterial to anyone in China whether or not Google censors its own content (since it'll be censored by the Great Firewall anyway). But isn't acquiescence tantamount to assent here? When do we have a responsibility to the other people on this planet to be vocal about what human rights are all about? Instead of just burying the old line and gingerly drawing a new one, why don't we put Google to work for the oppressed?

You know when you mistype something and Google comes up with the suggestion? You know, the "did you mean..." deal. Well, what if when "Taiwan Independence" is searched, it comes back with no results (per the restrictions), but in the "Did you mean...," if says, "How to break away from totalitarian nutjobs?" Then, away they go to the land of free ideas on the real internet. So easy. And I do this in my spare time.

In closing, let me just say...

1. Google, your decision to give in to China is a rationalization in the face of obscene potential profits. Accept it, and stop trying to con everyone including yourselves.

2. I'm all for profit, and I would never dream of disparaging someone for pursuing it ethically. However, governments and international institutions are not the only ones who can impose sanctions on countries for behaving badly. It's time to put profit aside to set an example. Censorship is wrong - especially the kind of censorship that goes on in China. We do ourselves (as a country) no good by preaching free speech and then profiting off the exact opposite.

Brokeback Mountain - Review

"I think we really need to see this movie," my wife says. "It's supposed to be an important film."

"Yes, but movies are first and foremost about entertainment to me, and I just don't know how entertained I'm going to be seeing a couple of cowboys roughing it up in a tent," I reply.

"Well sometimes you have to get out of your comfort zone to grow as a person," she concludes. And we go.

In the end, I think we were both right. Brokeback Mountain is an important film in the sense that it marks America's official acceptance of the reality of homosexuality - mainly that it is not chosen, but that it is biological. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of homophobes still out there, or that many of them wouldn't just as soon come up with some "final solution" for the "gay problem" as let things continue going the way they're going. However, when a movie like this can come out, receive critical acclaim, not be widely labeled as pornographic, and not have the puritanical among us protesting incessantly at all showings, you have to admit that the acceptance of biological homosexuality is now completely mainstream. So my wife was right. And so was I. Sort of.

I normally like to begin reviews by either recommending or not recommending the work in question. However, in this case, I really can't do that. Yes, I think the film is important, and I'm glad it was made and has been widely distributed. And, to a certain extent, I'd say it was worthwhile for me to see it, if only because it threw yet another log onto a fire that was lit for me many years ago - the fire of disgust at how some humans, when faced with ideas and lifestyles that are different from their own, choose to trample the rights of other humans to assuage their inner turmoil. But should you see it? I can't say.

Brokeback Mountain is essentially the story of two cowboys who fall in love but have to carry on their relationship secretly for twenty or so years. They try to deny the situation in the beginning, choosing to take the traditional path for men of their ilk - they marry and have children. Alas, their need to be true to themselves and their love drives them to periodic clandestine trists in the wilderness, which ultimately result in their undoing. It's all very sad, really.

As far as entertainment goes, I'm willing to endure some sadness for a point. For example, Schindler's List is, in some ways, the saddest movie of all time, but the value of the movie surpasses any selfish desire to use the big screen as an escape. So we go, we cry, and we come away different, aware of how bad it can get on this big blue marble. But I'm not ready to say the same for Brokeback Mountain. In fact, it has a very "preaching to the choir" feel to it.

You see, I already knew that homosexuality is biological, and I already knew that homophobes have been destroying the lives of good people forever. So I can't say I came away from the film with some new perspective on things. I would venture to say that this is probably true for most everyone who saw and appreciated the film. But could this film change anything for people who are either mildly homophobic or just prefer not to think about such issues? Doubtful.

There are admittedly only a couple of, shall we say, uncomfortable scenes in Brokeback Mountain, but these would be enough to throw a gay issues fence sitter right over the edge into the land of, "I really don't need to see this." The emotional repulsion in the unprepared mind would likely over-power the rationality needed to come to grips with the point of the film. In the end, the fence sitter walks out feeling a little violated, and the idea that these two cowboys should have been able to live honestly without fear of reprisal from the community falls to the ground as a seed for which there is no water and no sunlight. So here we are - those of us who already "get it" are treated to a film that offers a more picturesque and depressing view of a scene we've encountered many times before.

That's what I mean when I say that my wife and I were both right. She's right to say that the film is important, but I am right to say that the price of admission (the sad theme and the uncomfortable scenes) probably didn't the hit the mark of good entertainment on a Saturday night. Of course, this is a little troubling to say because I'm focusing almost exclusively on the theme. But that's not my fault - the theme is the raison d'etre of the film. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that it was extremely well done. And maybe, just maybe, there is a silver lining in all this.

Aside from the gay issue, there is something to the film that I think illuminates a real human issue. That is the idea that you have to choose who you love in life, and you have to do so rationally. As I mentioned, the characters in this movie tried to live the lives that were expected of them, but their addiction to the warm fuzzies that could only come from interacting (and, ahem, other stuff) with one another ultimately led to their demise. One could ask a very serious question - should they have recognized that their love, though it was real and more meaningful than anything else in their lives, was not worth the costs?

I have long argued that our lives should be goal oriented and that the goals we choose should be rationally conceived. So, supposing that one's goal in life is happiness, is it not reasonable to suggest that sometimes love is not the answer? John Lennon said, "All you need is love." I say, "All you need is healthy love." Reigning in our emotions is perhaps the most difficult challenge we face as humans in a modern world. They were not designed for this environment, and they routinely push in directions that do more harm than good. Love is no different.

I'm not saying that these cowboys should have simply succumbed to the expectations of society and been happy breeders. But the fact is that they made commitments to people, and there were children involved. To give in to their love was immoral in that context - not because they happened to be gay - but because they were cheating, plain and simple. The right answer would have been to honorably sever their marriages and move somewhere that was more accepting of their lifestyle. I'm just not willing to give these guys a pass because they happened to be gays in a world that persecutes gays. We all have our crosses to bear.

I will freely admit that this is pure Monday morning quarterbacking, and I know that there are many who would disagree with me. That's a good thing. That means that Brokeback Mountain isn't just about the homosexuality thing. It is also an excellent case study in the relationship between rational commitments and emotional restraint. There's ground to be gained in that discussion, so maybe the price of admission was worth it.

You can see that I'm still a little conflicted on this movie, which is why I can't make a recommendation one way or another. I will, however, say that you should see it if you like a good emotional story in a sometimes breathtaking and sometimes heartbreaking setting, and if you can stomach some rough gay sex on the big screen. Brokeback Mountain is cinematically beautiful and the story is well told. Furthermore, there's no question that Gyllenhaal and Ledger are fantastic actors who have done what would seem to be very difficult roles a great deal of justice. Indeed, I find myself wondering if gay isn't going to become the new retarded. Think about it - for years, it has been well known that the way to become considered a serious actor is to do a retarded role. Maybe now, you can do a steamy gay role and get the attention of The Academy. Only time will tell - but you heard it here first.

Dreams and Dream Killing

Even though my kid is only a little over two years old, the household battles over how to deal with dreams have been joined in earnest. I, as you might imagine, am literally fueled by dreams. The prospect of working a nine to five till I'm 65 is horrifying. If I were to have to accept this as my fate, those in my life would find me insufferable (or more insufferable, I should say). My wife, on the other hand, is a very down-to-earth person. She finds contentment in the most important things in life, which means my grand dreams are a little hard to relate to. More than occasionally, I hear her say something like, "I have everything I want in life. I don't need all that." So it isn't hard to imagine that when we talk about how to deal with the dreams of our children, we often sit on islands apart, shouting at each other over the waves.

From my perspective, the most important thing is to nurture dreams, especially for young people. In my book, there's nothing worse for a kid than having parents who say, "Oh, you can't do that. That's for other kids." Or, "Your chances of making it as a ____ are pretty much nil, so don't waste your time." Infuriating! My motto has always been that determination is an adequate substitute for talent in all but the rarest cases. What follows from that is the notion that children need to figure out where they want to apply their determination. That means they have to see all big dreams as achievable, at least initially.

Can every kid be a professional musician? Who knows? I know guys who make a good living as musicians who will tell you that they worked for every note. They'll say that they started with little or no talent, but that they loved music so much that they put in the time to get good. And eventually, that's exactly what happened. Perhaps music is special in that regard. But what about sports?

Certainly sports require some degree of inherent talent, particularly at elite levels, so it's reasonable to say that no amount of determination will offset genetic inferiority. Fair enough, however we still have to account for the concept of late bloomers. Isn't it conceivable that an awkward but dedicated pre-teen might come out on the other side of puberty as a graceful and talented athlete? I bet there are pros out there who tell a story like this. My point is that when it comes to kids, there's simply nothing to be gained by dream killing. Or is there?

My wife's position is a little more practical. She is on board with the idea that you nurture whatever interests your kids have. However, she is only willing to let things play out until the potential for problems arises. Then, it's time for a little dose of reality. For example, suppose little Sally wants to be a pro figure skater. She does alright at the pre-teen levels, but isn't exactly a consistent winner in competitions. Nevertheless, she loves it and wants to keep on with the several hours of training a day. She has Olympic aspirations. Putting aside the burden this puts on the parents (both financial and logistical), what should they do?

Should they let her keep plugging away when they believe deep in their hearts that she's headed for a big fall? Or should they be her dream killers? Tough call, and at this point, I really don't know what I'd say. I know what my wife would say - "Sweetheart, it's time to start looking into other hobbies." She'd probably make up an excuse to soften the blow, all for the daughter's own good, of course. But, in the end, she'd do her the favor of placing reality starkly in her view.

Talk about harsh, but isn't life just that? It's a fantasy to believe that just because you want something, it will happen. I believe this is the essence of Hume's Naturalistic Fallacy - confusing what is desired with what is. But just when you think you know reality, someone comes along and smashes it. Anyone remember Spud Webb? Here's was a little 5'7", 135lb guy who played successfully for a dozen years in the NBA. He even won the Slam Dunk Contest in 1986. Here's the pic -



Spud Webb was one bad mo-fo, and I can only imagine what people must have said to him as he was growing up expressing his dreams of playing in the NBA. "Ha ha, you must be crazy. You need to ladder to climb up to the bench! (Insert full-body fits of laughter and screaming from all present.) You'll never play real ball." And, of course, as in all Cinderella stories, the wicked did not have the last laugh. Great, but so what, right? All this proves is that occasionally some people beat the odds.

Yes, but who will it be next? This is the hook upon which I hang my attitude about dreams. I really do believe my wife's perspective is valid, and in many ways, it is perhaps most humane - after all, the higher the cliff, the harder the fall (until you get to terminal velocity - ah, shutup). Maybe there's a middle ground here - some place between the all-out unrealistic pursuit of grand dreams and the negativity of dream killing. I think there may be.

It's an important question as to why one adopts a particular thing as a dream. Is it for the pure love of the endeavor? Or is it for the fame? Or the money? Or a boy or girl or lifestyle? I'd say that you can cure most dream dilemmas by taking this question head-on. I knew a guy in college who was probably the most talented guitar player I've ever seen or heard. Once, when we got him drunk enough, he indulged us with a rare performance. But this was no ordinary "sitting around the living room watching a guy play guitar" performance. He suggested that we start telling a story, and that each person pick up the story where the last person left off, and that each new person take the story in a new emotional direction. He played the soundtrack.

Can I just say, even now, more than a decade later, I get chills thinking about how unbelievable this was. He KILLED it. The funny parts were bouncy and had everyone smiling. The sad parts were gut wrenching (even though the story was pretty weak). There was even a part about jealousy that he nailed with such taste that those of us who pretended to play instruments were equal parts flabbergasted and green as a cucumber. When he finished, with all the girls still fawning over him, he was asked why he wasn't playing for a living. "Why aren't you like the biggest star everrrr?" His response seemed crazy then, but now I understand it.

Virtuoso: "Music bores me. I have been able to play anything I've wanted note for note since I was probably ten years old - Eddie Van Halen, Hendrix, and even Joe Satriani. I'm what they call a child prodigy. So the prospect of getting up and playing something totally easy and totally boring day after day doesn't appeal to me. Tonight was the first time I've played a guitar in probably six months."

Fawning Girl: "Oh my God!! You're kidding! (Slaps him on the leg. Classic IOI - Indication of Interest.) Yeah, but you're so good. You could be totally rich and famous!"

Virtuoso: "Yeah, but I'd still have to be somebody's jukebox. No thanks." (Plays it cool. Leaves with the girl. Mental high-fives all around.)

Wow! Was this guy centered or what? There, at his fingertips, he had what most people want more than anything else, and he had the foresight to know that it wouldn't make him happy. Imagine if the kids on American Idol had that kind of mindset. Sadly, most of them would do anything to be rich and famous, including deluding themselves into believing they're talented, which brings me back to dream killing.

I think you can avoid the kill or no-kill conundrum by encouraging people to adopt dreams that are a direct mainfestation of passion. To sing to be famous is to express a passion for the attention of strangers in an indirect way. I would bet that this little litmus test for the legitimacy of dreams will knock out the lion's share of aspirations that are likely to end in tears - if your dream is not legit, I don't really have a problem killing it. And, most dreams, I would say, are illegitimate.

Dream of being rich? Why? So people will look up to you and whisper as you walk by, "You know that guy's a millionaire..."? Paleeese. That's classic caveman status-seeking. Once you push it aside, you find that the only legitimate reason to want to be rich is to be free - free to do what you want, when you want, for as long as you want - a life of want-tos, not have-tos. Want to be famous? Same thing - caveman. It doesn't apply now, so forget it. In fact, I can't think of a legitimate reason to want to be famous, unless it is the vehicle to getting rich, which is the vehicle to becoming truly free. But then you're abtsracted away into indirect expressions of your desires. There are more direct and probable routes.

If your dream is to be free - statistics would tell you to become a business-person - sales, real estate, entrepreneur, etc.. Determination in that arena is really all it takes. No talent required. Trust me on that. There are hundreds of books that tell you exactly what you have to do. You only need the drive, courage, and the patience to do it. (Don't believe me? Ever met a rich idiot? I rest my case.) So once you've filtered out the psuedo-dreams, you're left with the real ones, the ones inspired by passion. From there, it's easy. You keep plugging away, no matter what anyone says. But you have to be smart.

I am an amateur musician. I have played guitar for 17 or 18 years, and I'm very competent - I can play rythm with professionals with no problem. But music has always been a hobby for me, even though it is one of my greatest passions. That's because I made the decision years ago that my biggest passion is freedom, and a guy like me can only have one master. So I get what I can out of music, and I don't leave my dreams out in the open so they can be killed. They're alive and well, and maybe one day, they'll be realized. The point is that once you place your dreams in the right context in life, the question as to whether to kill or not kill largely disappears. And, contrary to my usual desire to meet conflict head-on, this is a problem I am happy to sidestep.

Drive Time Improvements

In the category of stupid shit you can make at home to make your life easier, I submit the following. The first is a solution to a problem that has plagued multitudes for several years - the Red Bull koozie. That's right folks. Who among the Red Bull addicted has not cursed the Swiss jerk who came up with the mini-can? I mean, it's bad enough that the damned thing costs two bucks or more for half of what you get in a normal drink, but they at least could have made it the standard width so as to accommodate drink holders. Europeans. Les Idiots. But, ever the tinkerer, I have the solution. Here's the finished product...




Yes, simple, I know, but very effective. To construct one of these yourself, you'll need scissors and some duct tape. First, you remove the bottom of the koozie. This can be delicate, so have a couple of extras on hand. Then, cut the cylinder of the koozie. Next you wrap the koozie around a Red Bull can - preferably full - the empty ones can give a little too much during the measurement phase. You stretch the koozie a bit and mark where you need to make the next cut. The stretch assures a snug fit in the finished product - a loose koozie, I cannot abide. Then you cut off the extra, making sure to cut at somewhat the same angle as the first cut. Obvs.

Next comes the duct tape. Applying the duct tape properly is the key to the longevity of your new koozie. You first apply a strip on the outside, being careful to keep the seam as close to the middle as possible. Then, and this is a tip I learned the hard way with my initial prototype, you place a strip of tape on the inside with enough extra to fold a little over onto the outside at the top and bottom. When you only tape the outside, the tape has a tendency to give over time, resulting in a loose and sticky koozie. (No, thanks!) And it's key to apply the inside strip last so that the overlap is on the outside. This eliminates the can's getting hung on the excess while it is on the way in or out of the koozie. Good design is about subtlety. That's it.

You can now slug Red Bulls going down the highway knowing that you'll never spill a drop. And if you happen to get interrupted before finishing your Bull, you know it'll be nice and cool when you get back to it. Incidentally, I gave a few of these away as Christmas gifts. Smiles for miles.

***

Next up is a little more sinister, but every bit as useful, device. I call it the HOV Dummy. This one is for those "emergencies" when you just have to drive in the HOV lane but you don't have a passenger. For you country folk, the HOV lane is the lane for High Occupancy Vehicles. While the rest of the one-passenger vehicles are standing still on the interstate, vehicles with multiple passengers are cruising along in their own linear oasis of constant movement. I came up with this one after I read Malcolm Gladwell's, Blink, and I realized that cops looking to bust HOV offenders are thin slicing. They're glancing at cars as they go by, looking for broken silouettes above the front passenger seats. If they see one on the passenger side, they move on the next car. Here's the finished product...



Yes, I know, brilliant. And Rudy is not chosen arbitrarily. Should I get busted with my HOV Dummy (yeah, right), I'm hoping the cop has a good sense of humor. And what cop doesn't like Rudy Giuliani? You see, even in my dastardly pursuits, I'm leveraging what I know about human nature. Anyhow, making this one is fun for the whole family.

First, you pick your companion. This has to be done carefully. As a married guy, I can't pick someone like Pammy - what if someone I know saw me? The wife would object. No, it has to be a guy. And it can't be some young kid, cause then I'm up to no good. I'm left with middle aged men. In that case, Rudy is the natural choice. Plus, he and I can talk politics and whatnot. Good stuff.

Aaaanyway, with your companion chosen, go to Google Images and type his or her name in. Be sure to choose the "Large Pictures" option so you get one with some decent resolution. You then find one the one you like and save it your computer. From there, you'll need some kind of image processing software. There are free ones that will do what you need. You just want to adjust the size of the image so that you can get a good 8x10 print out of it - color is preferred, though not mandatory. You should, however, try to use some thicker paper, like photo paper - it holds up well over time. Then comes the fun of cutting out the head. Man, it takes me back to the gun ranges in the Army. Ahh, memories.

Anyhow, you have a couple of options for the final step. You can simply affix a piece of duct tape to the back, a piece curled around on itself so as to be sticky on all sides. With that, you just smack it on whenever you need it. Just be sure to keep an eye on your stickiness factor. There's nothing worse than an HOV Buddy that won't stick in a bad traffic jam. Trust me. Or, you can get a little more sophisticated and get yourself some elastic string and affix a loop to the sides of the back of the head - a la your typical Halloween mask. Then, you just wrap it around the seat back. It's a tradeoff, really.

With the first, you get optimum silouette breakage; with the second, you get worry-free durability. In the end, it comes down to personal preference. Finally, I should mention that I'm working on some improvements with this one. Currently, the design is effective in head-on and from-the-rear scenarios. However, the side view is still problematic. For this, I'll be incorporating a profile component. This will be a bit tougher design-wise, due to the need for some sort of structural piece jutting out from the seat back to hold the profile in the proper position. I may use cardboard. I'll keep you posted.

So there you go - two items you can make right in your own home that are guaranteed to improve your life. Enjoy, and let me know how you like them.

More Thoughts on Imperial America

Michael Gersh responded to yesterday's post with the following comment. Now that I've had another day to think about it, my thoughts are crystallizing.

The overthrow of Mossadegh was the first point of entry for the people of the former Persian Empire to enjoy the fruits of modern civilization. Our involvement with the overthrow of Mossadegh was no more and no less than our (and President Carter's) involvement in the overthrow of the Shah - followed by the theocracy of Khomeini and the Ayatollahs - which also lies at our feet.

So, which is better - Eisenhower's support of the modern Iran, or Carter's support of the theocracy? At least the Shah made for a better environment for American interests to make some money. And what if you do not like either version - then you want to isolate the U.S. rather than staying involved in world geopolitics.

Whatever way we go, there will be winners, losers, and unintended consequences. Me, I'll take Eisenhower over Carter any day. And George W. Bush first of all. And, in case anyone wants to label any of this, support for the Shah, and opposition to Saddam, and the use of force to accomplish same, makes me a LIBERAL. Calls for withdrawal and leaving the Iraqi people to their own fate, makes you an isolationist conservative, supporting an imperialist fascist.

So much for labels

Fair enough; that has pretty much been my feeling about it for a long time, too, but the conclusion, I suspect, is based upon the flawed premise that our two options have always been either isolationism or coercive puppetmastering.

If Perkins is telling the truth, then ever since Teddy Roosevelt cited manifest destiny as the justification for the creation of the US-owned "canal zone" in Panama, the US has used economic coercion with the veiled threat of force to pull a dispicable bait and switch on some of the world's neediest people.

The bait is, on the one hand, the promise of prosperity for the general population of our "new ally" (the stated benefit), and on the other hand, great riches for the leaders (the real benefit, the one that matters most). The switch is the fact that only the latter comes true. Indeed, it usually turns out that, though the country's leaders do become quite wealthy and surrounded in the latest western comforts, the crushing debt that accumulates due to the massive loans from the World Bank and IMF (which are heavily, if not solely, influenced by the American government) are too much for the national economy to absorb. The result is the diseappearance of the middle class,which pretty much spells doom for any population. How does this work, you ask?

These poor people are simply being conned into buying more of "the good life" than they can afford. The wealthy Americans show up and convince the leaders that the solution to their problems is modernization. Once the country gets a modern infrastructure, including widespread (and I mean widespread) power distribution, roads, sewage and garbage management, telecommunications, and on and on, the pieces will be in place for the economy to really take off! Don't have the cash? No problem. Fucking finance it!

Because we're such nice folks, we offer to put together detailed plans for the build-out, and then offer to procure the loans from the "international" finance organizations, the ones we control. All we ask is that the plan be implemented by American engineering and constructions companies. (After all, who else can do such amazingly complex projects?) If that weren't enough gall, we then inflate the expected benefits of the modernization project, so as to inflate the size of the project, thus inflating the size of the loans.

There are two great benefits to this little gem of a plan. First, we (I mean a select few US corporations) get to do the biggest, most technologically advanced engineering projects in the world - any fix-it kid's dream - at a price that staggers the mind. Second, the enormous size of the loans all but ensures that they can't be repaid. This makes the leaders who signed up for them beholden to the good ole USA, and who doesn't like to have folks beholden to them?

As a simplistic metaphor, we get our patsies fired up about the idea of buying a basic boat (making life easier and more productive), but we end up selling them a cruise ship. They qualify for the loan because we know the guy at the bank, and we know that he'll take a pretty (and lengthy) report saying that the cruise industry is waiting to explode. Then, in what would seem to be a sign of things to come, we construct a walled compound complete with every luxury for the benefit of the ship builders. The patsies must be salivating at the glimpse of the kinds of prosperity they'll soon be enjoying when the cruise ship is done. Alas, this is not the case. Instead, the new "owners" are forced to operate the cruise ship on a shoestring budget - the payments on the ship are way beyond what they can handle. They default on the loan, but the guy at the bank doesn't care - as he has close ties to the US government which sees it as an investment. Our patsy is officially trapped. If he tries to resist our influences, we send our repo guys, and they don't play. And, to cap it all off, the ship builders, enjoying their new paradise, stay on in their walled compound area while the masses decline. This is pretty much how Panama went down. (Again, if we can believe John Perkins.) This, to me, is NOT the American way.

We are not about conning people. Our system doesn't require it in any way. As I said, the free market is about voluntary trade. People who knowingly con people are technically operating within their rights, but like lots of other "legal" behaviors, their behavior is frowned upon. People who take advantage of other people are generally driven out of the marketplace, or they are relegated to the gutters, where desperate folks will occasionally fall prey to their grift at a lower price. But here we are, the greatest country on the planet, going around like the worst kind of con man - taking the savings of little old ladies. It's fucking terrible!

Now, I know the value of hindsight, and I know that cultural concepts such as manifest destiny were once powerful rationalizations for wholly unacceptable behavior. But we are now enlightened enough to know what's right and what isn't when it comes to dealing with other countries. We know that imperialism is not justified on any grounds. Were this not true, you can bet we'd be overtly pursuing an imperialist agenda - there's still good money in it. The problem is that this sordid history (and whatever its modern day equivalents may be) brings with it serious collateral damage - it sullies the good reputation of the rule of law combined with a free market.

It seems that just as a handful of human wackjobs have co-opted Islam to justify their murderous behavior, so have a handful of greedy soulless pirates co-opted American ideals for their own shortsighted and lecherous behavior. As I said earlier, I think the premise that we either influence heavily in international affairs or we isolate ourselves is flawed. It's just a matter of being clear about how we go about exercising our influence.

As I said before, the American system is not about the conjob. If we decide to assist a less developed country, we do it like a good business would do it - we come up a phased plan that eases them into things, being careful to make sure that the cost of the solution never outweighs the benefits. We set milestones to determine when we proceed from phase to phase. And just like a legitimate bank, we don't make loans that we think won't be repaid. In short, we operate in good faith, only selling what the buyer really wants. This is how above board, respectible business is done, and it's high time we took another step forward in the advancement of our species.

I recognize that this is how deals are done between modern countries and less developed countries these days - globalization, I think they call it. There's no question that we'll lose a great deal competitively-speaking in the world marketplace if we reject the conjob as a revenue stream. However, just as we were the first country in history to reject slavery on ethical grounds (even though it was the human capital basis of much of the US economy), it is now time to be the first wealthy nation to reject the vieled exploitation of less developed countries.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not about to say that doing this would end our PR problems in this world, that suddenly the America-haters around the world would embrace us. The fact is that whenever some humans have a lot and some humans have very little, there will always be animocity on the part of the latter toward the former. This is not some Clintonesque attempt at garnering popularity. I know that we'll never get a fair shake with everyone. What I will say is that we'll be in a much more credible position to influence foreign affairs in the interests of our security than we are today. Just imagine.

Imagine if our next president stood up on the world's stage and admitted that we have engaged for decades in a covert, but pernicious form of imperialism all over the world. That though we have in the past convinced ourselves that we were righteous in our actions because we believed that the prosperity afforded our people was something that all people should have, the fact is that we were often coercing more than helping. That we're sincerely sorry for the trouble that has been caused by the out-of-control greed of a few powerful people. Imagine if the president proclaimed that we have cleaned house, that these practices are not the American way and that they will no longer be tolerated by representatives of this country. This would instantly take the wind out of a multitude of our enemies' sails. We could reclaim the moral high ground - our system, when run ethically, is better than any other. It does offer the best hope for mankind. We just have to have the courage to publically reject corrupted capitalism. It's the only way.

I know I'm dreaming now. I know this is so far from the realm of the possible that it's almost childish to ponder it. It would take nothing short of a complete replacement of our government. But however implausible the right thing may be, there's still some value in pursuing it. It pains me to be disillusioned so, and so late into my political investigations - it's not like I just started studying politics, economics, history, and philosophy. To wake up and realize that things are much worse than I ever knew is tough, and for a guy like me, the only way to cope is to search for solutions. There has to be a way out of this. I mean it's nothing more than an international extension of the same plague we face domestically - the rule of the corrupt. But we're America.

Keep in mind that the American colonists in the mid-1700s were enjoying a quality of life that far exceeded that of much of Europe, but that wasn't good enough for them. Yes, they were prosperous, but they were under the yoke of the unjust, and that was simply unacceptable. They risked their comfort and their lives for the ideal that became the USA. I wonder if there are any more people like that in this country today. If so, this can be fixed. If not, pack your shit folks. It's gonna get uglier.

Imperial America?

Those of you who've been around for a while know that I am intensely patriotic - I dearly love this country, not so much for the people who typify it today, but for the philosophical underpinnings of it. I have, for many years, taken issue with people who have argued that all of the foreign policy problems we have are of our own making. To argue that we gave Saddam all of his power in the 80s, which means we are responsible for the mess in Iraq in the 90's and recently, has always seemed to be classic liberal fantasy talk. I have endlessly maintained that we played the cards in our hand at that time, that we acted pragmatically in the face of a difficult international situation. Our one time friend, Iran, was out of control (Anyone remember the Iran Hostage Crisis?), so we had to do what we had to do. But I'm beginning to wonder if the "it's our own fault" crowd isn't more right than I ever imagined?

A few days ago, while killing time in a bookstore, I stumbled across a book called, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins. I got the paperback, but the first publish date was November 2004. Here's a bit of the Amazon blurb:

John Perkins started and stopped writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man four times over 20 years. He says he was threatened and bribed in an effort to kill the project, but after 9/11 he finally decided to go through with this expose of his former professional life. Perkins, a former chief economist at Boston strategic-consulting firm Chas. T. Main, says he was an "economic hit man" for 10 years, helping U.S. intelligence agencies and multinationals cajole and blackmail foreign leaders into serving U.S. foreign policy and awarding lucrative contracts to American business. "Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars," Perkins writes. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is an extraordinary and gripping tale of intrigue and dark machinations. Think John Le Carré, except it's a true story.

I'm only fifty or so pages into it and my stomach is turning, so much so that I decided to get online to see if I could fact-check some of his stories. So far, everything he says checks out. (Admittedly, I don't have the patience to do this task justice, but my cursory investigations didn't produce any red flags.) Folks, this is a problem for me, not a huge problem, but a problem nonetheless.

As I said, I have heretofore dismissed much of the liberal criticism of this country as standard "blame America first," myopic dribble. However, there's simply no question that we facilitated the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953, to place the Shah of Iran in power. We did this both to stem the tide of communism that we feared would pervade the Middle East and to enrich some large American corporations. The result was enough resentment toward the US to fuel the 1979 revolution in Iran. Then comes our alliance with Saddam, which gave him the power to do what he did in the early 90s, and here we are. Check out this interesting post on counterpunch.org from 2003.

So what are we to make of this?

Franly, I'm not sure yet. It's still sinking in. The one thing that I am sure about is that this is not a partisan thing. Perkins' book spans three decades and several administrations - including Democrats and Republicans. It's a money and corruption thing, which, as I've argued recently, applies equally to all politicians. It's sickening.

I suppose it isn't hard to explain this kind of behavior in terms of human nature, especially in the context of Brian Tracy's seven basic attributes - all humans at their core are lazy, greedy, ambitious, selfish, vain, ignorant, and impatient. These economic hit men (EHMs) were in the business of selling less developed countries (LDCs, not to be confused with DCs like ours) on the benefits of tapping into their resources to raise the quality of life for their people. They would convince them to take out massive loans from US banks, and then they would make sure they defaulted on the loans, thus making them beholden to the US for decades to come. The EHMs were essentially operating a mafia-like protection racket - they alerted their "customers" to the dangers that faced them, and then they coerced them (financially and by force, if necessary) into arrangements that they could never get out of. This is nothing more than greed gone wild - standard issue human stuff.

The sad thing is that it is very easy to conclude that America is just another imperial power looking to subjugate the world to build a massive global empire. In fact, there's no question that the money available from these kinds of endeavors is like a giant vacuum, attracting the most unsavory of human beings. So, we can definitely say that there are some people in this country, some powerful people, who are pursuing just this type of agenda. But is this an idictment of America at large, of capitalism and free markets? I think not.

It is a commentary on how the free market system only works when it is...well, free. The key to it all is the voluntary nature of trade between parties and the role of information in the decision-making processes of everyone involved. When one party has flawed or incomplete knowledge, they may voluntarily enter into a transaction that is in fact not good for them at all. This is why the phrase buyer-beware is so inextricably tied to free market endeavors. It's one thing when a buyer is simply ignorant; it's another thing entirely if the seller actively misleads the buyer. This is called a conjob, and the EHMs were nothing more than conmen with CIA thugs as their muscle.

So I said that this is a problem for me, but not a huge problem. No doubt, I'll have to adjust my perspective on why we are where are today in international affairs. That's never pleasant for someone like myself who likes to settle things and move on. However, the core of my worldview remains essentially unchanged. I still believe that humans will cut each other's throats for enough money, and I believe that no organization above a certain threshold of size and wealth is immuned to corruption, including the kind of corruption that results in mass death and deprivation. I just always believed that the US, as a country, was less proned to the kind of short-sighted international chicanery that is prevalent almost everywhere else on the planet.

Maybe it's because ours is the only country in history ever to be founded in the interests of common people, the only country ever to establish human rights, the free market, and the rule of law as the basis for everything. Maybe it's because the founding fathers were well enough versed in human nature to set up a system of checks and balances. And maybe it's because history has shown that countries engage in invasive imperial actions the moment they have the power to do so, yet we have the power to take Canada and Mexico with no problem, and we have not. We're non-offensive - our basic policy of military action revolves around dealing with threats, not capturing territory. But, facts are facts.

Yes, we refrain from simply attacking countries to loot them. However, if Perkins' book is true, then we simply loot them through economic coercion (conjobs) and the precision use of force (removing leaders who don't comply). Hard to swallow, my friends. But, as I am first and foremost committed to the truth, I have no choice but to wallow in this new perspective. I'll keep you posted as I ruminate on this. This is one of those times when I wish I were just a mindless ditto-head.

Relationship Is A Four Letter Word, Especially With Kids

That word is simple - work. Yes, we've heard it a million times, but that's because it's true far more often than it is not. Maybe people get confused by this because they think in snapshots instead of movies. If you take a snapshot of your romance or friendship or family relationship when things are going well, it'll be hard to reconcile the idea that relationships are work with the picture you get. It's the not-so-great times that drive the point home. A good example in my own life is raising my son.

I'll admit this, even though I know some folks will shudder - I wasn't paricularly into my kid for at least the first fifteen or so months of his life. Now, don't make too much of this. Of course, I loved him in the way that nature programmed me to love him - I would have gladly thrown myself in front of a bus for him, even when he was a cute little eating, shitting, sleeping, crying bag of fat. What I'm saying is that I didn't get much out of the beginning of his life. Yes, I'm a selfish bastard - just like everyone. The point is that, despite the fact that the personal benefit balance did not seem to be tipped in my favor, I clocked in.

I changed my share of diapers, and I spent as much time with my son as my life would allow. It was hard, especially since he cried incessantly for the first three months of his life. Nevertheless, as I am a long-term thinker, I knew that the work would pay off, and it has, like nothing I could have ever imagined. What I have now is a 24-month old son who absolutely loves his daddy. Now I can't get enough of him. Have I transitioned into the blissful part of relationships? Was it just a "pay your dues" and then reap the benefits situation? Yes and no. Things have changed, but they're still tough.

One thing that Brian Tracy talks about in Something for Nothing (see my review) is the idea that we should place the people we care about most in the center of our lives. We should build our worlds around them, placing the highest priority on spending time with each and every one. In fact, Tracy said something that I had never heard and is perhaps one of the most prescient statements in the book - How does a child spell "love"? Answer: "T-I-M-E!" How right he is, but there's a bit more to it.

In some ways, my relationship with my son is the simplest, most wonderful thing in my life. But, it's still work. You see, just spending time with a child isn't really enough. You have to actually interact with them. You have to engage them on their level, and that's not easy if you're used to multi-tasking and thinking about all manner of complex philosophical and occupational subjects. Even now, I think of my time with my son as work, but it's truly a labor of love.

I so look forward to the time we have together, but I have to admit that I find myself watching the clock after a while, looking forward to when I'll be "off-duty." How crazy is that? Just when I think I'm a good dad, I take a glance at my watch and then cringe at what a loser I am. Then, I take a step back.

I used to feel unbelievably guilty about this, but not any more. The fact is that raising my child is not unlike many of the other types of work I engage in - even though the good things outweigh the bad, the unpleasant or difficult parts are still there (That's why it's called work, right?), and they still have to be dealt with. I'm just fortunate that child-rearing gets more and more enjoyable as time goes on. The key is that the focus is on interacting with my son so that I can teach him how to be a well-adjusted little person.

How many people pay lip service to the idea that we have to spend time with our loved ones to keep the relationships producing that ever-important two-way flow of love? Maybe they think proximity equals spending time. This would explain the ever-present DVD players with screens aimed at the backseats of SUVs and mini-vans. Now, I'm not judging here - all kids are different, so who I am to say when the "mesmerizer" is or is not justified during travel times? But there's no question that when the little ones are absorbed in a video, they are not interacting with anyone else in the vehicle. They're locked onto Bob the Builder or Winnie the Pooh to the exclusion of all other stimuli, including the words of the folks in the front seats. This, to me, is not spending time. It's sharing time, and in investment terms, the contributions are pretty much nil, which means the payoff is inevitably similar. Same thing with daycare, nannies, and on and on.

Of course, I understand that we all have to do what we have to do when it comes to raising our children. As the child of a single mother, I was in full-time daycare from week seven of my life. There was simply no other way, but when mom got home, it was all about me, and I knew it. This is what matters. Surprising as it may be, one of the best concepts about children that I ever heard came from Bill Clinton. It was somewhere around 1995, and Bill was in the midst of one of his classic "it's about the chiiildren" speeches. He said, "More than anything else, every child needs to know that he or she is the center of someone's universe, that there is nothing more important than him or her to that person." Wise words, indeed. Now let's place that idea right next to the idea that time interacting spells love to a child.

If kids interpret their importance in the minds of their parents or primary care-givers in terms of the amount of time they spend interacting with them, then the inescapable conclusion is that people who have children have an obligation to clock in. There's no other way. If what you want is a great relationship with your kids, then it's going to cost you. You're going to have to suck it up and get down on their level for extended periods of time. The good news is that once they get to a certain age (18 months or so, for most), the rewards are intoxicating.

When my son wakes in the middle of the night and cries out for daddy and not mommy, I stagger to his room with the biggest smile on my face. Interestingly, it only happens when I've spent the whole day with him. If I've been traveling or have been too busy to spend more than a couple of hours with him, it's all mommy. Simple things like that have a profound effect on how I plan my schedule. Mind you, it's not a competition. I just know that mommy is his number one person, so any time I'm top of mind, I know I'm doing something right. My investments are paying off in the kind of love that I could never have dreamed of three years ago, but they are investments all the same.

In the final analysis, the conclusion is clear - relationships are like everything else - there is no free lunch. There is no something for nothing. So if your relationships (with your kids or otherwise) are not what you'd like them to be, it's time to take stock. It's time to honestly evaluate how much time you spend with them. More importantly, it's time to evaluate how much time you could spend with them, but spend doing other things that maybe aren't as much work. If you're honest, you'll find that you could be giving more.

Lest I come off as one who stands on the high ground shouting to my lessers, I'm no different. My life is a constant struggle to stay focused on what's important, and like everyone else, I fail on a regular basis. But these are what I like to call personal best-practices - the things we know are right and strive to do at all times. What matters is that we recognize what we need to do - spend quality time with our loved ones - and we commit to sacrificing whatever we have to to do it. It's work, but nothing is more worth it.

Book Review: Something for Nothing

Whilst poking around the blogosphere in my jammies (I'm on hiatus ya know), I came across this review of a new book by Brian Tracy called, Something for Nothing: The All-Consuming Desire That Turns The American Dream Into A Social Nightmare. While the author, Rebecca Hagelin, provides a nice overview, I think there's more to be said.

For those who don't know, I believe the first priority in any review is to provide readers with a read or don't read recommendation. Hagelin's recommendation was a very enthusiastic read!, and mine is no different. This is an excellent book. In fact, as I was reading the first hundred pages of the book, I kept thinking that Tracy had somehow surreptitiously gained access to a dozen or more ideas that have been floating in my head for some time and corraled them into an excellent treatise on human nature, one fit for the masses. There's nothing like some good confirmation bias to get you into a book. Anyhow, by the end of the book, I concluded that there are good things and bad things to say about this work. First the good.

Tracy's underlying premise is that all humans are hardwired to be lazy, greedy, ambitious, selfish, vain, ignorant, and impatient. I agree completely. In fact, were I in a more theoretical mindset, I would probably take on the task of connecting the dots between these attributes and our caveman heritage. (It'd be pretty easy.) But I'm about practicality these days, so I'll stick to clarifying what this means.

To say that we're all naturally lazy is not a criticism of our species; it's a value-neutral statement of fact. Indeed, Tracy's larger point is that what matters is how we translate these natural proclivities into the way we think and act in the world. I, for example, am one seriously lazy bastard. I absolutely abhor wasting time on fruitless activities, but this is a good thing. My disdain for waste drives me to innovate, to get every ounce of productivity out of the time I spend doing what's necessary in life. I am, therefore, using my laziness in a positive way. But not everyone does, and this is where the concept of something for nothing comes in.

Tracy argues that an environment that allows people to get what they want/need without actually doing anything for it breeds the worst of all possible responses to inherent human laziness - the drive to get something for nothing. And, just to keep the human generalizations ball rolling, Tracy provides a list of the basic wants/needs of all humans.

All of us are motivated by an intense desire to achieve safety, security, comfort, leisure, love, respect, and fulfillment - in that order. The key is that these needs are arranged in a heirarchy - we pursue the first ones until they are satisfied, and then we pursue the next ones until they are satisfied. This is why humans for most of history have had little time for contemplation - the activities associated with finding survival and security consumed all moments. But we are now living in a time when survival and security are pretty much a given for most people in the US. And given may just be the operative word there.

With the constant expansion of social entitlement programs, the possibility of getting something for nothing is less and less difficult. If your choices are a painful minimum wage job or a free check at the beginning of every month, the human tendency for laziness says that you'll choose the latter. This is because of what Tracy calls the Expediency Factor (or E Factor) -

"People continually strive to get the things they want the fastest and easiest way possible, with little or no concern for the secondary consequences of their behaviors."

Humans are expedient in their use of their natural tendencies to acquire the things they need and want. But wait, wait, wait, you may be shouting. This is all nonsense, you might say. I'm not like that, you'll bristle. Okay, fine, you're different, but not because you're not wired this way. You're different because the tendency to ignore secondary consequences has been trained out of you at some point in your journey through life. Maybe you had good parents who taught you that thinking short term is a recipe for disaster. Or maybe you learned the hard way from making bad decisions. Whatever the case, the fact is that had you not been taught otherwise, you would be a short-term thinker. That's the human animal.

And you might also take issue with Tracy's list of human characteristics. You might say, "I'm not lazy!!" Bullshit, I'd say. If I give you a choice between a handsaw and chainsaw to cut down abig tree, you'll choose the chainsaw (unless you're a luddite puss). Same thing with greed. As Tracy points out, when people are offered $100,000 or $95,000 to do the same job, all people choose $100,000. The point is that our genes have been carefully crafted over the eons to make us into a species with these basic drives. This does not mean that our behavior is always malevolent.

It is possible to channel these human tendencies into positive behaviors that are beneficial to ourselves and others. Indeed, this appears to be Tracy's mission - to help us recalibrate the way we approach life so as to take full advantage of our nature while simultaneously helping ourselves and the world around us. This is why I really like this book. He's singing my tune, and I'm loving his rendition. But all is not roses and sunshine in Something for Nothing.

Brian Tracy is a guru in the personal and business self-improvement world. He's been around for a long time doing seminars and writing books. He's traveled the world, and his insights are evidence of a very centered and humanitarian kind of guy. Alas, even though he gets the big picture completely right, his solutions for the masses are a bit too idealistic for my taste.

The first four chapters of the book lay down the basics that I've described above. He explains his claims as to human tendencies and human needs, and he goes into how character is the key to meeting our needs in positive ways. All good stuff. But then Tracy turns to the current situation in America. He talks about the role of useless politicians in ushering in the era of something for nothing and the damage that mentality does to people who hold it and to society at large. Again, all good stuff. But then, our esteemed author strays into fantasy land.

First Tracy offers advice on how to avoid falling victim to the something for nothing disease. He provides a pledge that you can take that entails promising to never take something for nothing and to never abide people or organizations that do. I'm on board with committing to do never taking something for nothing, but the idea that we can simply turn our noses up to those who do is a mistake.

Yes, I get just as disgusted as the next guy when I see some welfare queen in line with food stamps buying prime rib as she chats on her cell phone. I'm not looking to buddy up to her anyway. But what about the workplace? Tracy devotes a whole chapter to how to fix the workplace. Were I to buy into the whole pledge, I'd have very few options in terms of employment. (Assuming I were employed, of course.) The fact is that most companies have plenty of folks who do almost nothing and collect paychecks. This fact seems to elude Mr. Tracy.

Well, actually, he mentions it, but his solution is just to get rid of these people. Oh yeah. Sure. And his solutions for government are much the same. How do we stop the entitlement mentality? Do away with programs that give something for nothing. Genius. How do we get rid of politians who foment resentment of the rich to garner cash for their consituents? You got it - replace them with statesmen who have a longer term and less selfish view of public policy. Yes, that's it!! We'll just get rid of the assholes, and when we do, all the people who are currently afflicted with the something for nothing disease will slowly begin to be productive. Wow. I found myself wondering how a guy who clearly has such a good feel for human nature could come up with so asinine a solution.

Let me just say that I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of Tracy's arguments. There's no question that eliminating the possibility of getting something for nothing will spur the vast majority of humans to start taking steps to meet their needs productively. But I'm afraid we're at a point where we simply can't get there from here. Ironically, Tracy explains why this is so.

The author says that studies have been done showing that fear of losing met needs is 2.5 times more powerful than the desire to meet them. (I should point out that the book has no footnotes, so we believe at our peril. However, my experience shows this to be basically true.) If this is true, then we should expect it to be nearly impossible to do what Tracy wants done, especially in our sound-bite driven, biased-media world.

So what are we to make of this book? It's good because it explains in very clear terms what we're about as human beings. It's also good because it reminds us that we are responsible for our lives, and that our success depends upon the decisions we make and the actions we take. And it's even good that it provides a lot of basic historical and economic information that lends credence to the overall thesis. That's enough to justify the cost of admission - by a long shot. But I think we have to be wary of pie-in-the-sky solutions to problems like this.

If we're really going to make progress - for ourselves and the world around us - we have to take the situation as it is and find ways to navigate through it. Sure, there are changes we can make that can be very beneficial. For example, if we all get serious about making the Fair Tax a reality, many of the problems in our society will dissolve before our eyes. (He doesn't mention it.) But the larger point is that we have cards in our hand, cards that we have to play. Tracy would have us discard until the cards come up all aces. Unfortunately, the deck's not that big. In the end, there's useful information in this book, but it's up to us to figure out how to use it to get what we want out of life. Tracy has given us a clear picture of the stage upon which we act. We now have the task of writing the script.

Dick Clark's Precarious Fringe Reality

Was anyone else appalled at seeing Dick Clark co-hosting the "New Years Rockin' Eve" on ABC last night? Granted, he is pretty much royalty when it comes to that kind of stuff, but he has clearly not recovered sufficiently from the stroke he had over a hear ago to be chaperoning millions in the migration from 2005 to 2006. It was like listening to Harry Caray at about inning 26 of a championship game. And watching "America's oldest teenager" was painful, too. Though I like a trainwreck as much as the next guy, I eventually had to switch over to Mr. Grates on my Nerves himself - Regis Philbin - watching Dick struggle to get thoughts out was just too much.

I'm assuming that Clark's main malady at this point is a motor problem, rather than some kind of aphasia. It seems like he knows what he wants to say; he just has trouble getting his muscles to do what needs to be done to get the sounds out properly. And this is what has me troubled.

It would be one thing if Clark were just a few bricks short of a load following his stroke. In that case, the responsibility would have to fall on his handlers (family or otherwise) for putting him out in the public's eye in such a condition. But if his mind is basically intact and his condition is mainly characterized by difficulty communicating, then the responsibility ostensibly falls on Mr. Clark.

I'm assuming he had to give the ultimate green light to do the show. Sure, the network folks were in the loop (at least according to the NY Times), but at the end of the day, unless there's some contract we don't know about, Dick Clark could have backed out and left the whole thing to the little Seacrest. Which brings me to my point.

Why would anyone in their right mind go out in front of eight million people in such a condition? (As I said, it doesn't seem like he's demented; he's just challenged to communicate.) Especially when not doing so means that everyone will remember you at the height of your game. Why not just walk away? Leave on a high note, as Costanza says. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Dick Clark is addicted to the fanfare.

Considering that one of our most basic human drives is the need to belong, it isn't surprising that people who are accepted on a grand basis - that is, celebrities - find it difficult to be in situations where they aren't receiving their usual dosage of attention. I'm not slinging arrows here. I am truly shocked that any celebrities manage to get beyond this. Nevertheless, I think it's pretty unhealthy to need constant adulation in life. Mainly because, unless you're Bono or Tom Cruise, your downfall is pretty much inevitable.

I call this the precarious fringe of reality. What I mean is that reality is a multi-dimensional thing - what characterizes it at any given time is largely situation specific. For example, in places like Africa, death is a common occurrence - in the sense that most everyone experiences the death of people they know on a fairly regular basis. That, I would argue, is a pretty durable aspect of reality, or at least it has been for most of human history. However, here in the US and in other western countries, death is not so common. I'm 35 and no one close to me has ever died. And I'm not exceptional in that regard. I know lots of folks like myself. The point is that my experience is part of the same overall reality that includes Africa, but the reality I experience is on the fringes. That is, it certainly isn't the most pervasive part of reality - only a small percentage of humans ever even become aware of it. And it's definitiely precarious - primarily because any number of things could come along and wash it away - giant Tsunamis come to mind. The same thing is basically true with regard to the precarious fringe reality that is the celebrity's existence.

To be noticed, acknowledged, and deferred to by the vast majority of humans you encounter must be a real buzz. The caveman mind must be reeling from the firing of all of the brain's pleasure centers. And, just like with most everything else in life, the longer this kind of thing goes on, the more you come to expect it. And there? There be dragons, my friends.

The moment you come to expect a precarious fringe of reality to be your reality forever more, you're doomed - unless of course you have some way of ensuring that your reality remains intact. (Anyone ever heard of Neverland Ranch or the Kennedy Compound?) The lesson here is that we should be ever-aware of the vantage point from which we view reality. Are we inhabiting some distant outpost where all we can see are parts of reality that could evaporate before our eyes? Or are we grounded right in the middle of the cold, merciless, harsh reality that has been the setting of the human struggle for millions of years? The likelihood is that we're somewhere in between, which is just fine. What matters most is that we have some appreciation for where we are and for how things could be.

This is part of what some people call being centered or being down-to-earth. If you've got it good, you know you've got it good, and you appreciate it. Moreover, you don't let yourself get too reliant on how good you've got it. You can walk away if you need to. And sometimes, believe me, you need to. Like when you sound like you've had forty martinis, and your agent is pushing you to emcee a New Year's program on national TV. Only an addiction to a precarious fringe reality would allow someone in Dick Clark's condition to delude himself into believing he was fit for task. Too bad. But at least this disproves something I've suspected for years.

I was convinced up until last night that Dick Clark was actually a robot, or maybe a cyborg, or some kind of mechanical human-looking gizmo. I mean, come on. Look at the guy. He doesn't really age at all, and he seems to be able to connect with audiences of all ages indefinitely (at least he did before he went underground after the stroke). I figured the stroke was just a cover for some malfunction in his chip set. I figured the "He's not 100%" stuff leading up to last night was just hype designed to attract viewers who would then be blown away at his new hip chip that came complete with the ability to effortlessly drop an -izzle (a la Snoop Dogg) wherever he wanted. Alas, no dice. Clearly, I was way off. He really is human, and like most humans, he is but a moth to the flame of mass affection. And with all the grease in his hair, well...you get the idea.