Recently "Direct TV" has been airing a clever ad series wherein the premise is that when someone has cable instead of "Direct TV", the cable service creates some kind of problem, which leads to another unrelated problem, which then ultimately leads the cable user to some kind of ridiculous end. These ads are meant to be ironic, trading on the loosest of segues, and assuming that the audience understands that these events aren't really related. It is farce. And it is funny. The one I like best involves a cable user initially being irritated by the minute amount of available recording space on his cable DVR, then ultimately through some non-sequitors, ending up reenacting scenes from the movie "Platoon" with Charlie Sheen. At the close, the announcer says "Don't end up reenacting scenes from "Platoon" with Charlie Sheen. Switch to "Direct TV"."
These ads are humorous in that they are not providing any substantive reason that "Direct TV" is better than cable. It is implied that "Direct TV" might have a larger recording capacity on their DVRs. But there are no specifics. The ad simply asserts that this chain of events is catastrophic, that being a cable user is the original causality, and that in order to avoid some kind of future chaos, you need to change service providers. The humor lies in the fact that the viewer KNOWS that he is in on the joke. He knows that these events are unrelated. The final leap in logic that changing to "Direct TV" would keep you from ending up reenacting movie scenes with Charlie Sheen, is the lynchpin of the farce.
One may believe that this kind of logical gap exists purely in advertising and other intentionally ironic scenarios. Unfortunately, however, I read something today which illustrates that this total absence of logic is alive and well in the American political arena, as well. Namely in a speech which President Obama delivered during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. There is an excerpt from this speech that has been making the media rounds these past few days wherein the President essentially says that he believes that no one who enjoys success in America does this alone. This is not all he says. But he does say this. Obama indicates that he is "always struck by people who think, well it must be because I am just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you, there are a whole lot of hard working people out there."
I am going to stop this quote right here because, although this is merely the beginning of his statement, it is an important step in this death spiral of rationality that Obama attempts to walk us through. Let us examine his premise. As always with the left, this speech is, in essence, a plea for redistribution of wealth. Period. He does not advocate wealth creation at any point in this speech, in fact, he discusses home refinancing, tax hikes and Obamacare. None of which amounts to actual creation of new wealth. The entirety of his speech is a promise to preserve the "middle class" through access to various financial benefits. But nothing about how he will actually either initiate nor support individuals in creation of personal wealth. Quite the opposite, in fact. And the reason that Fox and other more conservative news outlets have seized on this particular paragraph in his speech, is that it is not wrought with hyperbole. These are very clear statements, not open to interpretation, wherein Obama demonstrates his contempt for the individual by doing, in essence, the same thing that the advertising executives do in the "Direct TV" ad. They use a bunch of unrelated non-sequitors to lead us to a faulty conclusion about cable television and Charlie Sheen. Obama does the same thing. Only he isn't doing it to be funny.
The beginning of this slippery slope is the premise that success is defined by money. Interestingly, the left is constantly telling us how terrible the pursuit of financial success is, and how evil corporations are, yet, when pressed, the only real definition they have of success IS financial. So he begins with this premise. He doesn't say."...hey, money is only one measure of success and today let me tell you about ten people in the Roanoke area who have devoted their time to charity and we need to all be more like them." Nope. Instead, he launches into a speech about how successful people believe that they are smarter and harder working than other people. If you listen to the speech rather than reading it, you can hear the contempt in his voice. He is patronizing. He is condescending. HE chooses these traits - smart, hard working - he alone decided that this is how "successful people" feel about their success. Yet he presents these traits as axioms, basically saying, "...everyone knows that all successful people believe they got that way through intelligence and hard work." Which may or may not even be true. Some successful people may feel that way. But this is hardly an absolute. He then goes on to dismiss these ideas, which HE chose, out of hand, with no corresponding reason. None. He simply says many people are smart, many people are hard working but not all of those people are successful. So therefore, it cannot be intelligence nor hard work that makes people successful. (I would like to note that he doesn't comment on the success rate of intelligence COMBINED with hard work, merely the two concepts as singular ideas.)
He then ties this premise to the next logical fallacy, which is his statement that the missing element here, the thing that distinguishes these successful people from their loser comrades, is access to some form of public aid. Never mind that BY DEFINITION this is public. So everyone has access to these things. So using his same "logic", you could infer that the fact that everyone has access to public aid, yet NOT everyone is successful means that public aid CANNOT be the determining factor of success. Essentially, this premise is like saying that breathing oxygen is the reason people are successful and we owe it all to the planet so lets not even bother to analyze human behavior or success any further. This is ludicrous. Obama dismisses the individual character traits of intelligence and work ethic, and purports that the real magic bullet in this scenario, the thing that allows people to succeed, is a group dynamic. Not an individual set of skills. No. Rather it is the support we receive from government employees. Teachers. Road workers. Government researchers. The presence of these people in your life are what has made the difference. Not the uniqueness with which the individual approaches his or her pursuit. No. Not that. It is the support system of government provided assistance that has made all the difference in successful peoples lives. He provides no evidence to support this. It is simply an assertion. But a very important one. Not because it is in any way accurate. But because it so clearly illustrates his viewpoint that the aggregate is more valuable than the individual. And part of what makes this so apparent, IS his desire to stretch the truth about success in order to try to make it fit the scenario he wishes to present. He has to create a false model because that is the only way his premise can be supported. I mean, you could choose any traits of a successful person (all of which are subjective, by the way) and plug them into this vapid equation. Self-sacrifice, generosity/frugality (depending on the circumstances), ability to plan, risk management, luck. The list is endless! And you could then assert, with ZERO corroboration, that these things are not in themselves the reason for success. Then you could choose another, unrelated premise, and say WAIT!!!! NO!! THIS IS IT!!!! And still offer zero corroboration. This is not a difficult task. This is precisely what Obama is doing, in the same way "Direct TV" does, by stringing together loosely associated ideas then driving them to a faulty conclusion in order to "prove" a predetermined premise. The premise which Obama wishes to prove is that we as Americans owe our success not to ourselves, but to the government. The premise "Direct TV" wishes to prove is that their service is superior to cable. So both do the same thing. They start at the end, and work backwards, filling in the blanks with whatever is necessary to lead (or mislead) the audience to the conclusion that their premise is sound. "Direct TV" does it tongue in their cheek. Obama does it hand in your pocket. But it is unmistakably the same process.
Of course one of the MOST insidious things about the President's rhetoric, is the secondary layer of impersonalization that lies just beneath the surface of his words. Obama attempts to engage in class warfare by pitting the private and public sector against each other. By telling people in private business that they are indebted to public workers. This is his message. But in doing so, he is also marginalizing the public worker. This backhanded slap is what so many people fail to see. He may use the term "teacher" in some sort of abstractly personal way when he says "there was a great teacher out there in your life" as a nod to the public employee. But really, so what? I mean, if you are a teacher, and you read this, you may have a momentary feeling of pride in that you know you helped people learn to count, communicate, read, write, sing, dance, whatever. This may make you feel good. As it should. But if you KEEP reading, you will see that Obama doesn't care any more about your individual ability to help your students than he does about the more"successful"persons individual ability to succeed at his or her job. He states that "when we succeed it is because of individual initiative but also because we do things together." In other words, it is all well and good to be a great worker, as long as your efforts go to support the state. Obama goes on to suggest that fire fighting, space exploration, and the GI Bill are examples of necessary government aid. And maybe they are! But what is more telling, is what he DOESN'T say. He never highlights any personal achievement, not even by the government workers he claims are so integral to private sector success. You know why? Because to Obama, teachers are simply a tool of the government. If you are a teacher, you may believe that you are smart. And you may believe that you succeeded because of it. But you are wrong! There are lots of smart teachers. And they aren't all successful. Right? This is the heart of Obama's argument. And you may believe that you are a good teacher because you are hard working. But guess what? That doesn't matter either! Because there are a lot of hard working teachers who aren't successful. So if you follow Obama's logic and apply it to the public sector as well, you reach the same conclusion. Which is that you, as an individual, are irrelevant. The structure is in place. Education, research, infrastructure, it is all bigger than you. It is a giant conglomerate that will roll on whether or not you are involved.
Later in the speech, the President invokes the requisite nostalgia about our grandparents (barf) by suggesting that they were somehow better than we are because they understood that "succeeding in America wasn't about how much is in your bank account, but by doing right by your people, doing right by your family, doing right by your neighborhood, doing right by your country, living out our values, living out our dreams, living out our hopes. That's what America was about." These statements are so empty and full of holes, its difficult to know where to start. If there is one thing I cannot abide, it is the ad hoc use of nostalgia for purposes of emotional manipulation in order to provide a diversion from the fact that your argument is devoid of any weight or logic. Let me assure you, America, that if you did not know your great grandfather, he was an even bigger bastard than your grandfather. ESPECIALLY if he was, as Obama tries to evoke in this speech, an immigrant. Those guys were tough. Thats how they survived. So the idea that they wanted some kind of society where we all stand around emptying our pockets so that other peoples children can have tax breaks is utter nonsense. But whatever. The larger problem here is that he keeps telling us over and over that our mandate in life is not to become wealthy as individuals. Yet he does not say that wealth is bad. In fact, wealth is the ONLY standard he uses for success. So wealth, apparently, is not bad. Its only bad if you have the audacity to expect to keep it for yourself and your family. If you want to turn it over to the government? Then that very same money somehow becomes noble.
For me, as a voter, this is a watershed speech. Because in my mind, for the first time, Obama is clarifying his position as a candidate who believes that government is more important than the individual. Perhaps he has indicated this previously. He may have. But to me, these carefully chosen words during this election year let me know definitively that this is what he believes. This is not Obamacare, spearheaded by Pelosi and Reid with equal and tandem fervor to the executive branch. This is not Michelle Obama, stating her qualms about her personal experience as an American of color. This is not Joe Biden shooting his mouth off without thinking. This is Obama, himself, speaking to his constituency in the very important, hard fought state of Virginia. This is how he sees the country. Not as comprised of individuals. But as a group. I needed to know that.
Because for me, voting for someone who views me as merely part of a group is about as likely as Chuck Lorre having Charlie Sheen to his house for Passover.
BB
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
The Fourth Put Forth
I read several stories today about how people are tweeting that America sucks, and complaining that this country is built on genocide and slavery and misogyny.
I think a better statement is that civilization is built on genocide and slavery and misogyny.
Its pretty sweet to live in a place that actually has laws against those things and spends a lot of money and resources to try to help rid other countries of those problems.
America is not perfect because people are not perfect.
Lighten up, ok?
Thanks.
BB
I think a better statement is that civilization is built on genocide and slavery and misogyny.
Its pretty sweet to live in a place that actually has laws against those things and spends a lot of money and resources to try to help rid other countries of those problems.
America is not perfect because people are not perfect.
Lighten up, ok?
Thanks.
BB
Friday, June 15, 2012
Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch...
While flipping through the television channels last night, I happened upon a revival of the 1980's mega-hit "Dallas". TNT has relaunched the franchise, utilizing a few of the original characters, most notably J.R. Ewing and his brother Bobby, both played by their original actors.
"Dallas" is a parable about the eternal battle between good and evil. Set in Texas, it serves as a modern day western of sorts, with the character of J.R. decked out in the proverbial black hat, basically a living composite of the seven deadly sins cloaked by a smooth, sinister exterior. He is heir to land, oil leases, cattle. All the spoils of the great American manifest destiny. He has done little himself to earn these riches, but will do virtually anything to keep them. His brother Bobby, sporting the white hat, is also an heir to this life. But by contrast, he has a conscience. He cares about the land. The environment. His family. He wants the Ewing money to be used for the greater good rather than for mere personal enrichment. And so the series explores their many battles. The plot devices are nothing spectacular, but the show was a ratings blockbuster in its time.
Flash forward twenty five years and the brothers are still at odds. The stories updated for a modern take on the use of oil versus alternative energy. The drama still campy and over the top. A guilty pleasure of sorts. But what I found most interesting about revisiting these characters at this moment in time, is exploration of the concept of obtaining and maintaining wealth through property ownership. The characters ownership of the fictional "Southfork Ranch" situated on the outskirts of Dallas, continues to be a lynchpin of the plot. The brothers fight about who owns it, who will inherit it, what to do with it, whether it should be used for commercial purposes or preserved as a landmark. The characters feel emotional ties to the land, albeit for different reasons. Much like "Tara" in "Gone With The Wind", this land, and the many things it provides, is the cornerstone of the family identity.
This concept of land entitlement is so intrinsic to American culture, it is fair to say that without it, we may not even be here today. We all know that a basic premise of our heritage is exploration. Our forefathers came to this country in search of new frontiers. We, as Americans, continued to expand our borders from sea to shining sea. And then some. And along the way, we found gold. Oil. Coal. Timber. Soil. Water. We took whatever the land had to offer and made use of it. Some of it righteous, some of it exploitative. Our population grew. And as urban centers developed, it became necessary for survival that families have permanent housing. We formed communities. States. Became more organized. Central to this transition from a more nomadic populace of covered wagon pioneers to nine-to-fivers driving automobiles to work; was the concept of private, non-commercial land ownership. For most Americans of my generation and older, home ownership has been a basic right of passage. A non-negotiable part of the American dream. A point of pride. Your domain wherein you could expect safety from the outside world. Privacy. A place to nurture your children and pets. For many, land ownership represents his or her life's work, whether it be because the land is used to earn a living, or because large portions of ones acquired income are invested in the home. This has been an expectation. A birthright.
Of course in 2012, we as individuals have had to rethink this scenario. For millions, this land we once called home and took private ownership of, has changed hands. The security we once felt in making that monthly mortgage payment or walking in the front door after a hard day's work to take stock of all the things we have procured, neatly collected in one cozy abode, was shattered. There are many theories as to why this has happened, ranging from simple concepts such as the fact that Americans are greedy and began to leverage their prized secure possessions in order to gain liquidity in other areas of their lives; to more complex ideas involving banking, derivatives, and general market volatility. There is also the theory that many people who acquired homes over the past fifteen years were not qualified to be home owners, and should have remained renters. That theory espouses that these displaced people are now merely back where they belonged in the first place. No matter where you lay the blame, it is clear that the idea of a persons home as a sanctuary is no longer part and parcel of the American dream. In Phoenix, where I live part time, the glut of new homes is staggering. Unfinished projects line the desert in such a profound way, you can't tell if they were simply left undone, or destroyed after completion in some kind of futuristic apocalypse. And in a way, it HAS been apocalyptic. Not only have people been displaced from their residences, the construction business and all of its supporting players such as: interior design, home furnishings, art, pool and landscape service, housekeeping, and real estate sales have also plummeted along with the ousted tenants. Peoples lives have become the living embodiment of inflation. Paying higher prices for lower value. A family that once had a 1000 mortgage payment used to build equity in a four bedroom home is now forced to pay 1250 to a landlord for a three bedroom home in the same city, acquiring no equity. No security. No ownership.
As is always the case during a period of transition, the immediate natural response is fear. People tend to cling to what they know. And property ownership is what modern Americans know. So people are nervous. They are upset because in many cases, the asset that people once relied on as immutable and constant is now gone. Land ownership has reverted to the government, banks and large companies or landlords and developers who own multiple properties. This lack of individual ownership makes people feel out of control. They are resentful to have to give their hard earned money to someone when the only expected return is a place to stay. Not a place to live. A place to stay. This is unnerving. It seems like a step backwards.
Initially, the concept of reviving a television juggernaut whose plot turns on the axis of wealth and gentrification seemed odd to me when I contrasted it with the current state of economic affairs. Yet I watched it. And I found myself caught up in the story. One brother wants to use the land to maintain the status quo, drill for oil, keep the money rolling in at all costs. The other is interested in selling the land to a preservationist and using the proceeds to explore the idea of alternative energy. A surprisingly poignant and topical story for a soap opera, actually. I began to think about the interconnectedness that we as Americans feel with our homes. The safety and security they provide. I began to think about the many homeless people in this country and the fact that they are by definition always going to be disenfranchised in a society built on land ownership. I thought about the fact that the earliest forms of our constitution had land ownership and voting rights inextricably linked. The more I thought about these things, the more clear it became to me that what is happening right now, while certainly difficult in the short term, may provide us with an opportunity that we were all missing a decade ago when we were buying dining room sets and riding lawnmowers.
The opportunity to break with the conventional idea of wealth building through land and tactile resource ownership, and instead focus on more creative, intuitive solutions to larger problems.
When I thought about it, I realized that this message of sacrificing your home is the message of the new "Dallas." Granted, these are fictional characters of extraordinary means. But this story is heavy in metaphor. The oil on the property represents a staid, non-progressive (albeit profitable) resource. The alternative energy development, by contrast, represents the future and freedom from our current enslavement to oil and gas. In order to move forward and fund the progressive project, the Ewings must give up their home. They aren't going to be out on the street, because that wouldn't be any fun and, hey, this is cable television. But they have to give up their home, nonetheless. This is the sacrifice one brother is willing to make for the idea of a better future for the aggregate. While most Americans who have lost ownership of their homes were not left in a positive financial position, one thing that becomes obvious is that when the market is telling you that your house, furniture, art collection, clothing, cars, et al are no longer as valuable as you once believed, you have little choice but to try to think about what the market IS valuing. You have to stop thinking of land ownership as your right, and start thinking about your house as a place that you stay while you live a life of contemplation and problem solving.
This is what our forefathers did. They were contemplative problem solvers. They are the ones who decided that land ownership was going to be the holy grail. They created a government and society around that concept. Which was easy for them to do, because they were all white, male, slave-owning, land holders. Ownership is what they valued. Now, as a more equal society, we have reached a point where you can no longer own people, and it is not currently feasible for land ownership to be the holy grail for the masses. So we need a new holy grail. I don't know what it is going to be, but I do know that the first step necessary for change to take place is for the middle class to become disenfranchised. I do know that. And that is happening right now. This change in wealth distribution provides the perfect time to think about what new frontiers we Americans can explore. We as a society dictate the value of our resources. When they become too expensive and scarce? We have the power to redefine our values so that the resources we do have can be utilized. This is our responsibility to ourselves, to and future generations.
Or to quote Mark Twain (kind of), perhaps the time has come to rise from affluence to poverty.
BB
"Dallas" is a parable about the eternal battle between good and evil. Set in Texas, it serves as a modern day western of sorts, with the character of J.R. decked out in the proverbial black hat, basically a living composite of the seven deadly sins cloaked by a smooth, sinister exterior. He is heir to land, oil leases, cattle. All the spoils of the great American manifest destiny. He has done little himself to earn these riches, but will do virtually anything to keep them. His brother Bobby, sporting the white hat, is also an heir to this life. But by contrast, he has a conscience. He cares about the land. The environment. His family. He wants the Ewing money to be used for the greater good rather than for mere personal enrichment. And so the series explores their many battles. The plot devices are nothing spectacular, but the show was a ratings blockbuster in its time.
Flash forward twenty five years and the brothers are still at odds. The stories updated for a modern take on the use of oil versus alternative energy. The drama still campy and over the top. A guilty pleasure of sorts. But what I found most interesting about revisiting these characters at this moment in time, is exploration of the concept of obtaining and maintaining wealth through property ownership. The characters ownership of the fictional "Southfork Ranch" situated on the outskirts of Dallas, continues to be a lynchpin of the plot. The brothers fight about who owns it, who will inherit it, what to do with it, whether it should be used for commercial purposes or preserved as a landmark. The characters feel emotional ties to the land, albeit for different reasons. Much like "Tara" in "Gone With The Wind", this land, and the many things it provides, is the cornerstone of the family identity.
This concept of land entitlement is so intrinsic to American culture, it is fair to say that without it, we may not even be here today. We all know that a basic premise of our heritage is exploration. Our forefathers came to this country in search of new frontiers. We, as Americans, continued to expand our borders from sea to shining sea. And then some. And along the way, we found gold. Oil. Coal. Timber. Soil. Water. We took whatever the land had to offer and made use of it. Some of it righteous, some of it exploitative. Our population grew. And as urban centers developed, it became necessary for survival that families have permanent housing. We formed communities. States. Became more organized. Central to this transition from a more nomadic populace of covered wagon pioneers to nine-to-fivers driving automobiles to work; was the concept of private, non-commercial land ownership. For most Americans of my generation and older, home ownership has been a basic right of passage. A non-negotiable part of the American dream. A point of pride. Your domain wherein you could expect safety from the outside world. Privacy. A place to nurture your children and pets. For many, land ownership represents his or her life's work, whether it be because the land is used to earn a living, or because large portions of ones acquired income are invested in the home. This has been an expectation. A birthright.
Of course in 2012, we as individuals have had to rethink this scenario. For millions, this land we once called home and took private ownership of, has changed hands. The security we once felt in making that monthly mortgage payment or walking in the front door after a hard day's work to take stock of all the things we have procured, neatly collected in one cozy abode, was shattered. There are many theories as to why this has happened, ranging from simple concepts such as the fact that Americans are greedy and began to leverage their prized secure possessions in order to gain liquidity in other areas of their lives; to more complex ideas involving banking, derivatives, and general market volatility. There is also the theory that many people who acquired homes over the past fifteen years were not qualified to be home owners, and should have remained renters. That theory espouses that these displaced people are now merely back where they belonged in the first place. No matter where you lay the blame, it is clear that the idea of a persons home as a sanctuary is no longer part and parcel of the American dream. In Phoenix, where I live part time, the glut of new homes is staggering. Unfinished projects line the desert in such a profound way, you can't tell if they were simply left undone, or destroyed after completion in some kind of futuristic apocalypse. And in a way, it HAS been apocalyptic. Not only have people been displaced from their residences, the construction business and all of its supporting players such as: interior design, home furnishings, art, pool and landscape service, housekeeping, and real estate sales have also plummeted along with the ousted tenants. Peoples lives have become the living embodiment of inflation. Paying higher prices for lower value. A family that once had a 1000 mortgage payment used to build equity in a four bedroom home is now forced to pay 1250 to a landlord for a three bedroom home in the same city, acquiring no equity. No security. No ownership.
As is always the case during a period of transition, the immediate natural response is fear. People tend to cling to what they know. And property ownership is what modern Americans know. So people are nervous. They are upset because in many cases, the asset that people once relied on as immutable and constant is now gone. Land ownership has reverted to the government, banks and large companies or landlords and developers who own multiple properties. This lack of individual ownership makes people feel out of control. They are resentful to have to give their hard earned money to someone when the only expected return is a place to stay. Not a place to live. A place to stay. This is unnerving. It seems like a step backwards.
Initially, the concept of reviving a television juggernaut whose plot turns on the axis of wealth and gentrification seemed odd to me when I contrasted it with the current state of economic affairs. Yet I watched it. And I found myself caught up in the story. One brother wants to use the land to maintain the status quo, drill for oil, keep the money rolling in at all costs. The other is interested in selling the land to a preservationist and using the proceeds to explore the idea of alternative energy. A surprisingly poignant and topical story for a soap opera, actually. I began to think about the interconnectedness that we as Americans feel with our homes. The safety and security they provide. I began to think about the many homeless people in this country and the fact that they are by definition always going to be disenfranchised in a society built on land ownership. I thought about the fact that the earliest forms of our constitution had land ownership and voting rights inextricably linked. The more I thought about these things, the more clear it became to me that what is happening right now, while certainly difficult in the short term, may provide us with an opportunity that we were all missing a decade ago when we were buying dining room sets and riding lawnmowers.
The opportunity to break with the conventional idea of wealth building through land and tactile resource ownership, and instead focus on more creative, intuitive solutions to larger problems.
When I thought about it, I realized that this message of sacrificing your home is the message of the new "Dallas." Granted, these are fictional characters of extraordinary means. But this story is heavy in metaphor. The oil on the property represents a staid, non-progressive (albeit profitable) resource. The alternative energy development, by contrast, represents the future and freedom from our current enslavement to oil and gas. In order to move forward and fund the progressive project, the Ewings must give up their home. They aren't going to be out on the street, because that wouldn't be any fun and, hey, this is cable television. But they have to give up their home, nonetheless. This is the sacrifice one brother is willing to make for the idea of a better future for the aggregate. While most Americans who have lost ownership of their homes were not left in a positive financial position, one thing that becomes obvious is that when the market is telling you that your house, furniture, art collection, clothing, cars, et al are no longer as valuable as you once believed, you have little choice but to try to think about what the market IS valuing. You have to stop thinking of land ownership as your right, and start thinking about your house as a place that you stay while you live a life of contemplation and problem solving.
This is what our forefathers did. They were contemplative problem solvers. They are the ones who decided that land ownership was going to be the holy grail. They created a government and society around that concept. Which was easy for them to do, because they were all white, male, slave-owning, land holders. Ownership is what they valued. Now, as a more equal society, we have reached a point where you can no longer own people, and it is not currently feasible for land ownership to be the holy grail for the masses. So we need a new holy grail. I don't know what it is going to be, but I do know that the first step necessary for change to take place is for the middle class to become disenfranchised. I do know that. And that is happening right now. This change in wealth distribution provides the perfect time to think about what new frontiers we Americans can explore. We as a society dictate the value of our resources. When they become too expensive and scarce? We have the power to redefine our values so that the resources we do have can be utilized. This is our responsibility to ourselves, to and future generations.
Or to quote Mark Twain (kind of), perhaps the time has come to rise from affluence to poverty.
BB
Monday, May 28, 2012
Thanks For The Memories
One common theme in this blog is the concept of the collapse of systems. Human beings survive and progress through the construction of various systems. The family is a system. As is school. Churches are systems. The government is a system. In nomadic societies there are more primitive tribal systems that are utilized to preserve order. In virtually all areas of life there are systems in place which people use in order to define themselves, leverage their efficiency, protect themselves, establish boundaries, and better communicate. Cultural and national classifications are used to identify people as a group, as well as to provide common ground. These systems are based on the premise that the group is inherently more powerful and effective than an individual could be. And in many cases, this is true.
Take a moment and think about how you identify yourself. For example, I am a woman. A mother. An American. I do not affiliate with a specific religious group, but many people do. I am Caucasian. Of European decent. I am a Californian. From a scientific perspective, I am a homo sapien. These are all categories utilized to give order to life. To create understanding and structure so that we can progress as a society from a basic point of common understanding. Language is a system. Math is a system. Use of these systems on a large scale allows for efficiency in communication and common parameters for growth.
Any student of science knows that inherent in the building of systems is the eventual breakdown of said systems. In biology, birth gives way to death. In physics, energy changes forms and eventually degrades. In social science, systems for the advancement of various groups are created, take on one form, then change, breakdown, and either cease to exist, or reemerge in another form. Sometimes this happens quickly, and sometimes it takes decades or even centuries to change. But eventually, the system will give way to new ideas and formats.
One example of a long held paradigm currently in flux, is that of the military industrial complex. Historically speaking, that term is mainly a cold war pejorative used in reference to the relationship between the military and the various industries that exist to support it. In America, companies like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon are large defense contractors; private businesses that earn enormous profits by developing and providing military equipment. The key term here is "private." These are private businesses. Operated by civilians. Not government owned and operated. This is a critical distinction because in other countries which are not operated as democracies, the government controls both the military and the production of technology. North Korea and Iran are both under constant scrutiny with regards to their government sponsored nuclear programs. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were both in totalitarian control of all tangentially relevant aspects of their military. Science, technology, aviation, manufacturing, weapon production and distribution, even agriculture; all government controlled.
Post World War II, this traditional alliance in America between the military and private business has been largely axiomatic. We have utilized fairly traditional and straightforward models of military aggression. We have four branches of the military. We need uniforms, supplies, weapons, technology, transport. It's all pretty easy for people to wrap their minds around. We have all seen war movies or military news footage. We all have a common idea of what the face of the American military is. We accept that as a necessary part of our lives. We see it as the vanguard of our birthright as Americans. The need for a large military seems inherent in our quest to preserve and promote democracy. It defines us to a certain extent.
Enter 9/11. The game changer.
Technically, the 9/11 attacks were a terrorist attack on American soil. They were not an invasion. They were not intended to have permanence. They were a protest of sorts. An ideological temper tantrum. The attackers ostensibly have deep resentment of America and Western culture in general. So they made a statement. They showed us our vulnerability. They used our own freedom against us. Made us think twice about immigration. Made us question the safety of our transportation. Made us stop and and think about what we have. What we want. What we stand for. It was the seminal culturally redefining moment of my lifetime. The moment in which you realized that as great as your life in America is, the freedom you have comes at a very steep price. Every citizen, institution and ideal was and is forever changed by the events of that day. Not the least of which has been the traditional concept of military. On that day, rescue workers became surrogates of the military. Civilians were called upon to behave in valorous roles traditionally only reserved for men and women in uniform. Journalists were on the front lines, this time not as observers but as potential intended targets. In that moment, every soldier was a civilian and every civilian a soldier. We were united as never before. It was an exhilarating, terrifying, revolutionary and evolutionary. Long held boundaries and group identities were broken down. The bankers who jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center were every bit the heroes that any soldier who raised a flag at Iwo Jima ever was. Who among us can hear the phrase "Let's Roll" without tearing up at the thought of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers on Flight 93, who put their own immediate safety firmly behind their patriotism in an attempt to derail an attack on the Pentagon? Each and every one of these Americans died a hero. The bankers, a living embodiment of our cherished free market which has provided a home for capitalist ideas. The rescue workers, a symbol of American selflessness and commitment to progress through ensuring the safety of our populace. The journalists, fierce protectors of our right to open information dissemination and free speech.
These are but a few examples of the new face of the American soldier.
This is not an attempt to in any way diminish the role of our men and women in uniform. They have always and will continue to set the standard in this country for the ideals of patriotism and sacrifice for the common gain. They are the front line. The public face of American strength. But what has changed since 9/11, is the idea of what it means to be a civilian. When all the wars are on foreign soil, it is easy to distinguish between military and non military. But when the war is at home, the enemy ambiguous and chameleon like in its form, this becomes a much more difficult task. The 9/11 attacks used our private corporations to expose our vulnerability. If the airline industry had been government owned and operated, it is unlikely that this type of attack would have even been conceived, let alone executed. So in this way, we as a nation now rest on a fulcrum. We have to decide how much influence the government can and should have on private businesses. For example, should Apple be forced to stop outsourcing the manufacturing of its goods to China for fear that there could be potential associated national security risks? What role does privately funded science and technology play in our efforts to thwart potential cyber attacks? Does there reach a point when private industry holds so much control over our safety and progress, that the LACK of governmental control creates vulnerability to foreign enemies? How do we balance those issues? And, correspondingly, aren't we all, in fact, soldiers for freedom at this point? Our ideology and way of life is certainly under attack. Isn't every teacher who helps a student understand Locke's "Social Contract Theory", in reality, preparing that student for an ideological battle in a world where the freedoms that we hold dear are increasingly becoming the exception and not the rule? The theories with which that teacher arms her students, that knowledge, is her contribution to the continuation of American life as we know it. Isn't every small business man who creates jobs by exercising his right to utilize the free market, actually demonstrating the power of the aggregate in a society that rewards creativity and progress instead of thwarting or stealing it? Is that man not also a soldier for economic freedom?
These are not new concepts. Every generation has had its wars. Every generation has felt its system breaking down around them and questioned what the future holds. The Civil War was fought over domestic ideological differences. During the Cold War, communism was the perceived threat to American life. Now it is Islamic terrorism. At each juncture of American history, its citizens have been called on to rise to the challenge, allow the old system to disintegrate, and make way for a better and more efficient model. This is no different. Our military industrial complex still exists as a viable force in the world, albeit a changing one. The armed forces remains our best line of defense, their immediate sacrifice is immeasurably valuable. But ask yourself today, the day we honor so many who have given so much on our behalf, what does it mean to you in a post 9/11 world to be an American civilian? What are you doing to keep the American dream of freedom and prosperity alive? Are you willing to soldier your ideals?
If so? Let's roll.
BB
Take a moment and think about how you identify yourself. For example, I am a woman. A mother. An American. I do not affiliate with a specific religious group, but many people do. I am Caucasian. Of European decent. I am a Californian. From a scientific perspective, I am a homo sapien. These are all categories utilized to give order to life. To create understanding and structure so that we can progress as a society from a basic point of common understanding. Language is a system. Math is a system. Use of these systems on a large scale allows for efficiency in communication and common parameters for growth.
Any student of science knows that inherent in the building of systems is the eventual breakdown of said systems. In biology, birth gives way to death. In physics, energy changes forms and eventually degrades. In social science, systems for the advancement of various groups are created, take on one form, then change, breakdown, and either cease to exist, or reemerge in another form. Sometimes this happens quickly, and sometimes it takes decades or even centuries to change. But eventually, the system will give way to new ideas and formats.
One example of a long held paradigm currently in flux, is that of the military industrial complex. Historically speaking, that term is mainly a cold war pejorative used in reference to the relationship between the military and the various industries that exist to support it. In America, companies like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon are large defense contractors; private businesses that earn enormous profits by developing and providing military equipment. The key term here is "private." These are private businesses. Operated by civilians. Not government owned and operated. This is a critical distinction because in other countries which are not operated as democracies, the government controls both the military and the production of technology. North Korea and Iran are both under constant scrutiny with regards to their government sponsored nuclear programs. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were both in totalitarian control of all tangentially relevant aspects of their military. Science, technology, aviation, manufacturing, weapon production and distribution, even agriculture; all government controlled.
Post World War II, this traditional alliance in America between the military and private business has been largely axiomatic. We have utilized fairly traditional and straightforward models of military aggression. We have four branches of the military. We need uniforms, supplies, weapons, technology, transport. It's all pretty easy for people to wrap their minds around. We have all seen war movies or military news footage. We all have a common idea of what the face of the American military is. We accept that as a necessary part of our lives. We see it as the vanguard of our birthright as Americans. The need for a large military seems inherent in our quest to preserve and promote democracy. It defines us to a certain extent.
Enter 9/11. The game changer.
Technically, the 9/11 attacks were a terrorist attack on American soil. They were not an invasion. They were not intended to have permanence. They were a protest of sorts. An ideological temper tantrum. The attackers ostensibly have deep resentment of America and Western culture in general. So they made a statement. They showed us our vulnerability. They used our own freedom against us. Made us think twice about immigration. Made us question the safety of our transportation. Made us stop and and think about what we have. What we want. What we stand for. It was the seminal culturally redefining moment of my lifetime. The moment in which you realized that as great as your life in America is, the freedom you have comes at a very steep price. Every citizen, institution and ideal was and is forever changed by the events of that day. Not the least of which has been the traditional concept of military. On that day, rescue workers became surrogates of the military. Civilians were called upon to behave in valorous roles traditionally only reserved for men and women in uniform. Journalists were on the front lines, this time not as observers but as potential intended targets. In that moment, every soldier was a civilian and every civilian a soldier. We were united as never before. It was an exhilarating, terrifying, revolutionary and evolutionary. Long held boundaries and group identities were broken down. The bankers who jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center were every bit the heroes that any soldier who raised a flag at Iwo Jima ever was. Who among us can hear the phrase "Let's Roll" without tearing up at the thought of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers on Flight 93, who put their own immediate safety firmly behind their patriotism in an attempt to derail an attack on the Pentagon? Each and every one of these Americans died a hero. The bankers, a living embodiment of our cherished free market which has provided a home for capitalist ideas. The rescue workers, a symbol of American selflessness and commitment to progress through ensuring the safety of our populace. The journalists, fierce protectors of our right to open information dissemination and free speech.
These are but a few examples of the new face of the American soldier.
This is not an attempt to in any way diminish the role of our men and women in uniform. They have always and will continue to set the standard in this country for the ideals of patriotism and sacrifice for the common gain. They are the front line. The public face of American strength. But what has changed since 9/11, is the idea of what it means to be a civilian. When all the wars are on foreign soil, it is easy to distinguish between military and non military. But when the war is at home, the enemy ambiguous and chameleon like in its form, this becomes a much more difficult task. The 9/11 attacks used our private corporations to expose our vulnerability. If the airline industry had been government owned and operated, it is unlikely that this type of attack would have even been conceived, let alone executed. So in this way, we as a nation now rest on a fulcrum. We have to decide how much influence the government can and should have on private businesses. For example, should Apple be forced to stop outsourcing the manufacturing of its goods to China for fear that there could be potential associated national security risks? What role does privately funded science and technology play in our efforts to thwart potential cyber attacks? Does there reach a point when private industry holds so much control over our safety and progress, that the LACK of governmental control creates vulnerability to foreign enemies? How do we balance those issues? And, correspondingly, aren't we all, in fact, soldiers for freedom at this point? Our ideology and way of life is certainly under attack. Isn't every teacher who helps a student understand Locke's "Social Contract Theory", in reality, preparing that student for an ideological battle in a world where the freedoms that we hold dear are increasingly becoming the exception and not the rule? The theories with which that teacher arms her students, that knowledge, is her contribution to the continuation of American life as we know it. Isn't every small business man who creates jobs by exercising his right to utilize the free market, actually demonstrating the power of the aggregate in a society that rewards creativity and progress instead of thwarting or stealing it? Is that man not also a soldier for economic freedom?
These are not new concepts. Every generation has had its wars. Every generation has felt its system breaking down around them and questioned what the future holds. The Civil War was fought over domestic ideological differences. During the Cold War, communism was the perceived threat to American life. Now it is Islamic terrorism. At each juncture of American history, its citizens have been called on to rise to the challenge, allow the old system to disintegrate, and make way for a better and more efficient model. This is no different. Our military industrial complex still exists as a viable force in the world, albeit a changing one. The armed forces remains our best line of defense, their immediate sacrifice is immeasurably valuable. But ask yourself today, the day we honor so many who have given so much on our behalf, what does it mean to you in a post 9/11 world to be an American civilian? What are you doing to keep the American dream of freedom and prosperity alive? Are you willing to soldier your ideals?
If so? Let's roll.
BB
Friday, May 18, 2012
Location. Location. Location.
This morning Facebook, one of the most highly anticipated IPO's in history, began trading on the NASDAQ. One question I hear asked frequently is "How can Facebook make any money when there is no charge for subscriptions?" People are constantly worried that this format will change, and somehow this free party will grind to a halt. The standard answer about profitability is, of course: advertising. Conventional wisdom holds that Facebook, while posing as a social media website, is, in reality, the most prolific information cache currently available in private industry. People log in and voluntarily provide their names, birth dates, educational histories, employment information, relationship status, children's names and ages. hobbies and interests, vacation plans and pictures, political views and affiliations, and, (in my opinion) most importantly, their location. This is of tremendous interest to advertisers who could hypothetically spend millions on market research and yet never obtain access to such specificities about their intended victims - I mean, audience. Facebook has done the legwork for them and ostensibly provides a heretofore unavailable windfall of personalized information. The ultimate database. All provided with no subterfuge. And all of this is done by offering the public the one thing that is irresistible to most human beings:
A chance to tell his or her side of the story.
A public resume. A voice. A visible record of life displayed as the participant wishes it to be. Maybe the record is accurate. Maybe it isn't. But each person has his or her free opportunity to set the record of his or her individual life straight. You got grounded unfairly for bad grades in school? Complain about it on Facebook. You don't like the way something went on a particular day at work? Rant about it on Facebook. Your son got a baseball scholarship to UCLA? Brag about it on Facebook. Your hair happens to look perfect on that one day when no one was around to witness it? Memorialize it for posterity on Facebook. You shot a hole-in-one but no one can stand playing golf with you so you can't prove it? Get a cart guy to take your picture so you can post it on Facebook. People want to know why Facebook is so popular? It is not a mystery. It is human vanity.
One day a friend of mine and I were questioning why it suddenly seems to be so important for everyone in the world to be thought of as being "hot." Attractiveness is a Darwinistic reality. It is a basic mating tool. People have always cared about being attractive to whatever person with which they wish to mate and that will never change. But the current trend seems to be this idea that somehow everyone has to be attractive to everyone else. Not just to the person he or she might wish to date or marry. Not even just to whatever group of people a person may be attracted to. Heterosexual females are supposed to be hot to homosexual males. Sixty year old men are supposed to be hot to twenty year old females. All women are supposed to judge and rate all other women based on attractiveness. Men are supposed to care if other men think they are hot. I found this confusing until one day my youngest daughter put a very simple spin on it by saying to me, "Mom, all people need to believe that they are attractive."
Indeed. Yes. A teenager sees it so clearly. All people need to believe that they are attractive. And Facebook offers all people that chance! Every day all people can demonstrate attractiveness. Not just physical attractiveness, but also intellectual prowess, spiritual strength, comedic superiority, compassionate courage, emotional resilience - all of these things can be promoted daily on a persons Facebook page. AND if you are sick of all the people in your immediate life, you may now reach a virtually unlimited audience! You can connect with people from your past whom you never would have possibly seen again if not for access to the internet. You can make new friends based on common interests. You can become friends with people from other cultures with whom you have no common ground and learn about their lives. The possibilities seem endless! And the best part is: You are in control. You can add or delete people from your friends list to demonstrate their relative importance in your life. You can block people from ever seeing you at all! You can take a picture that is average at best (we've all done it) photoshop it to an unrecognizable perfection, and use it as your public face to the world! You can show your life as a non stop party. A goodwill tour in which you are the star. Or you can showcase your political views. Perhaps use your page to promote your religious beliefs. You can tell the world your problems and seek sympathy and enlightenment from a larger pool. Whatever you like. It is your page.
This illusion of control, this daily vanity project is an intoxicating premise. Brilliant, actually. It combines the human need for acceptance and interaction with the previously unavailable ability to electronically manipulate and represent truths in whatever way best suits the user. It's not so much a lie, as it is a snapshot of life poised out there in virtual posterity. It's like a movie poster. Or a political ad. A moment in time captured and presented to achieve a specific purpose. It is groundbreaking because previously this kind of spin was only available to famous or wealthy people. So in this way, Facebook gives power to the proletariat. And that is a worthy enterprise.
Of course as movie stars and politicians have long known, this kind of scrutiny often becomes a double edged sword. Whatever face you present to the public, once accepted, can be either difficult to maintain; (Connor, you guys have been in a relationship for three years now, why aren't you married?) or it can be used against you in a legal battle (Emily, you told me you didn't have my money, but then you posted pictures of your new car online...). Checking in it at a movie when you told your parents that you were at a friends house will likely get you in trouble. Once you go on the record, you are ON THE RECORD. Novice users of social media are learning the hard way that it may not always be the best idea to publicly record every move you make if you are not prepared for all the potential unintended consequences. As with any kind of major change, there will be lagging corresponding legal and governmental issues to contend with ranging from privacy issues to libel and beyond. It is a work in progress.
I am not a stock analyst nor do I profess to know what makes a company valuable. Most people will accept the premise that the seemingly infinite database that Facebook can access will translate into advertising revenue. I am certain there are other niches of the business that only insiders are privy to that are going to be profitable. From my point of view, however, I see the potential value in that Facebook users are more than willing to provide public knowledge of their locations. They will check in at restaurants and resorts. Promote car dealerships and specific brands. Tag photographers and event planners in pictures they post. The users insatiable need to showcase accomplishments (new house, celebratory dinner for latest promotion) added to the desire to be accepted by a group dynamic (latest iPad, advance tickets to movie screening) and wish to influence others perspectives (cool mantra learned at yoga studio, daily bible quote) all adds up to each individual person becoming his own living breathing advertisement. It is leverage upon leverage. In this way, the notion of collecting personal information for distribution to outside sources seems minuscule and outdated. Who needs advertising when each person is his own ad? The traditional model of targeted advertising becomes archaic when contrasted with the ability to harness this potential international vanity project starring each person presenting him or herself as attractive; utilizing Facebook to promote whatever commercial interest is making that person feel most attractive. Getting your braces off. Buying new clothing. Restoring old cars. Hitting the gym. Attending church. Hosting a charity function. Volunteering at a homeless shelter. Hiking a mountain you wish to have preserved. Traveling abroad. Whatever your cause. Facebook wants to know. You are the advertising. You are the message.
When you look at it that way, stop and ask yourself, who is actually providing the greater service?
BB
A chance to tell his or her side of the story.
A public resume. A voice. A visible record of life displayed as the participant wishes it to be. Maybe the record is accurate. Maybe it isn't. But each person has his or her free opportunity to set the record of his or her individual life straight. You got grounded unfairly for bad grades in school? Complain about it on Facebook. You don't like the way something went on a particular day at work? Rant about it on Facebook. Your son got a baseball scholarship to UCLA? Brag about it on Facebook. Your hair happens to look perfect on that one day when no one was around to witness it? Memorialize it for posterity on Facebook. You shot a hole-in-one but no one can stand playing golf with you so you can't prove it? Get a cart guy to take your picture so you can post it on Facebook. People want to know why Facebook is so popular? It is not a mystery. It is human vanity.
One day a friend of mine and I were questioning why it suddenly seems to be so important for everyone in the world to be thought of as being "hot." Attractiveness is a Darwinistic reality. It is a basic mating tool. People have always cared about being attractive to whatever person with which they wish to mate and that will never change. But the current trend seems to be this idea that somehow everyone has to be attractive to everyone else. Not just to the person he or she might wish to date or marry. Not even just to whatever group of people a person may be attracted to. Heterosexual females are supposed to be hot to homosexual males. Sixty year old men are supposed to be hot to twenty year old females. All women are supposed to judge and rate all other women based on attractiveness. Men are supposed to care if other men think they are hot. I found this confusing until one day my youngest daughter put a very simple spin on it by saying to me, "Mom, all people need to believe that they are attractive."
Indeed. Yes. A teenager sees it so clearly. All people need to believe that they are attractive. And Facebook offers all people that chance! Every day all people can demonstrate attractiveness. Not just physical attractiveness, but also intellectual prowess, spiritual strength, comedic superiority, compassionate courage, emotional resilience - all of these things can be promoted daily on a persons Facebook page. AND if you are sick of all the people in your immediate life, you may now reach a virtually unlimited audience! You can connect with people from your past whom you never would have possibly seen again if not for access to the internet. You can make new friends based on common interests. You can become friends with people from other cultures with whom you have no common ground and learn about their lives. The possibilities seem endless! And the best part is: You are in control. You can add or delete people from your friends list to demonstrate their relative importance in your life. You can block people from ever seeing you at all! You can take a picture that is average at best (we've all done it) photoshop it to an unrecognizable perfection, and use it as your public face to the world! You can show your life as a non stop party. A goodwill tour in which you are the star. Or you can showcase your political views. Perhaps use your page to promote your religious beliefs. You can tell the world your problems and seek sympathy and enlightenment from a larger pool. Whatever you like. It is your page.
This illusion of control, this daily vanity project is an intoxicating premise. Brilliant, actually. It combines the human need for acceptance and interaction with the previously unavailable ability to electronically manipulate and represent truths in whatever way best suits the user. It's not so much a lie, as it is a snapshot of life poised out there in virtual posterity. It's like a movie poster. Or a political ad. A moment in time captured and presented to achieve a specific purpose. It is groundbreaking because previously this kind of spin was only available to famous or wealthy people. So in this way, Facebook gives power to the proletariat. And that is a worthy enterprise.
Of course as movie stars and politicians have long known, this kind of scrutiny often becomes a double edged sword. Whatever face you present to the public, once accepted, can be either difficult to maintain; (Connor, you guys have been in a relationship for three years now, why aren't you married?) or it can be used against you in a legal battle (Emily, you told me you didn't have my money, but then you posted pictures of your new car online...). Checking in it at a movie when you told your parents that you were at a friends house will likely get you in trouble. Once you go on the record, you are ON THE RECORD. Novice users of social media are learning the hard way that it may not always be the best idea to publicly record every move you make if you are not prepared for all the potential unintended consequences. As with any kind of major change, there will be lagging corresponding legal and governmental issues to contend with ranging from privacy issues to libel and beyond. It is a work in progress.
I am not a stock analyst nor do I profess to know what makes a company valuable. Most people will accept the premise that the seemingly infinite database that Facebook can access will translate into advertising revenue. I am certain there are other niches of the business that only insiders are privy to that are going to be profitable. From my point of view, however, I see the potential value in that Facebook users are more than willing to provide public knowledge of their locations. They will check in at restaurants and resorts. Promote car dealerships and specific brands. Tag photographers and event planners in pictures they post. The users insatiable need to showcase accomplishments (new house, celebratory dinner for latest promotion) added to the desire to be accepted by a group dynamic (latest iPad, advance tickets to movie screening) and wish to influence others perspectives (cool mantra learned at yoga studio, daily bible quote) all adds up to each individual person becoming his own living breathing advertisement. It is leverage upon leverage. In this way, the notion of collecting personal information for distribution to outside sources seems minuscule and outdated. Who needs advertising when each person is his own ad? The traditional model of targeted advertising becomes archaic when contrasted with the ability to harness this potential international vanity project starring each person presenting him or herself as attractive; utilizing Facebook to promote whatever commercial interest is making that person feel most attractive. Getting your braces off. Buying new clothing. Restoring old cars. Hitting the gym. Attending church. Hosting a charity function. Volunteering at a homeless shelter. Hiking a mountain you wish to have preserved. Traveling abroad. Whatever your cause. Facebook wants to know. You are the advertising. You are the message.
When you look at it that way, stop and ask yourself, who is actually providing the greater service?
BB
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
I Do Not Like Them In A Box...
If ever there was an overused phrase in modern American life, it has got to be "think outside the box." This mandate has become so tired and empty, it is utterly devoid of meaning at this point. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself what that phrase even means or why people use it so frequently? How many times in a given week do you hear people say things like..."That Steve Jobs really knew how to think outside the box" or "What we need you to do right now, Jenny, is think outside the box..." It is hyperbole upon hyperbole. A mindless mantra that is chanted to the masses in the hopes of inspiring some sort of action. The question is: what kind of action does the person using this term actually seek to inspire?
If you break this idea down, one thing becomes clear. Use of the word "box" serves as some kind of metaphor for what ever the defining norms of a situation are. The "box" is societal norms. It is religious norms. It is governmental norms. It is corporate norms. It is something that confines you. Constricts you. Apparently, it keeps whoever is in it, from thinking creatively. It keeps that person from excelling. It keeps that person from achieving. So whatever you do, according to this mandate, you need to make sure you are doing it OUTSIDE the box. That much we know.
Here comes the confusing part. What, exactly, does it MEAN to be outside? And how far outside does one need to be? People who abuse this phrase love to use examples of successful endeavors that ostensibly came from "out of the box" thinking. Jefferson and The American Constitution. Kennedy and space exploration. Al Gore and the internet. (Ok, maybe just the first two). These represent new frontiers pioneered by people who didn't allow norms to keep their ideas from reaching fruition. And when you focus on those kinds of accomplishments, it would seem that the sky is literally the limit. That there is no way to be too far out of that suffocating tomb of a box. That norms can be stretched, redefined, remastered into new and better ways of living. But wait! If you stop and think about it another way, guys like Charles Manson and David Koresh were ALSO thinking outside the box. They didn't care about societal norms, nor government or religious standards. And they were able to convince other people to go along with their ideas. That's kind of upsetting. So taking their behavior at face value, it would appear that one can, in fact, be too far outside the box. Then, if you think about it yet another way, while these two may outside YOUR box, from Stalin's point of view, they were aiming pretty low, and are still firmly entrenched inside his box. And for that matter, didn't Jefferson own slaves and encourage mass slaughter of Native Americans in his quest to ensure "freedom"? So really, what kind of box did he have in the first place? When you put this kind of thought into these examples, you realize that, like anything else, thinking outside the box is a matter of context. The context of Jefferson's life is not the context of today's world. So it is impossible to know exactly what a person means when he encourages you to think in this manner. Which is why it has become such a meaningless thing to demand.
Lets say that you are in a sales meeting, and your boss tells you that you need to think outside the box in order to increase your productivity. Are you going to come back to him a few days later with some extra cool (but safe) sales pitches? Or are you going to suggest some kind of major overhaul in the organization that would allow autonomy, decentralization of power, and a potentially different compensation structure? And if you DID do the latter, would anyone at your job even take those suggestions seriously? Or would your manager be threatened and say "Wait a minute, Doug. That isn't what we meant when we said "out of the box." We just wanted you to think of a few nifty sales promos we could tie to our latest product launch." Would you be rewarded for your creativity or would you be shut down because you took it too far?
Therein lies the inherent problem with organizations and groups. In order for the group to remain powerful, it requires allegiance and loyalty. If too many people start to think for themselves, the group becomes fragmented and loses its authority. This is true of small groups, such as a clique of teenage girls who gain power by bullying other girls into conforming to their methods; and large groups, such as political parties who undermine new and modern thinking by bullying news organizations into keeping the focus on issues which they deem appropriate. If you hear a political candidate suggest that he will think "outside the box", do you take that to mean he will lower corporate taxes instead of raising them? Or does it mean that he will overhaul the entire tax system? When you see the Tea Party demand accountability in Washington, do you find that they are asking for an actual structural change that might result in a lower incidence of legislation? Or do you believe that they just want to gain power in the status quo system and utilize that power to achieve their own agenda without making any meaningful adjustments? One thing that is particularly telling, is that whenever groups such as the Tea Party or Green Party gain notoriety, they are immediately categorized by the media as offshoots of the right or the left, and subsequently claimed by the two existing parties in an effort to keep their death grip on the populace firmly in tact. These fledgling parties are never just taken at face value based on whatever their own tenants may be. There is always qualification.
To wit: "Well you know, Bob, the Tea Party is really just a bunch of angry white Republicans who want the party to lean further to the right."
"Yes, well, Susan, I did know that. That reminds me of the time the Green Party cost Al Gore the 2000 election, which was so unnecessary because when you stop and think about it, the Green Party is really just a bunch of angry hippies who want the Democrats to lean further to the left."
This is the rhetoric. This is the way the mainstream marginalizes the important message that potential third parties can deliver. The media claim to be frustrated with the state of the economy, gas prices, unemployment, and any other issue that effects voters. Yet when enough people get together and try to think of "out of the box" solutions, all anyone with a public forum can do is immediately place those people within a known context of the existing two party system. In this way, it becomes increasingly difficult for any truly unconventional thinker to gain traction. For a recent private sector example we can look at Facebook's acquisition of Instagram. Why deal with a competitor who is a little edgier than you are when you can simply make them so much like you that you no longer have to be edgy? So in that way, Facebook becomes like General Motors. They cease to be the next big thing and become the norm. They go from being out of the box, to BEING the box. That is why change in this country is so incremental. The forward thinkers are either marginalized out of existence, or bought and paid for by existing entities.
Until the next person comes along and pushes boundaries in a way that is provocative or lucrative enough to make a difference. Change is slow. But it happens. Progress requires the dismantling of outdated systems and thoughts and the nurturing of more modern ideas. This applies to all areas of life. Don't let your progress be dictated by other peoples intellectual laziness and mental sluggishness. Don't become marginalized just because it is easier to be part of a larger group than it is to remain true to your ideals. I'm sure Instagram once had its own business goals that had nothing to do with Facebook. And Ariana Huffington is finding out the hard way that even $315 million isn't going to get her editorial control at AOL.
Perhaps the best way one can truly attempt to think outside the box, is to remember that the goal is to not eventually become the box.
BB
If you break this idea down, one thing becomes clear. Use of the word "box" serves as some kind of metaphor for what ever the defining norms of a situation are. The "box" is societal norms. It is religious norms. It is governmental norms. It is corporate norms. It is something that confines you. Constricts you. Apparently, it keeps whoever is in it, from thinking creatively. It keeps that person from excelling. It keeps that person from achieving. So whatever you do, according to this mandate, you need to make sure you are doing it OUTSIDE the box. That much we know.
Here comes the confusing part. What, exactly, does it MEAN to be outside? And how far outside does one need to be? People who abuse this phrase love to use examples of successful endeavors that ostensibly came from "out of the box" thinking. Jefferson and The American Constitution. Kennedy and space exploration. Al Gore and the internet. (Ok, maybe just the first two). These represent new frontiers pioneered by people who didn't allow norms to keep their ideas from reaching fruition. And when you focus on those kinds of accomplishments, it would seem that the sky is literally the limit. That there is no way to be too far out of that suffocating tomb of a box. That norms can be stretched, redefined, remastered into new and better ways of living. But wait! If you stop and think about it another way, guys like Charles Manson and David Koresh were ALSO thinking outside the box. They didn't care about societal norms, nor government or religious standards. And they were able to convince other people to go along with their ideas. That's kind of upsetting. So taking their behavior at face value, it would appear that one can, in fact, be too far outside the box. Then, if you think about it yet another way, while these two may outside YOUR box, from Stalin's point of view, they were aiming pretty low, and are still firmly entrenched inside his box. And for that matter, didn't Jefferson own slaves and encourage mass slaughter of Native Americans in his quest to ensure "freedom"? So really, what kind of box did he have in the first place? When you put this kind of thought into these examples, you realize that, like anything else, thinking outside the box is a matter of context. The context of Jefferson's life is not the context of today's world. So it is impossible to know exactly what a person means when he encourages you to think in this manner. Which is why it has become such a meaningless thing to demand.
Lets say that you are in a sales meeting, and your boss tells you that you need to think outside the box in order to increase your productivity. Are you going to come back to him a few days later with some extra cool (but safe) sales pitches? Or are you going to suggest some kind of major overhaul in the organization that would allow autonomy, decentralization of power, and a potentially different compensation structure? And if you DID do the latter, would anyone at your job even take those suggestions seriously? Or would your manager be threatened and say "Wait a minute, Doug. That isn't what we meant when we said "out of the box." We just wanted you to think of a few nifty sales promos we could tie to our latest product launch." Would you be rewarded for your creativity or would you be shut down because you took it too far?
Therein lies the inherent problem with organizations and groups. In order for the group to remain powerful, it requires allegiance and loyalty. If too many people start to think for themselves, the group becomes fragmented and loses its authority. This is true of small groups, such as a clique of teenage girls who gain power by bullying other girls into conforming to their methods; and large groups, such as political parties who undermine new and modern thinking by bullying news organizations into keeping the focus on issues which they deem appropriate. If you hear a political candidate suggest that he will think "outside the box", do you take that to mean he will lower corporate taxes instead of raising them? Or does it mean that he will overhaul the entire tax system? When you see the Tea Party demand accountability in Washington, do you find that they are asking for an actual structural change that might result in a lower incidence of legislation? Or do you believe that they just want to gain power in the status quo system and utilize that power to achieve their own agenda without making any meaningful adjustments? One thing that is particularly telling, is that whenever groups such as the Tea Party or Green Party gain notoriety, they are immediately categorized by the media as offshoots of the right or the left, and subsequently claimed by the two existing parties in an effort to keep their death grip on the populace firmly in tact. These fledgling parties are never just taken at face value based on whatever their own tenants may be. There is always qualification.
To wit: "Well you know, Bob, the Tea Party is really just a bunch of angry white Republicans who want the party to lean further to the right."
"Yes, well, Susan, I did know that. That reminds me of the time the Green Party cost Al Gore the 2000 election, which was so unnecessary because when you stop and think about it, the Green Party is really just a bunch of angry hippies who want the Democrats to lean further to the left."
This is the rhetoric. This is the way the mainstream marginalizes the important message that potential third parties can deliver. The media claim to be frustrated with the state of the economy, gas prices, unemployment, and any other issue that effects voters. Yet when enough people get together and try to think of "out of the box" solutions, all anyone with a public forum can do is immediately place those people within a known context of the existing two party system. In this way, it becomes increasingly difficult for any truly unconventional thinker to gain traction. For a recent private sector example we can look at Facebook's acquisition of Instagram. Why deal with a competitor who is a little edgier than you are when you can simply make them so much like you that you no longer have to be edgy? So in that way, Facebook becomes like General Motors. They cease to be the next big thing and become the norm. They go from being out of the box, to BEING the box. That is why change in this country is so incremental. The forward thinkers are either marginalized out of existence, or bought and paid for by existing entities.
Until the next person comes along and pushes boundaries in a way that is provocative or lucrative enough to make a difference. Change is slow. But it happens. Progress requires the dismantling of outdated systems and thoughts and the nurturing of more modern ideas. This applies to all areas of life. Don't let your progress be dictated by other peoples intellectual laziness and mental sluggishness. Don't become marginalized just because it is easier to be part of a larger group than it is to remain true to your ideals. I'm sure Instagram once had its own business goals that had nothing to do with Facebook. And Ariana Huffington is finding out the hard way that even $315 million isn't going to get her editorial control at AOL.
Perhaps the best way one can truly attempt to think outside the box, is to remember that the goal is to not eventually become the box.
BB
Saturday, April 28, 2012
A Reason For Reason
I am a Libertarian. This blog, however, is not a Libertarian blog. It is a blog exploring the concept of thinking for yourself. The idea of not letting other people dictate the agenda or tell you what you should care about. I am not a professional journalist, nor do I wish to be. What I am, is an activist. I seek to inspire dialogue, independent thinking and action.
What I find frustrating about the current political climate, is that the issues being discussed in the mainstream are not necessarily issues that would compel me to act or even care. Sometimes its because the concepts are so large, so overwhelming, that I don't even have the vaguest idea of what I would do, assuming I was even in a position to do anything in the first place. These issues are absolutely enormous in scope. There are so many moving parts. So many details. And to complicate matters further, the political landscape seems to change so quickly, that by the time one gains even a fundamental understanding of whats going on, the dynamic has already shifted. Then, oddly, those very same situations appear to drag on indefinitely, devoid of any meaningful resolution. It is as if things are simultaneously flying by yet somehow, not progressing at all.
In many ways, politics is merely another aspect of life, no different than any other big picture experience. One could take any crucial moment in time, break that experience down, try to understand what it means in your life, then subsequently take the appropriate action. This is the entire purpose of rational thought. First, reason. Then, act. Let's take, for example, the birth of a child. If you examined your role as a new parent to this baby, you would see conflicting perspectives. You could be (as I was) intimidated by the enormity of the undertaking. A baby brings excitement and energy, and creates a shift in your responsibility in the world. In that way, the new life brings with it forward momentum. Taken from another point of view, that same child will require a lifetime of commitment and consistency, which grounds you. The event brings weight and seriousness to your life and slows your pace in certain respects. Therefore, the experience becomes two sides of the same coin. It pushes you forward in incremental ways, yet in the macro sense, it forces you to be stable. This is a delicate balance. Frequently by the time you have figured out what to do in a specific scenario, the baby is older, and already has an entirely different set of needs. And so you miss your window. You make mistakes. Whatever. And that is frustrating.
Upon closer examination, the flip side of this issue illustrates that while the specific circumstances of child rearing may not have gone exactly the way you intended moment to moment, your child grows to a different stage, and you know what? You get another chance. You build on your past success and failure. You learn. You keep at it. And in that way, the child goes from being a daily project, to becoming a defining aspect of your overall person. The incremental gives way to the large scale. Things start to make more sense. You still make mistakes. But the child keeps growing and you keep getting more chances. And with each new chance, you can draw on the benefit of your past experience. The forward motion that the small daily regimen brings propels your life onward. And the aggregate of the compounded experience, when understood, lends stability to your overall life. It is progress tempered by steadiness.
This is not dissimilar from the thought process that, when applied accurately, allows us to form useable political opinions. Much like a child, the political arena is unpredictable, ever changing, varied, exciting and at times, frustrating. By the time we believe we have a grasp on whats going on, often the climate has changed. But we do have the benefit of experience in this scenario, as well. Perhaps even more so because politics is such an all encompassing topic. Examining individual issues that are of importance can make the larger concepts manageable. It is easy to throw your hands up and scowl because you have no idea what derivatives are, let alone how they contributed to our current financial crisis. It is even easier to feel helpless in the face of yet another conflict brewing in the middle east after billions have been spent in that area to date with seemingly no benefit and no end in sight. You may ask yourself, as one person, what can I possibly do to affect any kind of change? I ask myself the same thing. And I have concluded, more than once, that the bulk of political issues are so complex and specific, it would be difficult to formulate any kind of actionable plan beyond voting. I mean, we all know we can vote. That is our gift. Our mandate. Our voice. Our weapon. But it is one thing to vote. And it is quite another to take the time to understand how to make your vote count.
In my opinion, the best way to begin to become more politically active, is to realize that no matter how intimidating an issue may be, there are ways to understand the concepts behind it. I still don't know exactly how to potty train a child, I fail miserably at parent teacher conferences, and have yet to master the art of listening to my children's full explanations before getting prematurely angry. But I am learning. Parenting is a long haul. It requires discipline. And I know that I cannot allow the weight of the responsibility nor the expansiveness of the idea to keep me from trying to use my rational mind to reflect on specific situations and apply them to my overall experience.
In short, I approach parenting the same way I approach politics.
What becomes evident over time, is that whether it is your personal life or a public policy issue, there is no such thing as a "right answer". The experiences are fluid. Conditions change. Things you thought would always be there in life disappear or become unrecognizable. The same way you learn to manage your children and shepherd them through life's many difficulties, you can also learn to apply your individual experience in this world to more global issues, decide FOR YOURSELF how you feel about them and act accordingly. You didn't know anything about parenting that child when you started. But the lack of specifics didn't stop you from moving forward. That same logic applies here.
Your child, your way. Your world, your way.
Membership in a labor union, a church, or any other group does not dictate your individual value system. In that same vein, no political party can fully encompass any individual persons needs. So try to explore issues for yourself, break them down, and apply your own experience. And THEN vote. If you discover that voting alone is not enough, find other ways to contribute. Recognize that your individuality is an asset. Be willing to argue. Get passionate about things that are important to you. Respect issues that are important to others and ask them why they care about those issues. Then listen to the answer. Don't just sit there and think about what you are going to say next. Read. Communicate. Reason it out.
Not everyone can be a politician or a journalist. But everyone can be an activist. It's your country. Its your world. What are you doing to align your big picture experience with your individual values? Don't spend so much time worrying about the details of things that are so far reaching you cannot change them. Instead, think about how you can use your individuality to make a difference within your own sphere of influence. Politicians don't have every answer or even any answer. They simply have a forum.
Find your forum.
BB
What I find frustrating about the current political climate, is that the issues being discussed in the mainstream are not necessarily issues that would compel me to act or even care. Sometimes its because the concepts are so large, so overwhelming, that I don't even have the vaguest idea of what I would do, assuming I was even in a position to do anything in the first place. These issues are absolutely enormous in scope. There are so many moving parts. So many details. And to complicate matters further, the political landscape seems to change so quickly, that by the time one gains even a fundamental understanding of whats going on, the dynamic has already shifted. Then, oddly, those very same situations appear to drag on indefinitely, devoid of any meaningful resolution. It is as if things are simultaneously flying by yet somehow, not progressing at all.
In many ways, politics is merely another aspect of life, no different than any other big picture experience. One could take any crucial moment in time, break that experience down, try to understand what it means in your life, then subsequently take the appropriate action. This is the entire purpose of rational thought. First, reason. Then, act. Let's take, for example, the birth of a child. If you examined your role as a new parent to this baby, you would see conflicting perspectives. You could be (as I was) intimidated by the enormity of the undertaking. A baby brings excitement and energy, and creates a shift in your responsibility in the world. In that way, the new life brings with it forward momentum. Taken from another point of view, that same child will require a lifetime of commitment and consistency, which grounds you. The event brings weight and seriousness to your life and slows your pace in certain respects. Therefore, the experience becomes two sides of the same coin. It pushes you forward in incremental ways, yet in the macro sense, it forces you to be stable. This is a delicate balance. Frequently by the time you have figured out what to do in a specific scenario, the baby is older, and already has an entirely different set of needs. And so you miss your window. You make mistakes. Whatever. And that is frustrating.
Upon closer examination, the flip side of this issue illustrates that while the specific circumstances of child rearing may not have gone exactly the way you intended moment to moment, your child grows to a different stage, and you know what? You get another chance. You build on your past success and failure. You learn. You keep at it. And in that way, the child goes from being a daily project, to becoming a defining aspect of your overall person. The incremental gives way to the large scale. Things start to make more sense. You still make mistakes. But the child keeps growing and you keep getting more chances. And with each new chance, you can draw on the benefit of your past experience. The forward motion that the small daily regimen brings propels your life onward. And the aggregate of the compounded experience, when understood, lends stability to your overall life. It is progress tempered by steadiness.
This is not dissimilar from the thought process that, when applied accurately, allows us to form useable political opinions. Much like a child, the political arena is unpredictable, ever changing, varied, exciting and at times, frustrating. By the time we believe we have a grasp on whats going on, often the climate has changed. But we do have the benefit of experience in this scenario, as well. Perhaps even more so because politics is such an all encompassing topic. Examining individual issues that are of importance can make the larger concepts manageable. It is easy to throw your hands up and scowl because you have no idea what derivatives are, let alone how they contributed to our current financial crisis. It is even easier to feel helpless in the face of yet another conflict brewing in the middle east after billions have been spent in that area to date with seemingly no benefit and no end in sight. You may ask yourself, as one person, what can I possibly do to affect any kind of change? I ask myself the same thing. And I have concluded, more than once, that the bulk of political issues are so complex and specific, it would be difficult to formulate any kind of actionable plan beyond voting. I mean, we all know we can vote. That is our gift. Our mandate. Our voice. Our weapon. But it is one thing to vote. And it is quite another to take the time to understand how to make your vote count.
In my opinion, the best way to begin to become more politically active, is to realize that no matter how intimidating an issue may be, there are ways to understand the concepts behind it. I still don't know exactly how to potty train a child, I fail miserably at parent teacher conferences, and have yet to master the art of listening to my children's full explanations before getting prematurely angry. But I am learning. Parenting is a long haul. It requires discipline. And I know that I cannot allow the weight of the responsibility nor the expansiveness of the idea to keep me from trying to use my rational mind to reflect on specific situations and apply them to my overall experience.
In short, I approach parenting the same way I approach politics.
What becomes evident over time, is that whether it is your personal life or a public policy issue, there is no such thing as a "right answer". The experiences are fluid. Conditions change. Things you thought would always be there in life disappear or become unrecognizable. The same way you learn to manage your children and shepherd them through life's many difficulties, you can also learn to apply your individual experience in this world to more global issues, decide FOR YOURSELF how you feel about them and act accordingly. You didn't know anything about parenting that child when you started. But the lack of specifics didn't stop you from moving forward. That same logic applies here.
Your child, your way. Your world, your way.
Membership in a labor union, a church, or any other group does not dictate your individual value system. In that same vein, no political party can fully encompass any individual persons needs. So try to explore issues for yourself, break them down, and apply your own experience. And THEN vote. If you discover that voting alone is not enough, find other ways to contribute. Recognize that your individuality is an asset. Be willing to argue. Get passionate about things that are important to you. Respect issues that are important to others and ask them why they care about those issues. Then listen to the answer. Don't just sit there and think about what you are going to say next. Read. Communicate. Reason it out.
Not everyone can be a politician or a journalist. But everyone can be an activist. It's your country. Its your world. What are you doing to align your big picture experience with your individual values? Don't spend so much time worrying about the details of things that are so far reaching you cannot change them. Instead, think about how you can use your individuality to make a difference within your own sphere of influence. Politicians don't have every answer or even any answer. They simply have a forum.
Find your forum.
BB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)