Years ago, I was assigned a writing exercise that was designed to give the writer focus in an attempt to better approach daily life. We were tasked with writing our own obituaries, not to make us better writers, but to make us pause for a bit and try to outline an arc of our next 50 years.
I've done this a few times since then - less lately, because my wife found a copy once when we were dating and it totally creeped her out - and depending on when I write it, the end products are wildly different from each other.
Like I said before, I now see the reasoning behind such exercises, but my frame of reference keeps shifting and the results move accordingly.
A few weeks ago, I flew back to Minneapolis for funeral services for a friend of mine who had passed away. Maggie was my mentor at the training school, where she taught me pretty much everything I now know about dogs. She is gone far too soon, but has again given me reason to pause and reconsider and try to figure out where that elusive perfect arc should travel.
A few hours in airports and on planes left me with ample time to think and as I am prone to do in these types of situations, I am amazed at how different the experience of another's passing is for everyone (and I mean everyone) involved.
There's a great sequence in both the novel and movie versions of High Fidelity where each character is progressively less interested in the passing of Laura's father. I notice that a lot more than I have in the past. Much of every individual's life is spent as the star of their own television show, with everything impacting them and not enough thought devoted to how the same events are playing out in everyone else's little shows.
While I was very much in the moment and focused on trying to reason with the loss of a friend, I also had the white noise of a flight to catch that evening, timelines for returning the rental car and phone calls to return from work while I was away. It may have been a funeral episode in my life, but the overall story of the Matt Show needed to keep moving forward, too.
I consciously try to focus on the departed as intently as I can, but always end up as everyone does - deeply engrossed in my own show. Not that any of this is bad or wrong, it's just something I become acutely aware of whenever there's a big event like a birth, wedding or death.
What really grabbed my attention at the memorial service was the frame of reference that was applied, depending on the circumstances where Maggie met different people throughout her life.
Those who knew her as a mother thought she was an amazing mother. Those who met her at the training school knew her as one of the best trainers. Those who worked with her raising money to fight domestic abuse saw her as one of the best fundraisers and bosses.
In short, I don't expect Maggie was much different than you or I and that she was the star of the Maggie Show, but damn if she wasn't one of the best main characters I've ever met. While her day to day life was probably no more exceptional than anyone else's, she did it all with such grace and perspective and a wonderful sense of humor that the whole was worth much more than the sum of its parts.
In the past, I've filled out my obituary with dreams of opening my own newspaper (not a strong business plan these days), having a house full of children (working on it) or writing well past my golden years (still on the table).
Having seen Maggie's friends and family say goodbye, I have a new goal - to be the best and brightest star of the Matt Show. To be the best father for those who knew me as a father. To be the best writer to those who knew me as a writer. To be the best friend to those who knew me as a friend and to be the best boss to those who knew me as a boss.
It's a tall order, but one that's totally attainable. I've seen it happen before.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Life is rarely a neat little package
In college a few years back, I had the privilege of taking afew courses taught by an exceptional writer who was also very talented as a teacher (an odd combination, to say the least). One of the more lasting comments she'd written on a short story of mine boiled down to a suggestion that the reader didn't need everything tied up in a neat little bow.
Life is rarely black and white and I was trying too hard to draw connections that weren't there or make everything fit inside the confines of very rigid stylistic parameters. Obviously, this was a problem for a 20-something writer who thought they knew more about the intricate workings of a human life than they actually did.
Still, when there are chance occurrences that fall into line, it overjoys the part of my personality that craves order and straight lines. Sunday was one of those days.
On the surface, it was just another busy day in what has become normal life for my wife and me. The morning was a visit to the NICU to see my sister hold my son for the first time, followed by a dinner with both of our families in the afternoon. On the ride home, things took a different path when her folks called and asked us to come to the hospital, where her uncle had taken a turn for the worse and the family was gathering.
Looking back on a groggy Monday morning, I decided that if someone landed on Earth and wanted a quick course on the human experience, there would be worse days than Sunday to show them to get the broad strokes.
In the morning, I was there to see a newborn baby still meeting his immediate family, family members still awed by his arrival, the minor hustle and bustle, scheduling conflicts and adjustments and insignificant disagreements that were quickly forgotten by everyone.
That afternoon, both sides of the family and a few close family friends got together to laugh, eat and debate the relative merits of the new Chevy Camaro. Dinner was loud and warm and subject to moments of goofy fun, like throwing dinner rolls across an immacculately set table.
Our late evening was spent driving through the snow to go and see Uncle Mitch in what ended up being his final hours. The family sat together in a hospital waiting room and traded stories while we waited. In an odd juxtaposition, his immediate family congratulated us on the birth of our son before we could sputter out clumsy words to help them feel better on what was supposed to be a somber evening.
As I've learned, it's more often shades of gray than black and white.
Aside from the very linear storyline of the day, going from birth to death, the mix seemed eerily balanced. It was the sublime facets of a good life, like joy and love that were sandwiched in between mundane issues and broken wiper blades. I have no better handle on any of this than I did years ago when I knew it all. I've heard hundreds more songs that have offered fleeting, imperfect glimpses into how it all binds together, put more miles behind me literally and figureatively, met all sorts of different people, gotten married and had a child.
I only know this for sure - in order to enjoy the first two parts of the day, you need to also accept the third. The real trick seems to be sorting through all of the white noise that fills the space between. More than that, it's usually the day to day nuts and bolts that keep me from driving out to see my parents or from taking time to grab dinner with my sister and her husband. Work, school, picking up the dry cleaning and making sure there is food in the fridge are all important and obviously need to be addressed, but on days that play out as broadly as Sunday, it's a lot harder to take them seriously.
It's also a lot easier to see why it's all worth it.
(Image from FreeFoto.com)
Life is rarely black and white and I was trying too hard to draw connections that weren't there or make everything fit inside the confines of very rigid stylistic parameters. Obviously, this was a problem for a 20-something writer who thought they knew more about the intricate workings of a human life than they actually did.Still, when there are chance occurrences that fall into line, it overjoys the part of my personality that craves order and straight lines. Sunday was one of those days.
On the surface, it was just another busy day in what has become normal life for my wife and me. The morning was a visit to the NICU to see my sister hold my son for the first time, followed by a dinner with both of our families in the afternoon. On the ride home, things took a different path when her folks called and asked us to come to the hospital, where her uncle had taken a turn for the worse and the family was gathering.
Looking back on a groggy Monday morning, I decided that if someone landed on Earth and wanted a quick course on the human experience, there would be worse days than Sunday to show them to get the broad strokes.
In the morning, I was there to see a newborn baby still meeting his immediate family, family members still awed by his arrival, the minor hustle and bustle, scheduling conflicts and adjustments and insignificant disagreements that were quickly forgotten by everyone.
That afternoon, both sides of the family and a few close family friends got together to laugh, eat and debate the relative merits of the new Chevy Camaro. Dinner was loud and warm and subject to moments of goofy fun, like throwing dinner rolls across an immacculately set table.
Our late evening was spent driving through the snow to go and see Uncle Mitch in what ended up being his final hours. The family sat together in a hospital waiting room and traded stories while we waited. In an odd juxtaposition, his immediate family congratulated us on the birth of our son before we could sputter out clumsy words to help them feel better on what was supposed to be a somber evening.
As I've learned, it's more often shades of gray than black and white.
Aside from the very linear storyline of the day, going from birth to death, the mix seemed eerily balanced. It was the sublime facets of a good life, like joy and love that were sandwiched in between mundane issues and broken wiper blades. I have no better handle on any of this than I did years ago when I knew it all. I've heard hundreds more songs that have offered fleeting, imperfect glimpses into how it all binds together, put more miles behind me literally and figureatively, met all sorts of different people, gotten married and had a child.
I only know this for sure - in order to enjoy the first two parts of the day, you need to also accept the third. The real trick seems to be sorting through all of the white noise that fills the space between. More than that, it's usually the day to day nuts and bolts that keep me from driving out to see my parents or from taking time to grab dinner with my sister and her husband. Work, school, picking up the dry cleaning and making sure there is food in the fridge are all important and obviously need to be addressed, but on days that play out as broadly as Sunday, it's a lot harder to take them seriously.
It's also a lot easier to see why it's all worth it.
(Image from FreeFoto.com)
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Socialism and other dirty words
The reason for the sudden content drought here (aside from simple laziness) has been the birth of my son, who arrived a month ago today. While this event usually throws a wrench into the best laid plans, his birth has been particularly jarring as it was three months early.
Needless to say, it's been a hectic four weeks.
Through all of this, my wife and I (but mainly my wife) have received a crash course in premature babies, accepted leave policies and the paperwork associated with giving birth to a child in the United States. As a side benefit, quiet nights in the NICU give you time to think and by virtue of being there, we have a lot of time to ponder the health care system here.
I intend to work with this in the theoretical realm, so feel free to keep statistics comparing wait times to the United States, horror stories of health care in Europe and Canada and anecdotal evidence supplied by your neighbor to yourself for now. There's certainly a time and a place for that discussion, but this post is not designed to be that time or place. (Also, this was the premise of debate team competitions in high school, where Frankie was a member and I was not, so I fully anticipate an ass-kicking in the comments section, but that's OK. We'll still be buddies after that.)
More to the point, I got into a little Facebook back and forth with a conservative friend today, who bemoaned the wait at a local hospital and jokingly told everyone in his friend network to expect that to happen everywhere with a socialized system.
After a bit of friendly dissension, another friend jumped in, pointed out how much doctors paid for medical school and asked us to question Canadian cancer patients about their experience. That certainly rubbed me the wrong way.
I looked up numbers both supporting Canadian supremacy in the field of health care and others that showed slow response times, especially dependent on which province you were trying to receive care in. Through that process though, I still fail to see why this is a bad system in principle.
A few weeks ago, a similar situation arose (again on Facebook, as I am apparently unable to interact with other humans outside of the digital realm) where someone offhandedly commented on a friend's page that they didn't want to be paying for someone else to "not work" and receive health care.
You'd think with the economy in flux and white collar workers being laid off en masse that there'd be a little more sympathy these days.
The crux of that arguement falls short for me as well. Medical insurance is essentially a group of workers, banded together to cover the costs of that group. The understanding is that younger workers (men and women in their 20s) will get sick less, need primarily checkups and help defray the cost of older workers who are having babies and might have more serious ailments down the road.
This was illustrated by an employer of mine years ago that I was told pulled a few high risk employees into their own coverage to drop the overall price paid by the rest of the office. To oversimplify, risk assessment is done to keep the balance in an office or an overall pool that assures the insurance company that while a few people may need more care or more expensive care, the rest of the pool is pretty stable and so it's a fair bet that they will turn at least some profit.
So, while it's accepted that you will be paying your premiums to help Bob in accounting get the extra tests he needs with his high blood pressure without going bankrupt, it has somehow become unacceptable to do the same if another person doesn't work in your office or company.
Again, setting aside the numbers, what is so bad about that system? I understand that feeling of busting your hump to provide for your family and having that resource pool drained by others who won't return the favor because they refuse to work. I also understand that people who can't work or can't find work are under a tremendous amount of pressure to find health care coverage in case something happens.
My brother in law is one of those people because he was laid off. I suspect a new friend of ours at the hospital is as well because she is legally too young to work. I was once one of those people because it was too expensive to get insurance when I was working as a temp.
In what way is it better to have the uninsured cut adrift than to pool as a country and try to help some of these people? Shouldn't we expect more from ourselves than to simply play defense when it comes to our nest eggs and health care coverage for our immediate family? If we're paying indirectly for emergency care that have the costs passed along to us in the form of higher bills, shouldn't we at least pay that out in the open and be able to feel better about the whole process?
(As an aside, I wholeheartedly reject the premise that millions of Americans would quit their jobs, kick back and refuse to do a damn thing if offered free health care. It has been my experience that many of these hypothetical situations have more than a hint of racism surrounding them.)
Getting back to the original point, I was more put out by the subtext that "socialism" was the problem in the equation. I don't deny that any system is subject to red tape, abuse and shortcomings, but I rarely hear discussions about how to improve that system here in the United States.
It seems most discussions about universal health care begin and are bogged down in the early stages with disagreements of the relative virtues of things being state-run and the possibilities of governmental incompetence. (I am starting to call this the "DMV Defense.) I guess what I'm asking for is a little more intellectual room to run - to set aside the entire disagreement over the merits of socialism or the possibilities of a full government takeover and actually examine the nuts and bolts of the systems in the rest of the world, find ways to tweak those systems and see if it's a possible fit for the country.
What disappoints me is the rejection out of hand because it's "socialist" without giving any serious thought to the upside and downside of the possibilities of such a system. This bothers me more each day on the practical and theoretical sides as we edge closer to nationalized banks. If I were to walk down the street from my office tomorrow and ask people if they would prefer to be issued a magical health care card that would enable them to walk into any hospital or clinic in the nation for treatment when they didn't feel well or if they would prefer to keep the current insurance card in their wallets, I can't imagine I'd have many takers on the second offer.
We like to lean on our Chevy truck ad vision of what it means to be an American. We drive out in the middle of a thunderstorm to help mend a fence and rope missing cattle, we send blankets and prayers after a massive hurricane comes ashore in the South and we send buckets of money during concerts after 9/11. We like to see ourselves as generous people, always willing to help out as best we can when our neighbors have a problem.
For me, this begs the question - How big is your neighborhood? Does it go to the end of your street or does it extend to the borders of your zip code, city or state? At what point do you stop seeing neighbors and start seeing individuals who are other people's problems?
(Cartoon by Patrick Chappatte)
Needless to say, it's been a hectic four weeks.Through all of this, my wife and I (but mainly my wife) have received a crash course in premature babies, accepted leave policies and the paperwork associated with giving birth to a child in the United States. As a side benefit, quiet nights in the NICU give you time to think and by virtue of being there, we have a lot of time to ponder the health care system here.
I intend to work with this in the theoretical realm, so feel free to keep statistics comparing wait times to the United States, horror stories of health care in Europe and Canada and anecdotal evidence supplied by your neighbor to yourself for now. There's certainly a time and a place for that discussion, but this post is not designed to be that time or place. (Also, this was the premise of debate team competitions in high school, where Frankie was a member and I was not, so I fully anticipate an ass-kicking in the comments section, but that's OK. We'll still be buddies after that.)
More to the point, I got into a little Facebook back and forth with a conservative friend today, who bemoaned the wait at a local hospital and jokingly told everyone in his friend network to expect that to happen everywhere with a socialized system.
After a bit of friendly dissension, another friend jumped in, pointed out how much doctors paid for medical school and asked us to question Canadian cancer patients about their experience. That certainly rubbed me the wrong way.
I looked up numbers both supporting Canadian supremacy in the field of health care and others that showed slow response times, especially dependent on which province you were trying to receive care in. Through that process though, I still fail to see why this is a bad system in principle.
A few weeks ago, a similar situation arose (again on Facebook, as I am apparently unable to interact with other humans outside of the digital realm) where someone offhandedly commented on a friend's page that they didn't want to be paying for someone else to "not work" and receive health care.
You'd think with the economy in flux and white collar workers being laid off en masse that there'd be a little more sympathy these days.
The crux of that arguement falls short for me as well. Medical insurance is essentially a group of workers, banded together to cover the costs of that group. The understanding is that younger workers (men and women in their 20s) will get sick less, need primarily checkups and help defray the cost of older workers who are having babies and might have more serious ailments down the road.
This was illustrated by an employer of mine years ago that I was told pulled a few high risk employees into their own coverage to drop the overall price paid by the rest of the office. To oversimplify, risk assessment is done to keep the balance in an office or an overall pool that assures the insurance company that while a few people may need more care or more expensive care, the rest of the pool is pretty stable and so it's a fair bet that they will turn at least some profit.
So, while it's accepted that you will be paying your premiums to help Bob in accounting get the extra tests he needs with his high blood pressure without going bankrupt, it has somehow become unacceptable to do the same if another person doesn't work in your office or company.
Again, setting aside the numbers, what is so bad about that system? I understand that feeling of busting your hump to provide for your family and having that resource pool drained by others who won't return the favor because they refuse to work. I also understand that people who can't work or can't find work are under a tremendous amount of pressure to find health care coverage in case something happens.
My brother in law is one of those people because he was laid off. I suspect a new friend of ours at the hospital is as well because she is legally too young to work. I was once one of those people because it was too expensive to get insurance when I was working as a temp.
In what way is it better to have the uninsured cut adrift than to pool as a country and try to help some of these people? Shouldn't we expect more from ourselves than to simply play defense when it comes to our nest eggs and health care coverage for our immediate family? If we're paying indirectly for emergency care that have the costs passed along to us in the form of higher bills, shouldn't we at least pay that out in the open and be able to feel better about the whole process?
(As an aside, I wholeheartedly reject the premise that millions of Americans would quit their jobs, kick back and refuse to do a damn thing if offered free health care. It has been my experience that many of these hypothetical situations have more than a hint of racism surrounding them.)
Getting back to the original point, I was more put out by the subtext that "socialism" was the problem in the equation. I don't deny that any system is subject to red tape, abuse and shortcomings, but I rarely hear discussions about how to improve that system here in the United States.
It seems most discussions about universal health care begin and are bogged down in the early stages with disagreements of the relative virtues of things being state-run and the possibilities of governmental incompetence. (I am starting to call this the "DMV Defense.) I guess what I'm asking for is a little more intellectual room to run - to set aside the entire disagreement over the merits of socialism or the possibilities of a full government takeover and actually examine the nuts and bolts of the systems in the rest of the world, find ways to tweak those systems and see if it's a possible fit for the country.
What disappoints me is the rejection out of hand because it's "socialist" without giving any serious thought to the upside and downside of the possibilities of such a system. This bothers me more each day on the practical and theoretical sides as we edge closer to nationalized banks. If I were to walk down the street from my office tomorrow and ask people if they would prefer to be issued a magical health care card that would enable them to walk into any hospital or clinic in the nation for treatment when they didn't feel well or if they would prefer to keep the current insurance card in their wallets, I can't imagine I'd have many takers on the second offer.
We like to lean on our Chevy truck ad vision of what it means to be an American. We drive out in the middle of a thunderstorm to help mend a fence and rope missing cattle, we send blankets and prayers after a massive hurricane comes ashore in the South and we send buckets of money during concerts after 9/11. We like to see ourselves as generous people, always willing to help out as best we can when our neighbors have a problem.
For me, this begs the question - How big is your neighborhood? Does it go to the end of your street or does it extend to the borders of your zip code, city or state? At what point do you stop seeing neighbors and start seeing individuals who are other people's problems?
(Cartoon by Patrick Chappatte)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Two sides, one coin
We're spending a lot of time in class this semester discussing the logic behind how we think. I'm pretty sure this is to better frame the concepts of adult education for us, but it's interesting nonetheless.
With this comes discussions of Robert Kegan's orders of consciousness and how we see the world in relation to ourselves. In a gross oversimplification, can we see the forest or are we constantly bogged down by seeing everyone's individual trees?
My wife is entering the seventh month of pregnancy this week, which puts us in the home stretch for the baby on the way. In addition to the usual butterflies about late complications and strange things that happen outside of anyone's control, I have been fighting the good existential fight about being a good dad and resigning myself to the reality that I will probably not be able to provide a life for my child free from want, hurt or disappointment.
Bummer.
Honestly, I wasn't ready for that. I've spent over 30 years trying to be a good son without giving a second thought to what my parents were feeling on the other side of that. I now worry constantly about making mistakes - both catastrophic and utterly insignificant - that will disappoint my kid. It's not quite "pressure" in the traditional sense of the word, but that feeling many of us have where no matter how old we get, we just don't want to let our parents down.
I'm not necessarily worried that I'm going to screw up my kid in any lasting, serious way - just in the fun, mildly permanent ways - or that I'll suddenly flake out and become utterly unreliable, but the whole experience has been really interesting to me from an outside perspective.
You spend 30 years just assuming that the onus was on you to prove yourself as a son or a daughter and don't realize just how strangely self-centered that perspective is until you find yourself as a parent one day (and react just as strangely and self-centered as you did in the first place).
Seeing as this is all new to me, I've developed a simple plan for dealing with this new situation. First, I'll fall back on instinct as my folks did a great job with me - it wasn't perfect, but they are only people and did the absolute best they could. I am sincere when I say that I have nothing but appreciation for the job they did and I could do worse than to simply follow their playbook.
Secondly, I need to remember that my dog turned out pretty well and doesn't hate me and that's saying something given our battles when he was a puppy hellbent on destroying my home.
Third is to just keep doing what I have been doing from the other side of the equation. I'm just going to keep working under the assumption that it's up to me to keep the whole thing moving forward, even when I know that's not necessarily true. I'm just going to put in the work, do my best based on what I know and hope for a few lucky breaks along the way.
That basic formula has worked out better than I've deserved so far.
(Image is my son/daughter)
With this comes discussions of Robert Kegan's orders of consciousness and how we see the world in relation to ourselves. In a gross oversimplification, can we see the forest or are we constantly bogged down by seeing everyone's individual trees?My wife is entering the seventh month of pregnancy this week, which puts us in the home stretch for the baby on the way. In addition to the usual butterflies about late complications and strange things that happen outside of anyone's control, I have been fighting the good existential fight about being a good dad and resigning myself to the reality that I will probably not be able to provide a life for my child free from want, hurt or disappointment.
Bummer.
Honestly, I wasn't ready for that. I've spent over 30 years trying to be a good son without giving a second thought to what my parents were feeling on the other side of that. I now worry constantly about making mistakes - both catastrophic and utterly insignificant - that will disappoint my kid. It's not quite "pressure" in the traditional sense of the word, but that feeling many of us have where no matter how old we get, we just don't want to let our parents down.
I'm not necessarily worried that I'm going to screw up my kid in any lasting, serious way - just in the fun, mildly permanent ways - or that I'll suddenly flake out and become utterly unreliable, but the whole experience has been really interesting to me from an outside perspective.
You spend 30 years just assuming that the onus was on you to prove yourself as a son or a daughter and don't realize just how strangely self-centered that perspective is until you find yourself as a parent one day (and react just as strangely and self-centered as you did in the first place).
Seeing as this is all new to me, I've developed a simple plan for dealing with this new situation. First, I'll fall back on instinct as my folks did a great job with me - it wasn't perfect, but they are only people and did the absolute best they could. I am sincere when I say that I have nothing but appreciation for the job they did and I could do worse than to simply follow their playbook.
Secondly, I need to remember that my dog turned out pretty well and doesn't hate me and that's saying something given our battles when he was a puppy hellbent on destroying my home.
Third is to just keep doing what I have been doing from the other side of the equation. I'm just going to keep working under the assumption that it's up to me to keep the whole thing moving forward, even when I know that's not necessarily true. I'm just going to put in the work, do my best based on what I know and hope for a few lucky breaks along the way.
That basic formula has worked out better than I've deserved so far.
(Image is my son/daughter)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Has it come to this?
I saw this option pop up on my TiVo a little while ago, but just assumed it was an early April Fool's joke.
Apparently not.
Apparently not.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
On Hope, Change
I am on my lunch break right now, watching the Inaugural luncheon and getting ready for the parade to tie a big bow on the meat of the day's events. Sure there are plenty of parties to keep an eye on tonight, but as far as the big ticket items go, we're getting to the end of the road.
From election night to today, I've been thinking a lot about the man I helped to elect and how all of this fits into the big picture. More to the point, I've been keeping an eye on how the transition unfolded with regards to the people around me who didn't vote for Obama this time.
Of the endless Facebook sniping from both sides it boiled down to two refrains:
1.) Anyone who voted for Obama is blindly following his cult of celebrity and variants on the Internet rumors.
2.) Anyone who didn't is a close-minded racist who was an idiot for continuing to support former President Bush.
None of these ideas are fully formed for me yet, but I have a few rhetorical questions that I keep coming back to:
* What's so bad about idealism? I know it's shorthand for youth, inexperience and blind stupidity, but at its base levels, what is so bad about aspiring to the ideal?
* For that matter what's so damaging about a candidate who trades in hope for the country and its citizens? I can see skepticism, but on its own, hope isn't such a bad thing.
My wife watched the Oath of Office from a crowded waiting room at the University of Chicago Hospitals in Hyde Park and said she was moved by being in such a diverse group as they watched the ceremony.
I was in the Pioneer Court in the shadow of the Tribune Tower with a small group of people who gathered to watch on two mobile big screens set up for the event. Many people brought their children to watch the event and more than a few tears were shed as President Obama addressed the country for the first time.
While much has been written and discussed about this being a new day for the United States and the sea change in America's political and social landscape, I believe that any president has a hard time making sweeping changes. That's not a bad thing, it's just the way our government is constructed and I wouldn't change that if given the chance.
To all of those who claim that he hasn't done anything of substance and doesn't deserve the adoration, that's a valid point. However, making a change politically is quite different from making a difference in the culture at large.
When it comes to that point, convince me that he hasn't done so already.
From election night to today, I've been thinking a lot about the man I helped to elect and how all of this fits into the big picture. More to the point, I've been keeping an eye on how the transition unfolded with regards to the people around me who didn't vote for Obama this time.Of the endless Facebook sniping from both sides it boiled down to two refrains:
1.) Anyone who voted for Obama is blindly following his cult of celebrity and variants on the Internet rumors.
2.) Anyone who didn't is a close-minded racist who was an idiot for continuing to support former President Bush.
None of these ideas are fully formed for me yet, but I have a few rhetorical questions that I keep coming back to:
* What's so bad about idealism? I know it's shorthand for youth, inexperience and blind stupidity, but at its base levels, what is so bad about aspiring to the ideal?
* For that matter what's so damaging about a candidate who trades in hope for the country and its citizens? I can see skepticism, but on its own, hope isn't such a bad thing.
My wife watched the Oath of Office from a crowded waiting room at the University of Chicago Hospitals in Hyde Park and said she was moved by being in such a diverse group as they watched the ceremony.
I was in the Pioneer Court in the shadow of the Tribune Tower with a small group of people who gathered to watch on two mobile big screens set up for the event. Many people brought their children to watch the event and more than a few tears were shed as President Obama addressed the country for the first time.
While much has been written and discussed about this being a new day for the United States and the sea change in America's political and social landscape, I believe that any president has a hard time making sweeping changes. That's not a bad thing, it's just the way our government is constructed and I wouldn't change that if given the chance.
To all of those who claim that he hasn't done anything of substance and doesn't deserve the adoration, that's a valid point. However, making a change politically is quite different from making a difference in the culture at large.
When it comes to that point, convince me that he hasn't done so already.
Monday, January 19, 2009
One more day
Above is the reaction of Robert Kennedy, addressing a crowd of supporters on the evening the Rev. Martin Luther King was shot in Memphis. I heard a story about this a few weeks ago and the fact that Kennedy basically spoke off the top of his head and appealed to our better nature.
He was already scheduled to speak in a rough neighborhood in Indianapolis when he received word that King had been shot. He insisted on going ahead to the campaign stop.
From what I've heard, there was virtually no violence in that neighborhood that evening.
Additionally, Kennedy said:
So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, yeah that's true, but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love - a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.
We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past. And we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
Below is a piece of King's Mountaintop speech, that he gave a day before Kennedy's and obviously, a day before he was killed. Much is made of the speech because he alludes to not being around to see the changes he was forcing and some people see that as oddly prophetic.
I've included it to dovetail with the Kennedy call for compassion and his realization that there had been tough times in the past and would be tough times in the future.
While President Obama is happy to link himself as a historical heir of Lincoln, I think he shares just as much with King and Kennedy in his calls for sacrifice and realization that the world doesn't change simple because millions of people voted for a black candidate.
With all the recent talk of race in America and what it means to have a black president, I've been a little confused. Honestly, I can't make a logical connection between Obama's election and the end of racism in our society. Many people have been eager to look to King's speech about having made it to the mountaintop and declare that we're there as of tomorrow afternoon.
I think even the most idealistic of us know that it's not that simple.
The night before he was killed, King spoke about where he would like to be if God would place him anywhere in history:
Strangely enough, I would turn to the Almighty, and say, "If you allow me to live just a few years in the second half of the twentieth century, I will be happy." Now that's a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up.
The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a away that men, in some strange way, are responding — something is happening in our world.
The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee — the cry is always the same — "We want to be free."
And another reason that I'm happy to live in this period is that we have been forced to a point where we're going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demand didn't force them to do it.
Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
April 3, 1968
While it's a nice quirk of history that many people are home today on MLK Day and Obama will be sworn in tomorrow, there is still a great deal of road to cover as alluded to by all three men. This will require hard work, understanding and, in the immediate case of the President, probably a few false starts and the need for patience.
Does his election mark the end of racism in this country? Certainly not. But it's a definite sign that it is dying.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Doors swing open, doors slam shut
One of the best things parents do for their children from the day that they're born is to lie to them. Regardless of race, age, social status, region or religion, almost every child with a parent present is told the same thing, "You can be anything you want to be."
We're all adults here, we know that sadly isn't the case. It's still one of the greatest things that a parent does for their child.
We get older, we find that we're just not suited for some of the jobs we want. Most obviously, you can work as hard as you want, but if you're five feet tall, you're never going to be the starting center for the Knicks. Now that Zeke is gone, you've also lost your shot at backup as well.
Life is full of smaller hurdles as well. Perhaps you really want to write the Great American Novel, but you can't keep thoughts in your head long enough to get a solid start on it. Maybe you'd love to be a high-powered Hollywood agent, but can't wrap your mind around numbers.
The point is that from a very early age, there are plenty of things that stand in your way between what you want to do and what is realistically available to you.
I've swung wildly across this spectrum from my highly idealistic days as a college freshman, where I felt that my post as the Burke Hall vice president could certainly lead to a better world for my fellow man (one pizza party at a time, I suppose) to heated discussions in my mid-20s where I passionately argued the point that "most people just do whatever job sucks the least."
While we can't all be the cowboy/astronaut/ballerina/princesses we'd dreamed of being in kindergarten, I think that part of growing up is realizing that the time, effort and sometimes money required to get from Point A to Point B in our professional lives just isn't worth it for a lot of us.
We find apartments we like in cities we like and hopefully marry a person we like and that's enough to keep us happy. Sometimes, we buy dogs. We're not drones and most of us settle out into areas that we enjoy on multiple levels, but if you were to sit down and sketch your top five careers you'd choose if the aforementioned time/money/skills, would the title on your business card be there?
Mine wouldn't.
This stems from course reading I'm doing this week to prepare for Thursday night's class as I begin the second semester of my adult education career. I need to map out my custom-crafted major with an eye on some greater goal. That can be grad school, a new job or pretty much anything else I choose. I tend to think that if I was goal-oriented, I wouldn't be there in the first place, but I'll play along.
It's not like they have the Big Book of Awesome Jobs open in the main office and you go down and pick one out. It does take time and effort and a desire to fight and work towards that goal to get to a place where you're doing a job that you wouldn't trade for anything in the world.
That seems to be the piece most of us miss somewhere along the line. Again, sometimes the effort honestly isn't equal to the opportunity costs. Why trade on the time and money you could allocate other places unless it's really worth it?
This is a bigger issue as we get older. In addition to the investment up front, there's always the possibility that you emerge on the other side and can't find anyone to pay you for your newfound knowledge and skill set. It's one thing to get your business degree and use it to leverage a better position or paycheck with the same company, it's quite another to be dumped into the job market with people who weren't in kindergarten when you were in high school.
However, some people are willing to take those risks and do something dramatic to shake up their station in life. For them, I have nothing but respect. For someone like me who clings to routine and familiarity, I can't think of many things that are more terrifying that chucking everything and forging out on a new course.
While I think I have the requisite courage to make moderate course corrections on my career path, I can't fathom the stones it takes to decide you're tired of being a bank manager and enroll in clown college the next week.
Still, I've been pretty content today to pore through course materials and wonder about what can be. While I have the lion's share of coursework complete for an English degree, it's been a satisfying exercise to stretch my legs and wonder what it would be like to strike out in new directions, regardless of their practicality or earning potential.
If you think of your career path as a hallway, it's not outrageous to say that doors are constantly shutting for a variety of reasons. You need to pay for daycare and dozens of doors that would have been really fun to walk through close. Your friend goes nuts with her cell phone camera on a long night for you and the political doors close. Just getting older closes its share of doors.
It's been interesting to go and reopen dozens of them today. What major do you pick to be the head coach of an NFL team? I think I'd like to give that a run.
(Image from: LSSU.edu)
We're all adults here, we know that sadly isn't the case. It's still one of the greatest things that a parent does for their child.We get older, we find that we're just not suited for some of the jobs we want. Most obviously, you can work as hard as you want, but if you're five feet tall, you're never going to be the starting center for the Knicks. Now that Zeke is gone, you've also lost your shot at backup as well.
Life is full of smaller hurdles as well. Perhaps you really want to write the Great American Novel, but you can't keep thoughts in your head long enough to get a solid start on it. Maybe you'd love to be a high-powered Hollywood agent, but can't wrap your mind around numbers.
The point is that from a very early age, there are plenty of things that stand in your way between what you want to do and what is realistically available to you.
I've swung wildly across this spectrum from my highly idealistic days as a college freshman, where I felt that my post as the Burke Hall vice president could certainly lead to a better world for my fellow man (one pizza party at a time, I suppose) to heated discussions in my mid-20s where I passionately argued the point that "most people just do whatever job sucks the least."
While we can't all be the cowboy/astronaut/ballerina/princesses we'd dreamed of being in kindergarten, I think that part of growing up is realizing that the time, effort and sometimes money required to get from Point A to Point B in our professional lives just isn't worth it for a lot of us.
We find apartments we like in cities we like and hopefully marry a person we like and that's enough to keep us happy. Sometimes, we buy dogs. We're not drones and most of us settle out into areas that we enjoy on multiple levels, but if you were to sit down and sketch your top five careers you'd choose if the aforementioned time/money/skills, would the title on your business card be there?
Mine wouldn't.
This stems from course reading I'm doing this week to prepare for Thursday night's class as I begin the second semester of my adult education career. I need to map out my custom-crafted major with an eye on some greater goal. That can be grad school, a new job or pretty much anything else I choose. I tend to think that if I was goal-oriented, I wouldn't be there in the first place, but I'll play along.
It's not like they have the Big Book of Awesome Jobs open in the main office and you go down and pick one out. It does take time and effort and a desire to fight and work towards that goal to get to a place where you're doing a job that you wouldn't trade for anything in the world.
That seems to be the piece most of us miss somewhere along the line. Again, sometimes the effort honestly isn't equal to the opportunity costs. Why trade on the time and money you could allocate other places unless it's really worth it?
This is a bigger issue as we get older. In addition to the investment up front, there's always the possibility that you emerge on the other side and can't find anyone to pay you for your newfound knowledge and skill set. It's one thing to get your business degree and use it to leverage a better position or paycheck with the same company, it's quite another to be dumped into the job market with people who weren't in kindergarten when you were in high school.
However, some people are willing to take those risks and do something dramatic to shake up their station in life. For them, I have nothing but respect. For someone like me who clings to routine and familiarity, I can't think of many things that are more terrifying that chucking everything and forging out on a new course.
While I think I have the requisite courage to make moderate course corrections on my career path, I can't fathom the stones it takes to decide you're tired of being a bank manager and enroll in clown college the next week.
Still, I've been pretty content today to pore through course materials and wonder about what can be. While I have the lion's share of coursework complete for an English degree, it's been a satisfying exercise to stretch my legs and wonder what it would be like to strike out in new directions, regardless of their practicality or earning potential.
If you think of your career path as a hallway, it's not outrageous to say that doors are constantly shutting for a variety of reasons. You need to pay for daycare and dozens of doors that would have been really fun to walk through close. Your friend goes nuts with her cell phone camera on a long night for you and the political doors close. Just getting older closes its share of doors.
It's been interesting to go and reopen dozens of them today. What major do you pick to be the head coach of an NFL team? I think I'd like to give that a run.
(Image from: LSSU.edu)
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
What will you do with your extra second?
In a quirk of modern timekeeping, we'll have a leap second this year - details here if you are stuck at work today and you're desperately looking for something to read - which obviously begs the question, "What can you actually do with one second?"
In all honesty, I can't think of many things you can do with that extra second. I think it would be pretty fun if the Times Square countdown stutter-stepped just to mess with people.
Five, four, three, two, one, one?
Aside from a sneeze or snapping your fingers, what really takes a second? Oh, you can also pronounce the word, "Mississippi" which, as we all know, is the United States' official designation of one second for touch football pass rushing and hide and go seek laws. Do not mess with the powerful hide and go seek lobby - they will end you.
Judging by the Facebook turnout, most people are ready for 2008 to be done with and for a variety of reasons that they're pretty coy about. I'm in between, as 2008 has been a pretty fun year for me, all told.
On the other hand, 2009 is on track to be a big year for me personally.
It should hopefully be the year my first kid is born and likely the year my wife and I buy our first home. I'm hoping it isn't also the year that the Great Depression comes back for seconds, that the earth doesn't spin into the sun or that the White Sox win the World Series again, but that's all small potatoes in my little universe.
I guess that's the funny thing I'm noticing as I get older. As my world perspective grows exponentially and I get a firmer grasp on all sorts of strange and wonderful things that interest me from history to auto repair to the inner workings of a pitched baseball, the things that actually matter most to me are shrinking down in the scope of the world's perspective.
It's comforting, really. While I would have given pretty much anything for one of my teams to win a championship at age 9 or 10, I'd trade most anything for a healthy baby, for a few extra years with my wife or for a little more time with a friend of mine who is battling cancer.
It's funny that while your awareness of the world around you expands, your interest in that fades and you begin to focus on the people and places within your reach. I'd like to think that it's not really a loss of innocence or passion, just a redirection of focus and a shuffling of personal priorities.
When I was a tiny little guy, my Dad would take me to the zoos and museums in Chicago and at that age, I couldn't fathom anything more valuable than the Field Museum. Sweet fancy Moses, it had dinosaurs. Dinosaurs that you could see any time you pleased if you owned the place.
I asked my dad once if he would trade me for the Field Museum and he said no way. At the time, I thought he was nuts, but he's become more and more sane with each passing year. Besides, memberships there are surprisingly affordable today.
So, I guess if there's anything to be done with that extra second tonight, it's probably best that it's coming around this year for me. I can use that extra second for one quick deep breath as I prepare to plunge headlong into a huge year for me and my growing family.
When I think about it in those terms, it may be the longest second of my life.
(Image from: 3Planesoft.com)
In all honesty, I can't think of many things you can do with that extra second. I think it would be pretty fun if the Times Square countdown stutter-stepped just to mess with people.Five, four, three, two, one, one?
Aside from a sneeze or snapping your fingers, what really takes a second? Oh, you can also pronounce the word, "Mississippi" which, as we all know, is the United States' official designation of one second for touch football pass rushing and hide and go seek laws. Do not mess with the powerful hide and go seek lobby - they will end you.
Judging by the Facebook turnout, most people are ready for 2008 to be done with and for a variety of reasons that they're pretty coy about. I'm in between, as 2008 has been a pretty fun year for me, all told.
On the other hand, 2009 is on track to be a big year for me personally.
It should hopefully be the year my first kid is born and likely the year my wife and I buy our first home. I'm hoping it isn't also the year that the Great Depression comes back for seconds, that the earth doesn't spin into the sun or that the White Sox win the World Series again, but that's all small potatoes in my little universe.
I guess that's the funny thing I'm noticing as I get older. As my world perspective grows exponentially and I get a firmer grasp on all sorts of strange and wonderful things that interest me from history to auto repair to the inner workings of a pitched baseball, the things that actually matter most to me are shrinking down in the scope of the world's perspective.
It's comforting, really. While I would have given pretty much anything for one of my teams to win a championship at age 9 or 10, I'd trade most anything for a healthy baby, for a few extra years with my wife or for a little more time with a friend of mine who is battling cancer.
It's funny that while your awareness of the world around you expands, your interest in that fades and you begin to focus on the people and places within your reach. I'd like to think that it's not really a loss of innocence or passion, just a redirection of focus and a shuffling of personal priorities.
When I was a tiny little guy, my Dad would take me to the zoos and museums in Chicago and at that age, I couldn't fathom anything more valuable than the Field Museum. Sweet fancy Moses, it had dinosaurs. Dinosaurs that you could see any time you pleased if you owned the place.
I asked my dad once if he would trade me for the Field Museum and he said no way. At the time, I thought he was nuts, but he's become more and more sane with each passing year. Besides, memberships there are surprisingly affordable today.
So, I guess if there's anything to be done with that extra second tonight, it's probably best that it's coming around this year for me. I can use that extra second for one quick deep breath as I prepare to plunge headlong into a huge year for me and my growing family.
When I think about it in those terms, it may be the longest second of my life.
(Image from: 3Planesoft.com)
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Maybe I should be a bounty hunter
So, there's not that much on Wednesday night TV these days.
Sure, I could probably do 100 other things - that's counting the Netflix streaming directly to my TiVo and Xbox 360 - but most of those require more effort than flipping around cable TV.
When left alone, I settle on Dog the Bounty Hunter and Parking Wars on A&E. For the record, my all-time favorite bounty hunters on TV were the Evangelistas of HBO's Family Bonds. They worked out of New York and were always fascinating to watch.
For intentional and unintentional comedy, these guys were the best. Take your Christmas money from grandma and buy these DVDs if you have any interest in things that are awesome.
The big difference is that they seem to work a little harder than Dog and his family. Nothing against Dog, but drug addicts in sunny Hawaii seem to be a little more mellow than those from the Empire State.
Here is the basic rundown of most episodes of Dog the Bounty Hunter:
1.) Prepare, get psyched and pray.
2.) Drive around looking concerned.
3.) Snatch the bail jumper. They rarely run.
4.) Scream and yell as groggy jumper mutters, "Huh?"
5.) Cuff, stuff in SUV.
6.) Bond with new friends. Use the word "brother" a lot.
7.) Dump jumper into custody.
Seeing this, it seems like a pretty easy job. Not enough to make me grab a can of mace and a pair of handcuffs, but it seems like a pretty fun fallback.
Sure, I could probably do 100 other things - that's counting the Netflix streaming directly to my TiVo and Xbox 360 - but most of those require more effort than flipping around cable TV.When left alone, I settle on Dog the Bounty Hunter and Parking Wars on A&E. For the record, my all-time favorite bounty hunters on TV were the Evangelistas of HBO's Family Bonds. They worked out of New York and were always fascinating to watch.
For intentional and unintentional comedy, these guys were the best. Take your Christmas money from grandma and buy these DVDs if you have any interest in things that are awesome.
The big difference is that they seem to work a little harder than Dog and his family. Nothing against Dog, but drug addicts in sunny Hawaii seem to be a little more mellow than those from the Empire State.
Here is the basic rundown of most episodes of Dog the Bounty Hunter:
1.) Prepare, get psyched and pray.
2.) Drive around looking concerned.
3.) Snatch the bail jumper. They rarely run.
4.) Scream and yell as groggy jumper mutters, "Huh?"
5.) Cuff, stuff in SUV.
6.) Bond with new friends. Use the word "brother" a lot.
7.) Dump jumper into custody.
Seeing this, it seems like a pretty easy job. Not enough to make me grab a can of mace and a pair of handcuffs, but it seems like a pretty fun fallback.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The death of the in-store paging system
A few months ago, I had the dubious pleasure of attending the Red Bull Flugtag here in Chicago.
That was about three different flavors of crazy, largely because of the armies of people who worship at the altar of Red Bull. Honestly, I had no idea these people existed.
While I went to see people crash gigantic pinatas into the lake, others came because they love Red Bull more than the family dog. Yeah, it was odd.
One of the things that struck me - more than the number of unfortunate tattoos and sleeveless shirts - was an announcement to make sure people knew where they'd meet each other if they got separated in the crowds.
I haven't heard this for roughly a decade.
It's so easy today to call back and forth if there's an issue that it's pretty strange to think of what a hassle events like this used to be. If I get cut off from the herd, I pull out my phone and call or text and the problem is solved.
The "will so and so please meet their party in the east end of the park..." message faded so quickly that I never had time to even miss it.
Today, I e-mailed a friend to try and get the username and password for something and didn't think twice about getting a response in a matter of moments. If he wasn't at a computer, his e-mail would buzz through on his phone and the problem would be solved.
I was getting election results from my dad this year faster than CNN could update me on live TV. I know about the weather by checking my phone on the bus by tapping three buttons and seeing the radar map in its postage stamp sized glory.
Just think about that for a second (readers younger than 20 can skip this step, because it's always been like this for you). A phone in your pocket now means instant data, maps, weather reports, sports scores and news. And that's just the tip of this digital iceberg, not taking into account the number of upgrades available on the newest phones.
Say what you will about 24-hour accountability - and I am a huge opponent of it - but damn if it doesn't make life easier in the big picture.
I don't think I'm going too far to say that the stupid bar bet - "He was not the MVP in 1996!"- is on the endangered species list. I'd write more, but I just got an e-mail reply sent to my phone faster than to my laptop and it's time to turn on a little background noise as I work.
(Image from: Sybarites.org)
That was about three different flavors of crazy, largely because of the armies of people who worship at the altar of Red Bull. Honestly, I had no idea these people existed.While I went to see people crash gigantic pinatas into the lake, others came because they love Red Bull more than the family dog. Yeah, it was odd.
One of the things that struck me - more than the number of unfortunate tattoos and sleeveless shirts - was an announcement to make sure people knew where they'd meet each other if they got separated in the crowds.
I haven't heard this for roughly a decade.
It's so easy today to call back and forth if there's an issue that it's pretty strange to think of what a hassle events like this used to be. If I get cut off from the herd, I pull out my phone and call or text and the problem is solved.
The "will so and so please meet their party in the east end of the park..." message faded so quickly that I never had time to even miss it.
Today, I e-mailed a friend to try and get the username and password for something and didn't think twice about getting a response in a matter of moments. If he wasn't at a computer, his e-mail would buzz through on his phone and the problem would be solved.
I was getting election results from my dad this year faster than CNN could update me on live TV. I know about the weather by checking my phone on the bus by tapping three buttons and seeing the radar map in its postage stamp sized glory.
Just think about that for a second (readers younger than 20 can skip this step, because it's always been like this for you). A phone in your pocket now means instant data, maps, weather reports, sports scores and news. And that's just the tip of this digital iceberg, not taking into account the number of upgrades available on the newest phones.
Say what you will about 24-hour accountability - and I am a huge opponent of it - but damn if it doesn't make life easier in the big picture.
I don't think I'm going too far to say that the stupid bar bet - "He was not the MVP in 1996!"- is on the endangered species list. I'd write more, but I just got an e-mail reply sent to my phone faster than to my laptop and it's time to turn on a little background noise as I work.
(Image from: Sybarites.org)
It's for your own good
Every few days, it dawns on me that I haven't posted in a long while. This is for your protection.
With an expectant wife, I've been trying to reign in the desire to assign meaning to every little thing because we're bringing a little person into the world in May.
Prices of peas rising because of fuel costs? Oh Lord, what kind of world are we bringing a child into?
See a worldwide tragedy? Oh my, this means so much more now that I'm going to be a dad.
I'm working through these issues, but in the meantime I'm doing my best to shelter everyone from endless posts about the changes in my little world.
All bets are off as of mid-May.
You've been warned and most web browsers make it very easy to delete bookmarks when I reach a point of total insufferability. Consider it my holiday gift to you.
With an expectant wife, I've been trying to reign in the desire to assign meaning to every little thing because we're bringing a little person into the world in May.
Prices of peas rising because of fuel costs? Oh Lord, what kind of world are we bringing a child into?
See a worldwide tragedy? Oh my, this means so much more now that I'm going to be a dad.
I'm working through these issues, but in the meantime I'm doing my best to shelter everyone from endless posts about the changes in my little world.
All bets are off as of mid-May.
You've been warned and most web browsers make it very easy to delete bookmarks when I reach a point of total insufferability. Consider it my holiday gift to you.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The benefit of the doubt
I get it, Republicans. I've been there.
There's no way the President-Elect was voted in fairly. There's no way this was the will of the people, much less a mandate.
Get over it. It'll be much better for your blood pressure over the next calendar year.
There is no liberal media conspiracy. There is no overwhelming order from some sinister place that determines what type of coverage is presented. There are problems with "the storyline" of any given campaign and a reluctance to break from that storyline. This is not something new.
Know what? Today's media consumer is too picky to listen to anything that deviates from their view of the storyline.
Sarah Palin isn't a folksy, charming woman? Liberal slander! Barack Obama is an ambitious man and not the aw shucks candidate swept up in the will of the people and their desire for change? Turn off Fox News!
I suppose it is impressive that the first stage of this odd sequence for both the Bush and Obama administrations begin with conspiracy theories - that we blame outside forces before we blame each other - but it's a little tiresome.
I'll skip to the spoiler and what I needed to get off my chest this evening:
I voted for Obama and I meant to do it.
I wasn't blinded by star power. I wasn't swayed by the media. I didn't see a fancy commercial on the Internet and decide to vote for him. I did my homework and I voted for Obama.
You may not agree with my reasons for doing so and I certainly don't expect you value the things I do, or to weight them the same ways I do. But don't think for a second that I made an uninformed decision because of the result of that final decision.
I mention this because I spent enough time on the other side of this equation to understand what these first few weeks are like. Not for nothing, but at least this election is recount-free, so keep that in mind as you whine and forward new polls to me.
At the end of that bitter path is the realization that while you might not agree, other people have valid opinions as well. While you might feel personally out of touch with the majority of your countrymen, it's pretty arrogant to assume that everyone who voted differently than you is an idiot or was duped into doing so.
Trust me - I spent far too much time assuming that all the idiots who voted Bush were duped. It didn't do much good in the long run. It certainly doesn't help in the event of a successful re-election run.
There's no way the President-Elect was voted in fairly. There's no way this was the will of the people, much less a mandate.
Get over it. It'll be much better for your blood pressure over the next calendar year.
There is no liberal media conspiracy. There is no overwhelming order from some sinister place that determines what type of coverage is presented. There are problems with "the storyline" of any given campaign and a reluctance to break from that storyline. This is not something new.
Know what? Today's media consumer is too picky to listen to anything that deviates from their view of the storyline.
Sarah Palin isn't a folksy, charming woman? Liberal slander! Barack Obama is an ambitious man and not the aw shucks candidate swept up in the will of the people and their desire for change? Turn off Fox News!
I suppose it is impressive that the first stage of this odd sequence for both the Bush and Obama administrations begin with conspiracy theories - that we blame outside forces before we blame each other - but it's a little tiresome.
I'll skip to the spoiler and what I needed to get off my chest this evening:
I voted for Obama and I meant to do it.
I wasn't blinded by star power. I wasn't swayed by the media. I didn't see a fancy commercial on the Internet and decide to vote for him. I did my homework and I voted for Obama.
You may not agree with my reasons for doing so and I certainly don't expect you value the things I do, or to weight them the same ways I do. But don't think for a second that I made an uninformed decision because of the result of that final decision.
I mention this because I spent enough time on the other side of this equation to understand what these first few weeks are like. Not for nothing, but at least this election is recount-free, so keep that in mind as you whine and forward new polls to me.
At the end of that bitter path is the realization that while you might not agree, other people have valid opinions as well. While you might feel personally out of touch with the majority of your countrymen, it's pretty arrogant to assume that everyone who voted differently than you is an idiot or was duped into doing so.
Trust me - I spent far too much time assuming that all the idiots who voted Bush were duped. It didn't do much good in the long run. It certainly doesn't help in the event of a successful re-election run.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
For love or money?
I have said from the beginning here that I would shy away from politics more often than not because a.) I'm just not informed enough to speak on it in any sort of responsible manner and b.) it precipitates nasty flame wars, even on quiet little blogs such as this. If you need any evidence of just how hot this year's campaign season got, I suggest grabbing a Facebook account and trashing either Barack Obama or John McCain publicly.
Still, the politics that move this country have me thinking and so there may be minor flood of posts with the "politics" tag that thus far has been used sparingly.
More to the point are the ideas advanced by Frank the Tank in his call for change within the GOP. I was also moved by the lengthy and well-reasoned response in the first comment that runs nearly as long as the post itself.
Still, it's not a stretch to say that the Republican party is seen as less inclusive as the Democrats and that is a pretty strange point to arrive at when you begin with Abraham Lincoln as the first Republican president.
I tend to view the parties through a strange prism of what the average voter sees, and by that I tend to weigh the consensus more heavily than the actual nuts and bolts of of each party's political machine. For example, in discussing McCain taking the fall for GOP leaders and their place in the economic crisis with Frank, I can understand that the blame shouldn't fall directly on the Republicans, but unless they could effectively sway voter perceptions, it's a moot point.
Call me uninformed or blind to the fleecing at the hands of a liberal media - a major sore spot for me - but really, if you can't realistically take the pulse of the electorate, you're essentially arguing policy in a vacuum.
With that out of the way, I think it's safe to say that Democrats are seen as the warm, fuzzy candidates and while recent history bears out that people don't always want that quality in their candidate for office, it makes things difficult for GOP candidates courting votes in low-income areas or with the nation's various minority groups.
It also highlights one of the major trains of thought I've had since Tuesday and especially with regards to a few discussions with Frank. (It's worth noting that he is my main source of dissenting opinion because he can carefully formulate articulate arguments without using the words "liberal media," "idiot," "hippie" or "Fox News said." Also, he eats the same garbage food I do when our wives aren't watching, so we are able to plow through all sorts of strange political topics over breaded steak sandwiches at Ricobene's.)
In a few discussions this fall, Frank has repeatedly pointed out that he is fiscally conservative and socially progressive - in short, that he supports many pieces of the Democratic platform when it comes to social issues but can't get behind their economic policy.
To be totally honest, I don't think that I could accurately (much less gracefully) explain the Democratic plans for the economy if I was spotted an hour in the library and a cabinet of top-level advisors. I don't imagine that I'm alone with my donkey-loving brothers and sisters.
And therein lies a major question for me in the polling data - how many of those people who voted Democrat on Tuesday did so because of the party's social agenda and how many did so based on their economic policies. (It's worth noting that for the basis of what follows here, I'm effectively ignoring McCain specifically, who was polling better than "Republican Candidate X" and suffered from an odd campaign stricken by amnesia that presented the candidate in a different light than what got him to that point. Tuesday night is much more suspenseful if McCain runs his campaign with the same tone set in his concession speech.)
A major problem for the GOP, as outlined by the post that I've linked, boils down to the reality that the party needs to focus on both sides and loses voters if they push too far one way or another. I assume that the average Democrat would back an economic stimulus package based on buying a truckload of Powerball tickets if it meant supporting a candidate who would pack the Supreme Court with pro-choicers and proponents of gay marriage.
Personally, I'd have more difficult decisions to make if the GOP held the line with less government interference - because really, who wouldn't want lower taxes - when it came to those issues. Still, for the party that preaches a more hands off approach, they have the hardest lines on who you can marry and what decisions can and cannot be made by a pregnant woman.
I may not be listening well enough, but I rarely hear complaints about what something will cost from the Democratic voters, as long as they support the ideas driving it. They'll pay for universal health care, welfare and other programs as long as they think it will help (which I know is seen as a weakness by some) but I think it illustrates a major division between the voters for the two sides. It's not just what they vote for, but how they vote as well.
In short, the GOP must cater to socially conservative voters who want to ban abortion and gay marriage (and a host of other issues, but those two make for nice shorthand) as well as those who want to keep a sober eye on the bottom line, while the Democrats can focus all their attention on their social stance and not worry about losing too many voters because of the economic road map.
Personally, while I checked out Obama's tax and health care plans just to know what they entailed before I voted, there wasn't a significant chance I'd vote McCain because of the party platform. I doubt the GOP was afforded the same luxury.
And so, Frank's call for a party that loosens up a bit on the reigns and becomes a more welcoming place for a diverse block of voters isn't falling on deaf ears from either side of the aisle.
He wrote:
The Republicans have the opportunity to either perform a make-over to become a true majority party that invites intellectual debate or alternatively could choose to be a vocal minority that only cares about ideological purity. Is the party going to opt to grow and attempt to expand its base by adopting a libertarian platform in light of substantial demographic trends, even in the traditionally Republican strongholds in the South? Or is the party going to look to protect its evangelical core because they are the loudest and most activist group?
It's time for a makeover - someone has to keep the hippies in line. I saw that on Fox News.
(Image from: GOP.com)
Still, the politics that move this country have me thinking and so there may be minor flood of posts with the "politics" tag that thus far has been used sparingly.More to the point are the ideas advanced by Frank the Tank in his call for change within the GOP. I was also moved by the lengthy and well-reasoned response in the first comment that runs nearly as long as the post itself.
Still, it's not a stretch to say that the Republican party is seen as less inclusive as the Democrats and that is a pretty strange point to arrive at when you begin with Abraham Lincoln as the first Republican president.
I tend to view the parties through a strange prism of what the average voter sees, and by that I tend to weigh the consensus more heavily than the actual nuts and bolts of of each party's political machine. For example, in discussing McCain taking the fall for GOP leaders and their place in the economic crisis with Frank, I can understand that the blame shouldn't fall directly on the Republicans, but unless they could effectively sway voter perceptions, it's a moot point.
Call me uninformed or blind to the fleecing at the hands of a liberal media - a major sore spot for me - but really, if you can't realistically take the pulse of the electorate, you're essentially arguing policy in a vacuum.
With that out of the way, I think it's safe to say that Democrats are seen as the warm, fuzzy candidates and while recent history bears out that people don't always want that quality in their candidate for office, it makes things difficult for GOP candidates courting votes in low-income areas or with the nation's various minority groups.
It also highlights one of the major trains of thought I've had since Tuesday and especially with regards to a few discussions with Frank. (It's worth noting that he is my main source of dissenting opinion because he can carefully formulate articulate arguments without using the words "liberal media," "idiot," "hippie" or "Fox News said." Also, he eats the same garbage food I do when our wives aren't watching, so we are able to plow through all sorts of strange political topics over breaded steak sandwiches at Ricobene's.)
In a few discussions this fall, Frank has repeatedly pointed out that he is fiscally conservative and socially progressive - in short, that he supports many pieces of the Democratic platform when it comes to social issues but can't get behind their economic policy.
To be totally honest, I don't think that I could accurately (much less gracefully) explain the Democratic plans for the economy if I was spotted an hour in the library and a cabinet of top-level advisors. I don't imagine that I'm alone with my donkey-loving brothers and sisters.
And therein lies a major question for me in the polling data - how many of those people who voted Democrat on Tuesday did so because of the party's social agenda and how many did so based on their economic policies. (It's worth noting that for the basis of what follows here, I'm effectively ignoring McCain specifically, who was polling better than "Republican Candidate X" and suffered from an odd campaign stricken by amnesia that presented the candidate in a different light than what got him to that point. Tuesday night is much more suspenseful if McCain runs his campaign with the same tone set in his concession speech.)
A major problem for the GOP, as outlined by the post that I've linked, boils down to the reality that the party needs to focus on both sides and loses voters if they push too far one way or another. I assume that the average Democrat would back an economic stimulus package based on buying a truckload of Powerball tickets if it meant supporting a candidate who would pack the Supreme Court with pro-choicers and proponents of gay marriage.
Personally, I'd have more difficult decisions to make if the GOP held the line with less government interference - because really, who wouldn't want lower taxes - when it came to those issues. Still, for the party that preaches a more hands off approach, they have the hardest lines on who you can marry and what decisions can and cannot be made by a pregnant woman.
I may not be listening well enough, but I rarely hear complaints about what something will cost from the Democratic voters, as long as they support the ideas driving it. They'll pay for universal health care, welfare and other programs as long as they think it will help (which I know is seen as a weakness by some) but I think it illustrates a major division between the voters for the two sides. It's not just what they vote for, but how they vote as well.
In short, the GOP must cater to socially conservative voters who want to ban abortion and gay marriage (and a host of other issues, but those two make for nice shorthand) as well as those who want to keep a sober eye on the bottom line, while the Democrats can focus all their attention on their social stance and not worry about losing too many voters because of the economic road map.
Personally, while I checked out Obama's tax and health care plans just to know what they entailed before I voted, there wasn't a significant chance I'd vote McCain because of the party platform. I doubt the GOP was afforded the same luxury.
And so, Frank's call for a party that loosens up a bit on the reigns and becomes a more welcoming place for a diverse block of voters isn't falling on deaf ears from either side of the aisle.
He wrote:
The Republicans have the opportunity to either perform a make-over to become a true majority party that invites intellectual debate or alternatively could choose to be a vocal minority that only cares about ideological purity. Is the party going to opt to grow and attempt to expand its base by adopting a libertarian platform in light of substantial demographic trends, even in the traditionally Republican strongholds in the South? Or is the party going to look to protect its evangelical core because they are the loudest and most activist group?
It's time for a makeover - someone has to keep the hippies in line. I saw that on Fox News.
(Image from: GOP.com)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
What we want isn't always what we want
I've spent a lot of time thinking about politics this year - well, a lot more than I used to - and trying to square away all of my own biases to make sure that I'm making a good decision next Tuesday.
Unfortunately, politics in America has taken on too much of a sports flavor, with too many voters taking a "my team versus your team" stance on elections. While I can admire those who feel so strongly about core issues of abortion, gun control, etc. that they are morally obligated to vote their party's ticket, I think there is a large section of voters who are technically neutral walking into each election cycle.
As we all know, it doesn't necessarily play out like that.
Some of us like to be seen as sober and conservative and vote Republican. Some of us are trying to hang on to our younger days of being carefree and liberal and vote Democrat. Some of us at the front of a long line at McDonald's, staring at the menu and prepare to vote for the Green Party.
In the middle of a campaign, it's easy to ignore the opposition's candidate, waiting for gaffes to appear via YouTube or your Facebook wall to further shore up your own caricature of who he or she is.
I certainly do not claim to be immune to getting swept up in all of this. To be totally honest, I can't tell you why I feel Obama is more qualified to run the country than Sarah Palin. It might have to do with that winking thing, but I'm not sure.
Frankie and I were talking about this as we had lunch today and what fascinates me is just how difficult it is to create a "perfect" candidate. Set aside the actual meat of policy issues and think about just how hard it is to mold a candidate to be universally acceptable.
* We want them to be experienced, but are wary of DC insiders.
* We want them to be loose and human, but we'll question the judgement of putting them on Saturday Night Live. We'll also question whether Kennedy or Roosevelt would have danced on Ellen.
* We certainly wouldn't elect a candidate who was an abject business failure, but if they have too much money, we get suspicious.
* We'd also prefer that they've had success in their lives, but we crucify them for being too driven. We don't want a president who is too ambitious.
* We want our candidates to be smart but not to the point that they seem to be intellectually elitist. (For the record, this drives me crazy. I refuse to believe that a president can be too smart, educated or intellectually curious.)
* We want them to be sober and serious, but not like Al Gore was.
* We expect them to rely on their advisors, but question them if they lack experience. Again, we don't want them to be too smart, either.
* We want a candidate who understands what it means to be middle class in this country, without actually being middle class. Serious presidential candidates can't be cops, teachers or even plumbers before they decide to run.
* We want candidates that campaign well, but if they raise too much money, we'll question how they got it.
* We want our candidates to make connections with the voters without seeming condescending.
* We only want our candidates to look good and sound smart on television, but if they don't, we'll just blame the media. Some of us will go as far as convincing ourselves that it's unfair to ask simple questions with a camera or tape recorder present.
* We want passion, but not if it means sighing/winking/getting upset during a televised debate.
* We want them to look and smell nice, but not, you know, $150,000 nice. We also like war heroes, but not if they look like they've been in an actual war.
Safe to say, we're a pretty finicky bunch. While this was a fun hypothetical exercise to kick around for the past week, it has also depressed me as a voter.
If a candidate has to clear this many hurdles with regards to superficial window dressing, there's not a great deal of hope for someone truly dynamic to break through. That saddens me as an American on a very profound level.
You can blame candidate's handlers, the high ranking members of the party, the media (both liberaly agenda-ed and conservatively hate-based) and anyone else you like, but unfortunately, the buck stops where it starts.
This is not a candidate problem, it's a voter problem. Once we can figure out what we want, I'm positive they'll dig someone out to meet those demands.
Late addition edition:
I forgot three that got the ball rolling for me in my excitement to get this written - I really should keep some sort of notebook for this reason.
* We want our candidates to represent our changing country, but let's keep the names less terrorist-y.
* We want our candidates to be their own person - mavericks at times - but ignore that voting the party line is what they are elected to do. They are in office to represent the voters and at times that means voting for things they might not be totally behind.
* We want our candidates to learn from their mistakes, but if they change their minds too many times, they're tabbed as flip-floppers.
(Image from PunditKitchen.com)
Unfortunately, politics in America has taken on too much of a sports flavor, with too many voters taking a "my team versus your team" stance on elections. While I can admire those who feel so strongly about core issues of abortion, gun control, etc. that they are morally obligated to vote their party's ticket, I think there is a large section of voters who are technically neutral walking into each election cycle.As we all know, it doesn't necessarily play out like that.
Some of us like to be seen as sober and conservative and vote Republican. Some of us are trying to hang on to our younger days of being carefree and liberal and vote Democrat. Some of us at the front of a long line at McDonald's, staring at the menu and prepare to vote for the Green Party.
In the middle of a campaign, it's easy to ignore the opposition's candidate, waiting for gaffes to appear via YouTube or your Facebook wall to further shore up your own caricature of who he or she is.
I certainly do not claim to be immune to getting swept up in all of this. To be totally honest, I can't tell you why I feel Obama is more qualified to run the country than Sarah Palin. It might have to do with that winking thing, but I'm not sure.
Frankie and I were talking about this as we had lunch today and what fascinates me is just how difficult it is to create a "perfect" candidate. Set aside the actual meat of policy issues and think about just how hard it is to mold a candidate to be universally acceptable.
* We want them to be experienced, but are wary of DC insiders.
* We want them to be loose and human, but we'll question the judgement of putting them on Saturday Night Live. We'll also question whether Kennedy or Roosevelt would have danced on Ellen.
* We certainly wouldn't elect a candidate who was an abject business failure, but if they have too much money, we get suspicious.
* We'd also prefer that they've had success in their lives, but we crucify them for being too driven. We don't want a president who is too ambitious.
* We want our candidates to be smart but not to the point that they seem to be intellectually elitist. (For the record, this drives me crazy. I refuse to believe that a president can be too smart, educated or intellectually curious.)
* We want them to be sober and serious, but not like Al Gore was.
* We expect them to rely on their advisors, but question them if they lack experience. Again, we don't want them to be too smart, either.
* We want a candidate who understands what it means to be middle class in this country, without actually being middle class. Serious presidential candidates can't be cops, teachers or even plumbers before they decide to run.
* We want candidates that campaign well, but if they raise too much money, we'll question how they got it.
* We want our candidates to make connections with the voters without seeming condescending.
* We only want our candidates to look good and sound smart on television, but if they don't, we'll just blame the media. Some of us will go as far as convincing ourselves that it's unfair to ask simple questions with a camera or tape recorder present.
* We want passion, but not if it means sighing/winking/getting upset during a televised debate.
* We want them to look and smell nice, but not, you know, $150,000 nice. We also like war heroes, but not if they look like they've been in an actual war.
Safe to say, we're a pretty finicky bunch. While this was a fun hypothetical exercise to kick around for the past week, it has also depressed me as a voter.
If a candidate has to clear this many hurdles with regards to superficial window dressing, there's not a great deal of hope for someone truly dynamic to break through. That saddens me as an American on a very profound level.
You can blame candidate's handlers, the high ranking members of the party, the media (both liberaly agenda-ed and conservatively hate-based) and anyone else you like, but unfortunately, the buck stops where it starts.
This is not a candidate problem, it's a voter problem. Once we can figure out what we want, I'm positive they'll dig someone out to meet those demands.
Late addition edition:
I forgot three that got the ball rolling for me in my excitement to get this written - I really should keep some sort of notebook for this reason.
* We want our candidates to represent our changing country, but let's keep the names less terrorist-y.
* We want our candidates to be their own person - mavericks at times - but ignore that voting the party line is what they are elected to do. They are in office to represent the voters and at times that means voting for things they might not be totally behind.
* We want our candidates to learn from their mistakes, but if they change their minds too many times, they're tabbed as flip-floppers.
(Image from PunditKitchen.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
