Ok, here I go. It's tradition, and I'm a traditional guy: the annual things-about-myself-that-I-don't-like-but-couldn't-be-bothered-to-deal-with list. Also known as new years resolutions.
Before I go into this, let me just say that there will be a few things that are not on my list that used to be there in years past. Number one is to spend more time with my family. While I don't think you can spend too much time with your family (well, I don't know your family), I think that I managed to pick my spots well in the first half of the year (taking the days off for the boys birthdays) and of course have had amazing quality time in the second half. I hope it won't be back on my list next year, but we'll have to wait and see.
With that disclaimer, here's my 2008 resolutions.
1) Be brief. I have tended to not exercise any economy around my word use. Dostoyevsky and Dickens were at least being paid by the word. With no such excuse, pithiness is my watch word for 2008. So, in my spoken and written word, I resolve to switch from Melville to Hemingway.
2) Listen more, talk less. I feel like I used to be a better listener. I remember once telling someone that "If you listen, people will tell you exactly what you want to know." Somewhere, I lost that lesson. Plus, I have to remember, when someone asks how you are, they don't really want an answer. (Somewhere in all of this, I became German. At least in that respect.)
3) End with the end in mind. In the coming year, when I find a story or joke going horribly bad, I resolve to end it. I have found that it never pays to power through to the end. However embarrassing it might be to abruptly end a story that's gone off the rails, trust me finishing it is worse.
4) Relax. Ok, it's highly unlikely that I'll be able to keep this one. But in the absence of actually taking it easy (on myself or just in general), I'll try and maintain my sense of context. There was a fantastic article in the Economist last year that compared America's poorest with Africa's richest. I want to send it to everyone I ever hear whining about how hard their life is. We're living in the Jetson's people, quit telling me you're tired after a day of pushing the button on and off all day.
5) Be nicer to other people. Hmm. Ok, tomorrow I'll retract the last sentiment from #4. I'll also work on developing more patience for people who have different work ethics. Of course, I can't forgive everyone. Without any bitterness, what's left?
6) Focus. So, I've started by putting myself on a schedule (which includes exercise, so there won't be a get in shape resolution either), but I have to keep my activity list down to four things: finding a job, doing my schoolwork, starting a business (see, #7) and my family. Looks like the novel will have to wait another year.
7) Stop talking and start chalking (aka, do more). There are always a million reasons not to do something, and only one reason to do them: because if you don't, you'll never know how they turn out. Since I've gotten tired of watching businesses launch with ideas that I've had usually a while ago, I've decided to make a go of one.
Ok, I think that's more than enough. Happy 2008 to everyone. I've got to get back to work.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Hearts and minds
I think my last post may have been a bit opaque when I said that we must stop fighting the war to win it. By that I meant, as war is redefined, winning must be redefined as well. I hate the expression "hearts and minds" (sorry Jesse) reminds me of Red Dawn. But, conceptually, I think it's on the right track.
Fundamentally, we face a situation that internationalization was bound to lead to: different morality codes coming face to face. (Funny, I was actually just thinking about that as a key aspect of international business that doesn't seem to ever come up.) But I don't think that an end to the war (if not the hostilities) requires that we understand each other. I think that it first requires that we accept that different morality codes exist, and that we can't rely on "human nature" because what we think is human nature is actually how we've been socialized.
Fundamentally, we face a situation that internationalization was bound to lead to: different morality codes coming face to face. (Funny, I was actually just thinking about that as a key aspect of international business that doesn't seem to ever come up.) But I don't think that an end to the war (if not the hostilities) requires that we understand each other. I think that it first requires that we accept that different morality codes exist, and that we can't rely on "human nature" because what we think is human nature is actually how we've been socialized.
Torn
Somehow it seems to keep coming up. The war. And the difference between the war and the soldiers.
I know I shouldn't be surprised. I mean, it is a full-scale military conflict and my country is involved. But it seems like WWII was much more pervasive, affected everyone's life. I guess that's partially to do with the sense of invulnerability that Pearl Harbor had stripped America of and not knowing whether the war would be coming to your door. In that, the two wars should be similar. Not since the Civil War was the threat of the war being waged on American soil more real.
But since it's a neoguerre - as opposed to a paleoguerre - it all feels really remote. And while I'd love to take credit for such high-chocolate words as neoguerre and paleoguerre - it's Umberto Eco from whom I steal them and who has set me off on this war riff.
The paper had a review of a collection of his essays. I have to admit, it was pure chance that led me to read the article - the paper on the table in the coffee house was left open to that page. The reviewer was chiding Eco for his overly academic take on the world. They wanted to rally around him, the voice of rational liberalism to shut Anne Coulter the fuck up. But, no. Mr. Eco is too removed from reality. Eco speaks of a neoguerre - such as the war on terror- in which the wars are fought against an ill-defined enemy in an undefined arena and without knowable goals, as ones from which we are far removed. A reality TV show being produced by several governments in concert. The reviewer then feels the need to step in and say that the growing list of suicides due to PTSD (I'll come back to this in a minute), the amputations and the death make it clear that this is not a TV show for the ones in harms way. And there's a growing sense from the public that the neoguerre, unlike the paleoguerre of a WWII, is actually one from which we cannot remain isolated. If there is no definition of victory, it cannot end. If there is no defined battlefield, then everyone is a combatant.
And so the only way to win is to stop fighting.
But to those guys who are actually in Iraq or Afghanistan, what is the right thing to do? There's a lot of news recently about the large amount of suicides of returning soldiers. I haven't heard a lot of theories about why this is (although the remediation which the government proposes is to improve counselling). I don't think it's the problem of Vietnam in which returning soldiers were blamed for their part in the war. In which they wondered what they went through it all for. (Although, its probably a little bit of the latter.) No, I think it's probably more that these kids by and large are going from video games to real war, and the difference is a little shocking. The world is messy, but the demands of our entertainment industry have convinced people that it's not.
So, I'm in a Starbucks and they ask if I want to buy a pound of coffee to be sent to the troops in Iraq. And I'm torn. I know it seems stupid, but don't the small things you do show whether you're for something or against something. But I'm not against the guys having a cup of coffee. Most of them are just kids. But then, if you make it easier for them (sending cell phones as some highschool students have organized, so that they can call their families easier), are you prolonging the war? If there are no soldiers, is there a war?
And then my nephew enlists. My mom doesn't understand why I'm not surprised. If I were him, I would probably be tempted to do the same. For or against, the Iraq war is the defining event for his generation. On the front lines or leading the protests, just not on the sidelines. Now, for him, I don't think he's considered the drudgery. Most importantly, I don't think he's considered that he's gonna have to take orders for a long time from people who are not nearly as bright as he is. I know it seems silly to think in these terms, but you can't convince an 18-year-old about the dangers, because, they're right: life is dangerous and what's a long life worth if you don't do anything with it? Nor can you even tell them about losing a limb. How can someone relate to that? When you're 18, you figure it's either not going to happen to you, or it will be - in some way - cool.
So, no. I don't want him to go. I want him to go to college and to put all of his energy toward finding a way to change to American definition of war, of terror and of patriotism. But most of all, I don't want him to do nothing.
So, I'm torn. I think the war is a mess. I think that international politics are more complicated then they have ever been because we have a greater interdependency, we have a greater knowledge of each other, but we have less understanding. We also have a sense, as cultures begin to intermingle, that we are losing something. Nothing on this earth dies easy. And the cultures which are going away are fighting for their lives right now - fundamental religions, isolationism, untrammelled free markets. Things will be messy for a while. Maybe our whole lives. But there seems to be a social homeostasis which works as well. It's just the perspective we need is beyond the number of years we have.
Oh, and in the end, I didn't buy the coffee. But that could be because I'm cheap.
I know I shouldn't be surprised. I mean, it is a full-scale military conflict and my country is involved. But it seems like WWII was much more pervasive, affected everyone's life. I guess that's partially to do with the sense of invulnerability that Pearl Harbor had stripped America of and not knowing whether the war would be coming to your door. In that, the two wars should be similar. Not since the Civil War was the threat of the war being waged on American soil more real.
But since it's a neoguerre - as opposed to a paleoguerre - it all feels really remote. And while I'd love to take credit for such high-chocolate words as neoguerre and paleoguerre - it's Umberto Eco from whom I steal them and who has set me off on this war riff.
The paper had a review of a collection of his essays. I have to admit, it was pure chance that led me to read the article - the paper on the table in the coffee house was left open to that page. The reviewer was chiding Eco for his overly academic take on the world. They wanted to rally around him, the voice of rational liberalism to shut Anne Coulter the fuck up. But, no. Mr. Eco is too removed from reality. Eco speaks of a neoguerre - such as the war on terror- in which the wars are fought against an ill-defined enemy in an undefined arena and without knowable goals, as ones from which we are far removed. A reality TV show being produced by several governments in concert. The reviewer then feels the need to step in and say that the growing list of suicides due to PTSD (I'll come back to this in a minute), the amputations and the death make it clear that this is not a TV show for the ones in harms way. And there's a growing sense from the public that the neoguerre, unlike the paleoguerre of a WWII, is actually one from which we cannot remain isolated. If there is no definition of victory, it cannot end. If there is no defined battlefield, then everyone is a combatant.
And so the only way to win is to stop fighting.
But to those guys who are actually in Iraq or Afghanistan, what is the right thing to do? There's a lot of news recently about the large amount of suicides of returning soldiers. I haven't heard a lot of theories about why this is (although the remediation which the government proposes is to improve counselling). I don't think it's the problem of Vietnam in which returning soldiers were blamed for their part in the war. In which they wondered what they went through it all for. (Although, its probably a little bit of the latter.) No, I think it's probably more that these kids by and large are going from video games to real war, and the difference is a little shocking. The world is messy, but the demands of our entertainment industry have convinced people that it's not.
So, I'm in a Starbucks and they ask if I want to buy a pound of coffee to be sent to the troops in Iraq. And I'm torn. I know it seems stupid, but don't the small things you do show whether you're for something or against something. But I'm not against the guys having a cup of coffee. Most of them are just kids. But then, if you make it easier for them (sending cell phones as some highschool students have organized, so that they can call their families easier), are you prolonging the war? If there are no soldiers, is there a war?
And then my nephew enlists. My mom doesn't understand why I'm not surprised. If I were him, I would probably be tempted to do the same. For or against, the Iraq war is the defining event for his generation. On the front lines or leading the protests, just not on the sidelines. Now, for him, I don't think he's considered the drudgery. Most importantly, I don't think he's considered that he's gonna have to take orders for a long time from people who are not nearly as bright as he is. I know it seems silly to think in these terms, but you can't convince an 18-year-old about the dangers, because, they're right: life is dangerous and what's a long life worth if you don't do anything with it? Nor can you even tell them about losing a limb. How can someone relate to that? When you're 18, you figure it's either not going to happen to you, or it will be - in some way - cool.
So, no. I don't want him to go. I want him to go to college and to put all of his energy toward finding a way to change to American definition of war, of terror and of patriotism. But most of all, I don't want him to do nothing.
So, I'm torn. I think the war is a mess. I think that international politics are more complicated then they have ever been because we have a greater interdependency, we have a greater knowledge of each other, but we have less understanding. We also have a sense, as cultures begin to intermingle, that we are losing something. Nothing on this earth dies easy. And the cultures which are going away are fighting for their lives right now - fundamental religions, isolationism, untrammelled free markets. Things will be messy for a while. Maybe our whole lives. But there seems to be a social homeostasis which works as well. It's just the perspective we need is beyond the number of years we have.
Oh, and in the end, I didn't buy the coffee. But that could be because I'm cheap.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Snapshots
Just a couple of snapshots for you:
Cole's schoolmate comes up to him (and Lola) and says "My name is Miguel and I can speak English and Spanish."
Cole then replies, "Well, I can speak English and London."
**************
Bicycle store down the street has a truck parked out front in which it has a big poster sitting in the back. Seems to change every day, or at least every time we pass. Today's read: "Learn to backpeddle like a Bush appointee."
Cole's schoolmate comes up to him (and Lola) and says "My name is Miguel and I can speak English and Spanish."
Cole then replies, "Well, I can speak English and London."
**************
Bicycle store down the street has a truck parked out front in which it has a big poster sitting in the back. Seems to change every day, or at least every time we pass. Today's read: "Learn to backpeddle like a Bush appointee."
Friday, December 07, 2007
Word for the day
So, the elder learned the word "Spelunking" today. The context was the half hour that the three of us spent inside a cave made out of a comforter.
I just wanted to remember. Not sure how long it'll be when I'll have the time to go searching for Becky and Injun Joe with the boys.
This is the good stuff.
I just wanted to remember. Not sure how long it'll be when I'll have the time to go searching for Becky and Injun Joe with the boys.
This is the good stuff.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Microphobias
So, my mother says to me this morning while we're getting the boys dressed, "You know the boys have a toy with a magnet in the bottom?" Stupidly, because I'm thinking of her as my mom and not as a victim of American media, I think that she's found a piece and is trying to figure out where it goes.
"Yeah, we have two. The little ducks that go on top of the music box."
"Well, I only mention it because you know if one of the boys swallows a couple of magnets they could constrict on either side of the intestines and kill them."
Seriously?
So, I said, "Don't worry, given the size of the ducks, he'd choke on it before it got anywhere near his intenstines."
She was then the unfortunate recipient of one of my "This is what's wrong with America" tirades - specifically, the overinflated fear of things that have such a remote possibility of ever happening.
And just in case she thought I was exaggerating, the morning news show had a piece on "How to protect yourself against a gunman in the mall" (I'm NOT making this up.) You know, given the shootings in Omaha. (By the way, it was amusing to hear Wolff Blitzer apologize for mistakenly calling it Obama, rather than Omaha.)
But in the end, I suppose, it doesn't really matter if the odds of it are 50,000:1 if you're the one.
Good night, I think I'm suffering from narcolepsy.
"Yeah, we have two. The little ducks that go on top of the music box."
"Well, I only mention it because you know if one of the boys swallows a couple of magnets they could constrict on either side of the intestines and kill them."
Seriously?
So, I said, "Don't worry, given the size of the ducks, he'd choke on it before it got anywhere near his intenstines."
She was then the unfortunate recipient of one of my "This is what's wrong with America" tirades - specifically, the overinflated fear of things that have such a remote possibility of ever happening.
And just in case she thought I was exaggerating, the morning news show had a piece on "How to protect yourself against a gunman in the mall" (I'm NOT making this up.) You know, given the shootings in Omaha. (By the way, it was amusing to hear Wolff Blitzer apologize for mistakenly calling it Obama, rather than Omaha.)
But in the end, I suppose, it doesn't really matter if the odds of it are 50,000:1 if you're the one.
Good night, I think I'm suffering from narcolepsy.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
And once again, around the bases
So, I got a nudge that my blog updates weren't particularly frequent enough. So, here's one long one to make up for the lack of quantity. At least that's my intention. I'm writing while the boys are napping (as soon as I write those words, the elder comes storming around the corner, apparently 3 minutes counts as a nap in his world), but if they wake, then this will be yet another short one.
So, let me start with Mr. Mom. Lola has gone back to London for a few days. Which leaves me jet-lagged and gaining an ever-increasing appreciation of Lola. I should say, that mom's come to visit and she's been a great help. But, that being said, she agrees that the boys are particularly enervating.
Hell, she's asleep on the couch right now.
I think the big thing is that the younger has no off switch. With the elder, you can at least turn on the telly and he'll be distracted. Not so with the microdynamo. Telly, books, dinosaurs, doesn't matter, he'll be back at you in 2 minutes. So, there's no pause. All day. Except for these couple of hours of nap, and after bedtime. But by then, you're wrecked.
Anyway, it's feeding in to my end of year strategy confusion on the job search front. I mean, how much effort should I be expending now, knowing that if it doesn't get actioned in the next few days it will fall into a black hole and I'll be worse off than if I just waited.
But that's sort of a tactical question. My larger strategic questions with regard to the job front are still at play. The school of thought that tells me to just take a job (either because of the kids or because of school) has a certain appeal. Although, the reality is, I've seen people make tactical decisions about their jobs and then never be able to recover from them. If I have not given up being able to do something, then . . .
See, this is the sort of thing. Got completely sidetracked. I'll post this and come back soon. (perhaps shorter and more often is the answer) I've yet to hit on the presidential race.
So, let me start with Mr. Mom. Lola has gone back to London for a few days. Which leaves me jet-lagged and gaining an ever-increasing appreciation of Lola. I should say, that mom's come to visit and she's been a great help. But, that being said, she agrees that the boys are particularly enervating.
Hell, she's asleep on the couch right now.
I think the big thing is that the younger has no off switch. With the elder, you can at least turn on the telly and he'll be distracted. Not so with the microdynamo. Telly, books, dinosaurs, doesn't matter, he'll be back at you in 2 minutes. So, there's no pause. All day. Except for these couple of hours of nap, and after bedtime. But by then, you're wrecked.
Anyway, it's feeding in to my end of year strategy confusion on the job search front. I mean, how much effort should I be expending now, knowing that if it doesn't get actioned in the next few days it will fall into a black hole and I'll be worse off than if I just waited.
But that's sort of a tactical question. My larger strategic questions with regard to the job front are still at play. The school of thought that tells me to just take a job (either because of the kids or because of school) has a certain appeal. Although, the reality is, I've seen people make tactical decisions about their jobs and then never be able to recover from them. If I have not given up being able to do something, then . . .
See, this is the sort of thing. Got completely sidetracked. I'll post this and come back soon. (perhaps shorter and more often is the answer) I've yet to hit on the presidential race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)