Feeling bluesy? Stop reacting, start responding. There's what's out there and what's right here. We get to believing that everything out there is right next door and end up spending all our time planning for miseries that often never arrive. After awhile we stop looking anywhere but out there and lose the critical perspective that tells us what is just too far away to ever spill into our daily lives.
TV and the Web, our main tools for keeping track of whats out there, actually work to destroy this critical perspective. By making everything, regardless of how local or distant, seem immediate and right-here-right now! the actual distance and locality of most events is compressed right into our very homes. But everything is not immediate. Should we re-time the traffic lights in Seattle because arterials are clogged in Atlanta? Of course not. But what's news in Atlanta is right there next to what's news in Seattle. The 4000 miles of towns and communities and counties and states that separate the two and are the measures of our perspective aren't even a part of the equation, and that's the part that's the most important.
You have to work to put that perspective back in place, then some of the right-here-right-now miseries start dropping back into the distance where they belong. Once you release the false immediacy of things, once you stop reacting, there's all kinds of time to look around and see how many of the world's problems haven't done anything at all to your home, family and real life, and how much of the comfort and security you've been working so hard to keep up is right there, intact.
It's hard to not feel a little joy when you get a look at how well you've actually been doing.
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Looking For John Doe
I happened to catch the Capra classic "Meet John Doe" on TCM the other night and it got me to thinking about the strong parallels between what triggered the Great American Depression and the situation our government has allowed to develop today. What follows is decidedly Populist in view -- this is deliberate and I make no apologies. It's a view that's been overlooked and ignored for far too long.
It's obvious now that the economics of day-to-day existence have been seriously damaged for the ordinary citizens of not just the United States but but of other countries by unregulated globalization and lifting of limits on what a bank can do with its deposits. An awful lot of the root cause involves complex multi-national transactions on a scale too big for ordinary folk to feel anything but overwhelmed, disempowered and robbed. Credit is drying up. But what that really means is the money's out there, but those that have it don't trust you enough loan you any.
Creditworthiness is just another word for trustworthiness, and therein lies the rub -- today the little guy owns the burden of proof; he must prove he is not untrustworthy and to that end must allow outrageous intrusions into his private affairs by secretive operated-for-profit "reporting" companies, and suffer the unfair use of the results in virtual silence. At the same time those operating behind the shield of incorporation freely pursue any greedy, predatory behavior that may result in profit without ever proving that they aren't untrustworthy themselves. And when they go too far and lose their shirts the consequences are minimal because the little guy also owns the burden of payback.
We all know this is wrong in our hearts. We of the middle class and below spend years teaching our children to be responsible and live our work lives suffering the consequences of ownership and accountability. This is why Congress's refusal to rubber-stamp the "bailout the rich" plan was so cathartic. For a couple of days it looked like the big guys were finally going to get a big dose of our blue-collar working-for-a-living ethics. Yes we know that's not really going to happen, but the hope was sparked, and that little flame is hard to extinguish.
I'm fully aware that this is a purely emotional perspective, but I think because so many have lost so much of what they thought they had earned fair and square and have come so close to the coal mine days of subsistence wages, company stores and death in poverty that emotion will be a dominant force in the years ahead. This brings me back to Capra's "Meet John Doe", and the restorative power of neighborly behavior that's the the heart of the story. I believe the next 10 years will see a re-valuing of Main Street and a renewed understanding that the local communities are where actual business happens and where real wealth is created. Hell, we may even see Wall Street return to supporting Main Street instead of consuming it, selling off its assets and crying "look! New wealth!" to disguise the cannibalism.
Of course it's true we may not, but like I said the hope has been sparked, and it's a tough little flame to extinguish.
Peace,
Robert
It's obvious now that the economics of day-to-day existence have been seriously damaged for the ordinary citizens of not just the United States but but of other countries by unregulated globalization and lifting of limits on what a bank can do with its deposits. An awful lot of the root cause involves complex multi-national transactions on a scale too big for ordinary folk to feel anything but overwhelmed, disempowered and robbed. Credit is drying up. But what that really means is the money's out there, but those that have it don't trust you enough loan you any.
Creditworthiness is just another word for trustworthiness, and therein lies the rub -- today the little guy owns the burden of proof; he must prove he is not untrustworthy and to that end must allow outrageous intrusions into his private affairs by secretive operated-for-profit "reporting" companies, and suffer the unfair use of the results in virtual silence. At the same time those operating behind the shield of incorporation freely pursue any greedy, predatory behavior that may result in profit without ever proving that they aren't untrustworthy themselves. And when they go too far and lose their shirts the consequences are minimal because the little guy also owns the burden of payback.
We all know this is wrong in our hearts. We of the middle class and below spend years teaching our children to be responsible and live our work lives suffering the consequences of ownership and accountability. This is why Congress's refusal to rubber-stamp the "bailout the rich" plan was so cathartic. For a couple of days it looked like the big guys were finally going to get a big dose of our blue-collar working-for-a-living ethics. Yes we know that's not really going to happen, but the hope was sparked, and that little flame is hard to extinguish.
I'm fully aware that this is a purely emotional perspective, but I think because so many have lost so much of what they thought they had earned fair and square and have come so close to the coal mine days of subsistence wages, company stores and death in poverty that emotion will be a dominant force in the years ahead. This brings me back to Capra's "Meet John Doe", and the restorative power of neighborly behavior that's the the heart of the story. I believe the next 10 years will see a re-valuing of Main Street and a renewed understanding that the local communities are where actual business happens and where real wealth is created. Hell, we may even see Wall Street return to supporting Main Street instead of consuming it, selling off its assets and crying "look! New wealth!" to disguise the cannibalism.
Of course it's true we may not, but like I said the hope has been sparked, and it's a tough little flame to extinguish.
Peace,
Robert
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Science, Drugs and Shoes That Fit Right
When our kid has trouble seeing, we don't hit the web and read every anecdote Google barfs up, then spend who knows how long confused as to whether it's right to subject the poor fragile creature to the possible long-term ill effects of mechanical appliances. Of course not.
We also don't generally read everything we can find about how eyes work and then head for the local optometrist with a list of things we think they should do, not do, avoid, pursue or consider as they design the eyeglasses we ordered especially for our poor, fragile, special child. That would be kind of Joan Crawford.
What we do is this. We take the kid to a trained specialist who performs a series of specific, highly controlled tests and measurements. The specialist then uses the test results to formulate a recommendation, which is presented to us. We then have the kid try out the suggested remedy. If it doesn't quite do the job expected, the specialist performs a series of adjustments, testing each one until the solution is correct. That solution may be glasses, surgery, or referral to a different expert. No matter, we do it because we know the process works and results in the best for our kids.
So what's different about ADD/ADHD? Why are the same people whose cupboards are populated with pill bottles full of all sorts of over-the-counter quackery so loud about the proposed harm ADD medication does to children? I guess that a lot people who haven't missed an eye appointment, dental exam or physical since God was a boy still don't believe psychiatry is an actual science, and even those who do seem secretly convinced that the human mind is too scary precious to let even that science mess with. Mind, brain, it's all the same thing, isn't it? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing is certain beyond doubt: ADD/ADHD is real, but there's so much smoke and falling sky generated by the Luddites and WellnessHeads out there even actual facts and critical thinking are hard pressed to keep things clear. So you better get busy if you want the facts. The National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities have published a briefing paper that's a great place to start. Here's the link:
http://www.add-adhd.org/ADHD_attention-deficit.html
Once you're done there, check out these resources:
http://www.ldonline.org/indepth/adhd
http://add.about.com/
You should now have a good understanding abou where modern science is on this topic. Feel free to explore, study and form educated opinions on your own. Good Luck!
Let me close with this: I have absolutely no problem with providing any child any prosthetic they need, mechanical or otherwise, to adequately navigate the rugged terrain of life. But no prosthetic, whether it's a leg brace, ADD medication, a pair of eyeglasses, school clothes or shoes that fit right should be prescribed by anyone but a properly trained and qualified expert. Properly tuned ADD medication saved my career (I was diagnosed at age 43 -- talk about a life paradigm shift!). The tuning took a few iterations, as should be expected, but that process not only eliminated the side effects but also reinforced my confidence in the prescription and the overall expertise of my provider.
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
We also don't generally read everything we can find about how eyes work and then head for the local optometrist with a list of things we think they should do, not do, avoid, pursue or consider as they design the eyeglasses we ordered especially for our poor, fragile, special child. That would be kind of Joan Crawford.
What we do is this. We take the kid to a trained specialist who performs a series of specific, highly controlled tests and measurements. The specialist then uses the test results to formulate a recommendation, which is presented to us. We then have the kid try out the suggested remedy. If it doesn't quite do the job expected, the specialist performs a series of adjustments, testing each one until the solution is correct. That solution may be glasses, surgery, or referral to a different expert. No matter, we do it because we know the process works and results in the best for our kids.
So what's different about ADD/ADHD? Why are the same people whose cupboards are populated with pill bottles full of all sorts of over-the-counter quackery so loud about the proposed harm ADD medication does to children? I guess that a lot people who haven't missed an eye appointment, dental exam or physical since God was a boy still don't believe psychiatry is an actual science, and even those who do seem secretly convinced that the human mind is too scary precious to let even that science mess with. Mind, brain, it's all the same thing, isn't it? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing is certain beyond doubt: ADD/ADHD is real, but there's so much smoke and falling sky generated by the Luddites and WellnessHeads out there even actual facts and critical thinking are hard pressed to keep things clear. So you better get busy if you want the facts. The National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities have published a briefing paper that's a great place to start. Here's the link:
http://www.add-adhd.org/ADHD_attention-deficit.html
Once you're done there, check out these resources:
http://www.ldonline.org/indepth/adhd
http://add.about.com/
You should now have a good understanding abou where modern science is on this topic. Feel free to explore, study and form educated opinions on your own. Good Luck!
Let me close with this: I have absolutely no problem with providing any child any prosthetic they need, mechanical or otherwise, to adequately navigate the rugged terrain of life. But no prosthetic, whether it's a leg brace, ADD medication, a pair of eyeglasses, school clothes or shoes that fit right should be prescribed by anyone but a properly trained and qualified expert. Properly tuned ADD medication saved my career (I was diagnosed at age 43 -- talk about a life paradigm shift!). The tuning took a few iterations, as should be expected, but that process not only eliminated the side effects but also reinforced my confidence in the prescription and the overall expertise of my provider.
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Form, Function and Invention
I've come to believe that my mind has a mind of its own. This is just something I caught it thinking about...
A while back over at LinkedIn Dutch designer André van der Saag asked this question:
Great designers often say that form follows function. What happens when function follows form?
On first scan this looks like one of those pseudo-Zen conundrums people often present at parties, usually around the time the wine starts running low. But for some reason I couldn't quite dismiss it, so of course I started thinking about it and oddly enough came to see it not only as a legitimate question, but one with a startlingly simple answer.
What happens when function follows form? Invention.
A not-so-obvious connection, for sure, so let me explain how I got there. Please bear with me -- I've tried to be as linear as I can, but you know how these things can turn on you.
OK. Here we go. The idea that form follows function is a loose version of William Morris's assertion that art should serve need and there should be no differentiation between form and function. But this definition has its basis in the idea that function must drive creation, which is the toolmaker's view. For an object to satisfy a need its form must address that need, and any object whose form is directed otherwise or occurs spontaneously is just sort of in the way, unless it's somehow pleasing to look at. But in being pleasing to look at the object is still satisfying a need, so even for objects d'art form follows function. The dependency seems to be immutable, inescapable.
But the fact is we are surrounded by examples where function follows form. One that comes immediately to mind is the screwdriver, a tool whose form was originally driven by the need to amplify and transmit torque. The need to improve the twisting power of the human wrist drove not only the screwdriver's form but also that of the fasteners to be installed with it, and the form was so well-defined by the need that by now pretty much everyone knows a screwdriver is for loosening or tightening screws, to hang a cupboard door for instance, or who knows what else.
But I also believe that pretty much everybody knows a screwdriver is excellent for opening cans of paint too, and can even be used to stir the paint once the can is opened, even though neither of these functions were even considered when the tool was originally designed. In fact, if you want the inside scoop on exactly what a screwdriver was designed for just ask any well-trained machinist if you can borrow one to open some paint cans. Instead of a screwdriver you'll get seriously schooled in the orthodoxy of function-driven form, that there's a right tool for every job and each tool has its own purpose that you'd better learn to respect if you don't want to get tossed out of the shop.
But even the absolute power of the Orthodoxy of Tools can't change the fact that screwdrivers open cans of paint like a dream, and that simple truth is the crack in Mr. Morris's seemingly immutable idea. These other unorthodox ways to use a screwdriver were discovered after its form was already defined and fixed; they became part of what the tool can do when it was moved out of its design context and the new functions had to follow the already fixed form. See?
So to sum up:
The ability to remove an object from its orthodoxy and expand its definition while leaving its form unchanged is a key part of the process of invention. Therefore whenever function is allowed to follow form, invention must be happening.
Simple, yes? I thought you'd agree :)
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
A while back over at LinkedIn Dutch designer André van der Saag asked this question:
Great designers often say that form follows function. What happens when function follows form?
On first scan this looks like one of those pseudo-Zen conundrums people often present at parties, usually around the time the wine starts running low. But for some reason I couldn't quite dismiss it, so of course I started thinking about it and oddly enough came to see it not only as a legitimate question, but one with a startlingly simple answer.
What happens when function follows form? Invention.
A not-so-obvious connection, for sure, so let me explain how I got there. Please bear with me -- I've tried to be as linear as I can, but you know how these things can turn on you.
OK. Here we go. The idea that form follows function is a loose version of William Morris's assertion that art should serve need and there should be no differentiation between form and function. But this definition has its basis in the idea that function must drive creation, which is the toolmaker's view. For an object to satisfy a need its form must address that need, and any object whose form is directed otherwise or occurs spontaneously is just sort of in the way, unless it's somehow pleasing to look at. But in being pleasing to look at the object is still satisfying a need, so even for objects d'art form follows function. The dependency seems to be immutable, inescapable.
But the fact is we are surrounded by examples where function follows form. One that comes immediately to mind is the screwdriver, a tool whose form was originally driven by the need to amplify and transmit torque. The need to improve the twisting power of the human wrist drove not only the screwdriver's form but also that of the fasteners to be installed with it, and the form was so well-defined by the need that by now pretty much everyone knows a screwdriver is for loosening or tightening screws, to hang a cupboard door for instance, or who knows what else.
But I also believe that pretty much everybody knows a screwdriver is excellent for opening cans of paint too, and can even be used to stir the paint once the can is opened, even though neither of these functions were even considered when the tool was originally designed. In fact, if you want the inside scoop on exactly what a screwdriver was designed for just ask any well-trained machinist if you can borrow one to open some paint cans. Instead of a screwdriver you'll get seriously schooled in the orthodoxy of function-driven form, that there's a right tool for every job and each tool has its own purpose that you'd better learn to respect if you don't want to get tossed out of the shop.
But even the absolute power of the Orthodoxy of Tools can't change the fact that screwdrivers open cans of paint like a dream, and that simple truth is the crack in Mr. Morris's seemingly immutable idea. These other unorthodox ways to use a screwdriver were discovered after its form was already defined and fixed; they became part of what the tool can do when it was moved out of its design context and the new functions had to follow the already fixed form. See?
So to sum up:
The ability to remove an object from its orthodoxy and expand its definition while leaving its form unchanged is a key part of the process of invention. Therefore whenever function is allowed to follow form, invention must be happening.
Simple, yes? I thought you'd agree :)
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
One for the whiners...
I'm just about done listening to people whine about taxes. Most tax complainers I've had to listen to have plenty of disposable income but still keep trying over and over to make people with less pay for more of what people with more take for granted as there for them for free.
"It's not fair that I should have to pay for things I don't get to use!" OK. Fine. My 8-year-old feels the same way. She still thinks sharing is wrong unless it's someone else sharing with her. She thinks roads and and schools and teachers and cops and all of that are just there for her for free. And why shouldn't she? Mom and Dad take care of all the icky little details she's not mature enough to understand. But you and I, we're not 8 years old and we know that everybody and everything has a price tag. You want to be responsible for the cost of every element of your daily life it's fine by me. But you better stay off of our roads and out of our schools, away from our courts and I better not catch any of you calling 911 to get our police to come bail you out of whatever mess you've gotten into.
But wait... how about this? How about you guys step up and start showing your kids how to share? How about you stop buying things you can't afford? How about instead of yet another plan to regress the tax burden downward so you get to keep all your precious money, you grow up and start showing a little of the conscience that was so severely lacking when the current administration was elected? There was plenty of money to go around until Emperor George spent it all and buckets more on his gunboat diplomacy and economic recklessness. Stop doing what he's been doing and the money will return. You don't think so? Take a look at the National Debt graph (WWII to 2006) on the GAO website and you'll see what I mean. Get smart. Grow up. It costs to be in this club, and we don't pay dues just to make you happy.
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
Update: here's links to the National Debt chart and source data ( I should have added this sooner -- rookie mistake!)
Chart: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Source docs: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/
"It's not fair that I should have to pay for things I don't get to use!" OK. Fine. My 8-year-old feels the same way. She still thinks sharing is wrong unless it's someone else sharing with her. She thinks roads and and schools and teachers and cops and all of that are just there for her for free. And why shouldn't she? Mom and Dad take care of all the icky little details she's not mature enough to understand. But you and I, we're not 8 years old and we know that everybody and everything has a price tag. You want to be responsible for the cost of every element of your daily life it's fine by me. But you better stay off of our roads and out of our schools, away from our courts and I better not catch any of you calling 911 to get our police to come bail you out of whatever mess you've gotten into.
But wait... how about this? How about you guys step up and start showing your kids how to share? How about you stop buying things you can't afford? How about instead of yet another plan to regress the tax burden downward so you get to keep all your precious money, you grow up and start showing a little of the conscience that was so severely lacking when the current administration was elected? There was plenty of money to go around until Emperor George spent it all and buckets more on his gunboat diplomacy and economic recklessness. Stop doing what he's been doing and the money will return. You don't think so? Take a look at the National Debt graph (WWII to 2006) on the GAO website and you'll see what I mean. Get smart. Grow up. It costs to be in this club, and we don't pay dues just to make you happy.
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
Update: here's links to the National Debt chart and source data ( I should have added this sooner -- rookie mistake!)
Chart: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Source docs: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
On Loyalty, Community and Staying Employed
There has been a lot of earnest dialogue lately about company loyalty, and how employees just don't seem to have it anymore. Job-hopping has become the norm, it seems, and retaining quality staff has become a serious issue, something completely unexpected in this new global labor market. Full employment is hard to find these days; with wages being driven down and the cost of living spiralling you'd think those lucky to be fully employed would be more loyal, not less.
But the truth is, in the corporate world loyalty has always been a one-sided affair. The employee is loyal to his company, willing to go the extra mile and make whatever sacrifices are needed to ensure the company's success, yet respectful of the needs of the company. When asked to make the ultimate sacrifice the employee goes quietly, not taking it personally, knowing they were employed at-will and when the company stopped the music their chair would be gone. The company pretends loyalty to its employees by presenting the possibility of a long-term relationship, with a gold watch, a pension and something better than the county rest home at the end, but is never really expected to deliver.
I really don't think it's possible to be loyal to a company. A company is a ghost. All actions taken, positive and negative, are taken by people on behalf of an idea called a company. The "company" is a buffer that allows them to do things they might otherwise not do if they were directly accountable for the consequences. Claiming it was "the needs of the business" or the "company" that ended your ability to participate in the local economy is simply a way for people live with the damage they've done to their friends and co-workers in choosing their livelihood for elimination.
Believe it or not, I'm OK with this. The truth is that in matters of survival each one of us will choose ourself and our families over someone else, so anyone with a conscience will look for a higher reason for pulling the switch on their friends or neighbors. What I'm NOT OK with is the elaborate lengths we've gone to to avoid admitting this simple fact: Employment is survival, and you can't get more personal than that. Whether being offered a job or shown the door you have been chosen personally by other people. At that moment it doesn't matter what they were acting on behalf of or how the decision was reached, what matters is that a person looked at a list of names and selected you personally to either be used or rejected.
The big surprise for me was that once I acknowledged this, once it sank in and I surrendered to the fact of it, staying employed became a fight I could maybe win. I was also able to become a truly loyal employee -- not to the company, but to my colleagues and co-workers, which IMHO is where proper loyalty should be placed.
This is an iceberg issue, though. Getting the participants of the business world to honor the human component of Human Resources with the vigor devoted to the resource component is just a part of it. I think if you peel back enough layers you'll discover that the real cause of all the discontent is that people in general are getting lonely. Look around you and try to find someone whose perceptual back isn't turned, either by their Blackberry or their iPod or cell phone, or the ghost world of the "workplace culture". Visit one of the new mini-mall Town Centers after 8:00PM any evening and you'll find dark streets and empty buildings. The Town Center idea is another bit of collective untruth -- these places aren't built for people to congregate, they're built to bring customers in close proximity to products and we all know this at some level. We don't even talk about people much anymore -- consumers, customers, resources, it doesn't really matter if they're humans or not as long as they have money to be parted with.
We've allowed the daily direct casual connection with other humans that's the foundation of a real culture to be almost completely severed in the name of commerce. To be fair, though, there are some bright spots. I was hanging around our local mini-mall Town Center the other day thinking about this when I noticed a group of 10 or 15 Goth kids sitting around the outdoor firepit-cum-billboard. They were all engaged and interconnected on a level totally unrelated to the purpose of the locale. The little bastards figured out that they wouldn't be run off as long as a couple of them were holding cups from the local coffee bar, which rendered them indistinguishable from actual customers to the security guys. That was more community than I've seen anywhere in the grownup world in a long time, and I wanted to sit down and talk too but the Chains&Studs Hut was closed and I looked too much like somebody's Dad. Maybe next time.
I'm not an axe-grinder, bleeding-heart or streetcorner politician, and I'm not lamenting, just observing. And I'm going to stop here because my point is made. Those of you who are still with me, thank you for listening -- this has been on my mind lately and needed to see the light of day.
Now go outside and talk to somebody.
Peace,
Robert
But the truth is, in the corporate world loyalty has always been a one-sided affair. The employee is loyal to his company, willing to go the extra mile and make whatever sacrifices are needed to ensure the company's success, yet respectful of the needs of the company. When asked to make the ultimate sacrifice the employee goes quietly, not taking it personally, knowing they were employed at-will and when the company stopped the music their chair would be gone. The company pretends loyalty to its employees by presenting the possibility of a long-term relationship, with a gold watch, a pension and something better than the county rest home at the end, but is never really expected to deliver.
I really don't think it's possible to be loyal to a company. A company is a ghost. All actions taken, positive and negative, are taken by people on behalf of an idea called a company. The "company" is a buffer that allows them to do things they might otherwise not do if they were directly accountable for the consequences. Claiming it was "the needs of the business" or the "company" that ended your ability to participate in the local economy is simply a way for people live with the damage they've done to their friends and co-workers in choosing their livelihood for elimination.
Believe it or not, I'm OK with this. The truth is that in matters of survival each one of us will choose ourself and our families over someone else, so anyone with a conscience will look for a higher reason for pulling the switch on their friends or neighbors. What I'm NOT OK with is the elaborate lengths we've gone to to avoid admitting this simple fact: Employment is survival, and you can't get more personal than that. Whether being offered a job or shown the door you have been chosen personally by other people. At that moment it doesn't matter what they were acting on behalf of or how the decision was reached, what matters is that a person looked at a list of names and selected you personally to either be used or rejected.
The big surprise for me was that once I acknowledged this, once it sank in and I surrendered to the fact of it, staying employed became a fight I could maybe win. I was also able to become a truly loyal employee -- not to the company, but to my colleagues and co-workers, which IMHO is where proper loyalty should be placed.
This is an iceberg issue, though. Getting the participants of the business world to honor the human component of Human Resources with the vigor devoted to the resource component is just a part of it. I think if you peel back enough layers you'll discover that the real cause of all the discontent is that people in general are getting lonely. Look around you and try to find someone whose perceptual back isn't turned, either by their Blackberry or their iPod or cell phone, or the ghost world of the "workplace culture". Visit one of the new mini-mall Town Centers after 8:00PM any evening and you'll find dark streets and empty buildings. The Town Center idea is another bit of collective untruth -- these places aren't built for people to congregate, they're built to bring customers in close proximity to products and we all know this at some level. We don't even talk about people much anymore -- consumers, customers, resources, it doesn't really matter if they're humans or not as long as they have money to be parted with.
We've allowed the daily direct casual connection with other humans that's the foundation of a real culture to be almost completely severed in the name of commerce. To be fair, though, there are some bright spots. I was hanging around our local mini-mall Town Center the other day thinking about this when I noticed a group of 10 or 15 Goth kids sitting around the outdoor firepit-cum-billboard. They were all engaged and interconnected on a level totally unrelated to the purpose of the locale. The little bastards figured out that they wouldn't be run off as long as a couple of them were holding cups from the local coffee bar, which rendered them indistinguishable from actual customers to the security guys. That was more community than I've seen anywhere in the grownup world in a long time, and I wanted to sit down and talk too but the Chains&Studs Hut was closed and I looked too much like somebody's Dad. Maybe next time.
I'm not an axe-grinder, bleeding-heart or streetcorner politician, and I'm not lamenting, just observing. And I'm going to stop here because my point is made. Those of you who are still with me, thank you for listening -- this has been on my mind lately and needed to see the light of day.
Now go outside and talk to somebody.
Peace,
Robert
Thursday, April 24, 2008
In God We Trust...
In God We Trust. Should this and other religious references be removed from public places? The role of faith in the culture of the United States is a worthy topic and should be discussed openly and deeply. Unfortunately, the dialog I've been hearing isn't about any of that. It's not even about whether God is even relevant in the modern world. It's just another version of the tired old argument about whose interpretation of God's impact (or lack thereof) on daily life should be memorialized.
It's a religious war masquerading as political discourse, Social Correctness masquerading as The Greater Good. Here's the problem: like it or not, our forefathers all agreed that a higher power was at work in the universe. They also agreed that it would be destructive to the common good to allow any one of the many ways of acknowledging that power to make laws affecting people who embrace the other ways of acknowledgement. The belief that God was at work guiding the hands and hearts of our founding fathers and the recognition that there are many conflicting ways of acknowledging that belief are historical facts, and regardless of whether more recent developments in science or theology have altered peoples' understanding, those beliefs are part and parcel of our culture. I don't know anyone who thinks the face of Zeus should be removed from Greek coins just because he's been replaced by some entity with a Christian name. "In God We Trust" isn't a directive to modern man, it is an expression of part of the belief structure that is our history.
The United States of America came into being during a time where Christianity was rampant in the Western world and belief in a higher power was universal. To remove expressions of that belief from our historical institutions is a crime against honesty. But to try and force one way of acknowledging whatever faith a person may embrace by neutralizing all of them is a bigger crime because it seeks to erase rather than embrace the diversity we all talk loud and long about desiring. How diverse is a culture that can't embrace its own history, let alone its friends and neighbors' right to whatever expression of faith (or lack thereof) they choose?
Diversity is hard. It requires much attention and tolerance from everyone, not just those outside the status quo, and gold is where you find it. Here's one of the principles I learned back when I was a Boy Scout (another much-maligned organization):
A Scout is Friendly.
A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.
We don't need God carved on everything and we don't need God to be removed from anything. We just need to start being FRIENDLY again.
OK. I'm Done.
Peace,
Robert
It's a religious war masquerading as political discourse, Social Correctness masquerading as The Greater Good. Here's the problem: like it or not, our forefathers all agreed that a higher power was at work in the universe. They also agreed that it would be destructive to the common good to allow any one of the many ways of acknowledging that power to make laws affecting people who embrace the other ways of acknowledgement. The belief that God was at work guiding the hands and hearts of our founding fathers and the recognition that there are many conflicting ways of acknowledging that belief are historical facts, and regardless of whether more recent developments in science or theology have altered peoples' understanding, those beliefs are part and parcel of our culture. I don't know anyone who thinks the face of Zeus should be removed from Greek coins just because he's been replaced by some entity with a Christian name. "In God We Trust" isn't a directive to modern man, it is an expression of part of the belief structure that is our history.
The United States of America came into being during a time where Christianity was rampant in the Western world and belief in a higher power was universal. To remove expressions of that belief from our historical institutions is a crime against honesty. But to try and force one way of acknowledging whatever faith a person may embrace by neutralizing all of them is a bigger crime because it seeks to erase rather than embrace the diversity we all talk loud and long about desiring. How diverse is a culture that can't embrace its own history, let alone its friends and neighbors' right to whatever expression of faith (or lack thereof) they choose?
Diversity is hard. It requires much attention and tolerance from everyone, not just those outside the status quo, and gold is where you find it. Here's one of the principles I learned back when I was a Boy Scout (another much-maligned organization):
A Scout is Friendly.
A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.
We don't need God carved on everything and we don't need God to be removed from anything. We just need to start being FRIENDLY again.
OK. I'm Done.
Peace,
Robert
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Opening Day
Hello and welcome.
Wow. Choosing that simple greeting to open this blog was hard. I mean REALLY hard. Harder than I anticipated. Harder than asking that really special girl to dance, harder than a first kiss, harder than Chinese algebra, even harder than saying "I do" when asked "Who gives this woman?" and it's my little girl they're talking about. But I did it, and by golly, now I'm in the fray. Ahead lies a great body of work, archived and waiting for my children or grandchildren to publish in a book, thus guaranteeing my immortality, forever indexed in the great Dewey Decimal System and guarded by that eternal phalanx of attendant librarians. The journey has begun and will continue until it's over, assuming I don't get flattened by a careening truckload of nothing to say, trampled by stage fright, muted by some dread disease or worst of all, ignored along the way. I'll let you know how that's working as I figure it out myself.
About the name
I've always been amazed by fireflies. I grew up in the Rockies west of Denver, 7500 ft. above sea level, where it's too high or cold or too something for fireflies, so I didn't actually see one in person until the summer I went to Kansas. Summer evenings in eastern Kansas are warm and smell like dry grass and alfalfa and the sky's so big you can feel the earth turning underneath you. I was 15 and away from home for the first time, sitting on the front lawn of the dormitory and watching the sun set behind the impossibly tall antenna of the Kansas University radio station when out of the corner of my eye I could swear I saw a little light flash in the grass. As the evening got darker I saw more and more of the little white lights until every time I moved hundreds of them winked and flickered in waves through the grass like the Aurora Borealis, except small.
I was startling the fireflies.
I spent countless perfect evenings that summer on the lawn, watching the little creatures doing whatever it was they were doing, fascinated by their beautiful white light and how they made it without even getting warm. Some woodshedding in the Science section of the University library eventually led me to understand the chemistry of light, photons, excited atoms and what-not, but even science couldn't alter the wonder of that discovery, and it stayed with me, unchanged.
It's possible to make light without making heat.
NOTE: Every now and then you may catch me posting something that makes good heat but sheds no light. For those of you who do: Be direct. Be unvarnished. Call me on it. I've got broad shoulders. Go ahead. Take your best shot...
3... 2... 1...
So there you have it. I made it off of the launch pad in one metaphorical piece, so I'm going to declare this blog open for business. Don't worry -- the format'll improve, and actual topics are already starting to jostle for attention, so check back in a couple of days and see how I'm doing. Until then,
Peace,
Robert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
