10 Years On

I was in New York City last week for work and happened to be staying in a hotel downtown that overlooked the World Trade Center site.  I have been down to the site maybe seven or eight times since 9/11/2001, but it had been maybe a year or more since the last time.

I walked over to check out the progress on the construction - which is impressive - and chatted with one of the literally hundreds of construction people in the area.  "Even ten years on," I said to him, "looking at this still gives me chills."  It really does.

"A lot of people died in there," he replied after a moment, "but this," he indicated the buildings going up with a wave of his arm, "is a big 'F*$%  You' to them."

I have to say, I am inclined to agree.  To look around the area - the many city blocks of cranes, hard hats, half-built skyscrapers, eight-story-deep holes in the ground, and memorials both formal and informal - is to see one of the key ingredients of what it means to be American. 

We have always been a country of rebirth, of second chances, of mistakes rectified and odds overcome.  There is a fundamental defiance, and pride, and a whole hell of a lot of back-breaking hard work going into the WTC site.  These are some of the metals that went into the initial forging of America, and it was gratifying to see that we can still build our future with these same ingredients.

We may not be perfect - no one is - but I came away from my trip extremely proud of what America can be, and what Americans can do when they put their minds to it.

Ends and Means

You often hear, "the ends don't justify the means," but I'm not sure that is entirely true. 

Actually, most of the time the ends do justify the means - otherwise, you wouldn't be using those "means" or even putting in the effort to get to a particular "end".  For example, if you need a hole in the backyard (the end) you get a shovel and dig it (the means). 

Really what that expression means is that, "the ends do not justify the use of any and all means to get to them."  In this case, it would be inappropriate to use a bunker-buster bomb to put a hole in your suburban backyard.


So it becomes a question of degree, and that's where it gets tricky.  It is much easier for us to agree when the choices are far apart (use a shovel; use a bomb), but when the choices are much closer together we have a harder time deciding if the means are justified or not.  This is the basis for the slippery slope - a small escalation is ok, but after 50 of them, you have effected a large escalation.

So the question is, at what point do you throw a flag and cry, "no more"?  From a world-stage standpoint, this is a hugely important discussion.  Do you allow Germany to rearm in 1937?  In retrospect, maybe not so great.  Do you allow Saddam to develop WMD?  Again, in retrospect, we should have let that one slide. The problem is that we will always have imperfect information ahead of time, and all choices can go awry. 

On a smaller stage, you are faced with everyday questions like: discipline the kids or let it slide? call out a co-worker or wait it out?  take a public stance on a town issue or work behind the scenes? 

I guess everyone has their own set of tipping points for different issues.  A question: do you consciously choose to cross that line or does it happen without your thinking about it?

The Price of Freedom

Regardless of race, creed, gender, social background or political affiliation, today I hope you take a moment to remember the men and women who have made - and are still willing to make - the ultimate sacrifice to defend others in the name of freedom.

We have not, as a country, always made the best decisions and I guarantee you we will make more mistakes in the future.  Countries are made up of individual people, and people are inherently flawed.  Nonetheless, the price for these decisions - good and bad - has been and will be paid by the members of our armed services.

Thank you for your  courage, commitment and sacrifice.

For those of you interested in history, here are some excellent books with a military bent:

     

Jazz Brunch

Sunday mornings are perfect for making a big, lazy breakfast while jazz plays in the background and people wander into the kitchen to graze on bacon and pastries.  Picking just the right jazz album for that particular morning is, in itself, a pleasure.

However, there was a time not all that long ago when I did not know a single thing about Jazz (with a capital "J").  However, despite the fact that I considered myself fairly well-traveled musically (at least from a rock / pop standpoint), jazz scared the crap out of me.

Not only was I completely ignorant but I also had no idea how to attack the genre - who do you buy first?  What is accessible but not terrible?  Should I really buy an album with 2 songs of 25 minutes each?  Which instruments will I like - guitar, piano, sax, vibraphone?  What the hell is a vibraphone, anyway?  What era of jazz?  What style will I like - bop, acid, funk, dixieland, etc. etc.

After much vacillating, I gave up and asked my father-in-law, who happened to have a lifetime of jazz-listening behind him.  For Christmas one year I asked him to get me started and he did and I've never looked back.  Here are some of the albums he has sent my way over the years, in case you are interested in jumping into the jazz-end of the pool - these are all still in my top-10:

       













Starting with any or all three of these will get you off in the right direction.  Enjoy your Sunday!

Temper Tantrums

I don't know about you, but I kind of enjoy (in a guilty pleasure sort of way) throwing a temper tantrum.  Even at age 40 there is something selfishly satisfying about having a mighty hissy fit.

Of course, others (read: my children) having a tantrum is basically unacceptable.  Tantrums are one of those, "do as I say, not as I do" type activities.  And I know I should know better as an adult, but isn't one of the prerogatives of being an adult having the ability to chose when not to act like one?

Not every day, or all the time, mind you - but the strategically placed tantrum can really help you blow off some excess steam.  Is that really so bad?

Performance Anxiety

Performing is a funny business. 

If you were to ask someone what they thought 'performing' is, you might get answers like, "being on stage" or, "doing some sort of art (acting, singing , dancing, etc.) in front of others - either a live audience or a camera for audiences later."  Or, "playing your sport well".

These definitions are sure correct, but, I would argue, too narrow.  The concept of 'performance' has several key elements:

• An individual is expected to do something specific - act, sing, score a goal, close a sale, teach a class
• Someone (or many someones) will be watching
• The individual must execute the task, in the moment, 
• The individual should execute successfully - though 'successfully' can have many forms and interpretations

As such, I would argue that we are all of us 'performing' all the time, every day - even when we are alone.  At all times we are expected to do something specific (work, parent, relax, eat, sleep, etc.); someone is always watching (we also watch ourselves when alone); we are forced to live in the moment; we all want to succeed at everything we do.

What I find interesting is that extremely competent and accomplished people often freeze up with terror when you ask them to 'perform' in front of a live audience.  I see this every time I teach Improv.  Now, I agree that performing in front of people can be an incredible rush or an abyss of terror.  In fact, I would argue these are two sides of the same coin - it is the fear that creates both the rush and the terror, much like riding a roller coaster.

I break out the components of performance above because each one can contribute to the overall fear which is ultimately a fear of failure (or embarrassment, which is fear of being found out to be a failure).  For some the fear is very specific - "I can do this in rehearsal, but I am terrified of having to execute in the moment."  For others the fear is distributed across several or all of the components.

When teaching Improv, I try to point out to people that they are, in fact, performing all the time, 24/7.  This sometimes helps people get over their fear of Performance (with a capital 'P') by understanding that being on stage in a theater is just a specialized version of 'being on stage' in your real life.  And since you don't walk around all day in a state of paralyzing fear, you shouldn't on stage either.

Ultimately, the goal is to get people to accept that the fear of failure is a force for good rather than bad.  If you embrace that fear and use it to energize and motivate your performance, you will be successful, even when your performance isn't perfect.  It's a trick of finding the right balance between being scared enough to have butterflies in your stomach and being confident enough to (a) know you can 'do it' as well as (b) be able to process it when you don't.

Of course, this is always easier said than done - but if it were easy, then we would all already be doing it right...

Gamesmanship

Friday night I drove the kids up to their soccer practice / clinic at our local school fields.  Due to a number of baseball, softball and lacrosse games going on in addition to the clinic, there were virtually no open parking spots.

Well, that's not entirely accurate.  I did spot one, right in front of the field my kids would be playing on. Perfect, except that the red sedan to the left of it had pulled in haphazardly and was way over the line - effectively taking up two spots instead of the more traditional one.

Now I don't know about you, but I get exceptionally irked by the "lazy / selfish / incompetent" parker.  I mean really inordinately annoyed.  One might say I over-react.  But you know what?  I disagree with that assessment.  Taking up an extra parking spot - especially in a full lot - is a brazen, very public middle finger to everyone else looking for a spot. It's as bad as taking a Handicap spot when you are in no way - other than perhaps ethically - handicapped.

As a Selfish Parker (SP), you clearly defy convention in full view of your fellow humans.  We can all see that (a) you parked diagonally across two spots and that  (b) you don't care that we can all see it.  This was also  a conscious decision - in fact, one that requires your deciding twice to do this:

1. "I will park there, but because my needs are more important to me than the needs of others, I will pull in without care."
2. "Oh look, my disdainful approach to lined spots has resulted in my inadvertently taking up two spots in this otherwise crowded lot.  That should be fine.  I'm all that matters.  Screw everyone else."

Usually when I come across these random selfish parking situations, I immediately drop into a rage-induced fugue state where I envision all sorts of appropriately Tarantino-esque responses - like a sort of insane Walter Mitty (Secret Life of Walter Mitty and Other Pieces (Penguin Modern Classics).

This time, however, it looked like I could maybe - just maybe - squeeze the minivan in, which I did, though it was perilously close to the SP's red paint job.  One good public and aggressive statement deserves another!

Given the ridiculously poor weather, I chose to stay in the car and work on my laptop... and keep an eye out for SP.  Eventually she showed up and was extremely annoyed with me for having parked so close to her precious K-car, and for making her pay close attention while backing out.  She gave me just one dirty look though, which I returned along with a gesture which indicated, "park better next time, you miserable scapings of leftover pig-trough leavings."  I think she got the gist of it, if not the direct translation.

So... isn't this really how Nations behave towards each other, only writ small?   "Your citizens are boycotting our cheese so we are going to slap import duties on your wool." Or perhaps, "You parked your battleship too close to my Spratly Islands, so I'm going to shoot missiles near - but not at - you."  And, "Do you mind if we ship some nuclear bombs into your backyard, just off your coast, in Cuba?"

How and when we decide as individuals and nations to draw a line in the sand - to say "here, but no further" - is a crucial question, with continuing relevance.  Yes we will help bomb Libya, but not Syria.  Yes we will threaten North Korea, but not the Ivory Coast.  I am not saying these were bad decisions or good ones.  I'm just suggesting that we all need to think carefully about which situations call for pulling our stick out and dragging it along the ground in front of our opponent.

Ultimatums raise the stakes and can provide the energy to push a situation out of stable orbit and spiraling out of control.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't draw those lines, just that you should do so with eyes wide open, and with good reasons in order to justify what might come next.

Also, in the meantime, can we all just remember the "one car, one spot" rule?

Yes, and...

Mission for a Rainy Day:

I charge you, dear reader, with making a conscious and concerted effort today to saying "yes, and..." as often as possible, in every situation that you can. "Yes, and..." is one of the fundamental principles of Improvisational Comedy (think "Second City" and "Whose Line Is It Anyway"), and it is shorthand for the practice of Agreement on stage.

Improv is theater without a script, where the lines, scenes, stories and situations invented in the moment by the actors on stage.  While technically everything is permissible on stage, there are some commonly understood rules of engagement for the actors - the first of which is Agreement.

When building something together on stage, saying, "no," effectively kills the scene - this is called 'blocking'.  For example:

"Hey Fred - let's go to the Mall and fill out get you to fill out that job application at The Gap."

"No.  We should go to the Grand Canyon."

.....>crickets<.....

You can see how the story dies with the blocking of the initial idea.  Let's replay but remove the blocking:

"Hey Fred - let's go to the Mall and fill out get you to fill out that job application at The Gap."

"Sure!  And then I can avert my eyes while you shoplift clothes."

Clearly, the second version will make for a much more interesting scene and story. 

This works in real life as well.  When a friend, colleague, partner, child suggests something to you today, before answering out of instinct, take an extra beat, review when you were about to say, and then make sure your answer agrees with and adds something to the suggestion.

This does not mean you should let, say, a child do whatever she wants.  Rather, find a way to agree with the spirit of the request without allowing something inappropriate.  If your daughter asks to jump off a bridge, say "Yes! And let's land in a lake of pudding."  You can then jump off the couch and initiate a fun imagination game with her.


So - go out there, take an extra moment, and try to agree with as many things as possible today.  I think you will be pleasantly surprised with where this approach takes you.

For a fantastic introduction to Improv, I suggest Truth in Comedy: The Manual for Improvisation - Great stuff.

Nature, Nurture, Nudge?

One of the topics we keep returning to on Date Night, or on those other rare occasions when unfettered adult conversation can occur, is whether or not to push the kids in a particular direction, for which reasons, and how hard.

For example, let's say you introduce your daughter to swim lessons, and she enjoys them.  Now let's say that the coach comes to you one day and says, "You know, Mathilda there has some real talent.  You should enroll her in my "L'il Dolphins competitive swim team."  You ask Mathilda, and she's game, so you pull her form community swim lessons and put her onto the team.

For a while she loves it - new people, excellent coaches, one-on-one attention, the thrill of competing.  However, after a few months, the shine rubs off the practices and she starts complaining that it's "boring".  Also, that it is "hard" and "no fun".  Mathilda goes to a few meets.  She wins a race in her first one, but finishes middle-on-the-pack in the others.  It turns out the other kids are also pretty good, and have been at it longer than she.

Now her resistance grows and you begin to have fights with her over going to practice, and meets, and her bad attitude, and you remind her she made a commitment to the team and the coaches and that members of this family never quit.

But then, over some Thai food on Date Night, you and your husband talk it through - Mathilda is just being lazy. She needs to learn the value of pushing through adversity to succeed in life.  Her commitment to the team is a promise that should not be broken.

...Or maybe she has swum long enough now that she had concluded she really does not like being in the pool.  Perhaps she also needs to learn when to stop banging her head against a wall and to walk away gracefully.  It is also possible that she did not really understand the implications of her "sure, I'll join a team" when asked.

What do you do, as parents?  Exposing your children to a variety of activities as they grow seems to make good sense.  Providing them with the opportunity to pursue those activities that they enjoy and have some aptitude for also makes sense.  But here's where it gets tricky - and where you need to ask yourself what your ultimate goals are - with the activity specifically, and for your kids' growth overall.

Success at any level requires a significant commitment and considerable sacrifice of time, energy and passion.  Can 9-year-old  Mathilda really comprehend the significance of that sacrifice and commitment?  I'd say no.  Therefore, as the parent(s), do you push them to break through their initial resistance so that they can take their skills to the next level?  If so, at what cost?  How do you identify the point at which the cost to the child and the family is greater than the likely outcome down the road?  Very difficult calculus to do.

While I have no actual data on this, I'd venture that every single Olympic champion or concert pianist or successful business owner would say that they would not have made it to the top without someone helping to push them up there - to keep them focused and driven and on-point.

Again, as a parent you have to ask  what your goals are - are you training a concert pianist or Olympic swimmer?  Or are you trying to mold a well-rounded kid who is solid at many things, but maybe not excellent at any one?  Let me be clear, I am not saying one is better than the other, just that the question should be asked - and answered - so that you know where an activity, and your parenting, is heading.

Battlefield Lessons

I am  not sure why, but I am thinking this evening of our troops, and of the battles they find themselves in all around the world.  I was never in the Armed Forces, though my Dad was in Korea in a tank; I have friends who have served (are still serving) in Iraq and Afghanistan; and my cousin is engaged to a West Point grad who will be shipping out all too soon.

One of the reasons I am drawn to reading history, and about battles in particular, is that the most epic of events comes down to individual people choosing to do extraordinary or cowardly or unexpected things.  In, An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943, Volume One of the Liberation Trilogy, Rick Atkinson quotes Brigadier General Lucian Truscott Jr. on this very topic: 

"One of the first lessons that battle impresses upon me is that no matter how large the force engaged, every battle is made up of small actions by individuals and small units"

There are many lessons to take away from the crucible of battle.  Atkinson writes:

In the first hours of the war, [Major Bob] Moore has learned several vital lessons that thousands of other American soldiers were also learning around the rim of Africa.  Some lessons were fundamental: stay low; take a few extra moments to study the map before setting off.  But others involved the nature of combat and leadership: a realization that battlefields were inherently chaotic; that improvisation was a necessary virtue; that speed and stealth and firepower won small skirmishes as well as big battles;l that every moment held risk and every man was mortal.

I wonder whether these lessons can truly be learned without actually having to be in battle.  Does depth of understanding really only come with the depth of the experience?  Do low stakes result in low impact? 

While civilians like me may never fully understand what a firefight brings out in people, there are many kinds of battles, and many ways to be tested in life.   In any case, here is a raised glass to our troops, and to everyone else who fights the good fight in their own way, and on their own terms.

Statesmen or Prophets?

Would you rather have statesmen or prophets in charge of foreign policy?  Consider this assertion by Henry Kissinger, in his book Diplomacy (A Touchstone book), regarding the differences between Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson:

But, then, he [Roosevelt] was the warrior-statesman; Wilson was the prophet-priest.  Statesmen, even warriors, focus on the world in which they live; to prophets, the "real" world is the one they want to bring into being. (p.47)

 In other words, are we better off following the realpolitik course that emphasizes power, material considerations and an "every nation for itself" world view or should we pursue an idealized international order that brings out the best in humanity?

On the one hand, there will always be evil, selfish and unreasonable people who refuse to "play by the rules".  Today, we label many of these people terrorists.

On the other, as John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1630, "For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."  America stands for something better, and demands it of its citizens at home and the world at large.

However, ideals don't stop people from dying, and a case can be made that strength makes peace.  Strength without compassion, though, breeds fear, resentment and hate.  Is there a middle ground we can hold that is alert to the worst in people while simultaneously demonstrating the best? 

Seek the uncomfortable truth

One of the biggest challenges we face as individuals and as a society is breaking through established beliefs, prejudices, assumptions and perceptions.  Too much time is wasted by people, groups and governments categorically refusing to see the truth in the data.  As Robert Laughlin said on pg. 116 of A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down":

'The more important matter is that ideologies preclude discovery.  All of us see the world as we wish it were rather than as it actually is, for it is in our nature, but we need to keep in mind that this is a design flaw of the human mind and resist it if we can.  Seeing through ideologies and debunking them is what real science is all about.  Mental life in general, actually.'

For examples, think of the Catholic Church's refusal to accept a helio-centric view of the solar system; or of the derision poured upon the founders of plate tectonics; or today the scorn and condemnation of stem cell research and the theory of evolution.    This tendency is still very much alive and with us, at every step of the journey.  Be aware.

Entanglement

This blog will touch on many seemingly unrelated subjects, but there is a fundamental structure here.  I want to investigate and shine a light on any and all topics that could spark a great conversation.  I define a 'great conversation' as one that:

• Defies resolution into a clear answer
• Admits to at least two legitimate interpretations or points of view
• Incites passion amongst the speakers
• Uncovers unexpected connections, thoughts or facets through the process of exchanging ideas and viewpoints
• Teaches you something
• Can be ended amicably
• Stays with you long after the discussion itself is over

In fact, one could probably argue that the question, 'What makes a great conversation?' might itself be a great conversation...

To be clear, no particular agenda will be pushed here - ideas, viewpoints, counter-points, theories - yes.  Absolute decisions and final indisputable thoughts - no.  Conversations, not conclusions.  Besides, undisputed conclusions are not very interesting - it's the unknown, and more importantly, the unknowable that sparks great discussions.

As Eric Schneider and Dorion Sagan write in their book, Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life on pg. 59:

"As Einstein pointed out, the most mysterious thing about the universe is that we can comprehend it at all.  Part of the problem may be that we are in the particular structure we are trying to observe and can thus only ever get a partial representation of it.  If we understand it in one way, we may have to forfeit understanding it in another way: we are not on the outside, but pieces in the very puzzle we are trying to assemble."

 Entanglement indeed!