Two Happy Guys on Mt. Rushmore

Here is a little squib from the movie, Prairie Home Companion.  Guy Noir (Kevin Kline) was engaging in an extended fantasy about how good the Angel of Death looked when she came to the theater.  We are free to laugh at what he says because we see her on the screen.  She is blonde in a white trench coat.  Period.

Mr. Noir goes on and on about what she was wearing underneath the trenchcoat.  Here’s my favorite.

“She was wearing a Mount Rushmore tee shirt and I’m telling you those guys never looked so good—especially Jefferson and Lincoln.”

Posted in Saturday Evening Post | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Remembering to Leave in Time

I want to raise the question here of how to decide when to go live in a Senior Center of some kind—I’m thinking of a nice generic name like Paleo Acres.  This could be a Paleo Acres; I guess I’d have to find out where it is first.

In preparation for this question, I would like to rule out some other questions.  The first question I am ruling out is whether to go live at Paleo Acres.  I’m sure there are good reasons for living in your own home for as long as you can, but Bette and I have decided not to do (for reasons that will become clearer in a moment), so I am ruling it out as a question that concerns me.

The second, a Frequently Heard Objection, (FHO) is: “I want to stay here as long as I/we can.”  That raises the question of what “can” means.  I don’t think there should be some Old Folks Agency (OFA), measuring whether old people ought to be allowed to stay in their homes and evicting them when the Agency feels some old couple doesn’t meet the criteria.[1]  On the other hand, I have seen old people who clutch their homes as if they were defending them from the Visigoths.  Their attitude is that there are a lot of things about being old that are really difficult, but there is no way we are going to let THEM throw us out.  Since THEM are bad guys, opposing them at all costs is the right thing to do.

Third, the question of “at all costs” introduces us to the question of just who will pay these costs.  I have seen families stretched to and beyond their limits to care for aging and home-bound parents who are “protecting their independence.”  This “independence” requires a thoroughgoing dependence upon a small army of caregivers (mostly family), accountants, nurses, therapists, and maids, but none of those people are THEM so we are still “independent.”  Putting the family through the wringer like that does not seem to me an act a loving parent would choose.

Fourth, there is the matter of “we really like our life these days.”  The thought that comes to my mind when I hear that said—and, occasionally, when I hear myself saying it—is “compared to what?”  There is a way of valuing the way you live now that slides into the sense that the way you are living now is the only way or the best way for you to live.  For that reason, it tends to obscure what would otherwise be obvious, which is that the way you are living is one good way among many possible good ways for you to live.  Is it really reasonable to give up this way only when you have to and to postpone any of the future good ways as if they were illusory?  I don’t think so.  It is natural, but mostly, I think we can do better by thinking it through.

So there are four approaches, chosen at random from a list that could have been a lot longer.  I want to clear those away so I can get a closer look at my own approach, which is: how will I know when the best time is to leave here and move there?  I have thought about this for a while and I have it down to two elements.

The first element is that I want to head off to Paleo Acres when my work is there.  I have a neighbor who is a woodworker.  He has nearly finished entirely re-doing their house: kitchen, floors, cabinets, rec room—nearly the whole house.  His work is where the house is.  That’s where it has to be.  My work isn’t like that.  My work has more to do with ideas and conversations and caring about people and being willing to be cared about and teaching and learning and reading and writing.  And, since I am writing this in March, with NCAA post-season basketball.  Those are my work now, as Bette and I are living here in the only house where we have lived together.  It will be my work then, when we arrive at Paleo Acres.

For me, so far as this first idea is concerned, it’s more a choice of venue.  And “work” is just a metaphor.  I call the whole pattern of working and playing, “work.”  I might just as well call it “the way I live.”  In some settings, I think I would call it my “ministry.”[2] The point of this designation is that I hope to continue doing what I am doing for as long as I am able.  That is what I want in the forefront of my mind.  I want to put the question of where I do it in the back of my mind.

It is going to be easy, in any case, to mourn the loss of familiar surroundings.  Remember that third step that always squeaked?  Remember the show the hummingbirds put on for us when you put out a fresh batch of sugar water?  Remember the sight of the Tualatin Valley in the morning with the fog packed densely over the river and visible hardly at all anywhere else?  Those are all good things and I know that when I leave them, I will miss them.  But imagine what my life would be like if I couldn’t “do my work,” i.e., to “live my life.”  And all the practices that are familiar in that way, I will take with me IF I go soon enough.

The second element points out the advantage of being “there.”  I have no idea, of course, what the physical course of my life will be.  You don’t either.  We all play the odds.  But let’s say I can count on another ten fully functioning years.[3]  If Bette and I go to Paleo Acres when I am 80 and she is 71—the current plan—I am going to be one of the relatively resource-rich people there.  I can go for walks with new friends.  I can drive someone to see a doctor.  I can carry on a conversation about political events.[4] I can remember to bring the beer to the Superbowl party. I can be the one who invites people over to see movies or who serves as the sheepdog of a book group.[5]

If I don’t get there in time—and I won’t if I stay here as long as I am able to— I can’t do those things.  If I wait to go to Paleo Acres until I am no longer competent to live in my present home, I will never be one of those people who helps make Paleo Acres a good place.  I will be someone who benefits from its being a good place, but I will have no part in making it what it is.  I will have no part in making “this is how we do it here” and affirming and clarifying culture.

If I do get there in time, I can belong to the group of people who provide resources.  I will know the other members of the group in that capacity and they will know me in that capacity.  And as I lose my ability to do those things, I will still know these people in that way—because that is who they were when I met them—and they will remember me in that way as well.  I won’t be the new guy who began drawing down the pool of social capital from the day I arrived.  I will be the old guy who served long and well until his abilities began to fail him.

That’s really what I want and if I get there in time, I don’t see why I can’t have it.  But to get there in time, I have to leave here in time.


[1] Presumably these are the same folks who would run the “death squads,” purportedly embraced by Obama’s Patient Protection and Responsible Care Act.

[2] I have been much more tolerant of ministry as a word I could use since I discovered what kinship it has with minus and minor (meaning small).  In fact, if we had a word “admagistrator,” instead of magistrate, using magus (large), it would be the perfect foil for administrator.  So a ministry of small gifts is almost a redundancy.

[3] It’s just a number.  I actually like my life and I would be very grateful to have another twenty years of the kind of life I am living now.  On the other hand, death really isn’t a big deal for me, so it isn’t true that the big thing about “living” another twenty years is that it postpones dying.  I have felt this way in, so far, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Oregon.  I mention those because when I was a mere lad, I read this admonition from the Apostle Paul: “I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” (Philippians 4:11).  There is no way to know for sure just what states Paul had in mind, but my set goes from coast to coast.

[4] You might not think it, knowing that I have been a political science professor most of my life, but I am really good about talking politics with nearly anyone who is willing to be civil about it.  A fair amount of my time in class has been spent constructing structures, within which fairly goofy questions can be treated as sensible and to which answers can be found.

[5] A book group without someone to herd in the stragglers and clarify the reading schedule and the times we are supposed to meet will not be a very long-lived group.  Really, somebody has to do that.

Posted in Getting Old, ways of knowing, Words | 9 Comments

“Loose Talk of War.” Yeah, right.

When a political campaign is at full throttle, it is easy to think that any disagreement is mostly a partisan disagreement.  Given the current disposition of the parties, that would mean an ideological disagreement.  The current exchange on Iran’s nuclear ambitions sounds like that, but I don’t think it really is.  Here’s a thoughtful piece from this morning’s New York Times.

I think the position President Obama has taken is a discretion-enhancing attitude.  This is not at all unusual for presidents, who will be the ones to exercise discretion.  Candidates tend to take a fear-enhancing (on this case) or a condemnatory position.

This means turning the current debate about 85 degrees.  There is not a pro-Israeli party and a pro-Iranian party.  There is not a pro-military position and a pro-diplomatic position.  What we have instead is a position taken by the decision maker, the goal of which is to allow him to juggle all the balls as long as necessary—but without losing the support of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  The Republicans are trying to scare people by imagining forthcoming horrors for Israel and to court AIPAC by taking a more bellicose stand than any sitting president—including any of the current candidates—could afford to take if he was the one who had to make the decision.

This way of looking at things requires the analyst to leave verbal style out of consideration.  No one will deny that Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney have different rhetorical styles and whatever position any of them took on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions would use that style.  Ron Paul appears to have an entirely different position, the headline of which is “I won’t interfere with Israel’s Self-defense.”  I think that means, “OK guys, you’re on your own.”

But if Mitt Romney were president now and the cast of the Democratic party candidates were up against him—Obama, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Edwards, Gravel, and Richardson—they would say the same kinds of things.[1]  They would not necessarily take the position that the Republicans are taking now, but they would take a position that they hoped would have the same effect.  Candidates want to reduce the latitude for decision of the sitting president and to move him away from powerful groups (AIPAC, in this case) and contrary to public opinions.  If President Romney cited the need to consult allies, he would get dinged for failing to put “America First.”  If he directly threatened military intervention, he would get dinged for being a warmonger.[2]

The strong language of the campaign makes this look like a war between Democrats and Republicans.  It is not.  It is not a war, it is a dance.  And it is not between Democrats and Republicans; it is between the “ins,” who get to make the decision, but who are responsible for fifty other decisions at the same time, and “outs” who have no immediate goals except winning.


[1]  I didn’t forget Dennis Kucinich.  I left him out for the same reason I left Ron Paul out.

[2]  Really though, what does President Obama’s “all options are on the table” stand mean except that he will resort to direct military action if necessary?

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

A Defense of Dilettantes

One of the pitfalls of thinking of yourself as “a person who knows things” is that you sometimes don’t have a clear sense of just what it is you know.  I’ve been a teacher for the last fifty years or so and when my attempts to ensnare the students’ curiosity fail, I wind up standing at the front of the room giving the answers to questions very few of the students have asked.  Or, on other days—particularly in lower division university classes—thundering away about some aspect of politics that has agitated me and that could, with some generosity of spirit, be thought to belong within the course I am teaching at the moment.

That much to introduce the idea that when my subscription to A-Word-A-Day popped dilettante up on my screen, I deleted it and went on to more pressing matters.  Fortunately, my brother John knows of my interest in the word and forwarded it to me.  Not, I hasten to say, as an accusation; just as an affirmation that this word has interest for me and that the thought of me when he saw it.  Here is what it said:

MEANING:

noun: One who takes up an activity or interest in a superficial or casual way. adjective: Superficial; amateurish.

ETYMOLOGY:

From Italian dilettante (amateur), from Latin delectare (to delight). Earliest documented use: 1733.

USAGE:

“I long ago came to realize that I am a putterer, a grazer, a dilettante. I create the impression of getting a lot done by dabbling through my days: I read two pages of a book, write half a letter, paint a portion of the front porch, bake half a tin of muffins, teach a class, wash a window.” Robert Klose; Confessions of a Dedicated Dilettante; The Christian Science Monitor (Boston, Massachusetts); May 10, 2004.

Not very attractive, is it?  Obviously, I don’t feel that way about the word or I would not have tattooed it, metaphorically speaking, on my forehead.  Also, it’s not like I feel the word can be refurbished.  It is what it has become.  This post will have abundant illustrations of what it has become.  You get the illustrations by googling dilettante and choosing “images.”

I do think the word could be given a little more fiber, though.  Maybe furbished up a little.  I have two approaches in mind.  The second will be etymological.  I suppose that won’t surprise anyone.  But let’s start with an approach that is, for  lack of a better word, “temporal.”  Robert Klose, in the quote above, has a very short span of time in mind: “two pages of a book” and “half a tin of muffins” and washing a single window.  This is puttering, certainly, but there is no delight in it and I hate to see a line of words deriving from delectare, “to delight,” stoop to simple puttering.

Mr. Klose believes, apparently, that one cannot delight in projects that take longer than washing one window.  A man could not, in this usage, take delight in the times he spent with his children when they were small or the confidences he exchanges with them now that they are large.[1]  He could not take delight in the strength and warmth of his own marriage.  He could not delight in the steady endurance of friends who have hung around in times when that was not easy to do.  He could not delight in the fruits of his own work; neither the slow but growing readiness his students show to question common assumptions or the eruption of new insights.  I’m a teacher, remember.

Someone who wanted to defend the most common notions of what dilettante means would be almost certain to say that words like satisfaction or approval are used to indicate our response to outcomes like those, and he would be right.  But, first, those words don’t mean any more what they have meant over most of their histories and second, those words don’t specify what my own response to those outcomes must be.  Is there any reason, for instance, that I cannot find satisfaction with the way I have parented my children and stepchildren today and take delight in it tomorrow?  I don’t think so.

And if delight is restricted to the first spoonful of the hot fudge sundae or to the reaction to an author’s first page or to the first paragraph (only) of a blogpost, then I can see why “putterer” would be an adequate synonym for dilettante.  But, of course, I don’t see any reason why it should be limited like that.  What shall we do, for instance, if we are “ensnared?”

When I make a reference to the origins of dilettante, I usually stop at delectare, “to delight,” but in a quest for “fiber,” I want to look a little further up the tree today.  The Latin delectare is a frequentative (happens over and over, like the “sparkle,” which is a frequentative of “spark.”) of the Old Latin delicere, itself a combination of de-, “from,” and lacere, “to entice.”  Or, my dictionary says, “literally, to ensnare.”  Now there’s a notion with a little grit in it.

It is not only what I delight in, as a putterer might, but what I am ensnared by.  A snare, let me remind you, is a device for catching and holding; for not allowing to escape.  If we are looking at being ensnared in the context of being delighted, we are looking at something from which one does not wish to escape.  The question of whether I could escape if I wanted to is moot; I don’t want to.

Being enticed and consequently ensnared and consequently delighted sounds pretty substantial to me.  Let’s just say that if you have been really ensnared, you aren’t puttering.  The students I introduced in the first paragraph may or may not have had puttering in mind when they registered for my course, but if I have been able to ensnare their curiosity, to fix and hold it, they are on their way to being dilettantes and I say, “Welcome, there is room for you all.”


[1] These examples are all male examples because I am reflecting on my own life.  I do not mean to imply that women could not take the same kind of delight; only that if it is different from men, I wouldn’t know enough about it to write about it.

Posted in Education, Words | 4 Comments

Republican Polar Bears

One of the most surprising events of recent years is the death by drowning of polar bears.  Polar bears are some of the strongest swimmers in the world of mammals.  Why are they drowning?  Well, it turns out that that as the polar caps melt, the bears have to go farther and farther from their natural home to find food.  Sometimes they make it back safely; sometimes they don’t.

That strikes me as a dilemma unexpectedly similar to what the current crop of Republican candidates face.  Most of the undergraduates I teach don’t know this, but for most of the 20th Century, the Republican party was the party of social moderation and fiscal restraint.  Republican candidates campaigned by referring to their party that way (the G in GOP meant “grand,” although it is hard to remember it today) and promised that, if elected, they would govern that way.

Then the ice caps began to melt.  Party primaries became the principal route to the presidential nomination.  Discussions by party elders in smoke-filled rooms were superceded.  Then, as the parties became more ideologically consistent, the most extreme fringes of the parties took over the presidential primaries.  These extremists have long provided most of the funds and most of the workers for candidates.  Funds and volunteers are the food that has traditionally sustained candidates.  Where does that leave us? 

Any Republican who wants to be president will need to go to where the resources are, just as the polar bears must.  The distance between where the party has always lived–the prudent center–and where candidates must now go to get access to those resources has gotten larger and larger, just as it has for the bears.  Not all the candidates can manage the growing gap between the governing center and the campaigning resources and more and more of them drown in transit.  Actually, some of the best potential candidates decide not to make the trip at all.  If only that were an option for the bears!

There are two ways out of this death swim.  The party elders, if there are still party elders, will need to recover control of the party and choose candidates who don’t have to swim that far to get to the feeding grounds.  That’s probably what will happen eventually, but it isn’t going to be this year.  The second is that Republican moderates (and I know there are still Republican moderates because they complain to me that their party has forsaken them) will flow into the primaries and provide resources closer to the natural home of the Republican party.  “Closer” means that fewer candidates will drown trying to cross the open ocean between where they live–and where they will have to be if they are going to govern–and where they feed, where they must go if they are to endure the grueling nomination process.

Thinking now only of the political side of this analogy, I think that some Republicans–the elders or the voters–will have to find a way to reverse the global warming that has endangered their party.  Either that, or they will need to find a better answer to God’s question to Noah in Bill Cosby’s famous skit: “Noah,” God asks, “How long can you tread water?”

 

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

What Will the General Election Be About?

New York Times CBS Poll

Feb 3—13, 2012

 Registered Voters 1064

Registered Republicans 316

Registered Democrats 368

How is President Obama Doing?

Pretty well, all things being considered. His numbers are nowhere near where they were when he was elected, all promise and post-partisanship. They are better than they were several months ago, however.

50% approve of the way he is handling his job. That was 43% last November. 50% approve of the way he is handling foreign policy. He started at 50% in February 2009; then went as low as 39% (last April) and now is back to 50%. Approval of the way he is “handling the economy” was at 33% last December and is now up to 44%. Approval of his job creation successes is at 41%; his handling of the federal budget deficit at 32%.

People are feeling better about the economy itself, as well as Obama’ s contribution to it. People who think the economy is “very good” are about 1% or 2%. You wonder what line of work they are in. The major categories are “fairly good” and “fairly bad.” 22% are now saying they think the economy is in fairly good condition—up from 10% last September. The “fairly bad” numbers have ranged from 50% to 41% in that same time period. Currently, 46% say things are “fairly bad.”

The next question is whether things are getting better or not. The largest number is people who think things are “staying just about the same,” so I add that number to those who are more positive; then to those who are more negative. People who think the economy is staying the same or improving add to77%; those who think it is staying the same of getting worse add to 65%.

Reelection Prospects

Let me start by saying that the numbers of whichever Republican wins the most convention delegates are going to go up. So any of the current four candidates will be better off than these numbers imply. Here’s why I think that. The number of Republicans who wish there were more choices of Republican candidates are at 62% compared to those who are satisfied with the current field, 32%. To that, add the trait most desired by Republican voters—the quality that is “most important in deciding who to support for the Republican nomination.”

The Republican nominee should be a “true conservative,” 22%. That’s the most important thing among the 316 registered Republicans in the poll. Another 34% say “strong moral character” is most important. The candidate who has had “the right experience” to be President is preferred by 22%. And the ability to beat President Obama, 19%. One fifth of the Republicans polled have the ability to win a general election as the highest priority. The “if the election were held today” question produces victories for President Obama against Ron Paul (50% to 39%); against Newt Gingrich (54% to36%). Mitt Romney (48% to 42%) and Rick Santorum (49% to 41%). So the President beats any of the Republican candidates so long as there are multiple candidates. The numbers will improve a lot for whoever wins the Super Tuesday contests. Currently the people think Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama (55%). Gingrich (15%) and Santorum (14%) are the only others in double figures. People also think that a Romney administration would be much more like the Obama administration than a Santorum administration, a Paul administration, or a Gingrich administration would be.

Another way to come at this question is to see which Republican candidates might be helped by which political emphases. I take it for granted that the worse the economy does, the better it is for any of the candidates, including Ron Paul. A campaign focused on economics would seem to play to Romney’s strength. Economic issues are more important, in deciding whom to vote for, by 69% to 21% for “social issues,” the alternative focus. That’s not good news for Santorum, who is the “values” candidate—39% of the Republican voters in this poll said Santorum represents “the values you try to live by.”

So a campaign focused on the economy in an economy that is not improving would be ideal for Romney. A campaign focused on values, in a climate of opinion where majorities of voters favored the Santorum position over Obama’s would be ideal for Santorum. We don’t know which way the economy is going to go, obviously. We don’t know, just to pick one example, whether a stable government in Greece can be formed and can hold to an austerity program.

We do have some clues about the values end of the spectrum, however. People support “a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover.., birth control” by 66% to 26%. That religiously affiliated employers should be required to provide such plans, 61% to 31%. illegal immigrants currently working in the U. S. should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship 42%, rather than stay as guest workers (22%) or required to leave (30%) Gay couples should be allowed to marry (40%), restricted to civil unions (23%), or receive no legal recognition at all (31%).

And that’s just a sample of the current “values issues.” My guess is that if they are clarified in the general election, support for the conservative options will drop further. That will mean less Republican money coming from social conservatives and fewer Republican foot soldiers from the social conservatives. President Obama is currently picking a fight with the Catholic Bishops, the result of which will be, I think, a growing gap between the political views of the bishops and the political views of most Catholics.

Polls are useful because they point directions. They don’t do any more than that. There is scarcely a Democrat in the country who can start breathing more easily after looking at these polling numbers. On the other hand, if I were the Obama administration, I’d have to say I would rather be in his position than anyone else’s.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Beane Soup 2: Peter denies him thrice

In this series, I am pulling together little fragments of the movie, Moneyball, to form themes that I noticed and liked.  Or maybe I just invented them.  This one has to do with Peter Brand.  Peter is supposed to be the rock on which Billy Beane, the general manager, rebuilds the Oakland A’s.  And he is.  For a while.

Billy meets Pete in Cleveland where Pete has just ended Billy’s attempt to trade for Garcia, an outfielder.  Pete is willing to tell Billy that he ruined the trade because he “likes Garcia.”  But he won’t tell Billy, in a public setting, just why he likes Garcia.  The reason turns out to be that Pete likes Garcia because of the value Garcia can be shown to have using the mathematical analysis Pete knows how to use.  Except that he isn’t allowed to use it in Cleveland.  It scares the baseball people in Cleveland and they shun him.

Pete is relying on an analysis of baseball that in the movie, Moneyball,  is represented by Bill James and that, in the book, Moneyball, has a long and distinguished heritage. The scene where Pete tells Billy the truth about baseball looks for all the world like the Deep Throat scenes from All the President’s Men.  Probably, it is supposed to.  Managers misevaluate and misuse their players, says Pete, because they don’t know any better, but “Bill James and mathematics cuts through all that.”

“Cutting through all that” sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?  I hope it does, because that’s as good as it gets in this movie.

In the scene that caught my attention most recently, Pete is in the unfamiliar position of doing something with what he knows.  Keep “Bill James and mathematics cuts through all that” in the center of your attention.  Now, while you are holding on to that, add the caution, “but if it doesn’t go the way we want…”  Do those fit?

Here’s the context.  Billy can’t get Art Howe, the field manager, to play the people Billy and Pete have chosen.  Billy’s solution to that difficulty is to trade all the people Art is actually playing so he will have to play the new guys.  That means that Carlos Peña has to go and Scott Hatteberg will stay and play first.  Pete has projected that Hatteberg will be better at first.  He gets on base 20% more than Peña does.  That 20% is a reflection of the old “Bill James and mathematics” standard.  It is what Pete ought to be most confident about.

But the prospect of action and—to be fair, Pete’s friendship for Billy—have shaken Pete’s confidence.  That’s why he says that if Billy trades Peña and “things don’t go the way we want…”  Pete really shouldn’t be contrasting “the way we hope things will go” with “the way things will actually go.”  Pete has enemies everywhere and his math—not his hopes– is all he has to go on.

So Billy tries again.  “Do you project we’ll win more games with Peña or with Hatteberg at first?”  You’d think that would be the only question worth asking, wouldn’t you?  It is the only question Pete thought was worth asking until this scene.  “It’s close,” Pete says, “but theoretically, Hatteberg.”  Notice Pete groping again for somewhere to escape.  Theoretically?  Excuse me?  Pete, “theoretically” is all you have to go on.  It is what you sold Billy and it is the current approach of the Oakland A’s.  Theoretically rather than what?  Is there another way to go?

Of course there is.  The “other way to go” is what the scouts have been urging on Billy.  The scouts with their experienced eye and their intuition can tell what young player has the stuff to be an Oakland A.   That is the approach Billy destroyed in his early meeting with the scouts by pointing out that if a player had that much promise, the A’s wouldn’t be able to afford to sign him.  So Pete and “theoretically” are the alternative.

So Pete doesn’t stumble at every question.  When Billy asks him point blank, “Do you believe in this or not?” Pete says, “I do.”  It does seem odd, now that I think of it, that Pete because of his friendship with Billy and because of his wariness of abrupt action could be brought to let go of the one thing that is keeping them all afloat—“Bill James and mathematics.”  But he does.

Just one more thing.  I wrote this post in my head when I was running on the trail in Portland’s Forest Park.  I’m an endorphin runner and when I get high on the kind of painkillers the body produces in those circumstances, I think some odd things.  Mostly I forget them.  Or if not, I have the sense not to publish them.  But this one has continued to please me, so here it is.

In this scene, Peter denies Billy thrice.  Doesn’t that sound familiar?

Posted in Movies, ways of knowing | Leave a comment

So…Mitt Romney hates the poor?

I don’t much like the attention that has been paid recently to Mitt Romney’s comment about the poor.  I don’t much like Mitt either, but this is too much.  It hasn’t been that long since a staffer for an agency in Washington D. C. complained that a particular budget item was “niggardly.”  Among the people who called for his head were people who didn’t know that niggardly is an English word derived from several Scandinavian languages and that it mean “scanty” and “inadequate.”  Others apparently knew what it meant, but thought the staffer should have had better sense than to use a word that could be abused by others.  He was “insensitive,” according to this line of attack.  Not as bad as “racist,” of course, but bad enough to get you fired.

Let’s just agree first on what Gov. Romney said.  He said: I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. … I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. … I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who, right now, are struggling. …

That’s what he said.  When the Obama campaign releases its response ridiculing those lines and focusing especially on the “I’m not concerned about the…poor” fragment, I say, “Oh well, that’s politics.”  When news organizations seize on the same fragment in the same way, I say, “Wait a minute.  Aren’t you supposed to be “reporting” the news?”

To my mind, this is not a test of Mitt Romney.  He is going to continue to say things that bring attention to just the parts of his campaign he wants to mute.  This is about the piling on.  This is about who is a part of the campaign to re-elect President Obama and who is part of the news business.

Here’s a scene from a western that came to my mind as I was reflecting on this episode.  The western is Blue-eyed Devil, by Robert Parker.  General Laird is running for mayor of the town of Appaloosa.  He has hired a gun hand, Chauncey Teagarden, to make sure his opponent doesn’t get nasty.  The opponent does get nasty, of course, since he is the novel’s principal villain.  Here’s the way the scene goes.  A heckler in the crowd yells at General Laird”

“I say you are a back-shooting, barn-burning, gray-bellied coward.  Anybody gonna tell me no?

“I am,” Chaucey said.

“And who the hell are you?”

“General Laird is a gentleman,” Chauncey said.  “He is not a murderous thug.  He is not going to descend to a street fight with you.”

“And you?” the man with the black beard said.

“I am a murderous thug,” Chaucey said.

That is the distinction that interests me at the moment.  I know what Gov. Romney said.  I know what he meant and so does everyone else.  I want to see Mitt’s plans, as they affect “the very poor” examined and I wouldn’t mind seeing them ridiculed.  I am sure they will continue to be ridiculed.  That’s the job of the Democratic Party, of Newt Gingrich (currently) of the committee to re-elect President Obama, and liberal interests all over the country.  They are the murderous thugs.  They have a job to do and boy are they doing it.

But in the interest of public debate, could we just have the news organizations stand pack a couple of feet?  It might give them a little perspective and there will still be room for the murderous thugs.

 

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Beane Soup 1: Billy’s Goal

This is the first of series of stories that purport to be about the movie, Moneyball.  They aren’t really.  Michael Lewis made a collection of narratives out of the experiences of general manager Billy Beane of the Oakland A’s in the book, Moneyball.  Aaron Sorkin made a much smaller collection out of the book for his movie, Moneyball.  But I see so many stories in the movie that interest me.  Some of them are really there.  Some are just hints and allegations of narratives and that I have tied them together because they reminded me of a story.

I’m long past apologizing for all the stories I see in the material others have assembled.  What story it is depends entirely on when you start it—what happened first, for instance.  And who is in the foreground or the background.  And how long the story is.  And who it is “really” about.  So with this post, I begin a series of stories I have, to some extent, “found” in the movie, Moneyball, and to some extend have “extrapolated” from the movie.  My view is that they are all there and I’m just moving my flashlight around from one part of the tapestry to another.

Here’s the first one.  Billy Beane is so much the hero in Moneyball that it is hard to notice how much he changes during the story.  Let’s start with the two scenes that indicate how very successful he has been and we’ll work back from there.  John Henry, the owner of the Boston Red Sox offers Billy the position of general manager after the season described in the movie.  He tells Billy that every team that is not rebuilding itself along the lines of Billy’s strategy in Oakland is a dinosaur and will be left behind by the teams that are following Billy’s lead.  It might be that Billy doesn’t believe that or it might be that he didn’t really hear it.  It is, nevertheless, the goal that Billy was pursuing by the end of that season.  And what was that goal?

Let’s look at the second of the two scenes.  Peter Brand, who is represented in the movie as the genius behind the new way of organizing and deploying baseball teams, is sitting down with Billy after the Red Sox interview.  Peter doesn’t know whether Billy is going to accept the Red Sox offer—Billy doesn’t know either at this point—but he knows that Billy really doesn’t understand the dimensions of the triumph he has just had in Oakland. 

Peter hauls an unwilling Billy off to the film room to show him a clip of Jeremy Brown, an overweight minor league catcher.  Brown is so big and clumsy that he never runs to second base no matter where in the park he has hit the ball, but in this clip, he does.  He rounds first, falls on his face in the dirt, and scrambles frantically back to first base.  Everyone is laughing at him and it takes him a little while to realize that they are laughing because he hit the ball 60 feet over the fence and doesn’t need to scramble back to first.  He needs to take a leisurely and triumphant tour of the bases.  Peter wants Billy to see that clip because he thinks Billy is in the same spot as Brown and doesn’t know how else to say it.  Billy hit a home run, Peter thinks, and doesn’t know it yet.

That’s what the owner of the Red Sox thought, too.  And that’s what Sorkin wants us to think as we watch the story.  It is hard for us, though, because that is not what Billy wanted at the beginning of the season.  When we pick up the story, the A’s have just been eliminated by the Yankees.  The A’s lost their best three players to teams that just outbid them for these players’ contracts.  Billy’s view is that is you don’t win the “last game of the season,” you have lost.  That means you have to win the World Series or you have lost.  That’s a high standard, but the one he adopts as the story develops is a good deal higher.  What Billy comes to want to do is to change the game of baseball.

There isn’t a scene in the movie where Billy realizes that his goals have changed, but there is no question that in the first early scene with the owner of the A’s, Billy says his goal is to win a championship.  After the highlight of the season, winning 20 consecutive games, there is a scene where Billy tells Pete, “I’m not in this for a ring.  I want to change baseball.”

I think that is a remarkable transformation.  He had to overcome the visceral opposition of his scouts.  Maybe that’s what transformed him.  He had to overcome the strongly held views of manager Art Howe.  Maybe that’s what transformed him.  It is a fact, though, that the Billy Beane the movie gives us, wants to succeed at this game in the beginning of the movie and by the end of the movie, he wants to change the game entirely.

I’ve said that Billy demands that his scouts and his manager and his players change the way they think about the game.  It looks to me like Billy changed the way he thought about the game as well.

Posted in Movies, Paying Attention | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Win the Day

What everybody knows is that the attitude with which you approach aging matters a great deal in your experience of aging.  And if you’ve ever tried it, you know that you can’t just “adopt a positive attitude” the way you would put on a new shirt.  Unless, of course, you have the level of arthritis many old hands have and you are unable to button the shirt—in that case, the shirt and the attitude share some attributes a younger shirt-wearer would not expect.

What I know about “adopting a positive attitude” is that the task is made a good deal easier if you can find a metaphor that helps you think it through—or visualize it or extrapolate it or imagine it or whatever you do with metaphors.  A good metaphor, in this sense, is a metaphor that works for you.  You might think of death as “the enemy,” for instance.  You are fighting the good fight, like Roland at Ronceveaux.  You might check off each new disability like so many stops on the train as you near the “station.”  You might celebrate the joys of the wisdom and caring that are your part, in Erik Erikson’s schema at any rate, as an old person in the last stage of life.

Whatever works.  These are not questions of truth and falsehood.  They are questions of utility and effect.

So I thought of one today that I think will be a good one.  I’m the quarterback of a pretty good but banged-up team near the end of the season.  In honor of the victory of the University of Oregon football team in the Rose Bowl this year—the first such since 1917—and particularly in honor of their coach, Chip Kelly, I live by Kelly’s motto, “Win the day.”  “Banged up quarterback” make me think of the Steelers, so I’ll use that as my visual reference.

I really like “Win the day” because it isn’t about game day until game day.  On the first day of spring practice, “the day” is the first day of spring practice.  Here’s what needs to get done today and if you do those things and learn what you should learn from it, you won.  The next job will be to win the next day’s practice, but that’s not until tomorrow.

I like that because I am a runner, although given my times, that is more a courtesy designation than a defensible one.  What I know is that when I set out on a run, I can give it all I’ve got, in which case I will be tired and happy afterwards, or I can pull back more than prudence requires and spend the rest of the day regretting my bad judgment.  I know what “winning the day” is like on the trail.

But now I’m the quarterback of the team.  I know what play has been called, but I also know a lot about the condition of my team.  It is, as I said, late in the season.  I’ve got guys on my team who can’t sleep through the night anymore and who, consequently, are tired a lot.  I have guys whose knees are a little dicey and could run any play I called if it were slow enough.  I have guys who can’t remember the whole playbook anymore.  I have guys whose hands really hurt, sometimes, and who can’t squeeze a pen, much less a football with any velocity on it.  I have guys whose weight has gotten out of control during the season and who can’t do the stuff they could do in spring practice, when a lot of these plays were drawn up.  You get the idea.

So I come up to the line and I look over my players and I see what I’ve got to work with on this play.  That’s my first job every morning.  I look over the players I have to work with and decide on a play.  Ordinarily, I’ve got most of that done by the time I get out of the shower in the morning.

I love all these guys.  They’ve been with me for a long time.  On the other hand, we are not going to succeed if I keep asking them to do things they can’t do (any more).  I want to use their abilities and call plays the will use those abilities.  That’s the only way to succeed as a team.  That’s why I don’t call the plays as fast as I used to.  I stand at the line and watch the clock run down. I give the count, I get the ball, and the day happens—I mean, the play happens.  When I see how well it works, I will know better what play to call next.

I think I like this metaphor.  There are opponents, but there aren’t any enemies.  I’m surrounded by guys I respect, but who have gotten themselves banged up a little during a long season.  I want to count on them to do everything they can—they aren’t going to win the day if they don’t—but I don’t want to make them do things they really can’t do.

They say, you know, that getting old isn’t for sissies.  They got that right.  Oh, I forgot to say, I’m the head cheerleader too.  Not the only cheerleader, I am happy to say, but the most important one.  There is a large array of boosters, but you know how boosters are.  They pay a lot of attention to winning and losing, so they tend to come and go.  Me, I’m more a “Win the Day” kind of person.

Posted in Getting Old | 5 Comments