Quote of the Week...from Stephen King

I was "in" enough to get along with people. I was never socially inarticulate.  Not a loner.  And that saved my life, saved my sanity.  That and the writing.  But to this day I distrust anybody who thought school was a good time.  Anybody.                             ---Stephen King.

Stephen King, my all-time favorite author, turned 71 today and I thought I might take advantage of the occasion by quoting him on something.  The above comment of his made an impression on me in a couple of ways...my complete divergence from his experiences in school and my complete agreement with his assessment of our respective experiences.  Stephen, you can trust me: school for me was anything but a good time...but I wasn't "in" enough to get along with people, I was always socially inarticulate, and was one of the biggest loners around.  But the fact that I am wired a bit differently and see things from another perspective got me through those horrific years, having long given up on ever getting any positive social reinforcement from others be they classmates or teachers...and I didn't write back then, either. And, like this wonderful author whose birthday I'm celebrating, I did not believe that I was the only one suffering through school, either: I saw misery, humiliation, fear, and loneliness pervade the souls of so many of my fellow students...it's hard to come out of those years without having a cynical worldview as well as a sad kind of empathy for broken people.  Yet, as ol' Johnny Cougar once sang, life goes on, long after the thrill of living has gone...we need to now take our lives one day at a time and live in the present.  I've seen a few South Park episodes and tend to identify with the Goth Kids whenever they're featured...to me nothing would have been more appealing back then then to stay up late at night at some all-night diner with my fellow malcontents, swilling black coffee and railing about how awful everything is.  Yes, that's one group...had it existed when I was going to school...that I just might have fit in with...

Quote of the Week...from Derek Jeter

There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do - and I believe that.                                ---Derek Jeter

One of the big reasons that I still root for the New York Yankees is that Derek Jeter played out his major league career there...he was my favorite baseball player during his tenure from 1995 through 2014.  Now he is part-owner and CEO of the Miami Marlins, determined to make that franchise a winner...good luck with that, Derek! And about those Yankees, "my" team in this years Major League Baseball playoffs...congratulations for defeating favored Cleveland after being behind two games to none...

As for Derek's quote, I agree that he believes what he says and has played his baseball career with fervor and integrity.  Hard work often more than makes up for a lack of talent...at least until you get to the elite level in an endeavor: sorry, but concert pianists, singers, and professional athletes need that giftedness as well...Derek Jeter was also a gifted player.  Still, his quote has broad applications to our everyday lives.  I know people around me who are serious about working hard, and I greatly respect them for that.  There are some reactions, though, that I'd like to bring up about this topic...

Part of "working hard", in my opinion, is prayerful reflection on my priorities and exactly where I should be directing my efforts.  In the workplace this is a no-brainer: I should always work hard at my job...end of that discussion. But it's also important to make a personal assessment of my own interests and goals...and not let myself get distracted with expending too much time and attention on extraneous or trivial matters.  Also, working hard does not always match up with results: if I always evaluate my progress in an area by the instant feedback I receive, I'm bound to be disappointed and discouraged...instead just work hard and let the results take care of themselves.  And whenever I do get a reputation as a hard-worker, in a funny sort of way that seems to open me up for criticism by others, some of whom are jealous, others who don't want to be shown up for their own lack of motivation...and still others who want to assure me that my efforts are misplaced and I should be working in a "higher" venue elsewhere doing something different.  And then there's the fact that past accomplishments breed future expectations: if you don't want people paying too much critical attention to you or expecting more good things from you, then don't work hard at anything!  But what kind of life is that? 
   

Quote of the Week...from Senator Bill Nelson

One of the great privileges of being a part of the Senate, it being the greatest deliberative body in the world, is out of the discussions of ideas, hopefully truth can ultimately be achieved.
                                              ---Bill Nelson.

Bill Nelson is one of the two United States senators from my home state of Florida.  Originally a Democratic congressman who once flew on the Space Shuttle back in the 1980s, he is a staunch advocate for our space program and for Florida's future role in it.  He also is very strong on national defense, the environment, the rights of seniors...and above everything, the interests of the state he represents.  Although Nelson's speech mannerisms can be at times a little irritating, their content is almost always spot on, making him one of the few politicians on Capitol Hill that I consistently agree with.  He's up for reelection next year, and most Floridians are anticipating that Republican lame duck governor Rick Scott will run against him, making the contest a most difficult one to win.  The above quote, reflective of Nelson's three terms of service in the United States Senate, is once again totally true...and you can test its validity out as C-Span 2 shows its floor proceedings live...

If you're like me and sick and tired of the talking media heads spinning the issues out of control...both from the "left" and "right"...then maybe you'd appreciate a more dispassionate setting where those same issues can be discussed and debated in a civil manner, and without the participants interrupting each other and flying off the handle.  In the Senate there is a deliberate atmosphere of comity, and the senators are constantly referring within their speeches to the opposition party as "our friends across the aisle".  That doesn't mean that they aren't fully committed to promoting their own viewpoints and criticizing the others': it means that within this setting, at least, personalities are deemphasized while the issues at hand, with their various ramifications, get the deserved center stage...

I have been following the Senate on C-Span 2 since 2001...one of my first experiences was of an eloquent and persuasive speech by Senator Jeff Sessions, now our attorney general.  Over the last sixteen years there has been a lot of turnover in this body, but I have made it a point to know all of the senators by name, state, and appearance...and a little about each one's politics and speaking styles.  I was a little distressed by the recent Republican primary loss in Alabama by Luther Strange to Judge Roy Moore...I got to like "Big Luther"...as the president accurately depicts him...for his gentle politeness as well as when he would preside over the Senate.  So in a way, the personalities are still there...but on the floor the talk is all about the issues, which is the way I wish the media in general covered politics.  Notice that in this article I've praised both Democratic and Republican senators...that's because, my political leanings notwithstanding, I've come to greatly respect...and even like...these people.  I'm a firm believer that gentle, reasonable persuasion can change hearts much better than can smears and hyperbole...although the last presidential election didn't exactly bear that out, did it...

Attractive [Personality] Models, Part II

Back a couple of years, I ran across a book written by ultra-marathon distance runner Dean Karnazes about his passion for this sport, aptly titled Ultramarathon Runner.  The book is more or less a rough autobiography of "Karno", as he is popularly known, as it relates to his running.  One thing that stood out in this account was this individual's very strong sense of purpose and determination when it came to identifying his goals and then acting upon them, regardless what anyone around him said about their attainability.  His philosophy mirrored that of one of his early running coaches: go all out from the very beginning until the finish, and if you have anything left at the end...then you didn't try hard enough!  Well, I think in order to live my life in this matter, I would need heaping amounts of both courage and faith in my eventual success in the face of the inevitable pain, exhaustion, and discouragement that heady, even sometimes outrageously ambitious undertakings can  elicit.  But I think that it has been these very factors, which would filter out most of us, that has motivated Karnazes in his efforts.  For he believes that his courage and the triumph of his doggedness WILL achieve success.  Period.  Karnazes hasn't just done this with his running exploits: he has also overachieved both in college, as a corporate executive, and as an independent entrepreneur. 

Do I personally know others like Karno? Not exactly: I know many people whose determination to achieve a difficult goal has been inspirational, but I couldn't really say that it was a defining characteristic of their personality.  And perhaps this, realistically, is where I would want to emulate someone like Mr. Karnazes...by identifying some specific areas in my life that I strongly desire to achieve greatness in and then pouring on the effort to go full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes!   

Charlie S's Personality

Extreme personality types like Charlie Sheen are almost like a drug in our society. The reason some people like to watch his rambling, manic, and almost incoherent interviews is that it gives them a sense of superiority and security to know that, at least, THEY'RE not that screwed up! Truth be told, though, I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact that many of us identify with Mr. Sheen; but through our own life experiences and conditioning we have learned to control how we express ourselves, knowing that only trouble could result in our lives if we didn't.

Egomaniacs and paranoids go hand in hand and may even be seen as flip sides to the same personalities in one individual. The common thread is an almost solipsist mentality: that one, while not being the universe itself, is at least the obvious focus of everything. When an egomaniac or a paranoid walks into a room where others are present, both presume that they are the automatic focus of everyone's attention. With one, the personal reaction is positive; with the other, it is negative. With Charlie Sheen, he seems to simultaneously take on both roles. He speaks as if he already knows the thoughts of those talking with him before they say anything. And by the way, there's no point in moving the conversation toward asking how anyone else is doing: there's only one person who counts!

My life, from time to time, has been cursed with people who have decided, like Charlie Sheen, that their personal narratives and opinions are the only thing that matters. Consequently, the only sustainable (but unsuitable) way I can interact with them is by nodding in agreement and offering terse affirmative interjections. I say terse because with these types it is difficult for me to even get a coherent phrase into the conversation, much less a complete sentence. And if I should accidentally let it slip out that I actually DISAGREE with any element of their idiosyncratic worldview... no matter how respectfully I express that disagreement...then they see that as a personal insult to them!

I see some tendencies of this narcissistic personality type within myself, unfortunately. But having experienced unrestrained behavior of the sort from others with makeups similar to Sheen, I have learned how offensive and demeaning openly expressing it can be, so I consciously try to avoid it. Instead, I deliberately look for things in others' lives that I feel they are interested in themselves and about which I feel enough interest to use as conversational themes, with me trying to be a good listener. Too bad Charlie and his types in my life never seemed to learn that. It reminds me of a line in Max Ehrmann's Desiderata:

Avoid loud and aggressive persons: they are vexatious to the spirit.

Olbermann Vs. Hannity

From time to time, I'll watch some of the different cable news stations at night. There is a wide variety of "hosts" for stations like CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, and MSNBC. Almost all of them happen to be conservative. The most blatantly hard-line conservative of these has to be Fox's Sean Hannity. But there is one unabashed liberal as well: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (I consider Alan Colmes on Fox to be more of a centrist than a liberal). So I thought it would be interesting to compare the two.

Being generally a little on the left side of the center politically, I think it's only fair to lay that out when making my comparisons. Be that as it may, overshadowing the fact that he is one of a rare breed (liberal commentator), Keith Olbermann is, to me, a thoroughly obnoxious character. His segment titled "Today's Worst Person in the World" is actually the highlight of his show! He seems to derive some kind of perverse pleasure in deriding irrelevant personalities like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton for several minutes at a time as well. And his bombastic "open letters" to President Bush are so loaded with spite that it's hard for me not to break out in laughter at his style. But my biggest criticism of Olbermann is that he seems to only interview like-minded liberals on his show and not conservatives. So, very often you'll see a split screen with Olbermann running his mouth about something and his always-agreeing guest in the right screen, smiling smugly and nodding his or her head like one of those old bobbing dog decorations. This is really sad, since I happen to agree with this host on most of his opinions!

Sean Hannity, on the other hand, is equally as obnoxious as Keith Olbermann, but in different ways. Most of my exposure to him is in the format of his syndicated radio show, although I've seen him at times on TV. His line with callers is "You're a great American", which apparently has something to do with being a conservative (apparently liberals must conversely be BAD Americans). But whenever a caller reveals disagreement with Hannity or shows a liberal bent, Hannity morphs into a rude rant, frequently interrupting the caller and barraging him or her with insulting name-calling in the manner of an interrogation, not a conversation. That's for the callers (us "little people" out there). To Hannity's credit (and this is what sets him apart from Olbermann), he invites and treats with respect guests of all sides of the issues that he's discussing. And then you can get a real debate on some topics. I've yet to see Olbermann get someone on his show with whom he was strongly at odds with. That isn't to say that one hasn't accidently slipped through from time to time, though.

Both Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann have a problem, as I see it. And it is basically that, if you agree with them, then you're a good guy. And if you disagree with them, then you're either bad or stupid. I would much prefer to watch someone like Chris Matthews, who is not only very knowledgeable and fair in his on-air dealings with others, but also has a terrific sense of humor. The "humor" of Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann is a nasty, cruel, mean sort of thing which is derived from insulting and ridiculing those with whom they differ. But this kind of style apparently sits well with many "Great Americans" out there, since these two hosts seem to be among the most popular as well.

Christopher Hitchens

I recently witnessed a C-Span interview with renowned author/editor Christopher Hitchens. I must be really out of touch with the “intelligentsia”, because up until this show, I had never heard of him. He is certainly an interesting character, to say the least.

Christopher Hitchens is currently an editor with Vanity Fair and writes for Free Inquiry, a magazine promoting skepticism. He has been a very outspoken individual on the subjects of socialism (he was an advocate of Trotskyism), religion (he is an anti-organized-religion atheist), and the Iraq War (he supported it, to his leftist colleagues’ dismay). In everything, he has a very blunt, direct, albeit honest style has its appeal, regardless of the merit of his expressed opinions. Hitchens is currently featured in a Newsweek magazine article highlighting his long-time criticism of Mother Teresa’s legacy in Calcutta, India. Hitchens believed that she hurt the people she was supposedly serving by exalting their poverty while simultaneously keeping the women there in an oppressed state by opposing any contraception and emphasizing their subservient role. He has stated that to believe that a God responsible for the creation of the entire universe is attentive to a believer’s individual prayers is extremely narcissistic and unhealthy. He has characterized Billy Graham as “evil”, particularly in his recruitment of young people to a belief system that Hitchens says Graham no longer believed in. He accused Graham of being a convenient public relations buffer between Presidents and their troubles that they accrued in office. Hitchens is merciless with his denunciations of Mormonism and Scientology. But he saves his greatest criticism for extremist Islam. Hitchens believes that the followers of Al-Qaeda and other extremist Islamic groups are bent on world domination, and to see the recent terror attacks and wars as a reaction to perceived Western or Israeli “aggression” is delusional and dangerous. This is why he has supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, a view that has distanced him from other leftist intellectuals. Hitchens also has claimed that, although Bush has claimed adherence to evangelistic Christianity, he has done more than any other President in actually bringing about a more secular society. After 9/11, Hitchens, originally a British subject, filed for citizenship here and has become an American citizen.

Christopher Hitchens, with his denunciations of organized religion, sounds like he is standing up for people who are in the face of manipulation and abuse. But his admiration of Leon Trotsky, who is culpable in the mass murder of thousands, if not millions, is inexcusable. I am personally tired of people who exalt characters such as Trotsky, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong, all of whom believed that the ends justified the means and that, and that in order to effect a revolutionary change in society, many would have to die (and did).

I found, by watching this interview, that Christopher Hitchens is an honest, albeit arrogant and sometimes rather obnoxious person who tends to act as if he is sitting on the throne of judgment, in charge of dispensing verdicts regarding those whose lives he has crossed. Ironically, I believe that his style is very attractive to a more passive, sheep-like audience that tends to look for aggressive personalities who see the world in stark black and white terms. And to me, this is a sort of paradox about Hitchens: while being so cut-and-dry with his opinions, he is also a confirmed skeptic. Skepticism as a philosophy, though, would seem to demand a more subtle and measured approach than that which Hitchens applies. That aside, agree or disagree, he is an interesting, different voice. And although he is at times brutal with his opinions, he does, to his credit, back them up with his reasons for them.