Power Struggles

I heard a quote that really resonated with me a while ago. Usually while listening to Back to Work, Merlin Mann and Dan Benjamin discuss their favorite comic books, talk about "the film" (Scorsese's biopic about Howard Hughes, The Aviator), and from time to time discuss workflow and productivity hacks. What can you get out of these two men during a two hour program full of comical sound-clips and staple radio sketches? Sometimes, just sometimes, Dan or Merlin throws out a gem of wisdom beyond workflow, something that sounds like it's been shaped into a perfect quotable.

"People with power don't yell, they just do stuff."

I forgot what the episode was really about or when it was, but this little nugget of wisdom stuff with me because I found it profound and true. Merlin framed it by trying to imagine people we view as powerful, CEOs, thinkers, truly powerful people: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, President Obama, etc. These people are busy, they have problems to solve with not much time to do it; they simply don't have time to get on a conference call and yell at someone. In the high stakes game they play, they only have time to fix the problem. Sure, they get angry or have a bad day just like the rest of us, but while many of us allow ourselves to show our anger or be slowed by it, these truly powerful people innovate and create in order to fix what makes them so angry.

Merlin brought up another interesting point that not only reinforces this idea, but makes the quote applicable to the not-founders of Microsoft. The reason these people are powerful isn't simply because they're geniuses, or in the right place, right time. There is something inherent in the people we view as powerful that makes them innovate and create: they want to grow and prosper instead of getting bogged down by problems and set-backs. 

But how does that apply to us, how can it help me live my life? Next time you have that bad day and feel the weight of the world crushing you, take a moment. Ask yourself: how can I make this better, how can I turn this situation into something productive? Who knows, maybe you'll end up making the next great iOS app, the next great American novel, or just think of a new way to be seconds more productive. 

Links for further interest: 

The Forbes list of 71 most powerful people

I finally found the episode!

Check out other 5by5 Shows (you won't regret it)

How Mad Men is Still Right: The Bar

"He doesn't talk for long stretches, and then he's incredibly eloquent."

Coming off of the season 6 finale, I realized once again that the enigmatic, depraved Don Draper deserved more attention. Perhaps it's unhealthy to raise such a dishonest, despicable anti-hero to further heights, but Don's jaded perspective on life merits revisiting. Don continues to be a drunk philanderer who embodies the despair of a time ravaged by high profile assassinations and riots. The summer of love isn't quite as lovely through Don's eyes. In the most recent seasons, Don has continued his dishonest way of life, but remains captivating to audiences; he is still the pitiable character we all are rooting for. Above all though, he is the same weary philosopher throwing out tastes of his downtrodden philosophy.

"It's one thing to be near the bar, another to be under it."

At face value, this moment is a piece of advice for anyone, especially the newly 21 among us. However, by delving a few layers deeper than the obvious statement, Don begins to speak to something else: endurance and survival. This quote recalls a colloquialism I'm sure we're all familiar with: get out of the kitchen, if you can't handle the heat. To put it another way, Don is addressing the feeling of drowning and the feelings of success and failure. In a succinct metaphor, Don is alluding to the hardships of his life: at times he's been near the bar (many times actually), and sometimes he's been under it. There have been times when he has been riding high, sitting on that stool, but, as we know with Don, that night usually ends with him beneath it, hair disheveled and stumbling back home.

The power of his statement is in it's combination of survival and defeat. Don seems to imply that you will never know what it means to be truly "under the bar" until you've "been near it." Likewise, you may never realize what it truly means to be near the bar until you've felt that crushing, swimming feeling of lying beneath it, bereft of your faculties and your inhibitions crushed. Don knows a lot about being crushed by the oppressive presence of the world, and for that matter alcohol.

Don evokes a seemingly simple double entendre to make his audience sit there for a moment, take a pull from a Lucky Strike or down a tumbler of rye and muse. The only way to survive is to scrub the bar's floor with your tie and never forget that feeling, then pick yourself up and never speak of it again. The two are intertwined: had you not saddled up to the bar, you never would have found yourself under it. Where you end up, near or beneath, is solely dependent upon you. Use that feeling of despair and lack of control to fuel your upward climb and maybe, just maybe, you won't end up under the bar next time.

Or maybe that's just me projecting. What do you think?

My Most Formidable Opponent

I've been sitting in the same chair for over three hours. I've been staring at the same stack of scarred and bleeding manuscript pages for the same amount of time. My coffee had ran dry nearly an hour ago. I refuse to step away. Yet, nothing is coming to mind. I have an outline, I know where the story goes. I have the edits and I can fix grammar and spelling. 

There is some incredibly debilitating, crushing force that won't let me: the formidable and nearly unstoppable Writer's Block.

So, I'm taking a break. I'm sitting here complaining and writing about my inability to write. But what to write about? Frustration. 

I'm sure we've all felt it before, that need to pull out the perfect word from thin air: a grandiose display of diction and wordsmithing. It never comes though. Fun fact, everyone: there is never a perfect word. There is only the word you choose and the one you didn't. There are times, like Juliet, that I wonder, "what's in a word." All I can come up with is a series of letters pressed together to create meaning. What makes one word better than another? It's context. If you have the most amazing diction ever, but your story/paper/essay/etc. is flat or unappealing, it doesn't matter what you say: it still sucks. The only validation for a word you need is utility. Does the word do what you want it to? Does it convey meaning and progress the plot? Is it too hard to read or discern meaning? Do you need all those syllables or would "said" work better?

Progress. That's what it's all about. If you can't go anywhere, what kind of vehicle you have doesn't matter. If your engine is all gunked up on your hotrod, you can't leave. So clean out the cobwebs. In my case, that's why I complain. To let my creativity flow, I have to get just a little bit pedantic. I have to act like I can write like Stephen King. 

That's another thing. Maybe you don't have writer's block because you can't find the right word, maybe it's a feeling of inferiority. Maybe you think that your writing is no good, so why keep it up. Let me tell you something I saw once: I am the best writer out there. You can never hope to be better than me. Why do I have such a bold and arrogant claim to perfection? Because if I thought my work was no good, how could I possibly expect anyone else to think so? To get anywhere in life you have to be at least a little arrogant. So yes, I am the best writer out there. Until you realize that, you'll never go anywhere. 

Oh. Wait. Do you feel that? That's an idea hatching. It's about to burst out. It seems while you were reading this post about writer's block, I was busy going places. It's time for me to set down this ironic writing about not writing to actually go do some writing. Xzibit would be proud.

Review: After Visiting Friends: A Son's Story by Michael Hainey

Michael Hainey’s After Visiting Friends: A Son’s Story isn’t your traditional memoir. Hainey doesn’t extoll a long list of his personal accomplishments with hackneyed hind-sighted commentary. In fact, there are very few mentions of Hainey’s position as GQ Magazine’s Deputy Editor. After Visiting Friends achieves its (auto)biographical aims by attempting to solve the mystery that had chased Hainey since the fateful day he is told his father, Bob Hainey, died “after visiting friends.” Hainey asks the question no one seems to ask, “who are these friends?” Interviewing old friends and colleagues of his late father, Hainey finds himself traveling through time, several times revisiting scenes of his father’s life.

After Visiting Friends is a singular piece of long-form descriptive journalism with an ever present voice. The language is rife with profound metaphor which keeps the story riveting, beautiful, and unique. After Visiting Friends is immersive, the vibrant landscapes of 1960’s Chicago and Nebraska feel alive. Hainey’s autobiography is also an intimate biography of his mother, and a sons journey to retrieve lost years with his late father by solving the mystery of his untimely death.

Hainey documents his discoveries with vivid descriptions of the many characters and eras he visits, be it the newsroom of the Chicago Sentinel in the 1960s, the Hainey household during Michael’s youth, or Michael’s modern-day travels. Hainey’s memoir is a tale of discovery. His quest to discover his father’s mysterious “friends” is the vehicle to tell his family’s story, not only his own. Hainey’s curiosity and hereditary journalistic talent propel the story forward in at times humorous and always intriguing ways keeping interest high and the book stuck fast in a reader’s hands until its conclusion.

The verdict? Read After Visiting Friends, you'll learn something about yourself along the way.

Boston 3/27/13

Two T-stops away, tucked under a swanky restaurant is Grendel’s Den, a Harvard pub established by Harvard grads. Like the meadhall in Beowulf, the place is full. The warm lights and aged red brick walls give it an air of friendliness, comfort and class. All around us are Harvard students. On a Wednesday night. We have a few beers, watch the people come and go, and just chat. This is the way to end a trip to Boston: drinking some beers in an ancient building talking about the future. Sure, I don't really believe in Founders worship, but from what all the tourist tours told me this is week, this is how the world changed. I know it's how mine did. Until next time, Boston. Ill be back on your cobbled streets before you know it. Maybe I’ll meet up at the Green Dragon and help change the world.

Boston 3/26/13

We walked into Doyle's Bar and it's obvious it's a blue collar bar. The waitress is old enough to be the owner (she probably was). She forgets the drink I ordered and I get my "chowdah" served with a bunch of it dripping down the side. It's delicious though; the beer still refreshing.

The place is old. Hanging on the walls are black and whites of Bostonians. Three smiling guys in suits hold umbrellas, like carefree gangsters. The painted tiles on the floor have been worn away, showing the bare tread and hardwood beneath it. At the bar are more tourists from the Sam Adams tour we went on, regulars line the bar as well. There's still election posters for Kennedy ’60 on the wall, right next to WWII propaganda posters. It was a phenomenal mom and pop shop and it gave a good feel for the South City.

Besides all that, Alan, the bearded tour guide at Sam Adams, was hilarious. By far the best tour I've ever been on. Plus, you can't argue with free beer. And if you did, you should probably stop drinking and ask yourself why you're arguing with a liquid.

Boston 3/25/13

We walked the Freedom Trail, a type of red brick tourist road that winds through much of Boston Proper and Bunker Hill. Then we did the all-time tourist thing and climbed a really tall building to look down on the places we just left. But looking over all those half-streets and crooked lines, ancient houses and modern sports complexes caused this feeling of connection.

We spent the rest of the night in a normal local Irish bar in Davis Square listening to traditional Irish music, huge smiles on our faces. I'm in love and I'm ready to move in. Every step made me fall one step further down the rabbit hole. This city is where I belong, goofy accents and all.

Boston 3/24/13

We just got in the city and this place is amazing. I just walked outside a moment to get a pillow for tonight and I was struck by some incredible feelings.

This place is incredibly quiet. For the sheer mass of people and compacted buildings, this city is absolutely silent. It's eerie. Cars barely pass by and there's no obnoxious rattle of busses or trains. There's no constant commotion. We're six blocks from Tufts University, a three minute walk from Davis Square and the Red Line and there's not a sound to be heard.

It also hit me while walking down a winding footpath how old this city really is. Houses and buildings and restaurants are crammed one on top of another through labyrinthine roads that have no apparent beginning nor end.

And then finally I realized why it was so silent. It's because it's so old. And then it hit me that this is the loudest city I have ever been in. 400 years of history is shouting out of every wall, from every street lamp and street. I walk side by side with some of the greatest American minds. I see passing coaches lot with lanterns, Puritans trying to survive a cold winter, men in their finest rushing to the old meeting house, and others carrying rifles to wars off an encroaching army. Every silent moment of this city is filled with a memory. It occurs to me that that feeling is what draws me to this city. Why I knew the moment I considered it that this city would be my home. I've never felt so nostalgic for times gone by, nor at home in a city moving in both directions: continually forward and back in time. The rustic vibe of this town becomes electrified by sundown, but that old world charm never goes away. In fact, maybe tomorrow I’ll go take a walk with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams: I hear something is brewing across the pond.

Review: House of Cards

I've just finished season 1 of House of Cards. I feel a bit numb inside. These two facts are related.

House of Cards, if you haven't heard about it (shame on you), is a political drama about a House Majority Whip that is not given what he was promised. Passed over for the Secretary of State position, Frank Underwood, a ruthless, calculating, and demanding politician, begins to exact his revenge on those who wronged him.

From the first five minutes of episode 1, I was hooked. Within those five minutes, you are introduced to everything you need to know about Frank. A dog is struck by a car and Frank, getting ready for a black tie event, comes out of his home to comfort the dog. Or so it seems. Frank then directly addresses the audience, staring straight into the camera and issues a few lines on what he calls the two sorts of pain. The first sort makes you strong. The second is only suffering. He despises this type of pain. Then he kills the dog.

These breakaway speeches occur throughout the series, lending narratorial insight into events and Frank's thought process behind a certain action. Plus, every line is expertly crafted to emulate with ruthlessness and is incredibly quotable. The cutaways are profound and leave viewers questioning the integrity and honor of Frank as a politician. The portrayal of Frank as such a controlling legislator who is drawn between his own ambitions and those of his constituents (a company named SanCorp) is much different than the conventional textbook definition of a legislator.

House of Cards is jarring. The phenomenal casting and acting for the show continues to surprise. Frank is joined by his wife, Claire, owner of the non-profit Clean Water Initiative, Zoe Barnes,a reporter looking for a break, Peter Russo, a US Representative battling alcoholism and drug addiction, and a multitude of other similarly ambitious or morally tainted characters. The interplay between characters, and mostly their manipulation by Frank, is creative and at times left me wondering what was about to happen.

Frank Underwood is just another character in the growing list of modern anti-heroes we all want to hate but come away sympathizing. When Frank is passed over for the Secretary of State position, I sympathizes with him; yet, he didn't want my sympathy. He immediately began scheming. He blatantly explains the weaknesses of sympathy. Frank is a man consumed and motivated only by power. Nothing else matters. Cleverly, throughout the first season, until the last two episodes, what exactly Frank is scheming for never becomes apparent. Instead wings of this house of cards topple, one by one, until nothing stands in the way of Frank and what he wants.

I easily finished this series in a week and cannot wait for the second season. This is the best show I have seen in a very long time. House of Cards has blown open a (fictional?) view of Washington that we can only hope is not true. House of Cards is riveting, jarring and at times uncomfortable. House of Cards will challenge you to figure out the mystery of Frank's ambitions. House of Cards will tempt you, asking if you can truly trust the narrator.

If you do only one thing today: watch House of Cards.

In Defense of Knowledge: The People

I find the use of democratic power by "We, the People" a sobering, yet amazing phenomenon to view.

For example, I happened to wander into Madison, WI during the protests against Governor Walker two years ago now and saw the fervor in everyone's eyes. There were college students who spent their nights sleeping on the floor of the capital building practicing their rights to protest peacefully against something they believed was wrong. I watched the news and read the articles about a movement to recall Governor Walker swept the state and then blew up in the media. Wisconsin became the epicenter of  nationwide look at the Republican party and urged for intense transparency into the emerging hyper-conservatives that have grown in popularity and number.

Split down party lines, the response to these events was ferocious. All over the state, it turned into campaign season all over again. Plenty of attack ads, myriad of bumper stickers, lawn signs, billboards, NGO involvement and so much more. Those who had voted for his opponent in the original governor race were out with double the stickers and double the signs, while most of his supporters went out and supported him by not adding to the mess. Personally, I think many of them realized something that many had not. Almost all of the people who voted for him to begin with wanted his policies to go through, so they would ultimately vote for him again. No amount of attack ads or pro-union signage would change their mind. Ultimately, those people were right; Governor Walker continues to be governor of Wisconsin despite a recall attempt and disagreement from 49.9% of his constituents.

Jump forward to December of 2012 when a sudden rash of media attention brought to light the growing "epidemic" of gun violence in the United States. Walking outside that same Wisconsin capital where thousands had gathered around chanting and protesting with signs and marches were about 500 men and women carrying "Don't Tread on me" flags and openly carrying hunting rifles and pistols. Nationwide men and women organized to protest and protect their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms while the other half of the nation solemnly stood in a circle holding candles in a vigil for the victims of Sandy Hook and the multiple other locations of violence.

However, it is important to note that the candlelit vigils in remembrance of those lost are occurring on a daily basis. Gun crime claim (based upon CDC information from 2005-10: the most recent statistics) on average 33 Americans per day. Nationwide there are 33 candlelit vigils being held in honor of people killed by a gun every night. Every night hundreds of people are gathering in remembrance. Every year (when new senators, representatives, governors, mayors, council members, aldermen, presidents, etc. are elected) several thousand gun owners clamber shoulder to shoulder to fly their flag and hold their guns.

The end result is that no matter how many people do or do not die from this issue, not to mention the countless other life takers, people will continue to gather to either side of this issue. Notice: I said either side of the issue. That's what we are all lead to believe, that there are only two strict sides to this argument, 1. gun restraints that will ultimately take all guns from gun owners, and 2. continually less strict gun regulations that will kill every innocent American. It is important to, as I recently heard, "think sideways." A citizen must (for it is their prerogative to be an informed voter) understand that no issue in government, or life, is as simple as yes or no. A rational decision is not made solely by saying yes or no. The debate is not abortion or no abortion, or guns or no guns. We must understand that a government official is fighting just as hard to keep their job as you are; to that end, no law of extremes would ever be passed. As I like to think, the phrase "politically correct" comes from the politicians themselves.

If there is only one thing you leave this post with let it be this: think sideways and never constrain your thought to binaries: there are always more than two answers.

In Defense of Knowledge: The Press

I can think of no better way to depict the collapse of modern day news with the ever increasing use of sensational and popular focused journalism than to share a recent video I find fascinating. It's the famous John Stewart appearance on Crossfire in 2004 where he details that the show (and by trade most mainstream news media) is "hurting America". The joking quickly turns to an intense conversation on the media's role in the America public's mind. Any comment I could possibly make about the media's portrayal and continued radical sensationalism towards sensitive subjects (or any subject in general) can be explained and has already been said by Jon Stewart here. Continuing my fanning of Jon Stewart atop the politically charged news mountain, while being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly in May of 2011 about a (trivial) matter concerning artist Common appearing at the White House during National Police Week, Stewart opens up discussion about banning assault weapons as being the true means of celebrating and doing something to reduce gun crime and save the lives of police officers. The point here being that sensational news is willing to grasp onto minor nitpicky details to get headlines like "President Obama spends time with Cop Killer Sympathizer" instead of talking about the real issues: reducing gun crime and death numbers. Unfortunately the particular audience that O'Reilly is aiming towards, politically speaking his constituents, are looking for such sensational news, so no outcry results.

It is of course also necessary to not focus solely on the Newton, Connecticut victims, but give attention to those that have died before and after the terrible event. A crowdsource activity (found here)between Slate and twitter handle: @gundeaths has started to compile incomplete statistics on gun deaths that have occurred since the Newton tragedy. I mean to point out this article because of its futuristic appeal to the audiences of world. Twitter has started to take over social media, statistics of Twitter mentions surpassed Facebook mentions during the Superbowl the other night. It's incredible to think of the power behind a mere 140 characters, but once you do, you begin to reevaluate the reasons behind hour long news programs that aren't rapid fire run downs of the news, but repetitions of the same second-, third- or fourth-hand news regurgitated over and from all of the affiliates. Twitter is now the go-to site for digestion and dissemination of information across the world. Outcries of support were thrown onto the internet in the Middle East during the several protests that occurred throughout the past few years and it has slowly crept its way up behind Facebook, and now beyond. Larry King used to take questions on his show from Twitter. Modern day news shows have started to lean upon the social media revolution occurring everyday because they know that soon enough, they will be surpassed by the power of our own words. A national network of interconnected points of view is a powerful thing to share the stage with. Soon the finely suited newscasters will (and are as we speak) be replaced by plain clothed everyday Joes running around the world with a smart phone in hand. Newscasters and their slow moving vans are dependent upon traffic and weather, giant cameras are unwieldy and need time to set up. A man or woman walking down the street with Twitter, iMessage, or Facebook open on their iPhone will, within three seconds, have their camera open, snapping pictures or live tweeting some of the most major events, usually before news organizations know about it. This is the media revolution, this is the social media revolution, this is the evolution of news.

In Defense of Knowledge

Since the devastating events of the Sandyhook shooting several weeks ago the government, NGOs and the people themselves have started speaking out and clamoring for change. The prominent democratic view currently is a series of strict gun control laws that will presumedly inhibit more massacres like Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook Elementary, the mall shooting in Oregon, and the countless other massacres that occur on a daily basis. Nongovernmental Organizations like the NRA are doing what they do best, feeding spun information to the public (mostly their constituents), just as the democrats and republicans are battling in the House, Senate, and press. The press is, as always, spending an undue amount of time on these massacres, potentially instilling a sense of stardom associated with them (to be explained later). Finally, the people of this fair democracy are also sharing their opinions in a multitude of ways. Posts of pro- and anti-gun images and literature litter social media. Rallies are occurring throughout the states, men and women exercising their right to bare arms and free speech are marching on their state capital waving "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Then there is one of the newest developments: the government conspiracy video that has exploded on YouTube, reaching over ten million views.

Every time I see our democratic institution work on the political, private, and personal level, I am overjoyed. To see all of the actors of our government flexing their muscles and being proactive in what they can do and say is something rarely seen. Very few times does this nation ever experience a tragedy that is able to grip all spectrums of life, moving people who not normally are activists to participate in their government. Aside from my own beliefs, I am glad to see all cogs of political life in progress.

Unfortunately, a byproduct of all of this involvement in political institutions leads to the sullying of information networks with falsified information, conspiracy theory, and misdirections cause by these main political actors: the press, the government, NGOs and the people.