For several years, I was a part-time ski instructor at Beaver Creek on the side from day job as a software developer. The majority of professional ski instruction is a poorly paid occupation, but it makes your soul rich. I have not taught the past couple years, and it has had an effect on me. This season I hope to return to this enriching profession. I will leave my protracted declarations of love for ski instruction to a future post. This post is about water. Water as characterized by the legendary Bruce Lee. During a TV interview on the long ago Pierre Berton Show, Lee describes the brief "Be Water My Friend". On the surface, it is a philosophy regarding the art of fighting. In his voice and his expression, for Lee, it is a way one could approach life.
While there are many who look to Bruce Lee as a prophet, I assure you that I am not one of them. Still, the concept of being water in the way the Lee presents it, is something that has always stuck with me. I often related it to sports and in particular skiing. I speak about being water whenever I teach almost any aspect of skiing. For myself, it is most applicable to the skiing of moguls or "bumps". It is paramount to flow over moguls and yet still be strong when needed, much like water. Due to water's hydrogen bonding combined with its relatively compact molecule size versus other compounds also containing hydrogen bonding, water has many unique and powerful characteristics. Combine that with it's requirement for the existence of life, and you have yourself nothing short of a marvel of the universe. It can adapt to many environments, be soft and still be powerful without ever changing its nature. An amazing friend of mine, Rachel Preston Prinz, has been invited to present at a TEDx event where her focus will be on water in the desert. (her post) For some reason, I found myself focusing again on Lee's "Be Water My Friend". I had not thought about it for some time. I could not get away from it and then I stumbled upon a remix of the Pierre Berton interview by melodysheep. YouTube has the video for this remix and it is quite entertaining:
To now have this groovy mp3 on my Ski Mix playlist for the upcoming ski season was cause for excitement. My revisit of Lee's "Be Water My Friend" became a constant in my thoughts. Everyday we struggle to remain ourselves in the face of the many roles we play in our lives. We regularly face events, surroundings and forces upon us. My thoughts developed a new potency for "Be Water My Friend". This lead to the following sudden stream of consciousness that just poured out of me as if someone else was writing it:
be water
be adaptable to your surroundings
strive to be level and calm despite the forces working upon you
be reflective
be nurturing of life and the lives around you
find paths around, under or over obstacles to reach your goals
let no force compress you
stay moving so you stay clear and healthy
glisten
handle ripples in your world with elegance
have the determination to wear down impediments
when under pressure, be focused enough to cut through stone
let your bonds be stronger than expected
be amazing and magical by being yourself
be water
by Craig McLeod - 09/01/2012
Rachel, thanks for the inspiration and I am wishing you all the best at your TEDx talk.
So my friend David Silverman writes a blog for the Harvard Business. Yes, the Harvard Business thing. The quick back story is that David has always been a talented writer. We went from kindergarten, where I remember our first argument, all the way through high school together. He has always written great and funny stories as long as I can remember. Don't believe me? I dare you to not enjoy his book: Typo: The Last American Typesetter or How I Made and Lost 4 Million Dollars
As I was saying, David writes a good business blog. Today's entry was entitled "10 Business Words to Ban" He then asks the reader if they have any suggestions. This brought forth the following from within me:
============== It is probably long done with, but God I hated "functionality."
"We will add functionality" "Here the functionality will..."
It was always said by by people who had no concept of what they were talking about and were proud of it. They even had the nerve to deliver it with an air of arrogance. As a programmer, I would sit in meetings and listen to the owner of our company (not my current company), a sale person or an IA person say this. I began to mentally insert the word "magic" in place of "functionality" and the statement would still have the same level of sincerity. Unfortunately my little exercise didn't help my frustration levels. ==============
I don't know if my above mini-rant has any meaning or contributes to the world in any way, but David's article just sent me into a momentary trance. I don't know why I completely forgot about it until just now. Perhaps the "functionality" overuse caused my brain to create another personality to help me cope. I think his name is Arnold.
Undecided voters again. There seem to be a lot of them. In the 3rd straight presidential election in a row there is a large section of undecided voters. Undecided? Undecided? Seriously?
Just like in 2000 and 2004 these two candidates and their running mates couldn't be further apart. Are these people really undecided? There is no way that you can be confused about the differences they stand for. Are they trying to look more thoughtful or smarter? If so, why do they always say "I haven't heard anything in detail about (some topic that has been discussed)." or "I'm still waiting for them to tell me what I want to here." yet they can never state what it is they want to hear.
The thing that is most interesting about the undecided voters, is that the Democrats lose when these undecided voters show in considerable numbers. Democrats are very talented at losing Presidential elections they should dominate, much less win. They are 0 for 2 against a 'C' student.
The Democrats have tried long and hard to lose this election. Starting with the primaries, Clinton's extended run and accusations of being cheated out of the nomination. I managed to not write then about how I was yet again watching Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Since the convention they have surprisingly played it all out rather well.
It will be very interesting this Tuesday. Everything says the Democrats should win. They have done everything right while the Republicans have done damn near everything wrong. It has all the makings of a Usual Suspects conclusion.
I just think it would be a really great if Obama and McCain (maybe even Biden and Palin) would do a PSA spot for the Gustav cause. They each have done their own to encourage donations. I think that a spot done together would realy be powerful to show how important it is to come together at times like these.
Ignore my previous post. Today's events made it 100% crappola. I don't exactly know what happened today in the political race, but clearly the "vision" is far from a reality. We can meet back here in another 50 years to see if things are any better.
So I sit here watching some news channels regarding the primaries tonight. As usual, the polls, predictions and pundits were all wrong again. McCain is alive, Romney is still not loved, Obama is electable and Clinton is clearly not done.
With only 4% of the states reporting I am declaring this presidential race is a success (so far). The success I speak of regards two candidates in particular. The country is deciding between Presidential candidates and among them are two people who represent those who have not previously had serious potential to hold this position. People would ask me about my thought on Clinton and/or Obama. My answer was that one or both need to have a successful run at the nomination and possibly the White House. It was very important that they could have a serious campaign that is respected by the voters, the news and the country. If America could seriously consider these candidates on the issues, then moving forward the race and sex issues could get put below the issues of the candidates.
Right now, it is looking like that could be well on its way to accomplishing that task.
I was concerned initially that this might not be the case. All the "Clinton is too divisive..." and "we/I just don't like Clinton" comments seemed unnatural. I seriously felt it was the setting of a foundation to present an early alternate excuse for the fact that people didn't like her being a woman. With Obama, the cover story was about as opaque as plastic wrap. "Is he electable?" peppered with the periodic "articulate" and "clean" statements leaves no confusion about what the underlying issue was.
After Iowa and New Hampshire I am seeing the discussions on main stream new channels discussing primarily the issues and tactics of the candidates. There is the discussion of race and sex with regard to voting patterns, but nothing too far outside of normal discussions. (fyi: Lou Dobbs just made my previous statement false.)
For now this process is a success. It is still unclear if it will remain that way but this does shine hope on the future of open access to the office of the President.
As with any path of change in society, the steps were taken well before this moment by others with much less success. If you view this new landscape as a success you have to recognize those who went before and allowed the questions of sex and race with regard to Presidency to even be considered on some level.
The short list would be (in reverse chronological order):
Geraldine Ferraro - ran in 1984 as Walter Mondale's Vice President. The first serious potential for a woman to actually hold a spot that put her a heartbeat away from the oval office. The United States overwhelmingly voted against that but it was seriously on the table. This path would be continued 4 years later by Patricia Schroeder who ran for the Democratic nomination. Jessie Jackson - made the first truly serious (but not the first) bid by an African American for a Presidential nomination in 1984 Democratic race. "America's not ready for a black president" was the common statement, but it put the concept in play and it's sting, like Ferraro's, would ease the pain for his successors. The worrisome moment in this campaign was when he won the popular vote of the 1984 North Carolina Democratic primary and was not awarded the most delegates which instead went to the person who finished second in the primary voting. (wtf?)
Shirley Chisholm - ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972 after becoming the first African American woman to be elected to US Congress in 1969. While she was not the only woman vying for the presidency that year, her's was the most notable and put both sex and race on the table to discuss amongst ourselves.
Important Note: as admirable as these people may be for what they did to open doors, do remember that they are all still politicians which makes them all bad people at their core. :-)
So here I sit at Loaded Joe's, which is this hip mountain cafe/bar with free internet. My least favorite times here are when I roll into the normally quiet and laid back scene only to find some "function" that often involves a drink special. While I am happy for the owners, Kent and Kristie, it doesn't really work for me.
Tonight's event is some promotional deal thingy for Barrack Obama and his campaign for the presidency. I seem to have missed the presentation portion. There is a big screen video that is paused with Obama looking directly into the camera. This is causing me to frequently look up at the screen to see what appears to be a large floating head of Barrack sternly looking at me like an 8th grade algebra teacher. He is not "looking" at me, but he is.
Curse you optical illusions!
So this young woman who is part of the campaign approaches me. I know her from this same bar. She talks to me a little about the political scene. I know that she is very smart. It is one of the thing that makes her really attractive. It is not often that you meet young people with heads on their shoulders in a ski resort town. Often at this age they are "hiding out" from the world they don't want to take part in. Sadly, more than a few never stop hiding and progress well past the age where this is cute.
Unfortunately I hate politicians, politics and all politic related things. <facetious>Which is odd, for I do love a good campaign slogan. Who can forget the classics like Clinton/Gore '92 and the sequel of Clinton/Gore '96. Regan/Bush '84 was a winner too. Everyone remembers Mondale/Ferraro '84 losing big largely due to bad slogan development. I like Obama '08, it has that Prince or Madonna single name lure. Very rock star!</facetious> So how do I engage this woman and somehow spin my displeasure for all things politic?
"No thanks, I don't really want a sticker."
"Yes, I understand it will get me a free beer." (there is always a drink special)
"Even though I don't want a sticker, know that I think what you are doing and your level of involvement is awesome." (that is sincere)
"Of the leading candidates, Obama sounds the least like a politician." (I think Kucinich is unaware that he is in a political election. Someone should seriously tell that man to start lying.)
"Here's the thing. I haaaaate politicians and all things political." (gee, wonder why I am single?)
Yeah, that is pretty much how it went. I suffer from Dennis Kucinich-itis. Sadly, I too am unelectable. I did explain that as a programmer, I am good at detecting patterns of behavior and/or flawed logic. In politicians (big and small) I detect a pattern of trying to get elected with whatever tool they think will get them to their ends.
In programming, when we are faced with a problem, we have to arrive at what "is" actually going on and determine our options. We then go with the only or the best option we have. The only time this process has ever been thwarted is when management says "we cant do that, say that, or show that" with no reason. The answer for this is always, "it's political." So in my line of work, the only times we have knowingly NOT gone with the right answer, it has been political!
If you are still here we have now reached the actual point of this blog. I don't believe in the players. I know that every system/process can benefit from and honest review and changes. That said, I do love the process and how it occurs because I can see beyond the individuals that I may personally despise.
The greatest moment in recent political history is what I have only heard referred to with ridicule. The Gore Bush 2000 election. All I have ever heard are the classic small minded arguments.
"Bush stole the election."
"Gore should've resigned."
"This is so embarrassing that we can't pick a president."
Maybe one or more of those statements are true, maybe not. I don't really care. The issue that I didn't hear raised was the one I felt was the most important. That issue is what did not happen. Arguably the most powerful job in the world, aside from being a bouncer at posh L.A.nightclubs, went undetermined and heatedly contested for about a month or more.
It went without tanks.
It went without gunshots.
It went without people dying
It went without death squads, mass arrests, although it did have lying. (I'm a Dr. Seuss child. What can I say.)
That was the greatness of the very same moment that so many complained about. We continued to go to work. Stores continued to sell milk to mothers who inexplicably worried everyday on their way home if they had milk for the kids. Did people make grabs for power? Yes, but without the bloody news reels that normally would accompany such an event. That is the civics lesson for the grade schoolers:
You can be a power greedy bastard without killing people. At least during the election. That is the beauty of our system.
100, 200, 300 or more years from now, who will care about Bush or Gore. The benchmark will be that extreme power was determined without bloodshed.
So now "smart cute girl" thinks I am deep even though I rebuked her cause. (Nice save!)
Sadly, I didn't have the heart to tell her everything probably went so smoothly because our country is now driven more by consumer spending than the presidency. Dammit, I have to get over this Kucinich affliction quickly before I run into "smart cute girl" again.
Pro sports is full of players who haven't finished college. In some cases they have forgone college all together. That annoys so many people. They (and probably u too) espouse their disdain and concern for the student athlete that does not get the security of their college degree. "What if something happens?" "What if they need something to fall back on?" "It's not right." "Something should be done to protect these players."
The next time you catch yourself feeling this way and saying these statements, and you probably will, be sure to say the following to yourself:
Honestly, you really don't care.
Seriously, you don't. You don't give a rat's ass about these people. You are not worried for one moment about the well being of these people and I can prove it. If that player quits college right this minute and goes to work minimum wage at the local factory of his home town, you, the fans, the ESPN broadcasters and everyone one else will not give a single moment of thought to that person. All will sleep well at night and do. You don't care. You have never cared.
Here is the only time you care. When that person leaves or ignores college to sign a multi million dollar contract. That is the moment and the only moment that you care. There is a healthy number of these concerned folks don't even follow the sport they are concerned about. Think back, is that when you feel it? Is that the moment you find the on ramp to your moral high road? Here are some other questions to ask:
When have I been outraged about tennis players leaving college early to play the pro tour? (the women play as young as 15yrs and there is no guaranteed money like football or basketball)
When have I been outraged about NHL players being drafted directly out of high school as they always have been? (an entire ESPN special was solely based on how star high school prospect, Sidney Crosby, was going to graduate while the NHL was on a season long strike and that he would have no where to play and may have to play pro hockey in Europe until the strike was resolved. not one mention of his not going to college.)
How come I don't care that MLB has always drafted players directly from high school?
Why doesn't the NCAA have "leave early" rules for any sport other than football and basketball? (at least they have an honest excuse even thought claim they care about the athletes. it's the only two sports that the NCAA and the universities can make any money from)
So now that we know you don't really care, my question is:
Not that you care, but "On Record" posts are entries that are primarily my want to have certain points of view that I have stated for some time, to be officially recorded as my thoughts. I don't want to be the "after the fact" writer.
It's global warming, it's not global warming, we need better gas mileage, we should drive all the SUV's we want. Who hasn't heard some version of these arguments for more than a decade. Where I stand on global warming versus other people seems to be immaterial. Hearing all these "discussions" leads me to 1 and only 1 question:
Since when is being wasteful considered a good thing?
I'm serious, like the 7th year of a 3 year adjustable rate mortgage. I want someone to answer that question for me. More importantly, why have I never heard this question out of anyone on any side in any media?
Who, outside of the Rockefeller's, thinks back to their grandparents and waxes about their wasteful ways? I don't remember hearing stories of how Mamamaw and Papapaw rushed down to the superstore every weekend to buy disposable products they could quickly use up and throw away during World War II rationing. Would the "Greatest Generation" look fondly upon our need to get a new cell phone every 10 months? That is until the iPhone comes out which is the legal loophole one needs to upgrade their 4 month old Samsung BlackJack that they couldn't live without only weeks before.
People seem to be so proud of their great depression ancestors while I wonder how one can first brag on that and then later tell me, "I don't recycle because Penn & Teller showed that it costs more to recycle a bottle than to make a new one." I don't think that was the issue before us. The issue is that there is a limited supply of stuff. There is a limited amount of place to put the stuff that we are permanently done with.
Plain and simple, I don't see how being wasteful is a political issue or a morality play. Other than the American economy's need for consumer spending, how can people argue for being wasteful? Companies don't want to be wasteful. People don't brag about being wasteful, or at least they don't use that word when they do.
Some people that visit my home are actually annoyed that I don't have paper towels but rather kitchen rags/towels. The towels are neat and have nice patterns,. You can get a set of 3 for real cheap so I have about 12 or so in the house. Use them, they get dirty, I throw them in with the next load of wash. What is there to get annoyed about? I have owned my current house for 6 years and I only have the 12 towels versus how many paper towels that I would've used? When you get out of the shower would you dry yourself off with paper towels? How much would that cost you? Think back, did Mamamaw use paper towels in her kitchen?
