Did you hear about the British Parliament member who slapped a petition in President Obama's face that read: "Down with your ugly new fascism!" ?
Well, no, it didn't actually happen; but if it did, the press on both sides of the Atlantic would have heralded it as the great Anglo-American right to dissent. And so it is. However, living in an age when rights rule, we don't often hear enough about the obligations that come with those rights. As one classic description tried to put it: "The rights of my fist end when it meets the rights of your nose." In the case of political dissent, these rights and obligations are not always that clear cut, but still there are obligations that go with these rights.
Take the current dissent from Congress and the media. This president's agenda for reform is so sweeping, it has predictably ignited equally sweeping dissents. From the sedate halls of Congress to the shouting pundits of Fox News. He's asking for bold changes to everything from banking to bombing, from energy to education , from domestic health-care to international hegemony. When your bite is that sharp, you just know there will be a lot of powerful teeth biting back.
OK, no one questions this constitutional principle of dissent. But everyone should question its practice. Especially in a time when this indispensable principle slams fist-first into some equally indispensable demands for crisis management. This is where the loyalty of the Loyal Opposition gets tested. In a free society, it is free to express its dissent freely. But not care-freely. To put that another way, its opposition should be constructive more than obstructive. If not, what then is its purpose?
In a democracy, the courts and the police don't usually decide this distinction. The people do. The active citizen asks is the criticism I'm hearing factual and fair or fantasy and fanatic? In an age when dissent has so many more forums than ever envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- newspapers, networks, cable channels, blogsites, nationwide demonstrations -- there is need for a new delicate balance. Inviting dissent up to but not beyond the point of paralysis.
About this time of year, you hear fans saying, "Life is like a baseball game...." Well, not really. But there is one lesson to consider. In the dugout, the staff may argue, debate and dissent; but when the manager sends in his closer to save the day, case closed! At least until the closer blows it. Right now, the people still support the closer they picked by a margin even wider than their vote last November. For now, lets give him the ball and try cheering more than jeering.
That's usually the way you win the big ones!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Is Confidence the New Con Game in Town?
Right now everyone has solemnly agreed to disagree on how to resolve our economic meltdown. The administration says put in more ( as in money into the economy). The opposition in Congress says take out less ( as in taxes from the rich). One would pump new money into the system from the bottom up, while the other would let saved money trickle from the top down.
Now if you poke through this clutter of clashing numbers, you may find at least one gospel in common. Today's mantra about getting our confidence back. Described in different words -- hope, hustle, gumption, mojo -- confidence seems to be everyone's deal-maker. Get it back again and we get the system going again. Investors begin investing, consumers begin buying, banks begin lending, international trade begins flowing.
When President Roosevelt called for renewed confidence back in the 1930s, he put is this way: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." President Obama has now uttered several memorable calls-to-confidence, although only time will decide which one endures in our children's history books.
Just like the many spontaneous neighborhood acts of sharing back in the 1930s, similar gestures are beginning to bubble up today. The media are doing their part to find and feed these inspiring making-a-difference stories to us ( proving that their usual if-it-bleeds-it-leads format isn't the only seller). It feels good to hear workers taking pay and time cuts to save jobs....bankers returning bonuses....CEOs working for a dollar a year....factories trimming not closing lines. This serendipity in action can surely spark some confidence among the worried public.
But for how long and with what results....? That's where economists, even sociologists, find themselves short of answers. These questions run far deeper than their numbers. So I went to my favorite philosopher, Sean. An usher in our church, his ruddy Celtic face is more than the proverbial map of Ireland. It's the accumulated wisdom of centuries of Irish potato farmers, city artisans, Catholic pastors, and Dublin Pub dwellers all squeezed into one gloriously informed pout.
Old Sean never smiles, but neither does he ever rage. For me he has this stoic septuagenarian grasp on all the great truths of of time. So whenever Sean speaks (and it's not that often) he speaks with the authority of every Irish poet who ever bought a Guiness. One day after Mass I was asking him what he thought about the economy. He didn't hesitate for a moment. "A wee bit of more optimism," he advised. But, then giving the cliche a special life of its own, Sean offered me this example. "My favorite optimist was this Dubliner who jumped off the Empire State Building. As he passed the 42nd floor the window washers heard him say: So far so good!"
You talk about confidence.....! I think Sean was telling me it doesn't start with statistics. It begins with faith. As he winked up at the alter, he added: "Even when your stats can't prove it."
Now if you poke through this clutter of clashing numbers, you may find at least one gospel in common. Today's mantra about getting our confidence back. Described in different words -- hope, hustle, gumption, mojo -- confidence seems to be everyone's deal-maker. Get it back again and we get the system going again. Investors begin investing, consumers begin buying, banks begin lending, international trade begins flowing.
When President Roosevelt called for renewed confidence back in the 1930s, he put is this way: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." President Obama has now uttered several memorable calls-to-confidence, although only time will decide which one endures in our children's history books.
Just like the many spontaneous neighborhood acts of sharing back in the 1930s, similar gestures are beginning to bubble up today. The media are doing their part to find and feed these inspiring making-a-difference stories to us ( proving that their usual if-it-bleeds-it-leads format isn't the only seller). It feels good to hear workers taking pay and time cuts to save jobs....bankers returning bonuses....CEOs working for a dollar a year....factories trimming not closing lines. This serendipity in action can surely spark some confidence among the worried public.
But for how long and with what results....? That's where economists, even sociologists, find themselves short of answers. These questions run far deeper than their numbers. So I went to my favorite philosopher, Sean. An usher in our church, his ruddy Celtic face is more than the proverbial map of Ireland. It's the accumulated wisdom of centuries of Irish potato farmers, city artisans, Catholic pastors, and Dublin Pub dwellers all squeezed into one gloriously informed pout.
Old Sean never smiles, but neither does he ever rage. For me he has this stoic septuagenarian grasp on all the great truths of of time. So whenever Sean speaks (and it's not that often) he speaks with the authority of every Irish poet who ever bought a Guiness. One day after Mass I was asking him what he thought about the economy. He didn't hesitate for a moment. "A wee bit of more optimism," he advised. But, then giving the cliche a special life of its own, Sean offered me this example. "My favorite optimist was this Dubliner who jumped off the Empire State Building. As he passed the 42nd floor the window washers heard him say: So far so good!"
You talk about confidence.....! I think Sean was telling me it doesn't start with statistics. It begins with faith. As he winked up at the alter, he added: "Even when your stats can't prove it."
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The First Sub-Prime Mortgage Began in Paradise
You can live to be 100 if you just give up all the things that make you want to live that long....!
I wish I had said that. Woody Allen did. But I tend to believe that. I suspect you do too. It's the hedonist in all of us. You know, all those raw appetites that caused us to blow our original sub-prime mortgage on Paradise. And yet, the God of Genesis did allow us to carry away a few worthwhile appetites. Among them, a yearning for companionship. A sense of belonging on this otherwise lonely journey of life.
That need for and reliance upon one another expresses itself in countless ways. To the the evolutionists, it is part of our genetic code for survival. To the religionists, it is the mark of love written on our soul by God. To the skeptics, it is lost time away from more important personal pursuits.To some political thinkers, it is the collectivized way society grapples with national challenges such as the Great Depression and now the Great Recession.
To those of us who teach, this social connectedness is something else. It's one of the best ways in which our students learn. Even though all learning is an individual act of self-discovery, the act happens best when in the company of fellow learners. And so it is that teachers watch with some dismay the dis-connectedness among our students today. Each equipped with a constellation of digital informational- communicators which should be better connecting them, but often tend only to separate them. (Picture how in time some of them sat behind Wall Street computer banks separated from both their products and the people counting on those products!)
There is no question about our new electronic capacities to link up anytime and anywhere. Our President himself wields a mighty BlackBerry wherever he goes. And yet, when armed with the power to do and accomplish so much on your own, where is the appetite for arm-in-arm action? Despite the plight of the un-employed, we don't see it in many mass rallies. Despite the passion for various causes, we don't see it in many mass demonstrations. Why not? Because in cyberspace, there is apparently less need for physical expression.
Some psychologists wonder how far this goes. For example, there is the Wyoming County case of 15-year-old Marisa Miller "sexting" in which cell phone cameras were used for pornographic encounters. As one prosecutor sighed, "This might become a whole new way of teenage birth control!" Half a nation away, in a Connecticut middle school, concerns over excessive physicality has motivated principal Catherine Williams to order "children may not touch each other in any way, under threat of expulsion."
The God of Genesis said, "It is not good for man to be alone." And so came Eve. But now Silicon Valley keeps generating new widgets by which we can be alone. Live, learn, profit and perhaps even copulate alone. One's head swims.
But then -- just when you aren't sure where all this is leading our cocooning species -- you are struck with the reassuring news from this year's Miss Universe. Upon visiting the Guantanamo Bay military installations, Dayana Mendoza of Venezuela cooed: "I didn't want to leave, it was such a relaxing place to all be together."
Now you see, not everyone wants to be alone after all!
That need for and reliance upon one another expresses itself in countless ways. To the the evolutionists, it is part of our genetic code for survival. To the religionists, it is the mark of love written on our soul by God. To the skeptics, it is lost time away from more important personal pursuits.To some political thinkers, it is the collectivized way society grapples with national challenges such as the Great Depression and now the Great Recession.
To those of us who teach, this social connectedness is something else. It's one of the best ways in which our students learn. Even though all learning is an individual act of self-discovery, the act happens best when in the company of fellow learners. And so it is that teachers watch with some dismay the dis-connectedness among our students today. Each equipped with a constellation of digital informational- communicators which should be better connecting them, but often tend only to separate them. (Picture how in time some of them sat behind Wall Street computer banks separated from both their products and the people counting on those products!)
There is no question about our new electronic capacities to link up anytime and anywhere. Our President himself wields a mighty BlackBerry wherever he goes. And yet, when armed with the power to do and accomplish so much on your own, where is the appetite for arm-in-arm action? Despite the plight of the un-employed, we don't see it in many mass rallies. Despite the passion for various causes, we don't see it in many mass demonstrations. Why not? Because in cyberspace, there is apparently less need for physical expression.
Some psychologists wonder how far this goes. For example, there is the Wyoming County case of 15-year-old Marisa Miller "sexting" in which cell phone cameras were used for pornographic encounters. As one prosecutor sighed, "This might become a whole new way of teenage birth control!" Half a nation away, in a Connecticut middle school, concerns over excessive physicality has motivated principal Catherine Williams to order "children may not touch each other in any way, under threat of expulsion."
The God of Genesis said, "It is not good for man to be alone." And so came Eve. But now Silicon Valley keeps generating new widgets by which we can be alone. Live, learn, profit and perhaps even copulate alone. One's head swims.
But then -- just when you aren't sure where all this is leading our cocooning species -- you are struck with the reassuring news from this year's Miss Universe. Upon visiting the Guantanamo Bay military installations, Dayana Mendoza of Venezuela cooed: "I didn't want to leave, it was such a relaxing place to all be together."
Now you see, not everyone wants to be alone after all!
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Fame & Fortune is America's DNA
You won't get any argument that we're living in historic times. You will, though, on how to define history itself. Alexander Hamilton cynically said, "History is the story written by the winners!" Henry Ford, back when the company was still solvent, even more cynically said, "History is bunk!" Then there are those who simply call it a "necklace of anecdotes!"
Two personal anecdotes come to mind which may say something about the history of my America. One reflects its spirit of fame, and the other its spirit of fortune.
Our passion for fame is the later and the least of the two. Lately, Americans indulge in this sorcery daily, as the news of our celebrities takes up equal space with the news of our leaders. This American-Idol-Dance-with the Stars obsession has worked its way into the national DNA, so that which superstar is cheating on which partner gets the same headline treatment given to which rogue nation is cheating on which arms control. Hello.......?
As if to prove this startling habit, I once sat on the dais of a Roast for my friend Bob Newhart. As the "mystery roaster" I was in mask and costume sitting next to the Mayor, the Cardinal, and other prominent Chicagoans. But it was me many of the guests crowded around for an autograph. An autograph.......? Me....? Well, yes, their giggling explanation was, "You must be somebody famous!" It was then that a nameless me really understood how in today's America, name-and-fame has somehow become comparable to work-and-talent.
The second anecdote is closer to home. In fact, wherever you call home you can probably find this example tucked inside your front door during these spring days. It's those inevitable handbills, advertising local spring-cleaning services. Now think about it. Aren't these simple, hand-printed promises yet another optimistic example of American free enterprise in neighborhood action? I get several a week, suggesting to me that people still believe there's a new way to make a buck in this country.
Today's fat-cat CEOs now under populist attack trace back to the infamous tycoons of the 1920s and before them the even more infamous robber barons of the late 19th century. Still, they can all trace back to those back-pack peddlers and traveling salesmen who in time became the Wards and Sears and Marshall Fields and AT&T's and GE's of our time. It's called by many names, but capitalism will do.
Fame as a goal is often little more than seeing your lush mirage melt into the drifting sands. Fortune, on the other hand, is more substantial. However, as we're once more discovering, only when you make the honest effort to make the mirage come true.
Right now, both parts of our national DNA are being tested by history. No matter how you define it, history's pen is writing as we read it...
Two personal anecdotes come to mind which may say something about the history of my America. One reflects its spirit of fame, and the other its spirit of fortune.
Our passion for fame is the later and the least of the two. Lately, Americans indulge in this sorcery daily, as the news of our celebrities takes up equal space with the news of our leaders. This American-Idol-Dance-with the Stars obsession has worked its way into the national DNA, so that which superstar is cheating on which partner gets the same headline treatment given to which rogue nation is cheating on which arms control. Hello.......?
As if to prove this startling habit, I once sat on the dais of a Roast for my friend Bob Newhart. As the "mystery roaster" I was in mask and costume sitting next to the Mayor, the Cardinal, and other prominent Chicagoans. But it was me many of the guests crowded around for an autograph. An autograph.......? Me....? Well, yes, their giggling explanation was, "You must be somebody famous!" It was then that a nameless me really understood how in today's America, name-and-fame has somehow become comparable to work-and-talent.
The second anecdote is closer to home. In fact, wherever you call home you can probably find this example tucked inside your front door during these spring days. It's those inevitable handbills, advertising local spring-cleaning services. Now think about it. Aren't these simple, hand-printed promises yet another optimistic example of American free enterprise in neighborhood action? I get several a week, suggesting to me that people still believe there's a new way to make a buck in this country.
Today's fat-cat CEOs now under populist attack trace back to the infamous tycoons of the 1920s and before them the even more infamous robber barons of the late 19th century. Still, they can all trace back to those back-pack peddlers and traveling salesmen who in time became the Wards and Sears and Marshall Fields and AT&T's and GE's of our time. It's called by many names, but capitalism will do.
Fame as a goal is often little more than seeing your lush mirage melt into the drifting sands. Fortune, on the other hand, is more substantial. However, as we're once more discovering, only when you make the honest effort to make the mirage come true.
Right now, both parts of our national DNA are being tested by history. No matter how you define it, history's pen is writing as we read it...
Friday, April 3, 2009
When 'The Guiding Light' Goes to Black this Fall
The popular television show ER just ended its 15-year run. It was around long enough to be considered a staple. The 72-year old show The Guiding Light is considered not only a staple, but an actual institution. However, this fall it too ends. In a young, here-today-gone-tomorrow country, neither finale is a surprise. And yet, all finales are a shock...!
The shock is to the collective nervous system of all those wired into these entities. A program, a place, a person. Endings are never easy. And for all their reputed excitement, changes are never simple. How then to cope?
One way is to see each change inside its larger context. To recognize how it's an organic part of a larger evolving process we often shrug and call, "That's life...!" For example, when The Guiding Light first arrived on radio January 25, 1937, it was a gentle 15-minutes each afternoon which I would hear when I was home sick from school and Mom was in the kitchen preparing dinner. Those too were hard times, and the kindly old minister who opened his non-denominational church in the town of Five Points brought both his townsfolk and his audience the comfort of biblical wisdoms.
As the show wrenched its way with us through the Depression and World War II, its light continued to guide millions of at-home mothers like mine. But then in the post-war television years, The Guiding Light emerged as a much tougher tale of lies, sex and betrayals. Why? Because the context of the show -- America itself -- was growing tougher. If The Guiding Light is an institution about to fade away, it reflects the many other institutions that have also faded during its 72 years.
There's a long list starting with the shrinking role of small communities like Five Points in our lives. The enlarging role of government. The tortured role of marriage and family. Other institutions too have shifted like the unseen tectonic plates beneath earthquakes. The school...the church...the military. Now even our libraries and our banks. While you and I can survive the loss of The Guiding Light, we can't these other institutions. Civilizations hold in place only when the pillars upon which they stand hold in place.
Staying with the metaphor, we can't forget where these institutional pillars come from....! Exactly. From each of us, for each in our own way has been among the artisans who've helped chisel and carve them. And so -- when vital institutions begin to crack and sway -- concerned artisans must face the historic fact that there is no master builder alone who can strengthen them.
I remember back when The Guiding Light was still coming from Mom's kitchen radio. One of the messages we listened to as we saw our institutions buckling under the weight of Depression and War was the evening voice of President Roosevelt. If you replay those long ago fireside chats today, you can sense his recurring theme just like we did: "Together!" We got into this together, now together we can work our way out.
And, my fellow artisans, do you know something...? We did.
The shock is to the collective nervous system of all those wired into these entities. A program, a place, a person. Endings are never easy. And for all their reputed excitement, changes are never simple. How then to cope?
One way is to see each change inside its larger context. To recognize how it's an organic part of a larger evolving process we often shrug and call, "That's life...!" For example, when The Guiding Light first arrived on radio January 25, 1937, it was a gentle 15-minutes each afternoon which I would hear when I was home sick from school and Mom was in the kitchen preparing dinner. Those too were hard times, and the kindly old minister who opened his non-denominational church in the town of Five Points brought both his townsfolk and his audience the comfort of biblical wisdoms.
As the show wrenched its way with us through the Depression and World War II, its light continued to guide millions of at-home mothers like mine. But then in the post-war television years, The Guiding Light emerged as a much tougher tale of lies, sex and betrayals. Why? Because the context of the show -- America itself -- was growing tougher. If The Guiding Light is an institution about to fade away, it reflects the many other institutions that have also faded during its 72 years.
There's a long list starting with the shrinking role of small communities like Five Points in our lives. The enlarging role of government. The tortured role of marriage and family. Other institutions too have shifted like the unseen tectonic plates beneath earthquakes. The school...the church...the military. Now even our libraries and our banks. While you and I can survive the loss of The Guiding Light, we can't these other institutions. Civilizations hold in place only when the pillars upon which they stand hold in place.
Staying with the metaphor, we can't forget where these institutional pillars come from....! Exactly. From each of us, for each in our own way has been among the artisans who've helped chisel and carve them. And so -- when vital institutions begin to crack and sway -- concerned artisans must face the historic fact that there is no master builder alone who can strengthen them.
I remember back when The Guiding Light was still coming from Mom's kitchen radio. One of the messages we listened to as we saw our institutions buckling under the weight of Depression and War was the evening voice of President Roosevelt. If you replay those long ago fireside chats today, you can sense his recurring theme just like we did: "Together!" We got into this together, now together we can work our way out.
And, my fellow artisans, do you know something...? We did.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Not Even a Thousand Googles Can Handle This
Futurologists from Duke University calculate the accumulated knowledge of the human race finally doubled by about the year 1900. A remarkable guesstimate that takes into consideration all the pictographs, books, maps, charts and works of art since recorded time. But what is truly remarkable is they guesstimate this sprawling body of knowledge then quickly doubled again by 1950. And that mass has been doubling every 10 years ever since....!
In an age when it has become commonplace to think in trillions, there are still no really workable units by which to measure this stunning exponential feat of informational growth. The law of doubling eventually brings you to your knees by the sheer weight of all you can store. Not even a thousand Googles can handle this.
In such a Lewis Carroll world, it might be best to climb out of this bottomless rabbit hole long enough to just deal with a few more manageable numbers. Say the relatively modest number 48,000. Why such a small total? To the US Army, it's neither small nor acceptable. It's the number of young Americans it has turned away since just 2005 for being over-weight. A number greater than all the US forces in Afghanistan.
Among the vast accumulated knowledge of mankind, this matter of body weight has had a quirky history. We don't need Google or the Army to quantify it, because it's pretty much all there in history's scribbled cave art, pyramid etchings, Persian and Chines drawings, Greek and Roman statuary, medieval canvasses, right down to today's movies and television.
The human form that comes down to us through centuries of expression has certain consistencies when it comes to weight. And how that weight is distributed.
The weight factor tends to evolve in inverse proportion to a culture's food supply. In times and places where that supply is thin, the preferred body weight depicted is thick (see primitive societies for caloric details). Where the food supply is thick, the anatomies glorified in art grow thin (see modern celebrities and all those yearning to emulate them for disappointing details). It's true -- body weight in times of plenty is somehow deemed the curse not the reward of its times.
Although this weight factor is open to debate, the distribution factor is not. Throughout the eons of time, anthropologists have uncovered a recurring set of requirements on this score. To be taken seriously enough to be depicted by your culture, it seems you have to meet certain unwritten -- yet undefyable -- standards. Eyes...nose....hair....tummy. Find me an example of beady eyes, bulbous nose, stringy hair and bloated tummy, and I'll find you a movie or museum with very few customers!
None of this is meant to be a value judgment, for few of us can live up to these physiological standards to make such judgments in the first place. But it does bring us to a question. How has our species arrived at such physiological standards? Darwin and his genetic successors propose that species of all kinds mate on the basis of physical attraction. Fine! But exactly which genes can they point to as defining "attraction?"
Perhaps, though, the answer is not to be found in research at all. Rather in poetry. Shakespeare put it this way, "Beauty is brought by judgment of the eye." The ancient Greeks said it even better than the Bard, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
I'm trying to imagine how the Army recruiters would use those definitions....?
In an age when it has become commonplace to think in trillions, there are still no really workable units by which to measure this stunning exponential feat of informational growth. The law of doubling eventually brings you to your knees by the sheer weight of all you can store. Not even a thousand Googles can handle this.
In such a Lewis Carroll world, it might be best to climb out of this bottomless rabbit hole long enough to just deal with a few more manageable numbers. Say the relatively modest number 48,000. Why such a small total? To the US Army, it's neither small nor acceptable. It's the number of young Americans it has turned away since just 2005 for being over-weight. A number greater than all the US forces in Afghanistan.
Among the vast accumulated knowledge of mankind, this matter of body weight has had a quirky history. We don't need Google or the Army to quantify it, because it's pretty much all there in history's scribbled cave art, pyramid etchings, Persian and Chines drawings, Greek and Roman statuary, medieval canvasses, right down to today's movies and television.
The human form that comes down to us through centuries of expression has certain consistencies when it comes to weight. And how that weight is distributed.
The weight factor tends to evolve in inverse proportion to a culture's food supply. In times and places where that supply is thin, the preferred body weight depicted is thick (see primitive societies for caloric details). Where the food supply is thick, the anatomies glorified in art grow thin (see modern celebrities and all those yearning to emulate them for disappointing details). It's true -- body weight in times of plenty is somehow deemed the curse not the reward of its times.
Although this weight factor is open to debate, the distribution factor is not. Throughout the eons of time, anthropologists have uncovered a recurring set of requirements on this score. To be taken seriously enough to be depicted by your culture, it seems you have to meet certain unwritten -- yet undefyable -- standards. Eyes...nose....hair....tummy. Find me an example of beady eyes, bulbous nose, stringy hair and bloated tummy, and I'll find you a movie or museum with very few customers!
None of this is meant to be a value judgment, for few of us can live up to these physiological standards to make such judgments in the first place. But it does bring us to a question. How has our species arrived at such physiological standards? Darwin and his genetic successors propose that species of all kinds mate on the basis of physical attraction. Fine! But exactly which genes can they point to as defining "attraction?"
Perhaps, though, the answer is not to be found in research at all. Rather in poetry. Shakespeare put it this way, "Beauty is brought by judgment of the eye." The ancient Greeks said it even better than the Bard, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
I'm trying to imagine how the Army recruiters would use those definitions....?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Mystique of the Connected Dots
Experts are always connecting dots. There is this mystique about dots. Of course, everyone has their own Almighty-Me idea of which dots are the important ones, and which connections are the right ones. But since the game is open to anyone, here's one more player with nothing to lose except -- well, except for a few dots!
How about money as the dot-in-chief here? Eventually every society in history develops some. Economists call it a unit of exchange. People call it what makes the world go round. Looking at the record, I'd put my dots on that second definition, because it's hard to find anywhere in this record where the plot didn't involve money.
Anyone with a world map can draw the connecting lines from country to country, from age to age. Of the many thousands, just a few will make the point. From the cuneiform tablets of the ancient Middle East and the cowry shells of ancient China....to the Drachmas of ancient Greece to the Sesterius of ancient Rome...to the Florins and Pounds of medieval Europe...right up to the free-wheeling dollars that have become the currency of today's global economy, nothing of consequence happens without the motivation of money.
The obvious examples range from great farmlands to great cities to great universities to great economies to great wars. Oh, you noticed the sequencing there? Well, yes, there's an almost inevitable connection from the first to the last. Somehow as any society grows great. its national appetite for greatness suffers rivals poorly. And so -- as with each of the above national examples and every other example in history -- success begets success. And begotten success only whets the success-appetite for more success, even at the expense of rival appetites.
Some will say there is more to mankind than his money. For those dot-connectors who believe in a God or in the inherent goodness of the human spirit, we want that to be true. But if mankind is more than his money, his history is not. Somehow, when all the dots are on the table, we eventually tend to fix our appetites on the ones marked money. Not that we express it quite that crudely. We prefer attributes such as "the right to a job," "having a decent wage," "balancing the budget," and that old-time, all-time favorite "keeping ahead of the rest."
Throughout the history of dot-connecting, folks have traced the motives of money in many peculiar ways. Some look for conspiratorial cabals like Jewish Bankers...the Knights Templar....the Vatican....Wall Street. ( Right now that last one has a lot of angry people connecting a lot of angry dots around the circled wagons of a lot of worried New York hustlers!). But there have been other dot-connectors over the years like Karl Marx who found the evil of money deep inside the system of capitalism or like the writers of Genesis who found this evil deep inside the original sin of of our pride.
The latest dot-connectors are the G-20 nations who are meeting to see if the ancient blessing/curse of money can somehow be sublimated into a global solution. The trouble with that devoutly-to-be-wished-for scenario is that each of the players on this stage see their own role and their own lines as the starring ones.
Which brings us right back to where all these dots began in the first place -- the Almighty Me.
How about money as the dot-in-chief here? Eventually every society in history develops some. Economists call it a unit of exchange. People call it what makes the world go round. Looking at the record, I'd put my dots on that second definition, because it's hard to find anywhere in this record where the plot didn't involve money.
Anyone with a world map can draw the connecting lines from country to country, from age to age. Of the many thousands, just a few will make the point. From the cuneiform tablets of the ancient Middle East and the cowry shells of ancient China....to the Drachmas of ancient Greece to the Sesterius of ancient Rome...to the Florins and Pounds of medieval Europe...right up to the free-wheeling dollars that have become the currency of today's global economy, nothing of consequence happens without the motivation of money.
The obvious examples range from great farmlands to great cities to great universities to great economies to great wars. Oh, you noticed the sequencing there? Well, yes, there's an almost inevitable connection from the first to the last. Somehow as any society grows great. its national appetite for greatness suffers rivals poorly. And so -- as with each of the above national examples and every other example in history -- success begets success. And begotten success only whets the success-appetite for more success, even at the expense of rival appetites.
Some will say there is more to mankind than his money. For those dot-connectors who believe in a God or in the inherent goodness of the human spirit, we want that to be true. But if mankind is more than his money, his history is not. Somehow, when all the dots are on the table, we eventually tend to fix our appetites on the ones marked money. Not that we express it quite that crudely. We prefer attributes such as "the right to a job," "having a decent wage," "balancing the budget," and that old-time, all-time favorite "keeping ahead of the rest."
Throughout the history of dot-connecting, folks have traced the motives of money in many peculiar ways. Some look for conspiratorial cabals like Jewish Bankers...the Knights Templar....the Vatican....Wall Street. ( Right now that last one has a lot of angry people connecting a lot of angry dots around the circled wagons of a lot of worried New York hustlers!). But there have been other dot-connectors over the years like Karl Marx who found the evil of money deep inside the system of capitalism or like the writers of Genesis who found this evil deep inside the original sin of of our pride.
The latest dot-connectors are the G-20 nations who are meeting to see if the ancient blessing/curse of money can somehow be sublimated into a global solution. The trouble with that devoutly-to-be-wished-for scenario is that each of the players on this stage see their own role and their own lines as the starring ones.
Which brings us right back to where all these dots began in the first place -- the Almighty Me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)