Barack the Outlier

For the past month I've been sick - first a terrible upper respiratory infection complicated by bronchitis, then last week a stomach virus which knocked me out for a couple of days. Those things cripple your ability to write or even care about much that is going on.

But, knock on wood, I think I'm finally better and yesterday I wrote an article on my website OUTRAGED CITIZEN about the history that will be made tomorrow. Check it out.

During much of the past month, not being able to do many of the things I normally do (including helping my ailing parents) I had the opportunity to catch up on some reading. I finished Barack Obama's first book: Dreams from my Father. I started Malcolm Gladwell's latest book: Outliers. I highly recommend them both.

The interesting thing about these two books is that they complement each other. Gladwell's thesis in the book is that successful people are not individuals who have enormously high IQs or who pull themselves up by their bootsraps by sheer determination. Instead, he shows how time after time there are forces at work that give the successful person unusual access or opportunities that others, with just as much determination or just as much intelligence, simply do not have. For instance, Bill Gates was the son of a successful Seattle attorney and a wealthy mother who sent him to a prestigious prep school, Lakeside, where the mothers raised enough money to purchase a computer that connected to a mainframe computer in downtown Seattle. Here's how Gladwell summarizes the opportunities Gates had:

Opportunity number one was that Gates got sent to Lakeside. How many high schools in the world had access to a time-sharing terminal in 1968? Opportunity number two was that the mothers of Lakeside had enough money to pay for the school's computer fees. Number three was that, when that money ran out, one of the parents happened to work at C-Cubed, which happened to need someone to check its code on the weekends, and which also happened not to care if weekends turned into weeknights. Number four was that Gates just happened to live within walking distance of the University of Washington. Number six was that the university happened to have free computer time between three and six in the morning. Number seven was that TRW happened to call Bud Pembroke. Number eight was that the best programmers Pembroke knew for that particular problem happened to be two high school kids. And number nine was that Lakeside was willing to let those kids spend their spring term miles away, writing code.

Gladwell also says that highly successful people have spent enormous amounts of time practicing their craft or skill, be it computer programming, musical performance, or athletics. The amount of time it takes for someone to become top of his field, a real expert at something, Gladwell estimates to be 10,000 hours or ten years. By the time Gates had dropped out of Harvard, he had accumulated that many hours.

In reading about Gladwell's thesis I see how well it applies to Barack Obama. With Obama, the 10,000 hours of practice would be in dealing with other people and learning to navigate in a world of diversity, a world in which he constantly had to adjust and shift to get along. And what better skill is their for politics than the ability to relate to people and get them to relate to you?

In Gladwell style, let me try to summarize the opportunities Obama had.

Opportunity number one was that Obama was born to brilliant parents of two different races. Opportunity number two, Obama was raised mostly in the diverse state of Hawaii. Opportunity number three, Obama's mother married an Indonesian man and took him to live there for four years where he went to school with both Christians and Muslims. Opportunity number four, schooling was limited in Indonesia so Obama's mother sent him back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents where his grandfather's contacts allowed the middle class family to send their grandson to a prestigious prep school. Opportunity number five, Obama was accepted at Occidental College in Southern California where he met students of all races but learned to embrace his African-American heritage and became active in the anti-apartheid movement. Opportunity number six, Obama was accepted at Columbia University in New York and learned to navigate the tough neighborhood where he lived. Opportunity number seven, Obama applied to be a community organizer in Chicago and worked there for three years, failing at several projects in this on-the-job-training before he began to achieve small successes. Opportunity number eight, Obama was accepted to Harvard Law School. Opportunity number nine, prior to law school Obama traveled to Kenya, the land of his father, and met hundreds of relatives who had all heard of him, and learned what a real community was. And opportunity number ten, Obama became editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review where he formed relationships with both conservative and liberal students and scholars and made many connections that would serve him well in his future political career.

By the time he was in his late twenties, Obama had learned the skills of listening, debate, compromise, negotiation, and consensus building. He had developed the "no drama Obama" style through years of dealing with people who were different from him, and people he had to introduce himself to. Very few people of his intellect and ability have the experience with people that Obama had and these experiences make him uniquely qualified to be our first African American president.

Lunatic Watch

New feature on the blog: lunatic watch, where I note stories and articles highlighting the worst of the worst of the soon to be former Bush administration as well as legislators and other elected officials who do insane and destructive things.

First entry: a blog on Daily Kos simply reporting the administration in their own words, with appropriate (and sometimes disturbing) pictures.

Innocent faces

These are the innocent faces of my three grandchildren as they enjoyed viewing the Rose Parade floats.

Over 100 children just as innocent as these were killed by Israel over the past few days.

New Year, same old violence

Happy New Year!

We started out the New Year learning that Israel was bombing the Palestinian territory of Gaza, where unemployment is fifty percent, blockades have made food and supplies in short supply for months, and people live in crowded homes often without sewers and other necessities of life. After the bombing, Israel began a ground invasion. They claim they are hunting for the leaders and weapons of Hamas, to make Israelis safe.

So why have they killed over 100 children?

This is war. This is always war. No matter how a country may justify it, no matter how intellectuals around the world may say it is appropriate, no matter how the warring parties try to avoid civilian casualties, there are always children who pay the ultimate price, children who never have the chance to grow up.

In the small territory of Gaza, there is a record of how many children have been killed. How many children have we killed in the much larger countries of Iraq and Afghanistan? It could be in the tens of thousands but we will never know. We don't keep track.

Christmas break

Seattle, Washington, outside my son's house.

For the past ten days, I've been under the weather and neither motivated to blog nor to read other blogs. So I've decided to stop feeling guilty about it and just take an official break until after the New Year.

So Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and I'll be back to join with all of you after the first in the countdown to the Inauguration.

Christmas: the myth vs. reality

We have invented a wonderful myth about Christmas, which can be summed up in the words of a Christmas song: "It's the most wonderful time of the year."

Humbug.


Every year I believe that nonsense and every year I'm disappointed, exhausted, and ready for the whole thing to be over.

First of all, I hate shopping. I enjoy getting things for my family, and the giving of gifts, but every year I go overboard, usually because I've gotten one too many things for one of my family members, and then I have to even it up by buying another item for each of the rest of them. What was once a nice sentiment - giving gifts in imitation of the three wise men - is now another chore to be performed at the busiest time of the year - when you have no time.

And I positively despise being in stores before Christmas. The music is dreadful ("Have a holly, jolly Christmas," "Oh by gosh by golly, it's time for mistletoe and holly," "Jingle bell rock," to name just a few that grate on my nerves. ) And they are all sung by artists who are deceased. Believe me, listening to dead guys sing Christmas songs does not cheer me up one bit.

How about decorating? You can't have Christmas without decorating the whole damn house - at least that's what they tell you on HGTV, where decorators come into homes with $2000 budgets to prepare the home of some rich guy for his "annual Christmas party." Wow! Somebody rich enough to have an annual Christmas party. My husband's company cancelled their annual Christmas party - hopefully the entire company won't fold in this disastrous economy.

So back to decorating. In our house, decorating involves hunching over in the closet beneath the stairs to get at all the lighted houses, tree decor, candles, flours, garlands, santas and snowmen I have collected over the years and then finding places for everything. When your back finally recovers from bending over and lifting heavy boxes, it's time to put everything back. So this year I cut the decor in half. I put out half the snowmen, half the santas, a couple of garlands, no lighted houses, and no tree.

Then there's the uncertainty over what to do on Christmas and what family members will be here. Will my sons come down from Seattle? Will there be a mad dash to the airport an hour away the night before Christmas to pick someone up? Will we have time to visit with my family and my husband's family on Christmas day without it becoming insane? Will my grandchildren be healthy so they can come for dinner?

Speaking of health, every Christmas it seems, I get sick. I've missed a few traditional Christmas eves at my mother's house because I couldn't get out of bed. Last year I missed a family wedding three days before Christmas because I had an intestinal virus. This year I have a miserable cold which doesn't seem to want to leave. And my husband is just as sick as I am.

And finally, of course, is the Christmas feast. So many dishes, so much preparation, so much time on my feet cooking, cleaning, setting the table, washing dishes. I was so exhausted last year after preparing dinner, my son's wonderful girlfriend told me she would like to cook dinner this year. So I'm letting her. I don't care if she cooks grilled cheese sandwiches (she's not - she's a great cook) I'm going to let the younger generation take over.

In spite of the songs that promise this will be the most wonderful time of the year, I find that many people dread the coming of Christmas and are glad to see it go. This year, for the first time ever, even though I always grumble about the work involved, I wish we could just cancel Christmas.

This year Christmas marks the end of a terrible year for me, my family and the country. The economy has decimated my husband's 401K, his company is drastically downsizing because they are connected to the building industry, and money is tight. My parents are both terribly ill, my mother has leukemia and my father has a progressive degenerative neurological disease. I have spent most of this year accompanying them to doctors, labs, and hospitals. And the country has had to endure one more year of an idiot in the White House, with all the disaster he brings with him.

So this year, Christmas is not the most wonderful time of the year. It's just a huge source of work to top off the most dreadful year of my life. And my guess is that all the people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their health insurance, and their health have suffered a dreadful year as well.

It goes without saying, I guess, that I am not looking forward to Christmas. I am, however, looking forward to January 20th. I know everything won't change that day, but at least January 20th doesn't involve cooking, going to the airport or decorating, and we can all watch history being made as we gleefully wave bye bye to Bush.

Now that really will be the most wonderful time of the year.

Applause for Bush

I never thought I would say this, indeed I never thought I would be able to say it because I never thought it would happen, but George W. Bush has done a good thing.

By helping out the auto industry, Bush has shown a willingness to put practicality above ideology, and maybe finally show some of that "compassionate conservatism" he talked about in the 2000 campaign.

What's wrong with the Bush administration, and the thirty year old conservative movement in this country, is that they rely almost exclusively on ideology and thus make a lot of stupid decisions. Ideology is fine for academia, and for think tanks, but it can be deadly in government where it breeds stubbornness, insularity, and stupidity. When one holds the fate of hundreds of millions of citizens in one's hands, and a signature or a veto may determine whether people have jobs, houses, incomes, and health care, ideology isn't appropriate. What is needed is common sense and practicality.

That's why Barack Obama is such a promising politician and president elect. He is a practical man, a problem solver, a unifier, a listener, a leader who gathers facts and opinions from all corners before deciding on the most sensible action.

As for Bush, eight years into his presidency, his reputation in tatters, he finally has done the right thing, the practical thing, the good thing, and for the first time ever, I applaud him.

Caroline vs. Arnold: Double standard?

Sitting out here in California I have to admit I know nothing about New York politics. So I find the current dust up over Caroline Kennedy's interest in being appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat for the next two years extremely fascinating. So, apparently, do many op-ed writers, most of whom are criticizing the possibility of such an appointment.

Caroline has never been elected to state or national office before, they say. She hasn't paid her dues. It's a sneaky way to enter into politics. What does she actually know about the Senate and the issues? Is being a Kennedy alone a qualification for the Senate? Aren't there other candidates who have paid their dues and are more deserving of the appointment?

Well, just to put this into perspective, knowing very little about Caroline's qualifications myself, I have one name for you: ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.

The current governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a relative of Caroline's by marriage, had also never been elected to national or state office before he helped recall the then governor of California, Gray Davis, and run for his seat. Arnold had in no way "paid his dues" either. Ousting a sitting governor and running for his seat is also a sneaky way to enter politics and at the time we knew nothing about Arnold's political views other than that he was a conservative Republican. We also knew he was married to a "Kennedy." And there were plenty of other candidates who held better political qualifications for the job of governor. But Arnold had starpower. He was a movie star, a celebrity, and a member by marriage of the best known political family in America.

Frankly, I don't see the difference between Arnold and Caroline in terms of experience and qualifications. Except, of course for two things. Arnold was well known as a movie star and an obvious showman and extrovert. Caroline is not as well known for her accomplishments, because she is more of an introvert who has worked quietly behind the scenes for decades on issues such as education.

Well, there are a few other differences. Caroline has been raising her children for the past twenty-five years even as she worked as a volunteer on many issues of importance to the state of New York while Arnold worked as an actor in Hollywood. Caroline is low key while Arnold's personality is larger than life. Arnold is a man and Caroline is a woman. And finally, Arnold is a Republican and Caroline is a Democrat.

Make of all of that what you will...

Snow Beast

If you want to start your day with a smile, check out this video of my son's little Westie, "Marlowe," playing in snow for the first time at his home in Seattle.

The regrettable death of newspapers

This week, in addition to the never-ending stories about the governor of Illinois, and the Republican assassination of the American car industry, there was the news that America's newspapers are in trouble. Some are filing bankruptcy, many are laying off reporters, some are going under, and at least one - The New York Times - has taken out a huge mortgage on its headquarters in order to keep going. Some on cable are speculating that the internet has killed newspapers. Others are saying that the economy means fewer advertising dollars and that is killing the papers.

I stopped subscribing to papers years ago, not so much because I don't think they are valuable, but because I never had time to read them and because they got black ink residue all over everything when I did. I also got tired of all the supplemental ads that usually went into the trash immediately. I saved the papers themselves for a week, thinking I would get around to reading them, but I usually didn't. Now I read a few newspapers online - the big ones like the Washington Post, New York Times and L.A. Times. Occasionally I read an editorial from the WSJ, especially Peggy Noonan (for her excellent writing even when I disagree with her) and Thomas Frank (for his brilliant thinking, with which I usually agree), but mostly I stay away from its Republican propaganda.

Actually, I have a different theory for why people don't read newspapers anymore. I think cable news killed newspapers. It's so much easier, isn't it, to just click on the television and watch some blowhard on FOX or CNN or MSNBC tell you what to think? No, I don't think they report unbiased news. I think they tell you what and how to think.

FOX tells you to hate Democrats, to suspect Obama of being a Muslim, a terrorist, a radical, or a corrupt associalte of the now disgraced Illinois governor. MSNBC tells you Republicans are crooks or idiots in the evening, when Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow headline, and just the opposite in the morning when Morning Jo(k)e Scarborough bloviates. CNN is more subtle. They pretend not to take sides, but many of their well-coifed female anchors like to make subtle but snide comments about Obama. Actually, what all of these cable networks are trying to do is stir up controversy and trouble, and raise the blood pressure and the attention level of their viewers so they get good ratings. They have to fill 24 hours with something that will grab your attention, so they say controversial things and often incite anger, fear or hatred against someone or something.

Cable has made it unnecessary for anyone to think, to read, to investigate, to see both sides and to make up their own minds based on the evidence. If you watch Keith, you don't have to question his facts. If you watch Hannity, and trust him, you simply believe what he tells you. And these television personalities tell you things in sound bites, quick emotionally laden opinions, and funny presentations. You don't have to strain your brain to pay attention because they are so entertaining you naturally want to stay focused.

Not so with newspapers. With newspapers, you first have to have a fairly good reading ability. You have to comprehend words with more than two syllables. I contend that most Americans don't have that ability anymore. Next, you have to have the attention span and the willingness to spend some time wading through complex investigative articles to determine the facts of some political story. You have to have a tolerance for long, dry, complex writing that doesn't necessarily entertain you, but that may require you to read the same paragraph over and over again when your mind wanders, as it inevitably will when you are accustomed to watching "news" on television. Finally, you have to send in a monthly check and tip that damn paperboy at Christmas, as well as haul all that paper out to the recylcing bin each week. In an era of convenience and instant everything, who has time for all that?

Television has done a lot of damage to our ability to think and concentrate, to our intelligence, and to our physical well being as we spend so much time sitting instead of moving. And now the 24 hour cable news shows have just about killed newspapers, in addition to disseminating false and biased information. They have not just made us stupid. They have divided us and made us hateful people who judge each other on the basis of propaganda that get good ratings and high salaries for the propagandists.

Frankly, I would much rather see the cable shows die than the newspapers - even if it means I have to endure a little black newsprint rubbing off on my hands and furniture.