In praise of letting go
My son, Josh, told me Eric Clapton won’t perform his “Tears in Heaven” anymore. Fortunately, we have plenty of high quality versions of Clapton singing that timeless paean to loss and guilt, so we are none the poorer. He’s moved on. Authentic grief has a duration; there comes a time for the letting go.
Disbelief and outrage at the loss of people's life savings in the market debacle have given way to a kind of empty-socket dull ache. Kubler-Ross called it acceptance, but I do not think people have actually accepted their losses so much as they have only become inured to them. So many people have lost so much. Now, it’s hard to get even mildly exercised about another story of a fund emptied, another scumbag “financial advisor” absconding with his ill-gotten gains. I'm bone weary of brokerage commercials beating their Lipper averages at us. They must think people are over the horror too. It’s been like watching a blowout bowl game narrated by a commentator with a three metaphor vocabulary. “Market Hit Again”; “Stocks Rebound Briefly Then Fade” ; “Carnage Continues In Financial Sector.” Can we let go of the great 2008 disaster—the grieving for everyone, everywhere’s defenestrated financials? Let’s move on.
How about those bailouts? I’m not even going there. The fatigue is crushing.
Up next, the "Green” tsunami. Everywhere I look declarations of Green-ness wail their declarations that they are not boiling the planet. It’s not us, we’re GREEN! Everything from concrete trucks to plastic grocery sacks claim to be “Green.” A lithe barista wished me a “Green” day. “Have a green day!”
Oy.
Will the immense mounds of refuse the crowds at the inauguration leave behind be “Green?” I have the distinct impression that it will be a long, long time before we can move on from green . . .
Friday, January 16, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Civility-Snarkility
WSJ writer David Ulin wrote today about “Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation” by David Denby. Ulin quotes Denby, “I think it's reasonable to ask: What are we doing to ourselves? What kind of journalistic culture do we want? . . . What kind of national conversation?" And then Ulin goes on to say, “what we need is a revolution in sensibility, a return to civil discourse, a way of opening, rather than closing down, debate."
Civility is a choice. Snarkility is a choice. The snarkist’s shtick is, “we give you pukes out there just what you deserve.” The civilist’s shtick is, “we tell you what you need to know with respect."
I’m not really bothered by either attitude. I remember them from jr. high. In both camps, if you’re in, you’re cool. If not, you’re worse than excrement. The one says it overtly; the other obliquely. It’s a convenient way to ascertain the world.
“In the context of no context,” author George W. S. Trow warned us this was coming. He wrote of the changes in how we do “History” and of the decline of adulthood:
HISTORY
History had been the record of growth, conflict, and destruction.
THE NEW HISTORY
The New History was the record of the expression of demographically significant preferences: the lunge of demography here as opposed to there. . . In the New History, the ideal became agreement rather than well-judged action, so men learned to be competent only in those modes which embraced the possibility of agreement. The world of power changed. What was powerful grew more powerful in ways that could be easily measured, grew less powerful in every way that could not be measured.
What is now counted as powerful in modern discourse is how many “views” can you “document,” not how compelling or convincing is your argument. What may be off-putting about the snarkists is they are offensive. They are, however, in the parlance of the new history, aligned with the current demographic lunge; thence, successful. Civilists are out. Dead meat.
If one is being ingenuous when engaging in discourse, one wants the other party to at least comprehend one’s point. One hopes to, if not convince outright, at least move the other person one's way. Civility for its own sake won’t accomplish that, but it may potentiate that. Snarkility doesn’t give a flying ____ whether it’s comprehended; it just wants to be seen to look good.
What kind of journalistic culture do we want? One that tells us things we would not otherwise know. Whether the tone of the telling is civil or snarky, let stories be told, let facts come out, let pictures be painted, let revealing words flow, let things that could not be measured be told anyway. Let more than what is cool to say be said. Let the free press discover its voice and let that voice yawp out something worth its hearing.
Civility is a choice. Snarkility is a choice. The snarkist’s shtick is, “we give you pukes out there just what you deserve.” The civilist’s shtick is, “we tell you what you need to know with respect."
I’m not really bothered by either attitude. I remember them from jr. high. In both camps, if you’re in, you’re cool. If not, you’re worse than excrement. The one says it overtly; the other obliquely. It’s a convenient way to ascertain the world.
“In the context of no context,” author George W. S. Trow warned us this was coming. He wrote of the changes in how we do “History” and of the decline of adulthood:
HISTORY
History had been the record of growth, conflict, and destruction.
THE NEW HISTORY
The New History was the record of the expression of demographically significant preferences: the lunge of demography here as opposed to there. . . In the New History, the ideal became agreement rather than well-judged action, so men learned to be competent only in those modes which embraced the possibility of agreement. The world of power changed. What was powerful grew more powerful in ways that could be easily measured, grew less powerful in every way that could not be measured.
What is now counted as powerful in modern discourse is how many “views” can you “document,” not how compelling or convincing is your argument. What may be off-putting about the snarkists is they are offensive. They are, however, in the parlance of the new history, aligned with the current demographic lunge; thence, successful. Civilists are out. Dead meat.
If one is being ingenuous when engaging in discourse, one wants the other party to at least comprehend one’s point. One hopes to, if not convince outright, at least move the other person one's way. Civility for its own sake won’t accomplish that, but it may potentiate that. Snarkility doesn’t give a flying ____ whether it’s comprehended; it just wants to be seen to look good.
What kind of journalistic culture do we want? One that tells us things we would not otherwise know. Whether the tone of the telling is civil or snarky, let stories be told, let facts come out, let pictures be painted, let revealing words flow, let things that could not be measured be told anyway. Let more than what is cool to say be said. Let the free press discover its voice and let that voice yawp out something worth its hearing.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
In Defense of Peggy Noonan
"In the afternoon they came unto a land,
In which it seemed always afternoon."
It's afternoon in America, when soap operas reign and old movies run. When kids come home from school hungry for a snack and ready for a nap. When old folks actually do nap. When the crews go out and open or change the direction of the HOV lanes. When shifts change. When chefs put the evening's roasts in their ovens. When the lines grow longer at Starbucks, and people think about their plans for the night. Did I set my TiVo for the new shows? What am I wearing to the club? Do I need to pick up something for dinner?
We have a new president this afternoon. He'll either be an effective communicator and an effective congressional arm-twister or he won't. He'll either influence the oil sheiks or he won't. He'll stoke the fires of trade or he won't. He'll create new programs that'll get passed and even funded or they won't.
The same hustlers will make a boodle of money off his stimuli that made a boodle of money off the mortgage giveaways. Businesses will go in and out of business. The wars will wind down and up depending on how much vigor the radical islamists have and how much will we’ll have to push back. People will pay more or less taxes, but they’ll pay taxes. The “system” will grow and grow and grow.
But, President Obama cannot supernaturally fix the ills of America's generational entitlement programs. He will not make "every man (or woman) a king." He won't put a chicken in every pot and a car in every covered parking space. He will not provide free healthcare or free post-secondary education for our kids, and grandkids. He won't make public transit free. He won't do these and many more of the things a large percentage of the people who voted for him believe he will do because those things are not do-able by anyone. They are not do-able.
In her column in the Wall Street Journal this week, Peggy Noonan (among other things) is saying these things and more are actually believed by a large number of Americans--that a president can actually cause these things to come to pass. If we can blame a president for the destruction caused by a hurricane, then we can expect a president to fix social security--how hard could that be compared to stopping a hurricane? We can expect a president to provide universal, high quality healthcare. We can expect a president to keep oil prices low and make wind and solar power cost-effective, and find real life on Mars.
But Peggy said something else--there are large numbers of people in the 24/7 news cycle business, who actually believe a president can do these things, and they want to believe Barak Obama is the president who will do them. That is what she meant by “awe.” It's as if they believe the movie stars they salivate about all the time are actually the people they play in the movies. They seem to think being glib, handsome, slender and buff make you politically efficacious. They do not.
Presidents don't have the power to do the things a great and growing number of people believe they have the power to do. They can't prevent suffering. They can't prevent natural disasters, or even man-made economic disasters. They can't, with the stroke of a pen, change the economic climate, or actually put your out of work uncle back to work, or heal your Aunt Edith's lung cancer, or ease the pain of loss when your child dies in battle. They are just humans. They do not possess these powers.
If it seems as though I am selling our new president short, that is not my intention. I'm just saying what Peggy Noonan is saying--running for office isn't the same as being in office. Presidents are just humans. So, let's just get real.
In which it seemed always afternoon."
It's afternoon in America, when soap operas reign and old movies run. When kids come home from school hungry for a snack and ready for a nap. When old folks actually do nap. When the crews go out and open or change the direction of the HOV lanes. When shifts change. When chefs put the evening's roasts in their ovens. When the lines grow longer at Starbucks, and people think about their plans for the night. Did I set my TiVo for the new shows? What am I wearing to the club? Do I need to pick up something for dinner?
We have a new president this afternoon. He'll either be an effective communicator and an effective congressional arm-twister or he won't. He'll either influence the oil sheiks or he won't. He'll stoke the fires of trade or he won't. He'll create new programs that'll get passed and even funded or they won't.
The same hustlers will make a boodle of money off his stimuli that made a boodle of money off the mortgage giveaways. Businesses will go in and out of business. The wars will wind down and up depending on how much vigor the radical islamists have and how much will we’ll have to push back. People will pay more or less taxes, but they’ll pay taxes. The “system” will grow and grow and grow.
But, President Obama cannot supernaturally fix the ills of America's generational entitlement programs. He will not make "every man (or woman) a king." He won't put a chicken in every pot and a car in every covered parking space. He will not provide free healthcare or free post-secondary education for our kids, and grandkids. He won't make public transit free. He won't do these and many more of the things a large percentage of the people who voted for him believe he will do because those things are not do-able by anyone. They are not do-able.
In her column in the Wall Street Journal this week, Peggy Noonan (among other things) is saying these things and more are actually believed by a large number of Americans--that a president can actually cause these things to come to pass. If we can blame a president for the destruction caused by a hurricane, then we can expect a president to fix social security--how hard could that be compared to stopping a hurricane? We can expect a president to provide universal, high quality healthcare. We can expect a president to keep oil prices low and make wind and solar power cost-effective, and find real life on Mars.
But Peggy said something else--there are large numbers of people in the 24/7 news cycle business, who actually believe a president can do these things, and they want to believe Barak Obama is the president who will do them. That is what she meant by “awe.” It's as if they believe the movie stars they salivate about all the time are actually the people they play in the movies. They seem to think being glib, handsome, slender and buff make you politically efficacious. They do not.
Presidents don't have the power to do the things a great and growing number of people believe they have the power to do. They can't prevent suffering. They can't prevent natural disasters, or even man-made economic disasters. They can't, with the stroke of a pen, change the economic climate, or actually put your out of work uncle back to work, or heal your Aunt Edith's lung cancer, or ease the pain of loss when your child dies in battle. They are just humans. They do not possess these powers.
If it seems as though I am selling our new president short, that is not my intention. I'm just saying what Peggy Noonan is saying--running for office isn't the same as being in office. Presidents are just humans. So, let's just get real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)