IOC Wrestling Cut Suspect

The International Olympic Committee has chosen to cut wrestling from their 25-sporting roster of the Summer Games and at the last minute save the modern pentathlon.  Forbes magazine goes on to say NBC pays for 70% of the Olympics but the U.S. only has the representatives on the 115 member committee and no representation among the executives, an assembly dominated by central Europe.

I would say wrestling is more relevant, accessible and widespread than pentathlon.  Consider you need access to horses, air pistols, and fencing equipment just to train for the pentathlon, many countries are precluded from even competing in this aristocratic event of military roots.  (Swimming and cross country running are the two other events, although the New York Times notes the pentathlon will now be modified to combine the running and shooting into one event...so tetrathlon/ quadrathlon?)

In contrast, wrestling has offered a multitude of opportunity for nations given the 10 weight classes plus 1 open event, freestyle and Greco-Roman forms, and men's & women's events.  10 weights •2 forms + 1 freestyle men's events + 4 women's freestyle weight classes = 25 events.  The 2012 Olympics had 71 nations partake in wrestling with strong representation from Eastern Europe, Middle East (notably Iran), Japan and the U.S.  For some nations wrestling is their primary entry for the Olympic Games and has been a main staple of the Games from ancient times.  Additionally many wrestlers go on to compete professionally in the mainstream-shifting and ever expanding arena of MMA fighting.

Quotes on Materialism

I am a fan of Ravi Zacharias.  His lessons are full of pearls of wisdom.  Consider what he says on materialism:
"The lust of the eyes is greed.  It basically takes that which is material and defines it as essentially spiritual."

"I do not believe any man should feel guilty about making money or possessing money, but we need to feel guilty if we are possessed by it and if that makes us."

A Winning Argument

This a quick exploration into winning, primarily winning arguments.  Perhaps this exercise is obvious once stated.  In winning an argument there are two general outcomes:
  1.  You overpower someone into defeat/ submission/ giving up.
  2.  The opponent joins you or, in the least, gains an understanding.

"Respect" could be had either way but I propose that the second outcome is more desired.
In the first, an adversarial relationship persists.  In the second you gain ground and a potential ally.

Approach
The desired outcome dictates the focus of the approach.  The first outcome is driven by sheer will, persistence, force, skill or luck.  The second is driven by reasoning and persuasion. Certainly one employs will and skill in reasoning, but to reiterate, the focus of the approach is different.

Outcome
In the first, the confrontation ends with the opponent choosing against his/her will.  In the second the opponent chooses to realign their will.  Which is more satisfying to you?  Perhaps defeating another provides a temporary ego boost, but consider the greater gain of winning heart and mind.  Consider when an opponent gives up, you technically win but it may not feel like a win.  Do they give up because they've given up on you?  In the first you may have won, but you have not won the person over.  You may have even lost them for good.  There is a higher likelihood in the first outcome for one or both to be worse off because of the confrontation (Lose-Lose, Win-Lose, Lose-Win).  The second outcome provides a chance for both to be better off (Win-Win).  If the intent of an argument is not to convince someone then what is the point of arguing in the first place unless one wants to be a troll and argue for the sake of arguing.

Quote: Viktor Frankl

If we present man with a concept of man that is not true, we will corrupt him.  When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which man is in any case prone.  I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp: Auschwitz.  The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing more than the product of heredity and environment or as the Nazis like to say, "of blood and soil."  I am absolutely convinced the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Majdanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry of defense or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.
-Viktor Frankl

Spaced Apart

One might think people in a large community have a higher chance of making friends; yet people still fall through the cracks.  In fact we associated such cracks with large organizations not small.  The community may fault such individuals as socially awkward, shy, introverted, or generally having poor social skills.  These individuals in turn could fault the community as insular, homogenous, xenophobic, exclusive, ignorant/unenlightened, or generally a poor fit.  These may be at play; however social structure offers another factor.

Theory
Social theory observes that people have the capacity to make and maintain around eight quality friendships, more for extroverts, less for introverts.  (Is there a name for this general rule?).  Upon entry into a new environment, an individual typically fills these eight slots within the first two months.  That can explain the relative easy with making friends at the start of a new school term or the founding of a new community.  In this early period, people are relationally more open and then more closed as slots are maxed.  However, not everyone fills their slots by this two-month deadline and "fall through" can occur.  So do communities becoming more exclusive or xenophobic with time?  Not necessarily as they may just have maxed their emotional capacity to relate, and thus are structurally less welcoming.  Likewise after seeking friends for two months, do individuals simply become exhausted from looking?

Faltering
If nine people each have eight slots for friendship and each person's eight slots are filled exactly by the other eight, there is no room for a 10th addition, especially after two months from the time the 9th person joins.  Person #11 would at least have #10, if #10 hadn't already given up on the community.  (Are #11 and #10 then casualties of circumstance?)  Most communities want to see growth, but numbers are insufficient if they're just accruing dissatisfied constituents.  Thus no matter the size of the community there is the risk of faltering growth each time existing members have already maxed their eights.

Questions, Experimentation
How then does a community organize to maintain capacity for meaningful relationships among established members and newcomers?  I am not a social scientist, therefore I do not know the work that has been done on this front.  I do believe there needs to be an elaboration of this eight-friends theory.  Does a person generally establish a set of eight friends for each new community they become a part of?  What happens to the relational bonds of person's previous eight when one joins a new community?  If people actually establish multiple sets of eights without sacrificing quality, then it stand that a community organizer can periodically shuffle or reshuffle subgroups of people to allow for periodic resets and new eights to be established.  This allows people the opportunity to make friends in a smaller group setting (less likely to have cracks); while giving people an out of friends to fall back on in the larger community.  Then the next detail is periodicity.  How long after a two-month incubation period of slot filling does a relationships become meaningful and of lasting quality.  Would reshuffling nullify the relational bonds that were just established?  This of course would be a grand experiment requiring a willingness of participants.

Predicted Growth of World's Cities

McKinsey Global Institute and Foreign Policy (FP) magazine published a list (Link) predicting the next decade's 75 most dynamic cities in terms of absolute dollar increase in GDP.  To make the list of 75, a city had to have at least an absolute increase in GDP of $100.2 billion for the 15-year projection.  This list can be looked at in several ways [When I have time, I hope to add figures to help illustrate]:

1. GDP Growth.  China will witness the largest growth in the world with 15 of the top 30 ranked cities.  Grouping by nation shows that 29 (38.7%) are predicted to be cities in China, 13 (17.3%) U.S., 4 Brazil, 3 India, 2 Australia, 2 Turkey, 2 Saudi Arabia.  South East Asia and other parts of South America will also exhibit several cities of growth.

  In terms of rate of growth (percent increase in GDP), China absolutely dominates the list with 27 of the 30 fastest growing cities (the three non-Chinese cities being Bangalore #18, Delhi #23, and Luanda #27).  Perhaps cities do not paint the complete picture, as the IMF, The Economist, and Economy Watch all point out the rapid pace of growth by emerging economies, particularly by African nations.  Luanda, Angola is the sole African city to make the FP list.  In fact for the last decade, Angola as a nation beat even China in GDP growth percentage (China's average annual GDP grew at 10.5%, whereas Angola grew at a pace of 11.1%).  The Economist forecasts that seven African nations will rank in the top ten positions for annual GDP growth % over the next few years:  Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Congo, Ghana, Zambia, Nigeria.  China, India, and Vietnam complete the list.

2. Absolute GDP.  New York City and Tokyo will retain the top two spots in absolute GDP.  Underlined are the cities that drop off from or join the top ten.
The top 10 earning cities of 2010: Tokyo, New York, Paris, London, Los Angeles, Chicago, Rhine-Ruhr, São Paulo, Washington, Houston.
The predicted top 10 earning cities of 2025: Tokyo, New York, Shanghai, Los Angeles, Beijing, London, Paris, São Paulo, Moscow, Chicago.

Consistent with China's rise, the Economist predicts that China's overall GDP will match and then overtake that of the U.S. some time between 2018 and 2021.

3. Population. Tokyo and Shanghai would retain the top two spots in absolute population with over 30 million expected each.  This is followed by five cities that will or already do exceed 20 million people: Beijing, São Paulo, Mumbai, Mexico City, and Delhi.  Beijing is expected to add nearly 11 million to their population in the 15 years between 2015 and 2025.  In this same period, Rhine-Ruhr, Germany and Seoul, South Korea are expected to decrease in population by 200,000 and 300,000 people, respectively.

  As this list was created by GDP growth rank, not all large cities made the cut.  Cross-referencing this economic list with the 75 most populous cities (List as of 7-1-2012) provides an off-the-cuff set of locations potentially at-risk for stagnation and the problems associated with urbanization (homelessness, traffic, pollution, limited access to medical/ economic/ educational opportunities and resources).  The cross reference shows that all 12 of China's current most populous cities will experience significant economic growth.  There is also significant overlap for the 12 largest U.S. cities, except for Detroit and Boston which are not predicted to grow as much.  India has nine of the world's 75 most populous cities.  Three made the FP list:  Bangalore, Mumbai, and Delhi. These cities represent 3.5% of the India's population and may find themselves buoying much of the nation's economy for the next decade or exhibiting further economic disparities.  Still India's populous neighbors of Bangladesh and Pakistan had no cities that make the FP list.  Tokyo is the only large Japanese city predicted to have significant growth; nonetheless the situation is quite different from India.  Tokyo represents 28.4% of Japan's entire population with population growth slowing to less than 1%.  This suggests that Tokyo already underpins much of Japan's economy and will probably continue to do so for the next decade.  The concern for Japan is how long can this continue with its aging population.

4. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP = GDP per capita).  As a measure of standard of living, the PPP is predicted to remain highest, in order, for Doha, Abu Dhabi, San Francisco, Washington, and New York.  Paris however will drop from the top five to number nine while Kuwait City enters the top five.  The U.S. will continue to have some of the highest standards of living maintaining 13 of the top 30 rankings for PPP.  China will not rank until Hong Kong at #27, which is not much different from its #26 position in 2010.  China then has a block of ranking cities starting with Tianjin #31 in 2025 as compared to a block of cities start with Dalian #41 in 2010.  This shows that apart from Hong Kong, there would be a general rise in PPP rankings for the listed Chinese cities in the next decade.  In contrast, India's three ranking growth cities would remain in the bottom for PPP for these 75 cities.


In summary, the U.S. as a whole remains an economic bastion with expectations for continued growth and high living standards, but the story for the next decade appears to belong to emerging/newly industrialized economies, particularly China which will see simultaneous growth in population and economy, an economy poised to rapidly surpass that of the U.S.

On Apple Secrecy

Apple is notorious for its secrecy and perhaps paranoia; however consider the industry's history, Apple's behavior may not be so far fetched.

1. Apple product line is so streamline that every single product has make-or-break status.  The role of each product has a ripple effect on the Apple ecosystem of accessory makers, app developers, and content generators.

2. Apple has indicated that leaks regarding products in development cut into revenue from current product models as consumers hold off on purchases in anticipation of next generation products.

3. Online blogs and journalists secure leaks from informants.  Who makes more reliable informants than employees and suppliers?  Accordingly Apple's hatches are batten down on its very own employees.  They are often kept in the dark on future developments or their roles can be so compartmentalized that they remain blind to the elephant in the room.  Apple also has a practice of popup skunkworks inside the company as sections are cordoned off for certain eyes-only development.

4. Early previews and partnerships with other tech companies have a history of transforming into rival products.  Apple has (and Steve Jobs had) regarded such actions as back stabs from partners.
  a. Microsoft's Bill Gates was given an early preview of the Macintosh, Mac OS and mouse leading to the rival GUI in the form of Windows OS.  (Yes, Steve Jobs in turn had a previewed the mouse and GUI technology from Xerox PARC, though Apple was already developing a GUI according to L.A. Times.)
  b. Google's former CEO and current chairman, Eric Schmidt, sat on Apple's board or directors while Google was developing their own mobile operating system and phone/tablet ecosystem in the form of Android/Android phones/Chrome.
  c. More recently, Samsung as a major supplier of parts (chips and screens) for Apple's smartphones and tablets did not deny copying Apple's designs but argued that Apple's designs were so intuitive that designing products and OS similar to the iPhone/iPad/iOS were essentially unavoidable.  Samsung's chief designer for mobile products has previously noted on video his admiration of Apple products and his hopes of matching the iconic level of design.

Olympics Media Banter

The general sentiment of the 2012 London Olympic Closing Ceremony was "cheesy" and "chaotic."  I didn't have high expectations as even the 2008 Beijing Olympic Closing Ceremony started strong but devolved into a pop mishmash.  Here, I want to comment on the back and forth between media reviews of London's Opening Ceremony:
1. British outlets lauded it as "spectacular" and a "masterpiece."
2. Several U.S. outlets tossed around the word "bizarre."
3. British outlets responded that Americans just didn't "get it" or that American's were just "overwhelmed" by the spectacle.
3. Media headlines responded that Opening Ceremony was a party but only the British were invited.

Viewing the Opening on American television, perhaps my peers and I missed the full picture or were on the receiving end of poor videography/ editing.  Nonetheless, I did find it almost aloof to declare that Americans are essentially simpleminded or too ignorant to understand something that was meant for a world stage when it is just possible that the Ceremonies fell short of expectations.  I felt there was a programmatic weakness.  What was meant as a review of the history and culture of the British "Isles" spent much of it's time on pop.  Certainly, Britain has made immense and ongoing contributions to pop culture.  Yet, Danny Boyle bypassed rich cultural tomes of Britain's mythology (particularly Camelot and Celtic), great authors such as Austin, Dickens, and Tolkien, and the massive contributions to mathematics and science from the likes of Isaac Newton or to music from the likes Vaughan Williams, Elgar (whose music was featured), and Handel.

On second thought, I believe I did miss the point of Boyle's display.  Many in the U.S. approach the British expecting royalty, pomp, ceremony, legend, charm and a little elitist stuffiness.  Pair this with the Boyle's string of cinematic hits, the anticipation may have been too high.  A friend took the opinion that Opening Ceremonies have already gotten out of hand and the pageantry is too drawn out.  He may be right.  We've come to expect a performance that is full of gravitas and grandeur but Boyle chose to offer something more quirky and perhaps thematically humble.  This really did not matter because ultimately, London was a wonderful host for a successful event.

Trends in Advertising Psychology

Authenticity
Several years ago, a TED talk on the changing focus of advertisement noted that the history of advertising largely focused on product superlatives such as "better, faster, stronger."  Marketers still touts superlatives but consumers supposedly have become inured to this constant barrage.  The point of the TED talk was people now desire authenticity and the most effective marketers, entertainers, and media outlets are able to reach the modern consumer because they communicated this concept.  I believe the desire for authenticity speaks to the whole idea of the long tail, the green movement, the resurgence of Americana and Folk in music, the growing interest in yoga and barefoot running, the increased attention to treating illness through homeopathy/naturopathy/folk medicine, the push for free range/ antibiotic-free/ organic/ vegetarian-fed/ humanely-killed livestock, the successes of Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, the proliferation of farmers markets and food co-ops, Etsy, even Apple's depiction of how each component of their devices is lovingly produced.

At some point people felt their lives or experiences had become synthesized, synthetic, artificial, produced, overproduced, and controlled by brand power.  Such disillusionment may be rightly placed.  The collective response has been a nostalgic desire to reclaim or connect to a simpler, more free, purer and natural idyllic history—whether real of imaginary, whether the connection is to your history or someone else's.  The New York Times columnist David Brooks recently wrote about the massive and mad devotion of European fans to Bruce Springsteen.  He postulated on the "power of particularity."  The fixation of Springsteen's music on his roots in a New Jersey town powerfully connected people to a microcosm/paracosm because the depictions were so specific and thus more authentic.

This, at least in part, answers the question:  "How does one make the abstract concept of authenticity concrete?"  It boils down to the ability to create and draw upon paracosms.  The irony of course is that authenticity is not created but the experience of authenticity could be simulated.  Advertisers are still telling us what they offer is "better" not necessarily in an overt fashion but by specifically portraying their offers as natural, pure, and real and thus "better."

Morality
The second perhaps more powerful trend in advertising is the use of moral overtones.  This breed of better communicates, "By choosing our product you are in fact doing good, helping the local community, creating jobs, and saving the world."  With products labeled as RED for Africa, pink for breast cancer, Oprah-endorsed, fair trade, uses recycled products, reduces carbon footprint, earns carbon credits, you can pat yourself on the back and morally justify your purchases.  Having moral overtones is not intrinsically wrong but one should be aware of the force of advertising behind the products.  When we make such purchases or use such services do we actually make a difference or just pass the moral buck?

Gamification
The third trend of gamification has seen a flurry of coverage.  This speaks to two elements of psychology:  generating a sense of ownership and incentivizing use through a short term rewards system (even if the rewards are virtual as they are often).  Fantasy sports well illustrates both concepts well.  The end result is product loyalty and consumer retention.  Even though studies have shown that children whom are willing to work/ wait for the long term gain tend to be more successful (see marshmallow study), the majority of people do not demonstrate such patience.  Why not then appeal to the hyperstimulated, ADHD culture and provide a form of immediate gain?  This is not far from the impulses driving gambling: the promise of quick gain without necessarily any regard for real gains/losses.  Gamification ultimately is a tool for influencing behavior whether it is in purchases, services or promoting good habits in some examples (like education).

"Friends" as ESL

From a small sampling of conversations with students from three countries, it seems the television show that has the greatest influence on portraying American culture and teaching English to non-English speakers is the show "Friends."  I wonder if there are actual statistics on this.

Pharma Dilemma

Forbes recently calculated the cost of drug discovery to be between $3.7 and $11.8 billion per drug that actually goes to market by accounting for the total cost of research over five years and the number of drugs approved during those years.  Essentially pharmaceutical companies operate at a loss unless they make at least $3.7 billion on sales per drug.  Despite this, the article's author criticizes the pharmaceutical industry for using this cost of development to justify the high cost of drugs, calling them "dumb."  Many have recognized the increasing difficulty in developing new drugs.  For example there are a scarcity of new antibiotics in the face of ever growing antibiotic resistance and superbugs.  With the cost of healthcare shackling companies and governments, stricter price bargaining, and generic drugs vying for consumer wallets, selling medication and funding research will not get any easier.

University Professor Salaries

Chronicles of Higher learning has posted the salaries of U.S. professor salaries.

The Future of Shoes?

I'm find Nike's new Flyknit technology fascinating in the sense of "why didn't I think of that" ingenuity.  Flyknit adapts machinery used to knit socks and sweaters and applies it to knitting the entire body of a shoe using synthetic threads.  This is then attached to the sole.  This process would potentially reduce labor and shipping costs/duration as the system becomes mechanized and brings manufacturing back to the U.S. from Asia.  Not only will the number of parts and steps for making a shoe be reduced, but also customization will be increased in allowing for fine changes in layering and threading for shoes. Link.

International Food Competitions

Beyond the various iterations of reality chef competition (Iron Chef, Master Chef, and Top Chef), France had taken the reins in creating several international food-related competitions that are largely unheard of in the U.S. despite a relatively strong representation by the U.S.  France hosts international competition for cooking (Bocuse d'Or Concours, mondial de la cuisine), artisan baking/bakery (Coupe du Monde de la Boulangerie and Louis Lesaffre Cup), individual baker (Maîtres de la Boulangerie), pastries (Coupe du Monde de la Pâtisserie), and chocolate (World Chocolate Masters in partnership with Belgium).  In fact, the U.S. has won the Coupe du Monde de la Boulangerie twice.  The Wall Street Journal attributes U.S. success in recent years to foodie trends in the U.S. including increased interest in artisan baking.  I noticed that Japan also regularly demonstrates a strong showing at such competitions.

Sustainable Fish

I am a fan of Sky Full of Bacon, a fascinating online show and blog associated with the newspaper Chicago Reader.  It follows our foods from "farm to table" in the Midwest and in Chicago in particular.  Local and sustainable food sources are recurring ideas.  The other feature of this blog/show is running an ongoing challenge where chefs challenge other chefs to come up with a dish or cocktail using a strange or uncommon ingredient.

I draw attention to one particular show, Episode 11, which discusses sustainable fish supplies as opposed to consuming threatened/overfished species.  According to the World Health Organization 13.5-16.8% of animal proteins consumed by humans are derived from fish/crustacean/mollusks (with regional variation).  There has been recent awareness of the depleting fish supplies largely due to human activity whether it is from overfishing, pollution, introduction of non-native species, or possibly climate change.  In particular, the demand for white-fleshed fish has reduced the numbers of orange roughy, sea bass, and Atlantic cod; thus many have to turn to tilapia which has become nearly ubiquitous in restaurants.

The Shedd Aquarium and a company CleanFish promote U.S. farm raised fish and discourage imported fish and many wild caught fish.  They do note there are some sustainable wild caught fish: those species that have multiple spawns in a lifetime and are not overfished or the fishing quota is well regulated.  Also not all farmed fish are equal.  Farms need to be sufficiently inland so as not to interfere with wild populations and the fish habitat needs to be fully sealed off from ground water supplies.  This was also the first time that I've heard of vegetarian-fed fish.  Why vegetarian-fed?  If you use vegetable feed then you are not depleting the oceans and lakes of fish/crustaceans that could be used to feed farmed fish.  The Shedd releases a "Right Bite" list of sustainable and unsustainable fishes.  They recommend avoiding tasty fishes such as most tunas, red snapper, Mahi-mahi, orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, Atlantic cod.  They also recommend avoiding large fish that tend to have high mercury content such as sharks, swordfish, tuna, marlin, and Atlantic grouper.  There are some exceptions to the rule such as Alaskan wild caught salmon is considered better than any farmed salmon.  Recommended species include tilapia, Pacific cod, striped bass, arctic char and barramundi.

Android/Blackberry "Rootkill"?

All your keystrokes and GPS locations "are" belong to 3rd party company Carrier IQ.  According to Forbes magazine, Carrier IQ has a deeply embedding surveillance application found on Android (Samsung, HTC, Nokia) and RIM devices.  System administrator Trevor Eckhart uncovered unsolicited and comprehensive tracking and storing of data usage including URLs, app usage, texts of smartphone users.  There is a potential for violation of a 1986 federal wiretapping law on a massive scale.  Carrier IQ issued Eckhart a threatening cease-and-desist letter but an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation came to the defense.  Is Carrier IQ a bully or just afraid of slander?  Readers weighing in parse the issue in two ways:

1. Is it okay for your usage to be recorded comprehensively by a third party?
2. What data is actually transmitted to Carrier IQ or by Carrier IQ to other companies?  In terms of wiretapping legality, this is the rub.

Rose-Colored Americans

Honor Code
Is the honor code an American phenomenon?  I had assumed it was the commonly understood standard by which all people expect themselves and others to live up to; however, a friend from France/Belgium/Angola told me the idea of an honor code is an American concept.  She tells me for the rest of the world if you can get away with it while advancing yourself, the ends justify the means.  A crude definition of the honor code: honestly taking credit for your own work (giving credit where credit's due).  Friends from India corroborate the lack of this "American" code by pointing out the rampant cheating that occurs in schools, particularly note passing during exams.  My Indian friends somewhat rationalized it by saying how difficult tests are in India; everyone there is doing it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't do it yourself.  Another way to look at this is the opposite of honor: what is shameful?  According to the honor code, dishonest gain is intrinsically shameful.  In a society where such a code is not commonplace, the only shame is getting caught in the dishonest act.  So my Indian friends tell me if you choose to not advance yourself for the sake of honesty, you are considered a fool.

Why is this is so important?  Society cannot be sustained by perceptions.  We need concrete, usable production and real results.  Without the honor code people will try to and have cut corners.  An example of this is the melanin-milk scandal in China:  Use watered-down milk mixed with melanin to give the impression of "normal" protein content.  Sell this pseudo-milk to families which feed it to their babies, whom then suffer permanent kidney injury and death.  Whatever happened to taking pride in the quality of the work you do?  Is this how things devolve when there is no one to answer to?

Perhaps it is not American per se as reflected by past European discourse on virtue.  Instead it looks "American" because the erosion of the West's Judeo-Christian ethic ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor") has not penetrated the U.S. as deeply.  A universal outcry still arises when we catch someone taking credit for another's work.  So in may places there remains an expectation of honor in others but not of yourself because you want to keep your vices.  This is also is hypocrisy.  "Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue." (Francois de la Rochefoucauld)


Win-Win
Is the concept of win-win also an American phenomenon?  At least in the West, it is an understood bargaining position.  A manager in manufacturing went to Korea to help set up a plant.  In his efforts to bargain he found they never heard of win-win.  He tried to provide a "win-win" compromise however the Korean negotiators said they didn't understand win-win.  So he explained it meant both his company and their company benefited from this setup.  Their response was, "We don't care whether your company wins. I want to win. I want to win."  I want to think this is an issue of something loss in translation; otherwise, how could negotiations proceed?

These two ideas of honor code and win-win make me think there is a sort of naivety that American's have of the world around them.  People do not play by the same rules.  This isn't a call for cynicism but a look at our assumptions.  The U.S. is not above greed nor selfishness but our cross-cultural discourse need such awareness.

Hitchens Lennox Debate

The debate on "Is God Great" between atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens and Christian pure mathematics professor John Lennox at University of Alabama Birmingham was an event where two individuals not only appealed to reason but also to emotion. I found Lennox more capable of grasping philosophical and logical angles. Hitchens' arguments hinge not on debating creation vs. evolution but on two main posits:

1. God is cruel for creating all things while allowing suffering and designating individuals for Hell; and,
2. Individuals claiming to follow or represent God commit atrocities.

Responding to the first posit, Lennox also plays the "cruelty" card. Atheism permits only the impersonal forces of material interactions. For Lennox, the random forces of chance are cruel in rendering all things meaningless and worthless: you are just a combination of programmed responses to physical stimuli and chemical reactions.  As for the second, Lennox points out that, logically, a purely atheistic system precludes any objective morality, thus the system is permissive of atrocities. He keenly points out that, yes, people identifying as Christians have committed atrocities but this is in violation of Christianity; whereas, atheists commit atrocities without violating atheism.  The amoral atheistic system results in an endgame where Might does make Right; the fittest do survive; and Nietzsche's Übermensch–a superior race–should dominate.  The fallacy in Hitchens' worldview then, is the absence of objective goodness, which if Hitchens is to remain consistent, he could not deign something or someone as "not great"–as his book title proposes.  In this debate Hitchens partially concedes this lack of objective morality in Atheism, but he still admits that he still thinks morality does exist.

What is considered cruel then? For both individuals, cruelty takes on forms of determinism.  Hitchens essentially asks: If God is [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, good and loving], does He orchestrate the entire composition and circumstances of an individual, knowing full well that this very person is thus fated to commit evil, reject God, and be sentenced to Hell?  Is one unavoidably faced with harm and folly?  Does God orchestrate the suffering of millions over time?  Such questions address the problem of evil and destiny that any worldviews should attempt to answer.

Lennox counters by portraying the cruel determinism of atheism.  Under such a system we are irrevocably compelled to act and behave because we as electrochemical-soup-sacks are all "dancing to our DNA" (quoting Richard Dawkins).  No matter how terrible our actions or their consequences, everything and everyone is just moving, colliding, and drifting for no reason at all.  Disaster strikes, suffering happens without any explanation.  Life is meaningless.  Atheism doesn't allow you to "make your own meaning" because you're just fooling yourself.

Coming from a Christian background, I propose the overlooked characteristic in [blue list] is that God is also just.  If God's measure of goodness is perfection then His measure far exceeding human standards.  Bring justice in and everyone is left guilty and at fault with God.  Does this then remove choice and free will?  Not necessarily, a choice is to be had but the reward and consequence are in stark contrast: eternity with God or eternity separated from God.  Is such an opportunity to choose even offered?  According to the Christian worldview, the Book of Acts shows that, "Yes," this is the offer:

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. -Acts 17:26-27

Such questions seem much more critical than the question of origin (creation-evolution debate). It is ironic then that Hitchens claims solace only in science but directs his efforts at philosophical issues removed from science. My minor gripe for Lennox is that he states that God bestowed on humans "infinite value."  Yes, we cannot put a price on human life, but are humans of infinite value?  Wouldn't that warrant redeeming everyone?  By Lennox not providing further justification, I believe he actually meant intrinsic value.

Steve Jobs

An orphan, dreamer, dropout, Steve Jobs became an icon in business, innovation, marketing, design, music, art, education.  He was opinionated, driven, emulated, visionary, and inspiring as a futurist.  He lived and spoke as if every moment of each day mattered and every decision informed by uncompromising quality (and aesthetic).  His intensity and attention to detail resembled Howard Hughes' days of brilliance also burning bright and ending too soon.  Disney's Iger put it well in noting: "...it feels like he was just getting started."  His commencements speech at Stanford best showed an understanding and familiarity in his struggles.  With Pixar and Apple, Steve Jobs built company cultures of pursuing greatness, never less, and always moving forward.  Consumers remain in continual anticipation of the next wonder.  And for the tech industry, Jobs seemed to have exclusive access to the "crystal ball" to when and which new ecosystems were to spawn.  Forgoing market research groups, Steve was uniquely attuned to the human experience.  He looked past the digital and worked in ideas, emotions, and meaning to somehow distort reality and captivate.  Ultimately he was so effective in connecting and leading because he loved and was a true believer in what he did.

Grizzly Man - Movie Review

Grizzly Bear
Originally uploaded by blmiers2.

I watched the documentary Grizzly Man narrated and arranged by filmmaker Werner Herzog. The film is a character study of Timothy Treadwell, the self-proclaimed protector of grizzly bears, one of which violently tore apart and ate both Timothy and his girlfriend. The last character-study-type film I saw was There Will Be Blood, also a tragedy but I find myself reacting so differently. This was reality. Timothy Treadwell was both lost, wanting to get lost, and became lost in such different senses. A back injury had ended his college diving scholarship; thus his schooling and the path of life became so easily unhinged. Acting pursuits fizzled and many relationships were fleeting. He so desired and sought after a significance he could not find in humanity.

Treadwell was an unconventional naturalist, an emotionally mixed up nature worshiper and who became increasingly paranoid and angry at human beings. Most naturalists would work to preserve by minimizing the human footprint, and acknowledged a difference in the nature of man and the nature of animals. Treadwell repeatedly wanted to and did become entangled in nature and thus many say he lacked a healthy respect for nature and the boundary that separates humanity from nature. He had an acute sense of loneliness and did not have answers and was drawn towards nature which cannot choose to reject you in its indifference. Instead, nature became idealized, fantasized, and creatures were anthropomorphized as innocent children. Treadwell seemed to voice both the danger he put himself in while simultaneously overlooking or ignoring its savagery.

It is here we are offered some insight into Werner Herzog whom says the common denominator of existence is not innocence but violence. Herzog was visibly shaken on hearing the audio recording of the two individuals being mauled to death and told a former girlfriend of Timothy's to destroy the tape. Herzog also interjects to differentiate himself from Treadwell when Herzog observes bears as examples of the soulless indifference of nature.

Herzog touched lightly on the psychiatric medication that Timothy was once prescribed, a move likely to minimized additional ammunition to those calling Treadwell "crazy." However, there is enough description of the medication to suggest that bipolar disorder may have been a diagnosis. The film's depiction could also suggest a borderline type personality. Such individuals are characterized as having such a deep sense of emptiness that they are driven to be charming or possessive out of a fear of rejection. Their relational emotions are dialed to express either love or hate but not the in-between. Such diagnoses are only hypothetical musings.