Versus: Mayo--Miracle Whip

Our country is divided right now. We argue about politics, religion, college football and cuisine. Mostly it doesn’t matter as much as we pretend but we like to go on record just the same. We need a team, a cause, an issue. In the spirit of picking sides and trashing the ‘other’ a classic head to head battle of jars emerges, mayo or Miracle Whip. One is completely right, the other egregiously wrong. Grab a knife and pick a side.

Any right thinking person knows that mayonnaise is the most essential ingredient for any sandwich. If you don’t know that you’re a monster. That refined creaminess and cool smooth texture peps up breads and meats. From Pastrami and Roast Beef on rye to turkey and ham on a Kaiser roll, nothing is more central. It’s perfect for mixing with tuna or chicken, hence salad dressing, or adding to a cheeseburger. 

Miracle Whip is trash. Too sweet, too tangy, too spicy, too much. It’s overpowering in a way that condiments shouldn’t be. Condiments are complements; that’s why the words are so close in sound (Just go with it). They support the primary pile of meats, cheeses, vegetables and mustard. Your spread shouldn’t be the strongest taste in the mix. You wouldn't let the bassist drown out the lead singer would you?

  

So what is the main difference anyway? Those who push ersatz mayonnaise, like Miracle Whip, want you to think it's 'basically' the same thing. After a little searching I found out the biggest difference is in the oil content of mayo. The FDA has standards for mayo that Miracle Whip doesn’t meet. Mayo is mostly oil with eggs (uncooked) some seasonings and salt. Miracle Whip doesn’t use the same amount of eggs and substitutes in corn starch and other mystery ingredients for a noticeable stronger taste. 

 Mayo is easy enough to make but I probably won’t. It’s unlikely I could improve on something that Kraft already perfected. Kraft's version of mayo is the best to me. Hellmann's is decent as well.

Miracle Whip is mostly water, a little oil with eggs and a concoction of sweeteners. It's almost half the calories of mayo which will probably entice some people. If I chose my food based solely on healthy properties and caloric content I’d be a miserable sap. I’d be healthier sure, but all that label reading guarantees avoiding foods I love.

Mayo has been around longer. Some sources I found traced it back a few hundred years ago to France. Miracle Whip is a creation from Kraft foods, which tried to boost sales in the early 1930s. They basically created a cheaper version of the good stuff. It debuted at the World’s Fair in Chicago 1933. Of course they both cost about the same now; it’s funny to think of mayonnaise as a hoity toity delicacy. Apparently in the Depression era it was.

 I imagine most people like whichever variety they were raised on as a kid. We seemed to have both at different times, or whichever was on sale that particular week. I had my share of both but started to prefer mayonnaise at some point. It’s tough to trace these things exactly. What I do know is I can’t substitute them anymore. They're just too different.

So to summarize: fans of mayonnaise are honest, selfless, good natured and understand fine dining. Miracle Whip devotees are sketchy, unloved and have no appreciation for quality.

It isn’t too late to switch to mayonnaise and see what you’ve missed.    

  

Killers of the Flower Moon

I finished reading the book “Killers of the flower Moon” recently. I always have trouble describing the type of format for this style. For a similar type book think “The Devil in the White City”. Amazon lists it as “Historical Fiction” because the research writes the story while imagining some of the middle parts. ‘Killers’ is part murder mystery and part meticulous research. Focused on the Osage Nation and the murders surrounding the once wealthy tribe members, it brings a lesser known period to life. 

 I was expecting a handful of murders or sad unsolved crimes from a forgotten era. The scale of the killings shocked me, as did their brazen nature. The author, David Grann, links bad federal policy and racist notions about the ‘red man’ to an abundance of cash rich Natives. Those combinations fuel the chaos and greed of a select few. These aren’t murders as much as massacres. In Osage county lives are cheap but "headrights" are like gold.

The Osage were quite rich after the discovery of oil on their land. They leased it to drillers and profited from the royalties oil brought in. This made a handful of them very rich. But due to crooked Federal laws placing a non-native (white) guardian in charge of their allotments, many were swindled. In many cases, native Osage land owners with full royalties on the mineral rights to their property couldn’t even decide what to do with their own money. The fraudulent nature of this whole setup attracts con artists. I’ll leave some of the scheming to the readers to discover. Those who live in and around Osage County in Oklahoma might be aware of the murderous period called the Reign of Terror, I was completely surprised.

The second part of the story is the FBI angle. You have to think of Oklahoma, and most Western states, as barely governable by the local authorities. Although genuine attempts to solve some of these egregious killings were made, they encountered too much resistance and often just gave up. The Bureau finally sent in a team and eventually unraveled some despicable cover ups and sinister plans. It took a long time and a lot of what most of us associate with FED tactics, using low level criminals to turn testimony, making deals and offering protection. J Edgar Hoover enlisted the help of a very capable former Texas Ranger named Tom White, to look into the killings. White was helped by some undercover agents living and working among the Osage.

I guess Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio are making this into a movie. Should be fun.  

Running Update

I ran in the cold yesterday, haven't done that since the Army. 

My chest ached for most of day. I don’t know if it’s supposed to feel like I’m getting a cold, or if my body just isn’t used to the chill yet. The air was calm at around 30 degrees but carried an icy edge that stung a little at first. When I started out I didn’t know what to expect. A lot of times when going for a new jogging challenge the results are disappointing. A few weeks ago I set out to do the same run but because the wind was blowing hard I turned around. It was at least 10 degrees warmer then but the blustery conditions created a whole new level of problems.

There are still a lot of leaves scattered around and feeling them on my face is a bit like walking into a landscape crew blowing off a driveway. The dust makes it impossible to see and even with sunglasses covering my eyes the wind forces tiny particles around the lenses. I just figured it wasn’t worth it. Cold is one thing but wind is something entirely different.

Overall running in the colder weather is much easier for distance than those brutal July and August mornings. The exhaustion in summer time is almost entirely from the heat and humidity. In the fall and winter, the exhaustion isn’t as total. I’m learning to pace myself much better than I used to. When you train for time and keep the distance to less than 3 miles, you develop a pace that accommodates it-steady, fast, heavy. But by doubling and even tripling the distance, you learn how to preserve energy better and not get caught looking at the watch.

So I’ve learned how to run slower and regulate pace over the last year. Fast quick steps up hills and long strides on declines keeps me from overextending. It’s tough for me to run on treadmills and hope to get the same feeling. Treadmills are almost always more difficult for me, probably because it’s hard to alternate pace quickly and respond to hills. Not to mention, having calories, pace, distance and heart rate illuminated makes it impossible to think of anything else. One advantage of a longish run is being able to zone out a little mentally and not worry about the stats. Treadmill data is constant and unrelenting.

For me exercise has always meant either lifting weights or doing cardio, but rarely both in the same routine. Since I passed 40 years old recently, it makes more sense to combine the two. Light weights for core strength and resistance training to tighten up leg muscles round out my new routines. What’s the goal? Short term I’d like to do a half marathon. Long term I’d like to do a handful per year. At this point I don’t want to run a full 26.2 miles. I can’t say I never will, but for now a half is a good goal to shoot for. I’m not too far off either.

This might be the year that I join a local running group. I need the motivation.

"Life After Google" Review

Does George Gilder hate Google?

I’ll readily admit, this book was both illuminating and a little over my head. I understood the big picture stuff he talked about. The math and nitty gritty tech stuff was difficult but not enough to put down.

Google changed the world by offering the first and best search algorithm. You know that. What you may not know is that the philosophy of the company and the era they’ve created is not match for future technology. This might sound odd for a business currently building massive server farms to handle increasing loads of data. But according to Gilder, Google’s lack of security and Marxist vision of the world will be their undoing.

It’s precisely because Google doesn’t value security for its users and runs operations like a collective, making everything free, it alienates those who do value it. Most finance and health care companies have started moving the pertinent stuff offline. With major hacking stories popping up in the news constantly its clear consumers want something reliable, secure.

   

The problem most tech elites have, from Sergei Brin and Larry Page to Elon Musk and Ray Kurzweil, is their view that humanity will be surpassed by machines.

“The security system has broken down just as the computer elite have begun indulging the most fevered fantasies about the capabilities of their machines and issuing arrogant inanities about the comparative limits of their human customers.”

Artificial Intelligence (AI) machines are deterministic despite the leaps and advances in computing power and deep learning. In other words AI is just a machine with incredibly fast problem solving abilities that is limited by design. It can’t extend the boundaries of its design, it was created for a specific purpose. It can’t ‘think’ in the sense that people think. Artificial Intelligence condenses and processes information quicker than people do but is not ‘conscious’. Advances in chip technology or processing power can’t change that.

 Humans are uniquely creative because they have a Creator. Futurists fall into the same trap that intellectuals in other generations have, thinking their discoveries and inventions represent the end of advancement. This is where George’s “fevered fantasies” line comes from. Karl Marx believed the industrial revolution was it, the crowning achievement of human capability. Only thing to do, according to Marx, was distribute the wealth and proportion “…each according to his need.”

Like most of Gilder’s books this one is a prediction about the near future; it shouldn’t be taken as a schedule, only a prescription about the underlying problems with Big data and how the block chain represents a clean break from cloud computing. Instead of ‘stacking’ information in server farms, blockchains distribute the information throughout multiple computers. 

The internet currently requires multiple user names, passwords, pin IDs, secret questions and image verifications to prove you are you. This reflects the disaster with security across the web. While Google is building a giant supercomputer and feeding it knowledge from across the net, hackers are stealing massive amounts of user information and banking details. Companies like Yahoo and Equifax saw major breaches in just the last two years.

Bitcoin was the first (successful) cryptocurrency build on a distributed ledger system, or blockchain. The idea is to limit the amount of ‘coins’ to a specific amount and use it for payment to those who manage the system (mine). Bitcoin’s breakthrough is the genius of timestamping every transaction in the ledger for verifiable proof. It’s a technology that’s virtually impossible to hack because a change in one block (or hash) requires a change to all.

Some sectors with needed security are beginning to realize the value of blockchain to their business model. Healthcare is one such industry that prizes patient confidentiality enough to use a new technology for ease of use. Imagine having a key for an online profile that you controlled completely and giving permission to insurers, doctors, pharmacists to view your details, instead of logging in to theirs with an expired password or a forgotten image? With blockchain the patient controls the information and has proof for any transactions in the network.

George Gilder doesn’t step into the realm of theology, but it’s there in the ideas. He believes in the Creator, in some form, with a creative mind and problem solving abilities. Commerce between individuals is an extension of the talents we all have. 

‘Free’ is bad because it surpasses the price system and lets the maker off the hook. No longer is the maker responsible to fix flaws or tighten up security. Ever gotten a free gift, say a new lawnmower? Would you insist the person who gave it be responsible for servicing it, or fixing it when it broke down? Not a chance. This, according to Gilder, is what Google does with its products and services. It gives its technology away but doesn’t take responsibility for protecting personal information.

Blockchain technology restores some of the importance of personal data by giving it value. A lot of the promise from blockchain might be just noise instead of the revolutionary change in business and technology that Gilder believes it to be.

 Perhaps the vision of a distributed future where contracts and money are traded via the blockchain never materializes. We can’t know for sure. But he doesn’t believe anyone can bypass the natural laws of commerce for too long. That includes Google. 

Brexit (An American View)

I do the best I can with international news but sometimes their isn't a very good comparison in politics or culture. The only way to explain Aussie Rules Football to an American is by relating it to the NFL and explaining the differences. But that isn't quit right is it? The lost in translation effect can’t be avoided. So in the spirit of understanding only half pictures and half truths, here are some thoughts on Brexit.

What was it about?

The United Kingdom is (for now) a part of the European Union which acts like a government for member states, or most of Europe. It has a common market with a common currency and open borders for all countries in the zone. Countries can vote to leave if they like, but most stay, seeing their future under a common market as better than going it alone. Mostly because of immigration and fears of British sovereignty going the way of fox hunting, the voters said “enough!” Now comes the monumental challenge of cobbling together new trade deals; after all someone has to buy the stuff they make.

The deadline to put a deal together is March of next year. After two years sorting through details with the European Union, Theresa May, the prime minister, and company have a rough draft that goes to parliament this week. Apparently it’s pretty similar to the original deal they have now, without the critical voting rights.

What’s the best option?

Britain was faced with two paths after voting to leave the union. A hard break of all ties with the EU or a soft one that keeps most of the trade framework intact. They’ve opted for the soft version, requiring May to negotiate with the EU on a new pact. Conservatives in parliament wanted a hard Brexit; they would rather leave the EU without any agreement and try to negotiate individually with multiple countries. The soft Brexit feels like hedging a bit, hoping the angry legislators in Brussels don’t punish you with weak deals.

The EU was not happy with Brexit.

The problem is the people leading the negotiating would rather not be doing it at all. Theresa May (the Prime Minister) was a Remain vote, which means her motivations should be a little suspect. If I’m put in charge of a sales plan at work that I think is dumb, I’m not likely to give much effort. I’d also be happy if the whole plan collapsed of its own weight, because after all, “I told you so.” I don’t think she is sabotaging the plan but I do question her determination.

To Stay or to go?

The best argument against Brexit is exactly what May is concerned about, financial uncertainty. Untangling long established ties among banks, businesses and law firms is a scary thought. Would the new deals serve Britain’s interest, the EU’s or both? Would negotiators in Brussels accept any new trade deals?

 From their point of view, negotiating with a light touch sends a signal to other countries hoping to leave that the EU is a pushover. Obviously they want to avoid that.

The best argument for Brexit is the restoration of sovereignty. Most Remainers argued solely on an economic basis. Leaving the EU means charting their own course with no guarantees, and likely, a loss of market share for your business. I can’t imagine economics played too much into the thinking of Brexiters though. They took a look a look at the migrant crisis, and the free movement of Muslim immigrants all over Europe and said “No”. Germany brought in something like 800,000 (mostly Syrians) and regretted it almost immediately. That’s why Angela Merkel’s party lost seats in the last election. It’s the kind of un-democratic decision made by officials and not voters.

Part me is sympathetic to May. She wants to preserve as much of the old agreements as possible and prevent a lot of disruption sure to come with a hard break. Ministers keep quitting on her too, which tells me they’ll blame her for everything that goes bad.

I don’t know how the horse race political stuff works in the U.K. But I imagine the Tories didn’t want to be blamed by the country for a falling economy after a hard Brexit. A committed Brexiter like Michael Gove or Boris Johnson would have been a better choice than Theresa May. They would have held firm on the hard break.

If May gets her deal through Parliament, what will have been the point of the last two years? It’s the worst possible deal for ordinary Britons who felt strongly enough about the EU’s encroachment to vote themselves out. It’s essentially the same agreement without the voting rights member states are supposed to get. It makes a mockery of the original Brexit vote by using a work around.

Where to now?

Here is where this is similar to American: immigration. The Brexit vote turned on concerns about border security and immigration. They just didn’t trust the officials in Brussels to fix it. Why should they? Germany opened the gates to refugees in numbers that might be too large to integrate. And because of the free movement within the EU zones (Schengen Area) others are forced to deal with Merkel’s reckless decision.

   

I’am not sure who said it but I think it fits: if responsible politicians don’t deal with immigration, irresponsible ones will (paraphrase). Or maybe put another way, ignoring cultural issues at the expense of the economy leaves you with poor choices on both. 

  

Bannon Vs. Frum

The latest Munk Debate between Steve Bannon and David Frum was a snapshot of where politics are today. If you’ve never seen one I’d recommend this one. Debaters argue for and against global policy. A resolution is posed and the audience is expected to vote based on the debate they just watched. I think they host these events a couple of times per year.

The resolution this week “The future of Western Politics is Populist not Liberal” had Steve Bannon arguing for populism and David Frum arguing against. It’s probably easier to think of the difference like this, Trump equals populism and Bush (or Obama) equals liberalism. In other words “liberalism” is the global order that has defined Western civilization since World War II. Both ideologies contain adherents of right and left. Populist leaders, including Trump, have come to power around the globe in recent years, most recently in Brazil. It’s tough for anyone to draw hard lines around ideologies without recognizing differences in the countries where they originate. Would populism in Poland look different than populism in Myanmar? I think it would. Populism is really just shorthand for throw-out-the ‘ruling class’and start electing people with limited political acumen.

Steve Bannon had his hands full defending Trump and global populism in general. Bannon’s gripe (and his best argument) has always been the administrative state, a permanent fixture of our system that is unaccountable. He hates massive trade bills and open borders because they wreck sovereignty and treat the democratic process like a joke. He pretty much explained that position to the audience and got a few claps, mostly boos and heckles though. Frum argued for traditional liberalism with its respect for alliances, loose borders and international treaties. David is a smart guy; he is used to being on TV so he is very articulate and understands global trade and tariffs. This was a home crowd for him in Toronto. He took some usual shots at Trump and his lack of expertise or skill.

He obviously thinks Donald Trump is ill equipped for the job and played to the crowd who agreed with him. What he misses is that he is pretty much the embodiment of what a lot of Americans don’t like about their ‘betters’ in Washington. He is part of a professional class that typifies Steve Bannon’s administrative state--highly educated, networked in the same social circles, all thinking along the same track, all swearing allegiance to same international forums, organizations, confabs, and summits. The locus of power keeps moving further out of reach of the American people to a bureaucratic cabal.

It isn’t resentment, it’s just the truth.

 Where Steve is frumpy and passionate, David is polished and glib. Their difference personifies the positions they took.   

David took a few cheap shots at Trump supporters and their supposed racism and xenophobia, suggesting blacks were being kept from voting and that George Soros is reviled because he is Jewish. I think Frum knows this is just nasty point scoring with the audience.

   

As for me I would have voted for the resolution. I don’t like populism but I do think there is a creeping classism sneaking into the US that is foreign to the country. We’ve always had a vibrant middle class and a meritocratic system of upward mobility. Ok, it wasn’t good for African Americans until recently but hard work equaled better opportunities not better status. We don’t have an aristocracy, we’re too young. Fortunately we still do have a vibrant middle class but with a massive administrative state we lose the ability to determine our destiny. Unprotected borders damage sovereignty and suggest that the duly elected government isn’t concerned about your safety or how much money is spent on welfare schemes. If it’s true in the U.S. I imagine it’s true in Europe as well.  

I can say all of that and still think Steve Bannon is probably a nasty guy. He isn’t a racist just because he’s mean to his opponents though. He doesn’t hate Muslims because he restricted immigration from countries with internal terrorism problems. It’s also telling that the protesters who wanted to shut down the very civil debate, wanted to do so on the basis that Steve would be there.In a free country (Canada) protesters thought a pro-national sovereignty guy was beyond the pale. Is there a better example of why we need more speech and not less?

Populism of the Steve Bannon/Donald Trump variety is probably a short term trend anyway. David Frum is right to be skeptical of global populism. The danger inherent is the ‘Us versus Them’ dynamic used to throw out ‘undesirables’ whether Jews in Russia or Rohingyas in Myanmar. But the other danger is letting an unelected class of ‘professionals’ run the affairs of the state and take away all sovereignty. There is a reason the British left the European Union, the Brazilians elected Bolsonaro, and the US elected Trump. I don’t know if it constitutes populism but citizens of those countries decided the global order didn’t have their interests’ at heart.

There was a technical glitch in the voting results at the end of the night. Steve Bannon supposedly won by a good margin (57%) despite starting off the night less than 30%. The true results were close to what they had been at the beginning of the night. Winning isn’t really the point of the debates. It’s to get current ideas and issues out in the open. Free speech is wonderful thing.

Whatever side of an issue people come down on, it’s still possible to argue and agree in a free society.

Routines To the Rescue

Regular habits and healthy routines lay the groundwork for productive people; the more you have the more effective you are.

Most people have probably noticed the headlining grabbing “Successful Habits of the Rich”, or “Routines of Successful CEOs”. Usually they’re just Buzzfeed style lists with some quirky facts. Apparently Tim Cook (Apple CEO) starts texting his colleagues at 4 a.m. about projects, questions, answers. Mark Cuban tries to work out for an hour a day with basketball and kickboxing. The routines vary but one thing they have in common is they constitute a plan for individuals to map out the day. Even people who aren’t as busy will benefit from starting and ending the day with a plan.  

I have better routines now than I had in the Army, and much better than college. Although, the regular exercise and hot breakfast is hard to beat in the military. I still exercise but not every day. I run quite a bit and life weights at least 3 times per week. Going to the gym for me is better after a day of work instead of before. Mostly because of the later hours, I don’t get moving before 8 in the morning. For most people 8 o’clock is too late. But I don’t even start work until after 9. For now anyway, evening exercise is perfect. When I don’t go after work I feel like I missed something critical.

I started reading scripture every morning about 5 years ago. I need that critical jolt of truth even more than I need coffee. Without it I feel lost. Ever need your front end aligned on the car? The steering wheel starts puling in one direction and you need to correct it back to center? Usually it happens because you hit a pothole or hit a curb too hard. It’s a simple fix for a tech--put the front end on a machine and tighten or loosen the tie rods. When I don’t put in time reading the Bible I my sense of direction gets off-center and needs a reset.  

Another value from routines is in reducing the number of choices you need to make every day. Fewer choices equal less stress. I remember having a math class my 2^nd year of college. I managed to put it off for the first semester so I wasn’t looking forward to it. It was pretty basic by math standards, but I’m pretty basic by learning standards. I developed a system of doing my assigned homework right after class. My mind was still in logical left brain land so it made sense to do the work right away. It took at least an hour every day and I struggled all the way through it. But I did it. I started early and after a few weeks I didn’t have to force myself to open the text and begin figuring. I developed a habit, of doing assigned work and took the decision to sit and watch “SportsCenter” instead, out my hands. 

Routines put your mind in a kind of autopilot.

Even though regular habits seem like drudgery, they provide us with better productivity and more flexibility. I’ve gotten good at doing certain academic things early, writing and research, reading and journaling. College actually helped me with this. But other parts of life like work around the house or fixing changing the oil in the car are still put offs for me. Everyone who procrastinates understands the problems with it. Projects get the half-assed treatment and sometimes get missed altogether. With some simple changes in routine, procrastination will cease to be a stumbling block.

Routines make every other decision in life easier.   

Economist Magazine

I am having trouble getting my regular issue of the Economist magazine delivered on time. Meaning the freaking post office can’t seem to get it to my door on Monday like they used to. It seems a little silly to complain about a physical magazine in the internet age. I could just as easily pay to read the website instead and get a cheaper rate. The reason I haven’t done it yet is having the physical copy makes it more likely I’ll read it. By paying for an internet subscription I’ll forget to open the site. When was the last time you ignored hand written letter delivered to your door? Probably never, but I delete emails all the time without even reading. Staring at the copy is a reminder, "Hey, you're paying for this so be sure and do the work".

Why is it important? Some traditions just stay with us for a while, they tether us to a sense of normalcy. It’s like sleeping in your own bed after a week of vacation. It resets your mind. It helps get your routine back, ease into life again.  Even staying in a posh hotel with thick sheets and soft comforters can’t compare.  

My tradition with the weekly magazine goes back to my first year in Oklahoma. I was about to start an International Studies program at Oklahoma State University (Go Pokes!). The advice I got, don’t remember who from, was to subscribe and read every article every time. Supposedly their reporters cover more territory than anyone (other than BBC) and the breadth of subject matter is unrivaled. I think that’s basically true, although I don’t know of any comparisons. The habit of weekly reading stuck even though it was a tough couple of years trying to figure out some of the economic concepts, government terms. The dense language taught me to focus better, understand more, translate ideas into real world events, see connections between money and politics or politics and business. There is no question it helped with retention, concepts.

The editors take a practical stance on markets and a weak view on national movements. They are sometimes painfully globalist and seem confused why any country would want to protect their industries. They think most tradition is silly and believe that whatever advances the economic interests of the country should be considered in policy making.

I decided a while ago not to get hung up on the politics. Every newspaper and media outlet has a bias. Sometimes it shows through like red dye on a white t-shirt. Occasionally it crosses a line between reporting and promoting causes, parities, legislation. The Economist is broadly liberal and although they don’t value tradition, I agree with their basic framework for international trade. Keep tariffs low, encourage innovation through tax breaks, privatize government services where possible. I am looking at you USPS.  

I still think of flipping the pages as homework. Everyone needs to have some learning in their life after school, mine is writing and economics. New learning has to be a natural fit though. I wouldn’t want to learn how to rebuild cars or write software. Those disciplines don’t interest me so I don’t bother. But without some hobby or interest beyond just watching TV after work, our minds suffer. I hope this doesn’t come off as pretentious or smug, just because something is interesting to me doesn’t mean it is interesting to everyone.

 The larger point is to learn outside the classroom and force your mind to work a little bit. Who knows, maybe you’ll find a fit you never expected and discover how to make money new ways. Or maybe you’ll learn a new skill and find friends in that field. Maybe you’ll invent a new process, or system that makes doing what you do easier, cheaper.

I would love the US Postal service to figure out a process for efficient mail delivery. Let’s start there.

Baseball's Attendance Problem

Baseball attendance at big league parks was down this year across the country. This is getting to be a regular thing. Ticket sales cost clubs between a third to a fifth of their yearly revenue. The article I read didn’t specify what the largest revenue generator was, but we can imagine broadcast rights are probably the big winner. But everything from concessions to parking to merchandising goes into the mix for most teams. As to why people aren’t going to games anymore, we’re getting kinda lazy.  

 Actually going to the game can be a hassle for a lot of people. Depending on where you live, just getting to the ball park can be an all day ordeal a lot of people would rather not deal with. If you drove, the parking ticket will come with a hefty fee as will the food and beer you consume while there. If you get bad seats you’ll struggle to follow the game and instead end up watching the screen for replays. Watching at home provides the best angles for unfolding plays, up close zooms, replays. Recording allows you to grab a snack, use the bathroom and check laundry. The sharpness of the cameras gets better every few years, as does the amount of cameras on the field. If you’re looking to watch a game, there really isn’t a better option than TV.

The stay at home trend isn’t just popular in baseball either. I passed by a sign for Outback Steakhouse today that advertised delivery. Uber added a delivery service (Uber Eats) for food as well. Just call up your favorite restaurant and send a driver around to get it for you. Consumers do this with groceries as well. It shouldn’t be a stretch to assume, some people are much more comfortable at home.

That only accounts for a portion of the people though. Some like the atmosphere of the stadium and roar of the crowd after a home run. Watching live sports doesn’t guarantee the best viewing. It does promise an experience you won’t get hanging out at home. Anytime I went to a Cubs game I took the opportunity to spend the day in Chicago shopping and eating. The rule of thumb is that getting out of the city right after a game is the worst time to leave, St. Louis is much better. For those that live in Chicago the train (elevated train) stops right at the park. I rarely got great seats and the food was expensive, but nothing beats hearing 40,000 fans roaring after a home run.

 People aren’t as interested in baseball anymore. The ratings prove we don’t watch in nearly the same numbers as we used to. World Series TV numbers have mostly shown decline over the last decade, with the Cubs getting a ratings bump in 2016.  The largest group of baseball fans (half) are 55 or older. This is a problem long term. Every sport needs to ensure that it has enough replacement fans down the road. Most kids think baseball is too slow though. Who can blame them, compared to most other sports it is.

Purists’ think the lack of a clock is the best part of the game. You play until the outs are recorded and not before nine innings, as long as someone is leading after nine. Major League Baseball put in some replay cameras to overrule bad calls by the umpires. There are limits on how often managers can insist on going to the replays, just like the NFL, but it does increase the overall time. By putting in cameras and replays, they hope to cut down on human error and give managers more options to override accidental calls. It’s also an attempt to update the game a little. MLB is by far the most resistant to change of any of the top sports leagues. Being the last to put in technology and update rules isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but in the marketplace it can also be costly when trying to bring on additional fans. 

I’m not convinced that changing rules and speeding up the game ever so slightly will cause droves of new fans to start watching. If baseball isn’t a game for the modern day, no amount of tweaks and rule changes are going help. Baseball execs are going to have to figure out how to appeal to the largest number of fans.

They will always be a market for professional baseball on some level. It might look different in 20 years. Some cities that maintain ball clubs do so at a loss; both Florida teams struggle to bring people to the stadium. Maybe the best way forward is to cut a handful of teams that drag everyone else down. I am looking at you Tampa Bay. Since teams share revenues, fewer games means more money for the existing clubs and better overall competition.

The truth is that most clubs don’t need huge numbers of fans to go to the games. Of course they would rather sell both tickets to the park and cable packages but they make more money from content (TV, internet) deals by far. Going to at least a couple games a year can turn someone into a fan for life though. Despite the hassles of parking, traffic, expensive food, obnoxious fans and bad weather, it is so worth it. Even if you get to see the game better from home, go at least once.     

Kavanaugh Circus

I watched the Kavanaugh hearing today.

 I imagined I’d be huddled over my phone trying to get a national radio program to stream since nearly every station was covering it. I was prepared to turn the TV to ESPN the way I do every day at work, and slink into my office to follow the Q&A from the Senate Judicial Committee. My boss told me early on to put the hearing up on the main TV so he could keep track. “Fantastic!” I thought. I get to see it at work and my boss isn’t going to care since he is interested too. So most of it I caught on the screen at work and some of it I caught listening to my phone while in my office. Here are some takeaways for me:

First, the idea that we can determine who is “believable” and who isn’t is a nonsensical idea. Statistics show that people can’t correctly judge guilt or innocence based on our feelings of a person’s character, demeanor, expression or tone. Most of us develop an opinion after watching a performance, it’s like we “must” develop a judgement. Ever watch those real life murder 'whodunnits' on NBC. They play out a disappearance or a murder and present both sides without revealing the verdict at the end? How often do you guess right?   

From what I saw they both seemed believable. That’s a problem because someone is lying.

 Opinion makers and talking heads seem to think it’s possible to believe both parties. That there is no contradiction between Ford’s “positive” ID of the Judge and of the Judge’s denial of the whole affair, is too much for me. I understand the need to be careful about calling either one a liar but one of them is doing it. They say Ford might be remembering someone else who tried to assault her. I doubt it. I think it was either him or she is lying. 

Of course none of us knows what happened but I lean toward believing Kavanaugh because the "witnesses" who were supposedly at the party denied being there. Also, the timing of this whole nasty affair is suspect. Just a few days before the committee was supposed to vote, the Democrats drop this letter on everyone. Feinstein’s office had the letter, written by Ford, for like two months. If  credible allegation of sexual assault pops up about a judge about to be on the Supreme Court, you act on it. She waited, suggesting the Democrats were hoping to spike the nomination a different way. When it didn't work, they went nuclear.

The details are impossible to know, no one confirms Ford's side of the story and a slew of “remembered” incidents suddenly appear in the news after it looks like she might not testify. You know, the slimy gang rape stuff. At least some part of this thing is cooked up by ‘outside’ groups desperate to keep a conservative off the court. I won’t say the entire testimony is a lie, she did seem sincere and I know she didn’t want to do this in front of the Senate, hoping for confidentiality.

The prosecutor who asked questions of Mrs. Ford tried to show possible influence from an outside group by asking who paid the polygraph fees. It wasn’t effective and I don’t know why the Republicans agreed to it.

Here is why Kavanaugh must be confirmed. It can't be this easy to hurl accusations and drag someone’s name through the mud just to squelch an appointment. You must provide evidence under our legal system. If this witch hunt succeeds it gives license for both Republicans and Democrats to rake each other’s candidates over the coals for sport. I’m convinced the only reason it’s been 30 years since the last one of these circus hearings (Clarence Thomas) is because it wasn’t successful. Despite a ruined reputation Thomas was confirmed. 

How can a 36 year old allegation with no witnesses, no date and no place be the basis for any investigation?  For all the hand wringing from the Democrats about the lack of an FBI investigation, what do they expect the bureau to investigate? This was a stall tactic all along. Lindsey Graham said it best in one of his finer moments, drag out the hearing until after the election and hopefully pick up enough seats to vote the judge down.

The last question of Kavanaugh, from Kennedy (LA), was the most appropriate of the entire hearing. He asked the judge if he believed in God, and if so this was his chance to tell it before “God and country”. It’s appropriate because it’s a reminder that God is the ultimate judge of our souls. 

It could be that Kavanaugh is a calculating liar that doesn’t believe in God anyway. It could also be that Christine Blasey Ford created the whole story with help from groups to create just enough doubt to force Trump to pull the nomination.Only God knows.

Still a "Toys R Us" Kid

 I think most of us have a favorite store or restaurant we remember from childhood. Places we can map out from memory because our recollection is so vivid. For me it was Toys “R” Us, that famous franchise that went out of business earlier this year. 

Toys “R” Us was basically a third world arms bazaar for boys in the kindergarten to 4^th grade range. Sketchy salesman offering help as we gawked at the shelves stocked with the latest violent toys. “See anything you like?” they’d inquire. They had the best toy weapons, cowboy revolvers with ammo belts, automatic rifles, belt-fed troop guns, grenades, Rambo survival knives and handguns. Mercenaries could really stock up. At least that’s what I liked it.

We always got a warning speech from my mom in the parking lot before entering the toy mecca. She lined us up outside the store, with pointed finger and stern tones she blasted us with that mantra we knew so well.

 “If you touch anything on the shelves that’s an automatic spanking when we get home!” It wasn’t shouted so much as jabbed, with the help of the index finger, into our souls.

 It mostly worked, but common. Have you seen the glory that is a toy store through the eyes of an 8 year old boy? An entire building dedicated to the pursuit of happiness, aisle after aisle of joy wrapped in plastic. Shelves strategically arranged to capture the attention of children who’ve wandered away from their families in a daze.  Every action figure, bouncy ball, battery jeep, dinosaur set, race track, stuffed bear, machine gun and video game demanding attention. It’s war out there. Hence the pre-game talk my mom felt the need to deliver, expecting the troops to wander off along the way. 

My parents must have known the onslaught coming their way once the automatic doors pulled back and the displays came into view. 

The Cherry Valley Toys “R” Us was a free standing building away from everything but a few car lots, a Baker’s Square, and later a go cart track. This was 30 years ago so I am sure the area has changed quite a lot. Nothing could top the anticipation though of walking into the store, grabbing a shopping cart and marveling at the sheer amount of toys. I remember a long walk behind a cart wall when you came in and a slow turn before you entered the main floor. 

Stepping onto the main floor was like having everyone shout “Surprise!” before balloons and confetti fell from the sky. It was better than that even. I’d been here before. I expected the surprise. I knew right when the hanging car displays would come into sight and the giant ball stacks would became visible. I remember which section contained the guns and which one the video games. I remember where the bikes and battery cars just big enough for kids to ride 2 across were kept.

At some point video games took over larger chunks of the store. Always kept behind glass cases, they weren’t as memorable. We bought games as we got older. We had Nintendo, Super Nintendo and I guess 64. I was done with games after the Super. I just wasn’t a gamer.

I went to a Toys “R” Us a few years ago to buy a gift for my niece. It wasn’t the one I grew up with so my opinion might have been a little skewed. I reminded me of watching a movie I loved as a kid only to find out how bad it was when I became an adult. The shelves were a mess, the floors littered with scattered stuffed animals and bouncy balls. The ceilings were low, the lighting was bad, the employees were indifferent, the prices high. I can chalk up some of this to the season; it was Christmas shopping time after all. Some I can blame on the difference between being a kid and being an adult. Oddly it was the low ceilings that disappointed me the most. In my kid brain the place was so grand and stuffed with toys in every imaginable spot, practically bursting like a Thanksgiving turkey. I remember trying to work out how long it would take me to play with every toy there, my brain nearly seizing up from the infinite possibilities.  

But now here was this sad, small structure in need of repair and desperate for joy. What happened to my Shangri-La? When did the circus leave town? Was it ever really that great? The great toy destination had become a dumpy rental in a neighborhood with more graffiti on the buildings than original paint.

The whole spectacle was sad. Not because a grown man expected a toy store to be a happy place 30 years after he stopped playing with G.I. Joe. But because the idea that a single flagship store can house nothing but toys seems unlikely anymore. Walmart, Target, Amazon and other companies have gobbled up much of the toy business that it isn’t profitable to build anymore. Even the famed F.A.O Schwarz store (in Manhattan) where Tom Hanks did the piano dance in the movie BIG closed up two years ago. 

My criticism of their neglected storefronts notwithstanding, it isn’t hard to see what happened to the business. Bigger stores with more offerings made it impossible to compete; same as grocery, electronics and nearly every type of brick and mortar place. Toys took an extra beating from a consumer culture with a lot of electronic options. Toys across the country aren’t selling well anymore and smartphones are getting blamed.

Toys “R” Us went out of business earlier this year and even though they had been overtaken by Walmart in sales, it still limits the number of places for kids. They got into debt and just never recovered. I still think a massive store dedicated to toys can work again. It needs to have full on displays where kids and grab and test though. It must be a destination store, not a bargain place where people look for deals. I don’t know if it makes economic sense anymore but I imagine with the right plan it could really take off. There are a lot of young kids out who need a place like that to remember. It could be there happy place, even if their moms won’t let them grab stuff off the shelf.   

Demon Hunter pulled me back in

I thought I outgrew it my heavy metal phase. I assumed, like action figures and baseball cards, it didn't appeal anymore--a passing interest from an earlier time. But some preset antenna in my brain clicked on this year and started receiving again.  

This summer I rediscovered metal. 

 I work in my yard a lot, perfect for mindless head banging tunes through earbuds on a hot day. I’m a Pandora guy so a lot of the suggested stuff that’s shuffled through is a mystery. Every once in a while a perfectly aggressive sound punctures the little film covering the ear piece and wakes me up. How many times has that sound been that of Demon Hunter? I can’t tell, but a pattern emerged after some time. All the good stuff is Demon Hunter.

Not content to just wait until the next mowing day, I got online and start searching for DH songs. I like to know what fans like, what are their best songs? Also, I suddenly wanted news about the group, tour dates and concert information and new song stuff. Google has lists for everything so I just start sampling their stuff. The internet is great. Remember borrowing CDs from friends or going to Best Buy for the new releases? No one misses those days. I discovered I have a bit of an obsessive side. I study things intensely for a short time and then never again. It’s ideal for research and writing though. Yesterday’s obsession was Demon Hunter, Tomorrow--maybe history’s great conspiracies or the best types of wood varnish for deck boards. Who knows?

I found this Demon Hunter live documentary called 45 days. First thing I noticed is the clean sound. This is a live show and the audio is surprisingly crisp. Video recordings rarely get full sound from a show; it's usually poor quality. It seems like one microphone was used, with uneven sound and muddy verses. 45 days is a quality film even if the cameras aren’t always in the perfect spot.

I assume when shooting a band you need to know the music and the timing of the chorus or when the lead singer is going to hit the low verses, high notes. If he is going to put his foot on the amplifier and lean menacingly into the crowd, filmmakers should want the best shot.  I could be wrong here. Maybe there is a standard format for shooting concerts that includes the crowd reaction and a full stage pyro demonstration.

For me, Demon Hunter songs break into 2 basic categories; Fast/aggressive and melodic/ballads. These are my terms and I am sure fans might see it differently. I guess they have a handful of slow, non-metal songs like “I am a Stone” but they mostly stay within the metalcore genre. I’m not an expert on the albums since I just listen to the songs as they pop up. I enjoy the fast stuff like on “Storm the Gates of Hell” and “Someone to Hate”. The drum pacing is very quick, the guitars sound like machine gun fire and the singing is aggressive. That’s pretty much a winning formula, fast drums, machine gun riffs and an intense singer.  There is almost no break between the verse and chorus, they intend to crunch as much thrash into a 5 minute song by quickening the pace.

 Regular ballads are emotional songs about loss (usually) heartbreak, sadness. “Godforsaken” is a little bit like this. I always think it’s a little jarring to go from sped up, yelling to slow and melodic but metal bands do it all the time. It feels weird at shows too. Groups usually come out with a neck snapping, energy laced throw down and 3 songs later slow it down to a crawl. It works though. We pull out the lighter and hum along with the band, swaying to the chorus and ‘feeling’ the lyrics. We clap enthusiastically with their heartfelt display of sensitivity. The very next song we ramp up and slam into each other, propelled by the crushing drums and beefy amplifiers.

Demon Hunter is a Christian band. A Christian Metal band is an interesting thing. I think most people don’t know what to make of it. Heavy Metal is known for occult symbolism, dark themes, death, anger and pain. The artwork covers are pretty honest, blood, skulls, death, violence. Christian music is the opposite of those things, light to darkness and truth to lies. Christians face a steep climb to respectability within metal. They struggle with being perceived as ‘soft’ or ‘talent-less’. When the music is good and group puts on a show, it doesn’t matter to the fans.

Demon Hunter doesn’t run from the label, they actually embrace it.

 “From the minute we started saying that [We are a Christian Band] we started getting more respect even from those other bands” video.

By ‘respect’ he doesn’t mean they embraced his theology. He means, once they decided to ‘live for Christ’ it cleared up a lot of misconceptions among fans. They started to explain their faith and share with others. Their music isn’t preachy so their lives have to be. Staying on message is important to them and I'm glad they understand the significance of what they do.

Summer’s almost over for me so I’ll have to find time to slam around the house and pretend I’m on stage. Is that something we are supposed to grow out of too? I assumed I was done with heavy music altogether, but you can’t be too sure.

Like Michael Corleone from the Godfather III, “Just when I thought I was out. . . they pull me back in!”

Wernher Von Braun

Wernher Von Braun is linked forever with America’s space program.

 As a leading scientist working for the Nazi party during the war, he developed the V2 rocket which relies on liquid propulsion, a major breakthrough in the 1940’s. Germany tried to weaponized the missiles but killed more laborers in their camps than allied soldiers. It wasn’t an effective weapon but helped create a ‘genius’ myth around its creator Von Braun. Sensing a collapse of the Third Reich and the strong possibility of being captured by the Russians, he surrendered to the Americans instead.

Wernher Von Braun’s second act is either a miscarriage of justice or proof that noble patriots got sucked into supporting a dictator they didn’t like. His link to the Nazi party was too much for many Americans to get over. Why should he not be held responsible for the atrocities committed by the group to which he was a member? Naturally the Americans questioned him about his affiliation. I’ve read through some of his answers on the critical questions about his background. He mostly comes off reluctant about the German cause, an engineer concerned with building rockets and exploring the moon. 

Whether you believe him or not determines what you think of allowing him to become an American, and develop a space program in the U.S.

At first glance it doesn’t look good. The Americans essentially moved Von Braun and his crew over the Atlantic and set them up with a new purpose, to beat the Russians into space. Not only to beat the Soviets but also to test and develop rockets for military use.

From 1945 until his death in 1977 he worked on ballistic missiles for the Army and countless NASA programs like the Saturn launch rocket. They played catch-up to the Soviets after Sputnik (first satellite). Saturn was the first launch rocket to take Americans into space.

For some, Von Braun was nothing more than an opportunist. A reluctant Nazi perhaps, but one who oversaw the conditions in the research laboratory and did nothing to stop them. Slave labor was used to assemble and test the V2s under miserable conditions. Reports from soldiers who liberated the camp at Mittlebau-Dora described it the same way they described finding other camps around the country, dead bodies stacked in corners and horrific injuries, malnutrition, disease. War engenders callousness in those who experience it. But to not protest or walk out in protest suggests cruelty or indifference. The rest of the Nazi cadres that were captured faced a war tribunal at Nuremberg, including Von Braun’s ally Albert Speer.  

What should be the response toward scientists’ who worked with Nazis? I don’t mean the ones who conducted torture experiments on people, just the ones who developed bomb technology or rocket propulsion? Von Braun never believed had Germany won, that Allied scientists would have been treated the same as generals and commanders. Where military leaders get harsh punishment (imprisonment, death) scientific disciplines get lighter penalties like restrictions on future practice.

Apparently he expresses remorse for the treatment of prisoners in later interviews. Always with the aside that he couldn’t stop it if he wanted to, he was a scientist caught up in a war.

By all accounts he makes a genuine life change in America after he attends a Baptist church in Texas. One account tells of a pastor in his hometown of Huntsville, Alabama leading Wernher in a prayer of repentance. If anyone doubts his commitment to Christ, they need only read his observations on science and religion.

Through science man attempts to understand the laws of creation; through religious activities he attempts to understand the intentions of the Creator. Each approach is a search for ultimate truth.

If this was an attempt to be accepted in America as an engineer living in accordance with cultural norms, he wouldn’t have been so bold about the existence of God. Especially in the science community, agnosticism would have been a wiser choice. By promoting “Creationism” he basically becomes an outcast among an elite group. By the time of his death he is the most prominent Creationist in the country and sees no conflict between religion and science.

More scientists will get off their ivory towers and publicly say what I am saying here...with all the modern means at our disposal, with schools, churches, educational institutions, press, radio, and television, they should tell the world that religion and science are not incompatible; that, to the contrary; they belong together.

Another anecdote about the V2 rocket technician shows he wasn’t interested in making ballistic missiles for the Nazi’s. Supposedly Himmler had him arrested after he Von Braun showed a lack of interest in using his designs for the war effort. He was shortly released after Albert Speer convinced the Fuhrer of his utility. 

As with everything surrounding the life of the most important man in space development, it depends on how convincing he is to us. His Christianity seems genuine to me since it was so unnecessary in his profession. Yet he becomes a leading voice for Creationism and exploration of the heavens until his death in 1977.

 It’s Wernher Von Braun’s usefulness to the United States’ ambitions in space that makes one cynical. Would the crew responsible for V2’s technology have been treated differently if they weren’t brilliant, if they hadn’t achieved scientific breakthroughs in rocket propulsion?

I keep coming across a lot of literature critical of Von Braun and his white glove treatment by the Americans after the war. Maybe his genius is what saved him, an indispensable piece in race to the moon. Maybe it was his very falling out with the Nazis and their plans to bomb civilians that separated him, just enough, from the monstrous regime. 

How he lived his life after the war speaks to a change of heart and a commitment to scientific inquiry. Despite his past, he made his future matter for good. 

This Week's Medley

 I didn’t write last night because I was tired after a triple cheeseburger and French fry food coma. I followed it with a handful of Hersey’s chocolate and a bag of very tasty pretzels. I chased it all with a vanilla shake. Of all the excuses not to write, that ranks pretty low. How much fat content can a person cram into one meal? I was determined to find out by embarking on a gluttonous course and passing out when the calorie overload hit DEFCON 1. I fell to the occasion and passed out at the first slow period of the evening. I dozed off reading a book like a senior citizen watching Jeopardy in the afternoon.

I had a long week, cut me some slack.

I've felt a general sluggishness in creativity lately, “Whataburger” notwithstanding. Every sentence, every word, every letter oozes out me like grease from that side of fries. It’s slow and laborious ensuring every effort to come up with a subject to write about will probably fail as I get frustrated with the pace. With writing I just plow through most times. The one common factor between writing interesting pieces and nonsense is the amount of time spend.

It’s a simple formula, allow as much time as needed to finish the thought, then edit. It might take two hours or maybe three, but it can’t be rushed and it shouldn’t be forced.

For me at least, honesty holds up well in print. It flows more naturally from the brain to the page. Mark Twain said “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” The same goes for writing and he probably had stories in mind when he said it.

So I thought I’d try something different, an overview of items I couldn’t get enough on by themselves.  

News:

Aretha Franklin died this week of cancer. A major force in recording and pop culture, she still gets credited with inspiring thousands of young musicians, not just ‘soul’ either. For me, her part in Blues Brothers stands out the most. A lot of blues and jazz artists had bit parts in that movie. Ray Charles, John Lee Hooker, Cab Calloway and yes Aretha Franklin as a Chicago restaurant owner. When Jake and Elwood show up to win back two members of their former band she tries stop them from leaving. In a short scene, she belts out a crushing chorus with the waiters dancing to a choreographed routine. I was surprised to read that she never appeared in another movie again.  Blues and soul aren’t really my kind of music but Franklin’s legacy surpasses particular genres. You might not like basketball but you definitely know who LeBron James is. She will be remembered more for her “R.E.S.P.E.C.T” song and the anthem of individuality it became.

TV:

I’ve been watching “The Crown” on Netflix. Although it covers historical events about the current occupants of Buckingham Palace, I imagine they take some liberties with their relationships’. As a private family with multiple layers of assistants, regents, officials and go-betweens it would difficult to get a genuine portrayal. But it is a fantastic show. John Lithgow dominates every scene as an aging Winston Churchill. It isn’t a flattering image of the revered Prime Minister. He is years past his World War II glory days but still clings to power, refusing to retire despite heated calls from parliament to stand aside. He’s mostly seen complaining about ‘socialists’, obsessing about his legacy and the future of the country without him. Lithgow’s Churchill is a sensitive but erratic leader who is, despite being a celebrity among the British people, out of step with the times. It’s a little heavier on emotion than I picture from great statesman, but with an abundance of moral clarity that’s probably just right.

 We know a lot more about Churchill than Queen Elizabeth, but events of the day bring out character in both. The contrast between aging legend and the young queen plays on the direction of a country recovering from war. Which ideas, values and institutions will survive? If there is a theme to the show it’s that choices demand consideration of a monarchy with entrenched rules and a very long history. The queen must learn to balance tradition with opinion.

Sports:

Late summer and early fall is the best time of year for sports. The playoff race makes watching baseball more interesting. The Cubs are 3 games ahead in the Central Division and winning games at the right time. In baseball it’s all about ‘getting hot’ at the right moment. Each team plays 162 regular season games which is rough on bodies and rough on arms, especially pitchers. By the playoffs a lot of teams run out of gas, the ones that make it to the series have deep benches and deep pocketbooks. Chris Bryant should be back from a rehab stint shortly, hopefully his hitting comes back with him. As long as we have a healthy Ben Zobrist I like the Cubs chances. Every team has a clutch player, ours is Ben.

Both college and NFL football games start in a few weeks, and the US Open (tennis not golf) gets underway. Working at a sporting goods store means having the TV on all day and keep track of matches in Flushing Meadows. I won’t pretend to know all the early-rounders who try their luck against Nadal and Djokovic, but live sports in the middle of the day (while working) is a convenient perk. Working Saturday means choosing which college football games to watch too. Networks do a better job of showing games at night than 20 years ago. There only used to be one Saturday night game on ESPN, now there are games in nearly every conference. 

College football has never been better. 

Classification and Personality

“There are two types of people in this world…” goes a famous line from Bill Murray’s What About Bob  “Those who like Neil Diamond, and those who don’t. My ex-wife loves him.” 

Even though he is neurotic to a crippling degree, Bob does what most of us do when trying to understand others and himself, sort and segregate. 

It’s easier to understand others when we boil it down to A or B choices. The desire to classify along personality lines is more about figuring out “us” than learning about “them”.  

Buzzfeed and Facebook are awash in ‘this or that’ type quizzes that sort users based on personality. From “What Lord of the Rings character are you?” to “Which 80’s sitcom describes your life?” All suggest an interest in self-discovery. What is at the heart of it though? Why the need, mostly for fun, to separate and label? It has more to do with seeing ourselves a certain way than putting others in a box. By solving key components of self, we can map out life easier and find our tribe. A touch of laziness is to blame for an obsession with finding the perfect track. Who doesn’t want to find the path of least resistance? Who hasn’t thought “Give me the relationships and careers where I’m destined for awesomeness”? 

 Questionnaires give us the confidence of figuring out some missing piece of our own little puzzle.

The popular psych profile Myers-Briggs separates people into 16 groups but starts with 4 broad characteristics. I don’t think I’ve ever read through and thought about how to classify others though. I’m only interested in where I fall along the scale (ISFJ in case you wondered). Maybe it is just old fashioned selfishness to figure out ‘me’ first and consider others later. But if selfishness is the culprit it proves my point. We want to figure out ‘us’ in a larger ‘we’ picture.

The individuality I'm describing is closer to self-interest than vanity. There is some corner of the brain that lights up when we solve a tough math problem or find answers to a baffling question. It’s a confidence builder. Finding some hidden gem of information through diligent effort is its own reward, much more when we do it ourselves. Tests on personality force us to be honest by presenting scenarios and demanding responses. A full picture of our makeup is only possible when we tell the truth. Also, valid profiles aren’t based on right or wrong answers, the incentive to cheat is removed.

A lot of this depends on how serious you take personality profiles. At best, they are trait markers and at worst, silly time wasting fun.

 Discovering our type can be limiting. Tying personality strictly to trait prevents us from taking chances in areas of life we don’t feel qualified to engage in. This allows a that’s-not-my-job attitude to seep in keeping us from accepting challenges we might really need.  We play to type instead of working through a default mindset. 

My job requires me to help a lot of coaches and athletic directors. Most are highly organized and competitive. Occasionally they’re demanding and used to getting their own way. This is challenging when their deadlines aren’t met, which happens sometimes. Past success lays the groundwork for future disputes, so naturally they insist on being assertive. It’s worked before. Playing to type for them means holding ground and pushing demands. Losing an argument can be catastrophic and they’re likely to hold a grudge. By not moving on from a no-win situation they hurt themselves by personalizing the affair.

Most of the studies on personality show that people can change their type over the years. If there is one benefit to discovering how you interpret the world, information and personal relationships, it shows us where improvement is possible. Improvement is possible when we have all the information. People with naturally aggressive tendencies can learn to control anger and move on without hard feelings. The same goes for those with agreeable personalities. By sticking to their beliefs they can break out of the passive mold that allows others to push them around. Personality tests like Myers-Briggs can illuminate some of “whys” and “what fors” we drift toward instinctively. Change requires rigorous attention to improvement though. 

Wanting to improve areas of personality is universal, although there is probably a type that doesn’t believe they need to. I did some quick searching to find out what self-improvement actually means to people. Most agree on the basic “what’s”, happiness, health and relationships.  The “how’s” diverge a little. Trying new things and breaking type is good advice because it forces us to use skills that aren’t yet developed. Like trying out a new workout routine, it makes us uncomfortable at first but strengthens muscles we didn’t know we had. Teaching a class, joining a club and learning a language are some popular recommendations (from Quora at least).

These are self-focused ideas but it’s tough to help others without first challenging yourself. There is room for improvement everywhere, whether you like Neil Diamond, associate Family Ties with your upbringing or prefer reading books to watching movies. 

Shortcuts don’t exist for change; that includes personality tests.  

Community or Attendance

I attended a Wednesday night church service this week.

 My church only does one Wednesday service per week now. Somewhere along the way, a lot of churches put in multiple Sunday morning sessions and even one for Saturday night. Evangelicals who’ve grown up with the midweek option might find it strange to see it go. I can’t say how common it is around the country though.  I stopped going to the Wednesday service on consecutive weeks when I was in high school.  For some this is an awful break from tradition, an inexcusable move that proves America doesn’t care about God anymore.

 But is the lack of services really a trend toward laziness or a strategic move designed to reach the lost on their own turf?

The stated reason, for fewer church times, is to encourage small groups to take the place of large gatherings and invest in each other on a personal level. Small groups are an extension of a larger community within the church. With big churches it’s easy to ignore and be ignored by the people we see in service. The anonymity of big gatherings often leads to isolation, as contradictory as it seems. Small groups promote participation for those without strong support from friends and relatives. It also forces ‘lone wolf’ types to make connections. Lone wolfs would hardly get that type of community from just attending church once per week. They might not even get it attending 3 services weekly. 

If the shift to smaller groups works, than we can expect churches to grow across the country as people without a formal group structure become new regulars.   

The argument against killing the midweek service is that it promotes less Christian teaching overall. Cynical types think pastors just want time off. “Tell the people it’s about ‘community’ and we get to stay home.” First, most changes from religious officials get the conspiracy treatment, why should ‘community’ notions be different? Second, the church should reflect, in some ways, the culture around it. Without it, Christianity can seem foreign, something unreachable and unrelatable. Clothing is one example. It went from ties with slacks to flip flops and baseball caps in less than 20 years. The music too is faster paced, much louder and sounds closer to a concert than a choir led chorus. It’s probably a reflection changing music tastes within the church instead of some outreach effort. But it reflects the culture and isn’t contradictory to any core biblical beliefs.   

A culture that doesn’t attend church (largely) won’t hear the message of the gospel except on a one to one basis. Those interactions can happen anywhere and often do. This is the shift Christians need, from attendance to outreach. It could be that the national Church is trying to revive some of sense of community that is going away in large portions of the country. Civic groups and service clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis) so important 50 years ago are dying. Some of these groups lost over 50% of their members between 1975 and 2000. Americans don’t join like they used to. The ties of local organizations (religious and non) that once existed are barely effective anymore at building group dynamics. Some blame the digital space, internet groups that offer community without the pesky human interaction. Maybe so, but it could also be that we don’t have the same obligation to tradition anymore. Maybe there is a feeling of “What’s the big deal?” or “Why do I need that?” If it leads to searching for groups in different ways, that’s great. But it can also lead to isolation. Isolation is easier to achieve than ever and it’s having negative effects on human interaction across the country.

Community promotes individual growth, isolation retards it.

Churches are figuring this out in a time of slipping attendance across the country. What difference would an additional night of service make in a society that doesn’t bother going on the regular days? Isn’t that person more likely to attend a small gathering with friends than a church? It’s also forcing church officials to imagine a more disparate organization in the future, one central hub with dozens of small affiliates. A lot of megachurches use this model already by broadcasting services to a number of smaller gatherings. Other forms of gathering will develop too as communication of media increases. 

       

The willingness to provide support and build reliable communities reflects a two part goal for the national Church. Without changing with the times we lose alienating a generation that didn’t grow up in America attending services. The goal is the same, preach the gospel, make disciples and support the community through outreach. The shift in attitude is what's important, if you won't come to us, we'll com to you.

 I don’t think the traditional brick and mortar church buildings are going away. But they are seizing on an opportunity to reach those far removed from a tradition of church attendance. For those used to slipping in and out of services without obligations to outreach, this is a welcome change.

Fictional Reading, Non-Fictional Writing

When it comes to writing I prefer non-fiction and easy to compile stuff, like this blog. In reading I go the other way, towards fiction. I find writing stories very challenging, unlike personal stuff and observational content. Current events and opinion always feel like a natural fit for me. I seem to gravitate toward news and politics. This weird FOMO instinct kicks in every time someone says “Hey did you hear about…?” and of course I didn’t. I really hate that. 

When it comes to books though I like novels, mostly. Not sure why. It probably has to do with the adventure or mystery. No one reads a chapter in James Patterson book and goes “Well, that’s enough for today”  With non-fiction I always feel like I need to take notes. I guess it’s a lingering effect of hours spent in the classroom. Like I’m afraid someone might ask me to summarize what I just read. But learning happens in stories as well as with fiction. I make distinctions between non-fiction in story form and the traditional biography or self-help variety. 

 There is a misconception among those who read non-fiction, that it’s the choice of 'learners'. One of my favorite lines from the movie Sideways is from Thomas Haden Church’s father in law, “I think you read something, someone just invented it--waste of time.” It sums up the feeling people have about stories.

The lines get blurred in memoirs, since most of the details are accurate but include a lot of filler to round out the best remembered parts. I read a book called Back to Moscow from a European student getting his Master’s in Russian Literature. He lived in Moscow for a few years while reading the classics (Tolstoy, Pushkin, Dostoyevsky). He mostly just went to night clubs and hooked up with women while ‘trying’ to get work done. His project probably needed a year or less but he lived there for three, partying and boozing hard. He details the city and summarizes the literature throughout, sprinkling the story with digressions on famous characters like “Ana Karenina” and “Natasha Rostova”.

He also covers events in Moscow during the early 2000s, including the Theater hostage crisis which he was there for. I won’t ruin the ending but it ties in perfectly with the tragic lives’ of the heroines he studies. It isn’t traditional fiction where the story is completely whole cloth, he probably embellishes a bit but it reads like a fiction. It isn’t a textbook or a classic (hardly) but I learned enough.

John Grisham novels are pure fiction. He does courtroom and legal dramas better than anyone. He creates rich characters and his stories reflect time and place better than most; he doesn’t overwhelm readers with countless people and unbelievable plot twists. We probably don’t realize we’re learning about the people and culture while also guessing where the story will lead. It’s the best kind of learning too, heavy on personal story and light on facts. In this way his books are fun and engaging. There’s probably a bit of truth in most of his stories despite being technically a fictional account. Scenes from his childhood, nasty behavior from strangers and courtroom experiences all round out his novels.

The most common distinction between fiction and non-fiction is whether something really happened. But this isn’t a great distinction either. Ernest Hemingway supposedly wrote fictional accounts of American expats in France, Italy, and Spain but as a reporter living abroad he must have taken some of it from his own experience. Nearly all of his characters drink excessively, something he was known for. In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway shows Parisian friends attending the annual bullfighting celebration in Pamplona. His interest in the tradition is obvious by the way he describes the fiesta in the pages. Bullfighting as art is the theme, a pure craft set apart from drunk, partying foreigners. The story is set in the 1920’s and even though the Paris group is hedonistic and out for fun, bullfighting is described technically. There is some criticism that Ernest Hemingway didn’t get it just right, but this is probably where the fictional aspects kick in.

Everyone who loves to read has asked themselves “What’s the point? What do you hope to get from this?” If the answer is enjoyment, entertainment, adventure, than read fictional stories. If the answer is to get better at X, or learn about Abe Lincoln, than read non-fiction. Better yet, surprise yourself, pick up something completely random and see what you think. Same goes for writing. I try to do short stories on occasion for the practice. The dialogue is painful, the tale meanders and the characters are a little wooden, but I try.

So many books are perfect combinations of both genres that distinctions aren’t helpful anymore. Authors or subjects are better ways to break down particulars. A lot of us prefer films to books. Shows based on characters might be a way to explore books for those allergic to reading. Amazon Prime has a series called “Bosch” based on Michael Connelly’s famous Harry Bosch detective crime books. Amazon’s Bosch is a little too clean and fit for what I imagined the middle aged cop to be. That’s a risk we all take when going from film to page though. Images don’t always meet expectations. 

In any case we could all probably read more.