Break Time--Again

 

I’m on a running hiatus again. It’s the damn foot. 

Early in the year I had what I assumed was plantar fasciitis. I’m sure that’s what it was based on the pain in the heel and trouble walking early in the morning. I thought I was over it but it’s flaring up again and no amount of ice and elevation seem to help this time. Hobbling around at work all day is not an option. Sadly it’s been like that for the last month or so. Saturday long runs lead to painful weeks where I limp around like I just rolled a pallet jack over my foot and weeping like I just lost a buddy to surprise grenade attack. Ok not the weeping, not much. Not every day is debilitating but enough of them are. It’s time to stop for a while to figure out why jogging beats me down so thoroughly.

Toughing is out isn’t working. I might be doing more damage to my foot by gritting my teeth and running with the group. I’m pretty consistent about exercise and this feels like a giant setback. Everyone needs to be good at something and I think consistent work outs are in my wheelhouse. I could have made bigger strides by following a tight schedule for lifting or by joining a class. Some people hire trainers to get back in shape. I’ve never had the money for that but it is effective. Consistency leads to effectiveness with anything, why should training be different? There is nothing magical about trainers but they do provide you with a strict plan. Not to mention a reason to keep going. Shelling out money tends to keep us honest. 

 I’ll continue going to the gym and lifting weights but instead I’ll mix in some extra cardio. Running 3 days per week eliminates the need to do any extra at the gym. So I’ll probably get very comfortable with the stationary bike for the next month or so. I’ll avoid the climbers and treadmills of course. Anything that requires extra weight on my foot is out. One of the coaches at Runner’s World mentioned starting an 80/20 plan when I feel like getting back to it. I’ve read a couple articles about it. The basic premise goes like this: 80% of the run should be at a low heart rate while 20% should be at an elevated rate. The idea is that slower running is better for endurance and actually increases race time. There is a little more to it, but that ratio is supposed to be great for runners over 40. I guess it’s worth a try.

Also, I don’t run to improve my race time. Maybe I’m not competitive enough, but I want to improve gradually and stay fit over my entirety of my life. Too many of us treat fitness like a final exam every semester. We cram hard for a short time and hope to get under some weight goal. But just like a test we studied all night for, we hardly remember anything the next year and have to cram all over. Gyms are full at the beginning of the year because we like to cram. Get in and study hard before summer, lose weight for a short time and forget why we did next year.

I’m not being critical but life gets in the way and it becomes increasingly difficult to keep the same schedule every year. Injury plays a role too as I’ve found on a few occasions. A lot of the time we just get lazy though. I have a giant hole in my schedule where running used to be. Will I fill it up with extra gym sessions or use it to sleep in late and sip coffee till the sun is bright and toasty?

Jogging is such a great activity for me, especially in the cooler weather. I hope to be back at it soon.

 

 

 

Halt and Catch Fire: Series Review

 

 

I have this tendency to watch shows years after they were popular. With Halt and Catch Fire though, it was never popular.

If you’re asking yourself “Wasn’t that on AMC a few years ago?” you’d be right. I don’t have cable so I don’t catch a lot of shows when they premier. But few people do that anymore. Who really checks the TV guide and plops down sharply at 8:00 PM anymore? But if you’re unfamiliar (I certainly was) it’s broadly about the tech industry from 1983 to 1995. Four main characters make up the core of the story. A cutthroat marketing guru with a knack for finding talent and exploiting it for big profits: Two married Berkeley grads with extensive knowledge of computer hardware, and a brilliant young coder with an authority problem.

The marketing guy, Joe McMillan, knows just enough about the business to be dangerous. He puts a small team together to sell his own ‘portable computer’ with its own operating system. Joe isn’t an honest dealer and cuts a lot of corners. He knows his end game and forces others to comply through subterfuge and half truths. You can’t help admiring his vision for the burgeoning world of tech and finance. To him there is always a wrinkle to exploit and it’s a race to the finish for a pot of gold. But it’s not pure greed, he loves creating. He also knows his limitations and finds help.

Candace is the punk rock coder who Joe pulls from a computer science class and convinces her to work for him. She’s brilliant but scattered and doesn’t work well with others. Gordon and Donna Clark are in the middle of a shaky marriage when Joe steps in to enlist Gordon for his project. Both Donna and Gordon eventually play key roles in the new business and see their share of booms and busts.  

What makes this show work so well? It’s the same formula that makes any TV show work, interesting characters in volatile situations. At its core, Halt and Catch Fire is a show about relationships and how they evolve over the course of years. The success and failure of their relationships matches the up and down world of any business in a growth phase. The same ideas that create success often create friction as employees once deemed critical get forced out when they don’t fit anymore. Competing visions can only survive for so long; growth demands a singular idea and a singular voice.

 I’m embarrassed to say, a lot of the tech stuff goes over my head. I get enough of it to follow the plot because it’s not really essential to the story line. Anyone who’s watched even one episode of Shark Tank will be familiar with venture capital and how essential it is for tech start-ups, especially in the 90’s.

Halt also works as a compelling historical fiction because it follows big developments that actually did happen, developing the World Wide Web, racing to create an adaptable browser, developing shooter games like Doom. A couple things are clear about the tech industry that’s exactly like energy or steel in a different era, cutthroat practices pay off. We like to think everyone plays fair but where windfall profits are in play the cheating multiplies. Ideas get stolen from small players or purchased before they have a chance to grow. Or, they get overwhelmed with debt and a lack of new expansion to add value. Only the strong survive.

Each season is a different take on the key characters, a 'reboot' if you will. In this way the series is able to add real depth as they succeed and fail in a volatile climate.  

The music is incredible too. It’s basically a catalogue of 80’s punk like the Talking Heads, the Eurhythmics, the Cars, and even 90’s stuff like Hole and the Pixies. Of course it helps to like this stuff already. It’s not all punk, but the quick pace of the 80’s tech world fits perfectly with a countercultural soundtrack.

The Guardian called it “the best show that nobody watched”. Maybe because, in this age of streaming channels like Netflix and Hulu we don’t bother as much with TV anymore. I know it was on AMC and not CBS but still, it must have needed a marketing boost. If there is any complaint for me it’s with the title. Halt and Catch Fire doesn’t tell me what kind of show it is unless it’s one of those industry terms that tech people know. In either case it’s a great show and I’m amazed by how much I got sucked in.  

 

Obsession--Notes 2

Part 2 of my Notes on Obsession by Byron York

The Mueller team spent most of 2018 seeking obstruction of justice by Trump and others for a non-crime.

That might be the most frustrating part of any special council, the ability to force testimony and set up perjury traps. This is why no one from Trump’s team wanted him anywhere near an interview room. For Trump’s part though he was ready to go. I don’t think this was an act either. It’s in his nature to believe that he can sway opinion through the sheer force of will. At his core he is a salesman. The deals he made with his lenders on real estate projects speak to his belief in himself. It’s also the thing that got him in trouble with James Comey.

It’s easy to look back now and say that Comey should have been fired right after Trump took over. He always allowed Comey to meet in private with him and discuss Flynn. The whole Steele dossier mess happened when Comey agreed to brief the president on the ‘intelligence’ about Russian hookers in his room in Moscow. None of it was confirmed. It was salacious stuff meant to be leaked to the press; it didn’t matter that none of it was true. It just needed to be reported. I doubt anyone with the president’s interest would have allowed that kind of unconfirmed intelligence anywhere near the Oval Office. But Trump always believed he could get Comey on his side. It cost him dearly because he trusted the FBI chief.

Naturally the Mueller report was a dud. All this excitement and bogus information from the press for two years amounted to the special counsel saying “yeah we didn’t find anything”. Actually what they found was nothing on collusion; they remained inconclusive on obstruction. The reason I said it was the “most frustrating part” was that Robert Mueller and his team invented a new legal standard, the “not exonerated” standard. Their conclusion from the tedious two and half year report, on obstruction of justice, was “we can’t confirm and we can’t deny”. This was beyond their authority. It’s like the prosecutor in a murder trial case saying “Well we couldn’t find evidence that Mr. Santino ordered the hit, but we can’t say he didn’t either”. Nonsense. If no evidence is found you walk away. You don’t get to prove innocence.

I’m sure Mueller’s prosecutors know this. But because of politics they needed some way to hang suspicion over the president. They needed something that would hint at wrong doing beyond the black and white report. I read just last week that the team of lawyers on the Mueller team ‘wiped’ their phones. Imagine if anyone from the Trump administration tried that. The information is retrievable through the NSA’s database though. If Trump gets reelected I think a lot of these guys are going to jail, or at least in serious legal trouble.

The last thing I’ll mention is the failure of Mueller appearing before the intelligence committee to answer questions in his report. Bob was abysmal. He couldn’t remember significant details of the case, needed an aid to explain questions and had to walk back answers the following day. York and others think he had declined significantly since the beginning of the investigation. It suggests maybe Mueller wasn’t really doing the work anyway and farming it out to others. Was he really as slow as he appeared or was he playing up the I’m-just-an-old-guy-who-forgets defense. If his signature investigation was a waste of everyone’s time, how best to distance himself from it? Make it look like he wasn’t really in charge and never had been.

OK so maybe it’s far-fetched but a lot of people in the Democrat party were counting on Mueller finding fraud and election interference, or at least obstruction. They needed something concrete to take to the American people and say “See! Trump stole the election now he’s going to be impeached!” To say the leadership in the House was disappointed is to understate the obvious.

It’s why they were so quick to with their next move, the whistleblower complaint.  

Institutions of Yore

 

Two separate podcasts convinced me that the institutions of old are fighting battles from another age.

The first interview was with Condoleezza Rice after being appointed the new director of the Hoover Institution. Hoover, for those who don’t know, is a right of center think tank focusing on free markets and liberty. It’s housed at Stanford University and boasts history scholars like Niall Ferguson and Victor Davis Hanson among its ranks. For me, Hoover’s been indispensable in public policy information. The second interview was Ben Sasse on the Ricochet podcast. He’s a Senator from Nebraska with big ideas and a solid understanding of the constitution.

 I’m suddenly less enamored of their big ideas and intellectual heft.

Their plans are brilliant, their prose is eloquent. But they don’t see how far gone the institutions are that we've trusted for new ideas. Too many are sitting around like knights discussing the finer points of wheat cultivation over a pint of beer (mead?). Meanwhile the dragon is burning up the town while people scramble for cover.

Senator Sasse wants to amend the constitution and get rid of the 17th amendment. It’s the one that changed how Senators are selected. State legislatures used to appoint them to 6 year terms instead of what we currently have, popular elections. Conservatives think going back to the old way would ensure that, ideas have their day. The Senate is where debate happens. He thinks the Senators are too willing to be on camera, too willing to use soundbites for radio and unwilling to do the tough work of weighing ideas. He is probably right but it's not an idea for right now.

Rice is a true believer in the American experiment and promoting our values abroad. She covered Russia, China and education in this country during her interview. On education she hopes to see a change in how we think of charter schools. I was encouraged that she gets how wide the chasm between public schools in rich neighborhoods and poor ones. Still, the questions and answers had a ‘yesteryear’ feel to them, not because of the issues but because of the timing.

Sasse and Rice and a whole lot of others like them are planning for a country that might not be around in a decade. That might sound ominous. But these institutions we’ve come to view as agents of change are hollowed out husks, held together by brainy public servants and their pet projects. They’ve missed the real issue of the day because they don’t see it. They’re still telling their Ivy League jokes (Ha ha sounds like a Harvard man!) and going on as if the country itself will hold together despite the obvious rot eating it from within, corruption.

I don’t mean only the classic understanding of it, where an official awards some construction contract to his brother-in law. That’s always been there. Corruption is simply looking the other way while real destruction takes place because it would harm your personal interests. It doesn’t have to be money. It could be a threat to public image or standing. Journalists from western newspapers like Bloomberg and Financial Times that work in China know exactly what NOT to write about. The risk of getting kicked out of the country is too great. It might sound harsh to think of this as corruption, it’s certainly not illegal. But it does represent looking the other way for a valued share of the market.  

 Without recognizing this plague we stand a very good chance of losing the country.

 The United States will be around in some form or another, likely divided and hopelessly splintered. I’m not picking on elites for their money or success. I don’t begrudge either but they have a responsibility to get in the fight. That fight is cultural right now and it only gets fixed with honest reflection about our (America’s) lack of morality. The lawlessness in our cities isn’t a tantrum by angry voters, it’s an attack against the foundational principles of the country. Corruption is how we got here, corruption of morals, corruption of business, corruption of governance.   

This is a time for honest reflection and a collective turning back to God. In other words, humility. Time for God’s people to ignore a lot of the vitriol and push for unity—real unity, not the one splashed across a Nike T-shirt that football players have to wear.

I wrote about the worship leader Sean Feucht last week. With his team of musicians traveling to large cities and inviting everyone to lift up their voice to the Creator, he is leading a tip of the spear movement.

My frustration at politicians and big idea thinkers is mostly of my own making. It’s never been the place to look for real change. I’m starting to adjust my compass as I write, thing’s a little sticky though.

Congress might not be where the fight it but they can make easier for the rest of us. In other words promote freedom and ensure any threats to speech, religion or assembly remain obscure, contained.  Get back to protecting individual liberties found in the first 10 amendments. Leave the 17^th alone for right now.

As much as I’ve criticized politicians we do need them to pay attention to the influences around them every day. Don’t worry about the institutions so much (the Senate, Schools, even the Church). Focus instead on people and use your platform to promote morality and be willing to fight for it. This is the tough part. You won’t get a lot of criticism promoting pet projects and tweaks to the system. A lot of them probably know what it takes to turn the tide of rebellion but are unwilling (so far) to do it.

Individuals tapped into their spiritual calling will become what institutions used to be, idea centers. I’m praying for a ripple effect that brings us back from the brink.   

 

Obsession--notes

 

I’m reading Obsession by Byron York right now.

I wanted a thorough recap of the Trump Russian collusion stuff that didn’t bog down too much in legal detail. I think I have a good summary in my head of the events that led to it. I never understood the connection between each of these different issues though. I remember the George Papadopoulos stuff. It always felt like a setup to me. George sounded like some half-wit from the press reports, a guy boozing it up and giving away state secrets. Nothing could be further from the truth. He came out sounding like a guy that got screwed by a process crime (making false statements) for the sin of joining Trump inc.

There is too much to rehash here with Papadopoulos. The basic framework: expert on Mid East joins Trump and is given information about Hilary's emails and Russia. That information is used to begin an investigation on him and make it look like the administration was fishing for dirt on Clinton. 

I wasn’t as clear on Carter Page. That was one story I didn’t remember too well. He’d gone to Moscow apparently but there was nothing in his background that sounded devious or untoward. In fact, later we found out that he was working with the CIA, a piece of info that was specifically ignored so the FBI could surveil him. Everyone thought he was guilty as hell-including a lot of conservative writers who couldn’t believe that Page was actually a decent public servant.

It’s a testament to the power of the media that other media types also got duped by false notions about Page.

I remember the meeting with Don Jr, Jared Kushner and the Russian woman (Veselnitskaya) who lobbied to have some legislation removed that prevented (adoptions I think) between Russia and the U.S. Of all the possibilities pointing to collusion this one at least seemed the most likely. But like the others it was a big dud. Looking back it seemed designed to make the most noise for the press, big spashy headlines and secret meetings.

“Meeting with Russian agent at Trump Tower” or “Russians trade dirt on Hilary for Sanction Relief”. This looks particularly intriguing on a chyron graphic.

The sketchiest piece of the whole thing was the email sent to Don Jr. from the Russian woman’s publicist about “dirt” on Hilary. Jr. replied that he liked what he heard. It looked bad to be meeting with a foreign official for dirt on your opponent. But it was a smokescreen to setup the event, nothing more. So Jr’s willingness to get dirt might have sounded dodgy but no crime was committed. The meeting itself was a ruse to promote an unrelated idea. The campaign thought the whole thing a waste of time.

The Michael Flynn incident still isn’t resolved. He was placed under an FBI investigation before Trump even took office and basically got railroaded by the investigators. Even Bryon York isn’t clear on why he was placed under surveillance by the FBI. Officially he talked with the Russian ambassador before taking office (during the transition period) and asked him to hold off on any big moves until the administration was in place. This is proper for an incoming National Security Advisor to do. He was asked about it by the FBI and said he didn’t remember. He was asked by Mike Pence about it and apparently lied to him. That got him fired. I’m not sure how much is true regarding Flynn and what he told the FBI or didn’t. He clearly didn’t think he was under oath at the time. It might not seem like much but if they are going to charge you for it they need to let you know you are under oath. That’s a basic legal standard. I blame James Comey for that one.

York mentioned something that I wasn’t familiar with, Trump’s supposed “gutting” of the Republican platform on Russia. This one is the biggest lie of all. Nothing was changed except for some language promising to support Ukraine. It did not promise weapons though. A delegate from Texas wanted tougher language on Russia and specific sanctions. They rejected changing it. As Byron York says, the platform actually looked much tougher toward Russia than previously. It’s a dumb thing to do anyway if you plan to pimp for Putin and the boys. Why signal your intentions by changing a platform? Platforms are mostly for domestic politicking. I can’t imagine they have any lasting influence on foreign policy. I guess this is why I’d never heard of it, it went away faster than Steve Bannon.

I’m only a few chapters in but it’s clear by late 2017, Mueller and his team have nothing. Here is where it devolves into a fishing expedition. Mueller’s guys start turning the whole fiasco into a way to find obstruction of justice since collusion was a dead end.

The surprising part for me was how committed the Trump team was to helping Mueller end it quickly. They handed over almost all documents requested by the team and even met with Mueller himself to emphasize how quick they wanted it to end. I guess most of them figured by helping out, playing ball, it could all go away quickly. And if there really is nothing illegal, why not help? The investigation was cutting into the regular affairs of governing. Not to mention Trump looked weak and hobbled whenever he would meet with world leaders. They were understandably reluctant to engage with a president who might be gone in a matter of months. That a serious problem for a new president.

But Mueller had different ideas. The fact that the investigation started digging like this is proof, it was never about Russian collusion.

 

 

That Lovin' Feelin'

Occasionally I’ll dust off something I’ve written in my
journal and clean it up for the blog. When I do that you know I’m out of ideas.
For whatever reason I wrote it a year ago and kind of gave up on it. Maybe it felt flat.
Maybe it lacked purpose. Whatever the reason, I’m trying again.

As a kid I had trouble pinpointing the reasons I like a particular song. But I’ve always thought the musical (melody) part is where the memories are, not the lyrics. It’s the sound of the piece that takes you back. Like the Righteous Brothers “You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin”. Since 1964 the track
has been played on the radio something like 8 million times. That number includes all versions of it (Hall and Oats, Tom Jones) but still, that's an impressive run.  It’s from a different generation that I grew in with but I always liked the way it evokes sadness and loss. 

A good song contains both pointed lyrics and emotional heft. I especially love the falling melody at the end of the verse, gone, gone, gone. It drops with every utterance of the word “gone” and feels heavier each time.  

You lost that lovin' feelin'
Now it's gone, gone, gone, whoa-oh

I saw an interview with the writers of the song a few years ago on CBS’s Sunday Morning. I don’t mean the Righteous Brothers, it was written for them by Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil in 1964. Actually Mann and Weil didn’t know who they were writing for. Phil Spector, recording extraordinaire,
commissioned them to write it. Spector mostly recorded mostly Black artists but thought of this song for the Righteous Brothers. There seemed to be some animosity toward the artists and their lack of humility surrounding the success of the song. The sense I got from the interview with the composers was they didn’t think the Brothers deserved to get the song. Although light on specific reasons it was clear they didn’t work well together. It’s hard to untangle old knots and assign blame. I usually side with the writers because I imagine singers, like actors, are an arrogant group concerned with getting credit. 

This is probably unfair but we all have our biases. 

My earliest memory of the song was in Top Gun. The track isn’t actually played until the end but it
informs so much of the film that it feels like we’ve already listened to it a few times before the movie ends. The scene in the first act shows the young pilots embarrassing a beautiful woman at an open mic night in a local dive. It’s a scene built to show how assertive and care free the cocky pilots are.
But the song sticks in our heads until the end and at the closing credits we hear the verse, “Bring back that lovin' feelin' cause it's gone, gone, gone” as the fighter jet soars into a setting sun.

I like how they tie together Maverick’s (Cruise) lost love of flying with the death of his navigator Goose (Edwards). Sorry was that a spoiler? The first half of the film is love and passion and live for the day type recklessness. The second half is somber and measured with a focus on mortality. It’s a perfect emotional break for the song, what we used to have and what we need to get back. Even through the pain we remember how much it all meant, how much we loved.

Movies and songs no matter how sad and destructive should ALWAYS leave us with a hopeful sense that some spark still exists for better. The future needs to be always just out there, alive and within reach.

The song is an obvious reference to a couple that’s fallen out of love. No one knows how it started but the story is familiar. They took each other for granted; they looked other places for happiness or fulfillment. Every case is different but the feelings are the same. Trying to get back what
was lost is a different battle than trying to gain something you’ve never had. Whether romantic love or a passion for a hobby, hope is near if you can grab it.

But only if you remember how much you loved and hold on tight before it’s gone, gone, gone.