Supreme Obstinance

I am delighted Republicans in the Senate are just saying "no", and "Hell No" to Obama's Supreme nominee. I haven't studied the man's philosophy (Merrick Garland). It doesn't matter. This isn't about his view on gun rights. It isn't about abortion. It isn't about the role of judges, the role of presidents or the role legislators. It isn't about prior rulings or future possible rulings. It isn't about his age, sex or religion. It isn't about his view of prayer in schools, monuments on capitols or gays in the military. It isn't about his understanding of judicial restraint, judicial activism or judicial review. One could say it isn't about Judge Garland at all.

It is about Executive overreach and disregard for Constitutional limits--on pretty much everything. Congressional Republicans are mad. They should be.

 Three points upon which the anger rests--so we can have a manageable number.

1. The sketchy and dangerous Iran deal, negotiated with guarantees from a lying apocalyptic Islamic Republic. The ayatollahs have always maintained their enrichment of uranium was for peaceful means. We never believed them. Why do so now? A needless bit of theater.

2. The handling of the Bowe Bergdahl POW exchange. 5 Taliban commanders were released without approval from the DOD or proper Congressional oversight. This was illegal and calculated. The Rose Garden ceremony welcoming him home was a disaster; he looked like a hero despite putting soldiers in harms way on countless search and rescue missions.

3. Don't forget the Dream Act. Despite the lovely sounding name it makes immigration law irrelevant for millions. Because, well...votes...what else?

So stand on principle, or just venomous rage, and ignore the media. George Will is already attacking GOP leaders. It really is true that everyone in Washington hates Republicans, even fellow Republicans. Let em hate.

Appreciation: the sweet tooth of life

We visited Wisconsin Dells every summer when I was a kid. Few things stand out quite as clearly as the souvenir stores and chocolatier shops. I loved watching the apron clad women making fudge on the massive round table. One woman would slowly pour the liquefied chocolate onto the round marble slap while others used spatulas to form the rapidly cooling mass. This was in an old time candy shop with large open air windows and tourists piling in gawking curiously at the spectacle unfolding. Whenever the heated bowl was ready to dump another sweet mix of sugar, cream and chocolate, the onlookers swarmed the boutique shop like pigeons to seed. The thrill of another sugar high drew many as the best fudge is always the freshest cut, at least it seemed. The joy of watching a sticky mass take shape in the hands of a skilled craftsman was also part of the fun.

 I don’t think I realized it as a kid but I enjoy watching skilled people work. The attraction of the fudge making is in the repetitive folding, scraping and slicing the gooey mass until it resembles a giant candy bar. Fudge making does not qualify as an officially craft worthy skill with special schools and degrees. But it does take some dedication and technique that can only be learned by spending a season toiling over a heated cauldron and learning when the soupy mess is perfect for pouring.

 I like to watch skilled craftsman in their craft, whether candy makers or painters.

 Bob Ross (PBS pretty little tree guy) owes his success to rather simple broadcasts where he transforms blank canvases into nature art quicker than most 1^st graders do paint by number. The art is a little kitschy but watching him work is hypnotizing.

Precision demands skill. Skill takes time. The pleasure of watching a skilled craftsman perform a task is tied to an inherent understanding of the effort required to become great. Most people probably don’t realize it but admiration of a dancer or painter, athlete or glass blower is an acknowledgment of the hard work undertaken by the artist/performer. 

Appreciation of skill is appreciation of the effort, the time. Some talent is inherent but skill is the rounded edges that only hard work can smooth out.

Life is richer when you appreciate the work behind the skill. Remember what stands behind the great shooting of Steph Curry or the technical brilliance of Neal Peart. You’ll never watch a basketball game or listen to a musical performance the same again. Appreciation is the sweet tooth of life.   

Night Train to Lisbon

     

I watched a movie last night about a Swiss man who saves a girl from jumping off a bridge by shouting at her and grabbing her before right before she leaps. This gentle man turns out to be a school teacher on his way to class. He brings the girl along just to keep an eye on her. She bolts from his classroom though just a few minutes into his lecture and he pursues hoping to return the coat she left in his classroom. He discovers a book in her coat pocket with a ticket to Lisbon tucked inside the pages. He rushes to the station and hops on the train hoping to catch her, return the coat and do…what?--the viewer isn’t sure. Returning a coat to someone is a nice gesture but hoping a train from Bern to Lisbon to do so is mad. Something else is driving this man and the book that contained the ticket is the catalyst to exploring a new city, new story and a new personality for Raimund. The book is rare; less than 100 were printed, we find out after the author’s sister explains the origin of the book, the life and times of the author and why he never wrote another. But the main point of the movie is how the book becomes an engine for transformation in the shy and frumpy Swiss lecturer. Within the framework of the main story, an older man following a young girl across Europe, lies a complex political, philosophical and romantic narrative that feels unfinished despite having happened over 40 years ago. In the process of searching for the girl, Raimund peels back the historical layers of a resistance movement from the early 1970’s in Lisbon that the book’s author was a part of. Many of the characters from the book are still alive, as he discovers, and many live in and around the Lisbon. Most don’t like to talk about the past, especially since much of what they did was illegal. Raimund manages to solve some mysteries surrounding the fate of the resistance and how Amadeu do Prada died by tracking down people who knew him.

The film uses flashbacks throughout the movie to fill in the missing pieces of the now dead author; the audience discovers it as Raimund does. One scene involves Amadeu giving a speech to his classmates in which he basically disavows religion and God in general and replaces it with some mix of humanism and communalism. This should be a high point in the film but it just feels messy and needlessly subversive. The passion is there but the pointed words miss their mark. This is a Catholic school where liberal studies are frowned upon or banned outright. Amadeu and his buddy are free thinkers among a group of bright students but the supposed oppression from the priests never materializes. The audience is expected to take it on, ahem, faith that these guys keep students in fear to God and the state—almost no distinction is made between religious control and state control. We understand the intellectual discovery the boys undergo but can’t sympathize with their rebellious zeal. Hence the speech Amadeu delivers in church that sets the tone for the trajectory of rebellion among the Portuguese youth and the subsequent resistance against the fascist government.

I found it difficult to follow the philosophical underpinning of the movie. We hear words from Amadeu’s book (the one Raimund found) read aloud during countless flashback scenes as a narration device. The philosophy of the man and everything he wrote is supposed to drive the film as discoveries are made about human character, love and friendship. The words are philosophical reflections on existence as the characters move toward crisis. But the deep thoughts of Amadeu do Prada come off empty and insignificant. We can see the effect the book has on Raimund who is enraptured with discovering the author’s life and times. Indeed, Raimund is becoming a new creature; one with a purpose and joy and an engaging woman to share it with. No real attempt is made to connect Raimund’s journey to Amadeu’s or to show the viewer why the book has such a positive influence on Raimund. Two separate stories are told with only marginal similarities between Amadeu and Raimund, the past and the present. Raimund’s journey is possible after the discovery and intrigue brought about by the book, but the real spirit of the age is not effectively present in the unsuspecting teacher.

As a Christian I’ve always been bothered by films and novels that present Godlessness as virtue. Secular humanism, the idea that human intelligence is supreme, ignores the supernatural world and the very real battle between good and evil. Always presented as light, the truth that humanism shields people from has the power to save them. Mainly, that only through belief in Christ, and acceptance of His death and resurrection, can a person be redeemed and brought into the light. True darkness is believing that only through human reason and scientific curiosity can a person be enlightened and fulfilled. In oppressive governments the Church frequently becomes an engine of the state so that no distinction is made between the two; one supports and legitimizes the other. During the middle ages the Pope played the role of king maker by supporting princes, or their rivals, in their quest for the throne. Preachers in the Antebellum South supported the institution of slavery as necessary for educating and saving the ‘heathen’. In Night Train to Lisbon the church is an institution for educating but one that also works to keep literature (Das Kapital, Thus Spoke Zarathustra) that is contrary to belief in God out of the hands of students—least they see the ‘true’ light. Religion in this context is to be cast aside like iron shackles bolted to the wall of government control.

Amadeu do Prada experiences liberation and freedom, love and indifference in his short life. Raimund stumbles onto the same path and completes some of the work that Amadeu was never able to, but comes to the same humanistic conclusions about life and purpose.  How sad it is to be presented with only two choices in life; both of which lead to destruction. The ordered gloomy existence of a life spent in solitude is equal in misery to a carefree life unmoored from substantive believe. Thankfully we have another choice: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is new creation. The old has passed away, behold the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV).

The Right Amount of 'Juice'

 

I worry about my ability to manage people more than once a day; I’ve been a manager of employees in some capacity now for close to ten years. I started out a Target overseeing the checkout lanes and fetching coins for the cashiers when they ran out, fixing technical problems with the equipment, dealing with unhappy customers, and occasionally ‘coaching’ employees on performance issues. The last one is by far my least favorite. If I had to pinpoint the really distasteful part of it I would have to say it is not knowing what level of ‘juice’ to bring to the review. I will define ‘juice’ as the level of seriousness in attitude that gets funneled from boss to underling. Too much juice equals R Lee Ermey, the foul mouthed drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket.; Not enough juice and you sound like the milquetoast Lumbergh from Office Space.

‘Review’ is a misleading term that sounds weirdly positive; this is a you-screwed-up-again-hearing where appropriate measures are taken to prevent you screwing up again.  This is where mistakes are easy to make by the boss (me) in choosing the wrong amount of ‘juice’ for the occasion. “Listen you little punk…” is not a great way to start the meeting since neither party wants to be there. Hostility and venom are frowned on by society (nanny state whiners!) and really sets the tone of nasty discourse which leads to hurt feelings and sometimes crying; that was only once though Get off my back!

The drill sergeant (don’t call me instructor!) aggression works well in the Army and since most people won’t see basic training a more realistic level of ‘juice’ is needed. As abrasive and direct as the angry sergeant can seem, an equally ineffective tactic is the how-can-I-say-you-did-wrong-without-really-saying-it approach. This is the passive aggressive mode that creates more confusion than it solves problems. Not telling someone that they were late to work and that makes others late to take break is not being honest about the level of selfishness that being late equals. The ‘buddy’ manager is one who isn’t getting the most out of employees either in honesty or effort but it is easier than addressing the problem. Besides, the careful teaching methods and attention to non-offensive verbal communication from corporate lectures can make anyone nervous about saying the wrong thing. The ease with which a company can be sued over management practice or procedure forces research teams to cover all possibilities in the drafting of the language. Some people are just more difficult than others and no full proof plan or tone of voice in a meeting will affect a change in behavior. That is why big companies with solid rules of behavior are better for young managers. A strong set of guidelines acts like a backstop for someone inexperienced in how to treat a rule flaunting worker. The amount of ‘juice’ is a secondary concern for the young manager since all that need happen is for the manager to issue a general statement of fault and a general statement of corrective actions to be taken.

This is how I started; with a uniform set of guidelines that employees were required to follow. It was the best learning tool for dealing with employees when they messed up and I learned how to talk to them without getting really upset and without being afraid to talk straight to them about their infractions. I remember some of them got very upset with my attention to the strict application of discipline for employees being late, taking long lunches, using cell phones during work and not showing up for work. I understood how uncompromising I was being, especially in relation to some of the other shift managers, but I was concerned about being taken advantage of. A young manager has to set a tone, at least that’s what I told myself, in order to get respect and finish the many tasks required of him/her. Besides, there was an out-of-control aspect to the way the cashiers were managed with everyone working at his/her own speed and effort. No one had really held the corporate line on bad behavior; it was a perfect job for me. I needed to be tough and I was.

One really important lesson I learned was to always correct someone away from the prying eyes of others or they will feel humiliated. Having people show up late was common problem when I started and on a particular night I noticed a cashier coming in over 30 minutes late for his shift. “Hey” I yelled at him across the aisle, “You were supposed to be here over a long time ago, now everyone’s break is late thanks to you”. He shrugged it off with a nervous laugh but asked if he could speak to me after work. I agreed but couldn’t imagine what excuse he could come up with before his shift ended. When we did sit down he pointed his shaky finger my way and gave me a litany of reasons why my ‘calling him out’ was wrong. He clearly had spent the last few hours letting my angry words wash over him and allowing it to shape his concise and bitter retort. If I would have uttered one word in protest he probably would have slammed the table and reached over it to choke me, he was hot. I let him speak and didn’t interrupt; he had a great argument and he didn’t make excuses for being late. His complaint was in my lack of discretion in taking him to task where others could hear and humiliating him. It was a real lesson for me in how to properly address a concern. I apologized when he finished unleashing the pent up frustration and although I am not sure it was everything he wanted, he did seem to relax after the ordeal. He sensed my genuine regret and we left for the evening on good terms. I only stayed at the job for a few more months, but I learned a key lesson from that employee. No matter how upset or frustrated you are and no matter how urgent the situation, never humiliate an employee who is responsible to you.

I used too much juice in dealing with the situation that evening but since then I’ve gone soft on occasions when I should have held a difficult line. The trick is to constantly evaluate and try to improve. Write things down that went well and things that didn’t go well and surprise yourself with lessons learned along the way. I’ll probably always worry about my ability to manage people and the effect of my style on overall success. But being concerned is a necessary to improving. You can’t fix what you don’t notice.

Lesson from Nicolas Cage: Hardest Working Man in Hollywood

I never liked him, not as an actor. I didn't pay attention to his early career, when he was coming up or the roles he played; I was too young to have watched most of his eighties flicks when he was starting out. He oscillated between playing low energy monotone sad sacks and adrenaline juiced macho men. Neither role suited him His intensity was forced; his stare obnoxious. His emotion uneven; he didn’t so much cry as weep, painfully! His on screen presence was grating and cartoonish to anyone unfortunate enough to have purchased one of his films in the discount bin. The list of forgettable movies that stared the California native Kiss of Death, Trapped in Paradise and Deadfall were a starting point, nothing more. Like a baby bird pushed out of the nest too soon, he became an actor years before he was ready. Some said having a famous movie director uncle is what gave his film career a nudge. It wouldn't be the first time, Hollywood or Middle America, where nepotism was the secret ingredient in the success of an otherwise average joe. Nepotism is only a spark though. Talent is required at some point even if many people fake it for a while. Nicolas Cage got better with time and some of that acquired talent was in the selectivity of the films.

 The first time I noticed the talent, the likability and even the range was opposite Meryl Streep in arty film called Adaptation. Cage played two roles in the movie, brothers who are both writers but completely different in temperament and style. If this sounds like a recipe for a disaster script full of plot holes and excuses for Cage to overact both parts, it really wasn't. He played it straight which was a nice change from a man known for his outbursts and fits of emotion on screen. He managed the transition between the characters flawlessly and while dispensing with some of the ticks (sarcastic laughter, twitchy movements) he had become famous for. Having two veteran actors on set, Streep and Chris Cooper, may have elevated the tone of the set. Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Academy Award for his role, ...er roles. 

He had success before and after Adaptation, but I noticed it more in that one. He seemed to find his groove with the National Treasure films that featured an optimistic history buff uncovering secrets of America’s ‘founding fathers’. Although not a stretch artistically, the character felt like how a Disney version of Indiana Jones might look. Cage played it like a pro. In the Weatherman he was a Chicago meteorologist with a marriage breaking apart and no outlet for his frustration with everyday life. The movie wasn’t great but Cage allowed the story to develop around the character instead of pushing the acting in a singular direction. He really grew up in this film and refined the notion of what angry and determined look like on the face of a Nicolas Cage character. He was even better in the Netflix special Joe. Joe is a dark but simple portrayal of a rural Texas man struggling to be put his prison years behind him and find redemption. He shows in this role more than he tells about the reckless, but honest, nature of a criminal trying to stay on the straight and narrow. Much of this film involves Nicolas Cage doing a very un-Cage thing, holding back the viciousness and hostility until the script begs for it. Most people won’t see this movie but released in 2013, it remains one of his best.  

   

The lesson from Nicholas Cage and his catalog of films shows us that it isn’t how you start it’s how you finish. His lousy 90’s reels gave way to fuller scripts in the 2000s and the awkward moments overlaid with real talent. An actor should keep working no matter what; how are other careers any different? Whether you are a writer, musician, athlete, home builder, accountant or preacher, the process is the same—keep working. The best part is you get better. Look back every now and then from where you came and notice the substantive difference in the quality of the work. The rough edges aren’t there and a kind of comfortability with who you are sets in. Ugly proceeds beautiful and a star is born. So embrace the ugly and love the awkward, Nicolas Cage is living proof it gets better.

funny video from early Cage

Wisdom of P.J.

Today from the BBC: A gem about presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders from P.J. O'Rourke, who really has found a niche opining on baby boomer culture.

"Bernie seems a bit foggy on things that have happened since Woodstock, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. Bernie doesn't know the Berlin Wall fell and doesn't know he's still standing on the wrong side of it."

Defending the 'umbrella strategy'

 Doug Bandow of CATO on US defense

. 

The crux of his argument is that America isn’t getting full value from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and other defense pacts. Countries under defense pacts with the United States plow money into popular welfare programs and ignore their military commitments, letting Uncle Sam cover the tab. The ‘umbrella’ that the United States represents for other democratic countries is hugely expensive and becoming more so with the cutbacks hitting the military. I am optimistic that NATO is the best option for curtailing Russia aggression in Eastern Europe and everywhere. America needs to maintain that link even if the pact looks a lot different in twenty years. Asking members to contribute to their portion of the bill is always difficult and messy, diplomacy requires a delicate touch. The precious little help America gets in financial commitments from NATO is better than the nothing they would get without the pact. Intelligence sharing among member countries constitutes real time help even if it isn’t a direct economic benefit. Nations get serious about their security when they have to. Here is Mr. Bandow:

 

Moscow’s aggressive behavior against Georgia and especially Ukraine set off all sorts of angst throughout Europe. U.S. officials and NATO leaders made their usual calls for members to hike military outlays, but most European states did what they usually do, continued to cut spending.

Under normal circumstances European behavior would be mystifying. The European Union demonstrates the continent’s ability to overcome historic national divisions and collaborate for a common purpose.

Collectively the Europeans enjoy around an 8-1 economic and 3-1 population advantage over Moscow. Even after its recent revival, Russia’s military today is a poor replica of that during the Soviet era.

Yet when Moscow acts against non-NATO members Europe’s eyes turn to Washington for military relief. Instead of acting in their presumed interests, they push for U.S. action.

I think Thomas Sowell said that ‘there are no solutions only trade-offs’. It is frustrating how lazy NATO has made much of Western Europe; the trade-off though is non-aligned European countries fighting each other while Russia moves slowly westward. Would a democratic country struggling to keep its economic framework and infrastructure rather be neighbors with Germany or Russia? The answer should be obvious and without a strong NATO Eastern Europe wouldn’t hold up against a belligerent Moscow.  Here is Bandow on Taiwan and Korea:

 

Last week North Korea staged its fourth nuclear test. Naturally, South Korea and Japan reacted in horror. But it was America which acted.

The U.S. sent a Guam-based B-52 wandering across South Korean skies. “This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland,” opined Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., head of Pacific Command.

Unfortunately, the message might not work as intended. CNN’s Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang that “A lot of North Korean military commanders find U.S. bombers especially threatening, given the destruction here in Pyongyang during the Korean War, when much of the city was flattened.” Which sounds like giving the North another justification for building nuclear weapons.

Worse, though, reported Reuters: “The United States and its ally South Korea are in talks toward sending further strategic U.S assets to the Korean peninsula.” Weapons being considered include an aircraft carrier, B-2 bombers, F-22 stealth fighters, and submarines.

A better response would be for Seoul to announce a major military build-up. The Republic of Korea should boost its military outlays—which accounted for a paltry 2.4 percent of GDP in 2014, about one-tenth the estimated burden borne by the North. The ROK also should expand its armed forces from about 655,000 personnel today to a number much closer to the DPRK’s 1.2 million.

Doing so obviously would be a burden. But if the economic wreck to its north can create such a threatening military, why cannot the ROK, which enjoys a roughly 40-1 economic and 2-1 population advantage, meet the challenge?

It isn’t fair to compare the amount spent on a defense between North and South Korea. The North’s first priority is nuclear buildup at the expense of everything else, including food for its people. South Korea could, and should, do more to build up its own defense but it operates under budgets and voting the way all democracies do. If the political will isn’t there, the US will have to step back its obligations methodically.  

 America doesn’t protect allies just because it likes to root for an underdog. They protect them because stable democracies are not an aggressive military threat to their neighbors, they would rather engage in commerce. When the American Navy keeps sea lanes open it benefits everyone engaging in trade. Small countries like South Korea and Taiwan (ROC) couldn’t fend off an attack from a powerful Chinese military and the South China Sea could quickly become off-limits for American sailors and certain commercial vessels. Defense of Taiwan is part of a larger plan to keep the seas open and Beijing in check.

Doug Bandow is right in calling for America’s allies to step up financially and handle affairs where they can in their own neighborhoods. The current American ‘umbrella’ won’t last forever and a lot of nations could be left to fend for themselves. Money is tight everywhere and people rarely vote to build up the military in peace time. America’s role is crucial to world stability and it is the only option right now.