Unnecessary advice

Challenge yourself constantly and enjoy every challenge. Help yourself always be in a positive mindset and never settle for being content. If you've made a bad choice, change the choice. If you've made a good choice, find more good choices to make. And never believe for an instant that your fate is sealed or that things are the way they are.

The room of complex knots

I've been granted access to the room of complex knots. And I may even have permission to untie the most complicated of the knots. But it's not clear that it would be a good idea. Do I focus on the small knots to practice first? Do I build my way up through the larger knots in sequential order to show expertise?

At what point in time do I just attack the monster knot, and try to untangle the whole mess?

It's a balancing act... work on a few small knots to gain practice and respect, then spend time at the big knot until my contributions are limited, then go back to the small or medium knots. But never forget that when the large knot gets untied, many other people will be help with the other knots. The big knot is the key to success.

Tea Party + Obama = Desire for governance, not politicking

I posted the following on Facebook on 9/16/2010:

"I don't think the tea party movement is about conservatism so much as it's a rejection of cynical politicking. Obama was elected on the same platform."

My friend Gabe commented:

"scott, partly agree with you, but it's also extremely conservative (with quite a few real wackos thrown in...)"

Which lead me to the following thoughts:

I agree with Gabe - but I also believe that any public movement will have quite a few real wackos thrown in, in terms of leadership and in terms of participation.

Focusing on the wackos rarely presents a fair representation of the true import of a movement. That sentiment is just as true when people bash the 'pinko commie liberals' as when people bash the 'ignorant fascist conservatives.'

When people focus on those wackos they interfere with the philosophical debates the movements are trying to establish. Both Obama and the Tea Party were establishing the debate that 'government as usual' and 'business as usual' are no longer desirable or viable.

But when you look at most media and liberal blogosphere treatment of the Tea Party, the only intent of the commentary is to neutralize the debate by demonizing the crazy participants. Which is 'debate as usual' and that drives me absolutely batty.

I suppose this treatment is true from the conservative media... except that I find that most (not all) of the conservative voices focus on the debate itself, not the demonizing. And when they do demonize, much of the time they do so in order to create controversy and attract attention to their viewpoint, not to neutralize the opposing characters and viewpoints altogether. (this is not 'fact,' just my impression based on samplings of my friends' & relatives' Facebook posts, and news articles / blogs).

On KCRW's Left-Right-and-Center radio show last night (9/17/10), I heard the most unexpected conversation that supports my original comment that, "I don't think the tea party movement is about conservatism so much as it's a rejection of cynical politicking. Obama was elected on the same platform."

I recommend listening to the show, basically the 'left' (Arianna Huffington, Robert Scheer) and the 'right' (Tony Blankley) expressed strong enthusiasm about the impact the Tea Party is having on changing the way government functions and the relationship citizens have with the government. This is something that Obama promised to do but subsequently turned his back on. The 'center' (Matt Miller) was strongly opposed to the idea that the Tea Party could be helpful. The debate was fascinating, I've never heard those commentators split that way on a debate, and it makes me believe that the Tea Party is stirring up productive sentiment much more than it is stirring up destructive sentiment.

Keep in mind, neither Scheer nor Huffington agree with the Tea Party's solutions, but they still voiced excitement about the Tea Party movement. Not because they believe that the Tea Party movement will destroy the Republican party (which would be the destructive angle) but because the Tea Party movement seems to be leading to positive changes in the way we are governed.

Listen to KCRW's 9/17/10 broadcast of Left-Right-and-Center

Seeking the Purpose of Philosophy

BBC World radio show lead-in, 9/17/10: "We'll ask, 'What's the purpose of philosophy?'"

Uh... that IS the purpose.

How Societal Systems Function

Additional Reading: Peggy Noonan "Why It's Time for the Tea Party". WSJ.com. 9/17/2010

Peggy Noonan's Sept 17 editorial on the Tea Party is a great commentary, not because of any political message, but instead because of the analysis of how cultural 'systems' work:

• People in the 'establishment' have the experience necessary to keep society running day-to-day. But it is easy to lose track of direction within the required compromising
  
• People in the 'revolutions' have the contagious passion and vision to correct the system when it swings out-of-balance. But that passion often comes with a lack of experience about how to keep the system running day-to-day
  

My hope is that establishment and revolutions can coexist without violence - with the ongoing goal of improving the human plight

Better to 'save lives' than 'do research'

Source: WSJ Notable & Quotable, 9/15/2010
DNA discoverer James Watson on cancer research, as reported by Eoin Lettice on the Guardian's science blog, Sept. 10:

Speaking at University College Cork this week . . . Watson told a packed audience about his ongoing research into finding a cure for cancer at the Cold Spring Harbor laboratory in New York where he is now Chancellor Emeritus. He was frustrated by cancer researchers more interested in researching than finding a cure to save lives.

"I got real annoyed with someone [who said] 'we're going to get somewhere over the next ten to twenty years'. He could have said twenty to forty or why didn't he say five to ten?"

"We should try and cure cancer now, not ten to twenty years from now," Watson warned. "It would be sort of irresponsible to all those people who would die of cancer if we don't try and do it now." . . .

Visionaries live in a future of wonderful possibilities (which sometimes means spreading a little too much b.s.)

Excerpts from "Dark Side of American Optimism (Rich Karlgaard, Forbes 9/27/2010)

"We like sensational. ... the American culture - a culture of immigrants - selects for restless and optimistic people. What a lucky inheritance! But carried too far the restless search for greener grass can lead to, well, more powerful fertilizers.

... Most Christians and Jews in this country see no conflict between earthly success and heavenly salvation. This is good up to a point. But at the intersection of miracles and riches have lived many of our greatest con artists....

Let's face it, the best entrepreneurs have a gift for b.s. The ethical ones use their b.s. as a credit line.... This entrepreneur doesn't shade the truth because he's a liar but because he lives in a future of wonderful possibilities. That's where all visionary entrepreneurs live. They drag society forward with a combination of facts, scientific possibility and hope. As an investor you'll accept the hope part - i.e., the b.s. part - if the entrepreneur is fundamentally correct in his engineering and market assessment; if he is working his butt off and meeting enough milestones to steadily improve the value of the company and if he lets you control the finances."