Tuesday Quote of the Week: Paul Johnson

“The heart of the U.S. economy is the provision of goods and services. These must be in adequate supply at highly competitive–in terms of the rest of the world–rates and in forms that are innovative, efficient and reliable….This is not to say that the job of the government is to shape and run the nation’s economy. Far from it. Government’s job is to make it possible for the economy to run itself, in the interests of all its components and to the benefit of the American people, whether they be producers, suppliers or consumers.”
~~Paul Johnson in “The Virtues of Capitalism,” Forbes Feb. 13, 2012

Exactly! This is most definitely how it is supposed to work. But in order for it to work, the way the government “makes it possible,” is by providing the necessary checks to ensure that the field is level and that balance is maintained so that the consumers don’t get steamrolled over with inadequate, insufficient, unsafe, overpriced goods and services in favor of profits (EPS) for the producers and suppliers. That is the only way that all American people (producers, suppliers, and consumers) benefit, a synergy that ensures that the heart of the economy beats strong. I would venture to guess that on this point Mr. Johnson and I differ. But I find it encouraging that we agree on the base principle. It doesn’t happen often!

Tuesday Quote of the Week: Rodney King

“If I can say something or do something, I will say or do it. I will do my part. They say it starts at home, and this–America–is my home.”
~~Rodney King (the “Can we all get along?” guy) at the Hudson Union Society forum on April 25, 2012 promoting his book, The Riot Within: My Journey from Rebellion to Redemption. It may not have seemed it when he was kissing the pavement, but here is a man who was given a second chance and took it. That is probably too pat of an assessment, for life is rarely that black and white. The road since the beating hasn’t always been smooth, and, for better or worse, King will always be defined by that night in 1991 and the riots that erupted after the officers who assaulted him were acquitted. The LA Times has more to say about where he is at today. He was talking here, in New York, about how he has used the speaking opportunities since that time to promote a positive message. As the saying goes, he cleans up nice.

Tuesday Quote of the Week: Robert F. Kennedy

“Our gross national product…counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our national wonder in chaotic sprawl…Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play.”
Robert F. Kennedy 1968 (in a campaign speech)

If you can only control what you can measure, how do you measure happiness and joy? (A question raised in the January/February 2012 issue of Harvard Business Review, where this quote was found.) And why, in the 44 years since these words were spoken, hasn’t the question been answered?

Friday Lyric of the Week: Don McLean, American Pie

“Did you write the book of love
And do you have faith in God above
If the Bible tells you so?
Now do you believe in rock and roll?
Can music save your mortal soul?
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?
…
I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away…”

~~Don McLean, American Pie
I overheard a group of teenagers talking about this song on the subway yesterday. (“Wasn’t it a plane crash or something?”) It made me feel good, if not more than a little surprised that I actually knew what a group of teenagers were talking about! It has been said that McLean never explained what his lyrics meant (much as Carly Simon never told who was so vain). Even if you sorted it all out, here is an interesting and entertaining lyrical analysis.

And if you want to sing along:

Tuesday Quote of the Week: Winston Churchill

“First we shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”
~~Winston Churchill (This, of course, applies to much more than city planning.)

Fun With Food Labels: Is nectar the food of the gods, or corporate American sugar water?

So, I have been trying to eat better, with mixed results. I cook at home more, which I feel better about. I’ve come up with two meals, either breakfast or dinner. (I’m not saying I’m good at it, just that I do it.) They are basically the same: whatever is around in terms of veggies, cheese, spices, and various other food items, but for breakfast mixed with eggs and for dinner mixed with grains (quinoa or farro, usually) or pasta (generally orzo). Cost per meal is basically the same, but it’s the control factor. I like to think of it as simply knowing the ingredients, but when I friend said, “Yeah, you never know what they put in stuff, the quality, or whether it fell on the floor,” well, I figured I was on to something.

I also read labels more. I figure the more ingredients listed the worse it is. For that matter, if it has ingredients listed at all it probably isn’t that hot. I usually drink Tropicana orange juice (lots of pulp, if you’re curious) but every once in awhile I have been buying guava nectar for something different. It does say “made from concentrate,” so I know it’s not the best stuff one earth. The label claims to be “natural” and a “refreshing alternative for today’s health conscious consumer” blah, blah. But what got me curious was the definition of nectar that Ardmore Farms cleverly puts on the packaging: “/nectar/ n. a delicious, exotic juice made from succulent, fresh, whole fruit.”

Hmmm…That sounds a bit sketchy. I wonder what Webster has to say: “1. the drink of the gods, 2. any very delicious beverage, 3. the sweetish liquid in many flowers, used by bees for the making of honey.” And, fun fact, the word is derived from the Greek necros (dead body) and tar (who overcomes), so overcoming death or the drink of immortality. Interesting. Not surprising that the only word these two definitions have in common is “delicious.”

Back to the guava nectar. The one made from “succulent, fresh, whole fruit,” not the food of the gods. Of course, this one isn’t either, as it says right on the front that it is made from concentrate. I guess at one point the fruit was fresh, so why quibble? Anyway, the definition made me curious about the ingredients. Care to guess what the first two ingredients are? Of course you knew it wasn’t going to be “guava puree concentrate.” That came in at number three. Water and high-fructose corn syrup are numbers one and two. So, basically, what I am drinking is not much better than cola.

What bothers me the most about this is the price. I buy it at the Spanish market across the street (the label is in both English and Spanish), and the regular price is only $2.49 for 64 ounces. (It is often on sale for $1.50.) It is bad enough that knowingly healthy food is too expensive for a lot of people, but what is the deal about marketing pretty much crap as “premium,” “luscious,” and “fresh”?

I don’t dispute the “delicious,” by the way, but doubt that I will buy it again now that I know what is in it.

Three Words for 2012 (no, not “Please Go Away”)

I don’t know. I keep hearing about this three-word thing, so maybe it’s time to take a crack at it.

The first was in an interview with AT&T’s chief technology officer, John Donovan in yesterday’s New York Times. His take on it was the tombstone approach, as in the interview question, What three words would you want on your tombstone? You know me, my first thought was: “She’s here. Dead.” He would never hire me. Not only that, but that would be a lie. I plan to be cremated when I go. Truly back to the earth’s cycle of energy and all that. So I guess any marker would have to say “She’s around here somewhere.” OK, it’s four words, but it’s far more honest and accurate. And I have always been slightly wordy and prone to excess, so there. And, yes, I can kiss goodbye a career at AT&T.
But back to the point of the three words. It’s not just the tombstone guy. This morning as I was waking up, not having the nerve to face the New Year full on, I was tooling around on Facebook and Twitter. I came across Chris Brogan’s take on the whole three-words thing. He uses the three words as replacement therapy for New Year’s resolutions. The idea is that resolutions aren’t really direction setting, but rather concrete to-do’s. To me, resolutions are something that I just don’t do period. But this morning I had also just read a post on Woody Guthrie’s 1942 resolution list on Brain Pickings. It was awe inspiring in its length—33 different items. I don’t know how he could even remember them all, let alone remember to do them. But again, not the point. The writer, Maria Popova discussed Guthrie’s list through the lens of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Revisiting that principle, I realized that somewhere along the way I’ve sunk to the safety level. Between that and how much I have vested in the idea that I am putting the old year—the year of the brick walls—behind me, left me ripe for Brogan’s three-words idea. (All things considered, it shouldn’t be a surprise that it takes me forever to get out of bed, the surprise should be that I get out of bed at all. Woody Guthrie had that covered with Number 33: “Wake up and fight.”)

So today (in and out of bed), I have been thinking of the three words. What three words will be my touchstones for 2012? The words that will set the tone and direction for the year? The first one is inspired from one of Brogan’s three: untangle. When I read his post, the word grabbed me. I kind of lost it a little when I read his take on it because, after all, it was his take and his life to untangle. But I still like it. I started thinking of it in terms of spaghetti. My life does tend to be somewhat like unraveling spaghetti (with lots of butter). Straight paths have become meandering, and the interconnections all mired. But spaghetti isn’t really a good analogy, because it is supposed to be a tangled mess. The goal is just to get it on the fork. My life needs more purpose. But then I thought of detangling Christmas lights or the DSL cable to my computer that is constantly in a ridiculously tangled mess. Those things can and should be detangled. My life has gotten somewhat out of control, but a methodical approach of detangling it just might work. Straightening out each strand a piece at a time leaving aside for the moment those that can’t be worked out just yet, instead of worrying about the whole knot. So the first word is detangle (to remove tangles). (I’ll let Brogan keep untangle—to free from a tangle—as my life is as part of the tangle as what is left when they are removed.)

On to two more words, hopefully ones that don’t take too long to explain. For the second, I was kind of leaning toward love. Mainly because that was the first song I heard today, this year (John Lennon’s “Love”). But, again, that started me on a meandering path. What does it mean, and, more specifically, what does it mean to me as a life direction? Of course love is important. And nice. It just seems too general. Passion, now that encompasses more of what I am striving at. I am happiest when I am passionate about what I do and when I have the freedom to indulge my passions. I am talking about work and play. Let’s just leave it at that.

Now for the third. Hmmm…In his post, Brogan said that “focus” was the most common word among those who responded to his request. Probably for good reason. Focus is an admirable word. Not only that, but it really helps accomplish whatever goal you have. If you want to lose weight, exercise more, get better at life, love, work, you need to pay attention and practice (train your brain as they say). Practice doesn’t really do it for me, as right now that just reminds me of when I was little and had to practice the piano. And, quite frankly, I am trying to figure out new approaches and new ways to accomplish my goals, so I don’t want to reaffirm (practice) what clearly isn’t working. But I do think there is something to the whole paying attention thing. And not just in terms of being better at whatever one is doing—even crossing the street—but in just being. I have a definite need to get out of my head and be in the moment instead. Lest the moments keep passing by. And, really, life is about the moments. Paying attention, being in the moment, is there a word that encompasses this attitude or sense of direction? The word that comes to mind is Achtung! The German word for attention (as a noun, as an interjection translates as watch out!) that is found on multi-language warning signs. (It is also part of the name of the U2 album, Achtung Baby, but I digress) The German word always struck me as more immediate and more caution inspiring. And it kinda sounds like Act. So, as a life direction word for me, to get out of my head and be (act) in the moment, paying attention to what I am doing, the word is Achtung!

While I could probably keep rambling all day, I won’t. My tombstone may say, “She’s around here somewhere” in which case I have failed at being concise and being alive, but my three words for setting the direction of my life in 2012 are detangle, passion, and Achtung!

Tuesday Quote of the Week: Geoffrey O’Brien

“The impunity of the rich and powerful might elicit outrage or resignation, but it seemed a fact of life, and the desperadoes of the Five Points [the "Tombs" NYC famed jail] seemed positively upright in their straightforward criminality compared to the devious and hypocritical malefactors of the upper classes.”
A sign of the times. Ah, but not these times. This is from Geoffrey O’Brien’s book The Fall of the House of Walworth. Here he is talking about the corruption that plagued and captivated New York and the country in 1873. Everything old is new again. Or, more to the point, nothing changes but the ebb and flow of the alternating tides of complacency and outrage.

Tuesday Quote of the Week: Axel Munthe

“The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in front of it.”
~Axel Munthe (1857-1949), Swedish psychiatrist, writer, humanitarian, advocate for animal rights.

The case of the Oregon blogger: Line in the sand or nothing but sand?

I received several emails about the case of the Oregon blogger who wants to be treated like a journalist to gain shield law protection, and the case was all over Facebook. That must mean it matters, right?

Granted these days that is about all it takes. At the risk of perpetuating the buzz by further talking about it, I am here to add my two cents on the subject, or subjects as the case may be.

Personally, I find the whole thing ridiculous. Granted, the beauty of the First Amendment is that, as Justice Holmes put it, it protects the thoughts we hate, but we aren’t talking here about thoughts or ideas but about their expression and the form that that expression can take. (That is why I am a fan of the late William F. Buckley, Jr. and not several others who espouse similar ideas—-I didn’t agree with him one bit, but the man could write.)

Back to Oregon. Shield laws (in their various forms at the state level) have been an important protection for journalists. Attempts to get this protection at the federal level have stalled in part because of the question, Who is a journalist anyway these days? The Internet has opened up a wealth of opportunity for expression. Should bloggers be afforded the same protections as those who get their paychecks from newspapers or other media outlets? Or is that opening the door far too wide?

The main problem is really the word “blogger.” As far as I am concerned, the word is far too broad to really have any real meaning. A blogger can be anyone who opens a free account on the many available platforms and writes whatever they want: fact, fiction, fantasy, opinion (informed or uninformed), or any combination of these; those hired or sponsored by websites from news sites like the New York Times to specialty sites like Internet Evolution; those who write “mommy blogs”: those who specifically develop their own sites such as the Drudge Report or the Huffington Post and make a living off of them. As Sonny and Cher crooned, the beat goes on.

Mingled in here are journalists, whether or not they get paid. But what the heck is a journalist, anyway? It used to be easy to tell. Now, not so much. These days, I would say that if you dared to call yourself a journalist (not a citizen journalist, but a real one), you should be considered one. All kidding aside, anyone who practices genuine acts of journalism (accuracy, verifying sources, getting out of one’s pajamas), whether it be on someone’s payroll, as a freelancer, or writing on their own blog while looking for one of those sparse gigs, should be considered a journalist. Compounding the problem is the fact that on the Wild Woolly Web, people can be many different things. In functional terms, a writer for the New York Times, for example, could be a journalist when writing articles for the paper (either the print or the online version) but not when writing on the paper’s blog. A freelance writer can be a journalist, novelist, blogger, columnist, all in one. Those who are smart about their various roles, though, maintain a clear distinction.

What it is not is someone like Crystal Cox, who writes a self-described mixture of facts, commentary, and opinion. That, of course, is my opinion. Personally, I think there is room on the Internet for everyone, even people like Cox, but the danger is when everything all gets lumped together. It’s not so much what is written (even though some of it is, well…), but how it is written. When it is isn’t clear what’s fact and what’s opinion, fantasy, or speculation, then we all suffer.

After all is said and done, however, this really isn’t a story about who shield laws should protect and what they should protect. (Which is probably why Cox shouldn’t be acting as her own lawyer, either…methinks she has identity issues!) It isn’t even about knowing your own state’s shield law before you start claiming its protection (an important consideration). But it’s about defamation. A whole different animal. And one that a shield law won’t protect Cox from. This becomes apparent after reading not just the original post in Seattle Weekly’s, umm, blog with the blazing headline “Crystal Cox, Oregon Blogger, Isn’t a Journalist, Concludes U.S. Court–Imposes $2.5 Million Judgement [sic] on Her,” but the updates from Bruce E. H. Johnson, the attorney who wrote the media shield laws in Washington state and Kevin Padrick, the co-founder of Obsidian Finance Group, a real lawyer, who sued Cox for defamation.

Shield laws are designed to protect a journalist from being forced to reveal their confidential sources. The ultimate protectee is really the source. The laws aren’t a get-out-of-jail free card for the journalist. So, in this case, if Cox somehow fell under the protection of Oregon’s shield law, she wouldn’t have to reveal her sources. But by not revealing her sources, she can’t defend herself against defamation as she can’t prove that her statements are true, so she is still out the 2.5 mil. One thing that real journalists know is that if you are going to deal with confidential sources, you make the promise to them that you will go to the mat to protect them. There is something honorable about that. There is nothing honorable about trying to use a law to avoid being responsible for one’s actions.

The bottom line? If you are writing on the Internet, even though you are alone and in your pajamas, you need to realize that people might still read what you write. And, guess what? You are responsible to write responsibly.