Vitriol's Lure

I've long known that I write better when I'm angry.  The thoughts come together quickly, the logic is crisp and the anger gives a certain sharpness to the delivery that I think makes for better writing.  Perhaps though, what I've been experiencing is that passion (of which anger is but one presentation) makes your best more accessible.  Perhaps this explains vitriol's lure?

I've been wondering a lot lately about vitriol particularly because there was so much of it about in the election season and traces of it remain everywhere.
Endless streams of invective are aimed at folk who don't think or frankly, talk, (or, let's be honest, look) like you.  It's wearying and not terribly effective as a form of discourse.  But that aside, what is clear is that vitriol sells.  It sells books, moves the proverbial needle of public opinion and these are the things that matter apparently. 

I have to wonder sometimes whether the intent of some of the utterances we hear and read is to educate or just to irritate?  Folk like Rush Limbaugh make me wonder whether the intent is really to encourage others around to their way of thinking, or just to keep the friendly masses whipped up into a state of lather and frenzy.

My concern isn't directed solely at conservative thinkers, I recently listened to a very liberal gentleman speak (I don't remember his name), and all I could do was suck my teeth and turn away. The source of his distress was that nothing that had been achieved by the current President met his liberal standards.  At the time, all I could think was, "In what parallel universe America do you think that kind of law would have made it through this legislature?"  He appeared to be a complete stranger to that quaint notion 'compromise'.  Listening to him I suddenly realized that this country thrives on the diametrically opposing positions.  It's good for the newsmakers but not necessarily good news for the news readers.

Nothing seems to work in the middle here.  All view points must be on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Bookends.  Votes are cast for extremes of opinion and then extremes go up on the Hill and stake out their space.  Me over here and you, wayyyyyyyyy over there.  No wonder there's so much shouting.  I can only hear you if you shout.  I'm not coming to the middle so that we can actually have a conversation, and you're not coming to the middle so that we can actually have a conversation so let's just see who can shout the loudest.  Lovely.

The other reality is that voters, citizens, residents whatever you call folk on the outside looking on, crave entertainment so in steps vitriol to ramp up the entertainment factor and to vie for the ears and eyes of the voting public. Between the vitriol and the shouting, I've got a permanent headache.

Good luck getting anything done.

Abs over Abstraction

I have insight, The Situation has abs and a multimillion dollar payday.  One of us has got it wrong.

Months ago, I wrote glowingly about the Ford Motor Company and their billion dollar earnings in the third quarter of 2009.  I also wrote in Go Ford!, that it was clearly the vision and approach of the new CEO, Alan Mulally a stranger to the industry, that was primarily the cause.  This past week, I discovered through a series of interesting 'coincidences', that I was right about Ford and Mulally.  Yay me!  I'm happy to discover that my ability to draw insight from information (courtesy my expensive graduate school edumacation) remains keen and accurate.  Too bad about the payday though.

It's great to be proved right. I love it.  Who doesn't?  Unfortunately, at the same time as my insight about Ford and its leadership were being proven correct, in the news (OK it wasn't real news it was entertainment news, but bear with me), in the 'news' came word that The Situation (aka Mike Sorrentino) is making a cool cinq million this year on his abs, his public appearances and the Jersey Shore.  Me?  I'm not quite at cinq million.  Yet.  Maybe insight is NOT the way to multimillion dollar paydays?

I have to wonder, what exactly is it that is valued in this society?  Do note of course, that I'm not saying, 'valuable'.

That which is valued in a society, speaks to what makes sense in the general order of things in that society. So when abs are valued over abstract thinking, you have to ask yourself (or at least I have to ask myself), why go to school and get in to debt to gain knowledge which, while possibly valuable, is not necessarily valued?  I don't need to be educated  to have good abs.  I can get those for free.  (Incidentally, I do have good abs, but they don't seem to be adding a penny to my current compensation package.  Just thought I should toss that in there.)

Take a state like Michigan.  There, it seems to me, current unemployment is a function of the historical competition between the valued versus the valuable.  Because of the easy availability of manufacturing work in the past, folks left high school and went directly into jobs at the nearest automotive manufacturing plants making  $50k - $75k annually with excellent benefits.  In the past, those were considered good choices.  Higher value was placed on immediate good income over the higher lifetime income possible only after one had endured the delayed gratification a college education requires.

There and elsewhere people chose, and still choose, immediate over delayed gratification.  That it seems to me, is because there is higher value placed on $$ in the now, than $$$$ in the tomorrow.  Of course now that the economy in general,  with the manufacturing sector leading the way, is in a mess we see this choice differently but that's a story for another post.  Am I seeing this too simply?  Do I see a simple dichotomy of choices where something more complex exists?  I don't think so, but others might*. 

The President has made efforts to make tertiary education more accessible about which I wrote briefly some months ago.  The goal of those efforts is to take some of the financial motive out of the equation when considering whether or not to go to school.  Even before this, there were options available here that do not exist in other countries and yet, many do not avail themselves of those opportunities.  Why? Because, it seems to me, the media make it abundantly clear that that's not what is valued.  What is valued is notoriety (Lindsay Lohan, Snookie, The Situation, Paris (famous for being famous) Hilton) not knowledge.

The problem it would appear, is not access to school places, or access to funds for school,  but something else entirely. I haven't quite figured out what to call it but it has something to do with seeking validation from external rather than internal sources.  I could be as poor as a church mouse, but once my life of the mind is rolling along, I'm as happy as a clam at high tide on a warm day.  But that's just me.  Once I can write something of interest and value (even if only to me), my contribution to the universe is done for the moment and all is well with the world.  External validation?  What's that good for?  But that's just me.  I am enough.  But that's just me. Lights? Cameras? Mugshots? Don't need 'em.  I am enough.

And so it goes.  I don't know that The Situation or Lindsay Lohan is adding anything to the Universe that is likely to be lasting, but perhaps adding something of lasting value is the least of their concerns.  Both of them can go to Coach and buy a $3,000 bag.  I cannot.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* Lest anyone say that it was easy for me, suffice it to say that it was not.  I anxiously waited 11 years between degree number 1 and degree number 2 and did a number of crazy things (including running a taxi) to make the resources available to do my second degree.  Very hard choices had to be made.  Given the opportunity to 'do over', I'd make slightly different choices, but the outcome would probably be the same.  

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One of those interesting coincidences I mentioned.  Here's CEO Mulally, talking about his leadership style at Ford.  Go Ford!!

Mulally insists on truth telling.  I LOVE IT!



\