THE STORY SO FAR: PART 302: SUNDAY

ITS QUITE AMAZING HOW MUCH WE ARE TOLD THAT ISN’T TRUE—YOU HAVE TO WONDER ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A BARRAGE OF LIES

I often wonder whether we are not really living in a higher risk version of  THE TRUMAN SHOW—where much which we regard as real and the truth isn’t a mixture of illusion and deception.

It is not as if  lies are occasional hazards—as we are led to believe when we are very young (a lie in itself). In practice it may well be that the lie is the norm. Certainly, there are very few corporations which tell the truth if it doesn’t serve their interests to do so—and corporate advertising and promotion largely consists of one lie after another.

Do religious organizations tell the truth? Given that so many are run as businesses, it seems highly unlikely—and how do they really know there is a God. The truth is that they don’t—I’m not talking about belief here—but if they admitted that manifest truth, they would find it much harder to obtain a following. 

Well, what about politicians? If I even suggested that politicians told the truth, you’d stone me.

That leads me to the thought that our lives are almost certainly based upon a tissue of lies, self-deception and illusion. It’s not a particularly cheerful thought, but in the interests of intellectual honesty, I feel compelled to state it.

But do I think it is true? Given the thesis that I have just advanced, you would be wise to doubt my answer—whatever it was.

Personally, I have the feeling that the real truth is probably found in fiction—which may be why most of us get through the working day, and then focus on escaping from the real world through TV, or some other distraction where the truth is irrelevant. One of the advantages of being a writer is that I can escape from the real world most of the time.

I was prompted to think about this whole subject when I ran across an article on the STEM (short for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) crisis—the widely propagated notion that the U.S. is suffering from a deadly serious shortage of such people.

The reporter concerned (Robert N. Charette, IEEE Spectrum, 30 August 2013) did some serious digging—as illustrated in the graphic below—and came to the logical conclusion that there are more than enough candidates to fill demand—and that primary purpose of this massive lie is to keep wages and salaries down.

That ever intriguing blog FABIUS MAXIMUS set this finding in a wider context:

Crush unions, cuts taxes on business, fragment work into jobs that require minimal skills, fragment jobs into a largely part-time contingent workforce, expand training so that there is a surplus to demand, increase immigration, outsource work to other nations to create internal competition — and the profits will flow. This is the New America being built by large corporations from McDonald’s to Amazon.

Training too many skilled people is an important part of the game. Tight controls on the supply of doctors shows the effect of too-small supply. The relatively low wages of engineers and scientists shows how corporations run the supply-demand equation for their benefit: “The STEM Crisis Is a Myth“, Robert N. Charette, IEEE Spectrum, 30 August 2013 — “Forget the dire predictions of a looming shortfall of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematician.” A reliable formula for higher profits: training more than there are jobs AND import more workers from other nations.

Robert N. Charette’s conclusion is below:

A Matter of Supply vs. Demand: Every year U.S. schools grant more STEM degrees than there are available jobs. When you factor in H-1B visa holders, existing STEM degree holders, and the like, it’s hard to make a case that there’s a STEM labor shortage.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 301: SATURDAY

BOTH WORDS AND FACTS MEAN WHATEVER I CHOSE THEM TO MEAN

 "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

I was reminded of the above by a fascinating piece in Salon.   

According to Yale law professor Dan Kahan, it’s easier than we think for reasonable people to trick themselves into reaching unreasonable conclusions. Kahan and his team found that, when it comes to controversial issues, people’s ability to do math is impacted by their political beliefs.

The study pitted over 1,000 participants against a tricky math problem. In one version, the question involved a clinical trial of a skin cream that sometimes helped heal rashes, and sometimes made them worse. Using a set of raw data, the participants had to do some complex calculations to decide whether or not the cream was effective. It was difficult enough that 59 percent of the participants got the problem wrong.

Then things got interesting. The researchers took the same exact question and reframed it. Now, instead of being about skin cream, the numbers in question referred to the effectiveness of concealed carry laws. And this time, whether or not people got the question right depended on their political beliefs — and whether or not the correct answer supported their preconceived notions of gun control.

This chart shows how dramatic the change was. Conservative Republicans were much less likely to correctly interpret data suggesting that a gun ban decreased crime in a city; for liberal Democrats, the exact opposite was true. The people who were normally best at mathematical reasoning, moreover, were the most susceptible to getting the politically charged question wrong.

It’s a tough old world if you prize this thing called ‘intellectual honesty.’

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 299: THURSDAY

DUMBED-DOWN AMERICA—FACT OR FICTION?

Writers—serious writers—make certain assumptions about the intelligence of our readers. We might not consciously write to a specific grade level (though many newspapers and magazines do so) but we do like to think that if we write well, an adequate audience will be capable of appreciating our work.

Are we correct in making such assumptions—or operating under an illusion?

I don’t profess to know the answer. However, I find newspaper articles, like the following, a cause for concern. This is an extract.

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Boise, laments 'alarming degree of public ignorance'

• by Katie Terhune
• Sept. 6, 2013

Two-thirds of Americans cannot name a single Supreme Court justice, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told the crowd that packed into a Boise State ballroom to hear her Thursday.

About one-third can name the three branches of government. Fewer than one-fifth of high school seniors can explain how citizen participation benefits democracy.

"Less than one-third of eighth-graders can identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence, and it's right there in the name," she said.

"The more I read and the more I listen, the more apparent it is that our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance," O'Connor said.

That ignorance starts in the earliest years of a child's schooling, she said, but often continues all the way through college and graduate school.

THE STORY SO FAR:PART 300: FRIDAY

FROM BOOKS TO MOVIES—VICTOR THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS

Yes, I know I may seem to be wandering behind the scenes at present, but my current focus is writing a screenplay—and it is wringing blood, sweat and tears from my body (metaphorically speaking—I’m not actually sitting in an ever expanding pool of crimson).

Situation entirely normal, you may say—whoever promised writing would be easy—and I would be hard-pressed to disagree in a general sense.

Normal, it is not. Normally, I write books, which are very different things from movie screenplays. The transition from book-writing mindset to movie scribe is akin to walking through Alice’s Looking Glass.

You have, of course, read ALICE IN WONDERLAND and ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS? Of course you have. How else can one get through life without such invaluable manuals about the human condition.

The above illustration, by the way, is of the Jabberwock—a truly wonderful name which fascinated me as a child.

I’m actually not concerned about the amount of effort I’m putting into the screenplay. The aspect that worries me somewhat is time. I feel like the White Rabbit in that regard because while I’m focused on the screenplay, God alone knows what I am neglecting—but when I write, it is full focus.

You know when I was small, I had a white rabbit as a pet. Then, when I went to my grandmother’s farm for the first time, I discovered that rabbits were regularly trapped, skinned, gutted and eaten.

The world, I was to discover, could be a decidedly confusing place.

 

 

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 298: WEDNESDAY

BUT WHAT IS ‘CREATIVE ENERGY?’

You know, given the importance I attach to certain concepts—cognition, time, creative energy, focus (and so on) the building blocks of a writing life—you would think I would have researched them to excess. After all, that is what I would normally do if I was writing a book. In fact, subject so some exceptions such as reading and admiring Tony Schwartz’s THE WAY WE’RE WORKING ISN’T WORKING, most of my observations are based on no more than experience—with a little thought thrown in.

Time is essential for creative energy, but creative energy is not the same as time. Instead, time is a facilitator in the relationship.

But is creative energy the same as energy—that feel good physical feeling which makes you feel as if you can conquer the world? I rather think not. True, you need energy as a component of creative energy, but there it ends.

This what Wiki says about ‘energy’ by the way.

In physics, energy is a conserved extensive property of a physical system, which cannot be observed directly but can be calculated from its state. Energy is of central importance in physics. It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of energy because of the many forms it may take, but the most common definition is that it is the capacity of a system to perform work.

I then tried to look up ‘creative energy’ but found nothing under that heading. Perhaps it is similar to pornography—something you know when you see it, but cannot define. All very well, but you can’t even see ‘creative energy.’ It is both a feeling and a state. In fact, it is a mindset made of the following:

• Experience—a depth of relevant knowledge to draw upon.
• Intellectual curiosity.
• A well trained eye.
• Peace of mind (at least temporarily).
• A disciplined temperament.
• Absolute focus.
• A well rested body.
• A determination to shake up the status quo in some way.
• A willingness to take risks.
• An element of madness.

Robin Williams has said:  “You’re only given a little spark of madness. You must not lose it.”

Do I now feel I have described ‘creative energy’ adequately?

I wish! What I can say is that having it is the kind of a rush you can maintain for hours—and sometimes longer if you don’t skip your sleep. And when you have it, you can do wonderful things.

Sometimes I think one of its key components is magic. Having creative energy is rather like having Seven-League Books for the mind.

 

 

 

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 297: TUESDAY

THIS EPHEMERAL THING WE CALL TIME—AND OUR AMAZING ABILITY TO FRITTER IT AWAY BY BEING BUSY, BUSY, BUSY—BUT TO WHAT PURPOSE?

A blog by Tony Schwartz in the New York Times has prompted me to write this particular piece. Tony is the author of THE WAY WE’RE WORKING ISN’T WORKING, a truly fascinating book about questioning our existing rat-race lifestyle. I came to exactly that conclusion decades ago—which is, I suspect, one of the reasons I became a writer. Fundamentally, I rejected the way a normal business day worked. I thought people were crazy to operate this way—and still do. There has to be more to life. 

The section of Tony Schwartz’s blog that really resonated was in the following:

I was feeling tired and overloaded when I left for vacation in early August. I looked forward to relaxing and being with my family, but I equally craved time for quiet reflection. Thinking creatively, strategically and long term is a crucial part of any leader’s job, and I felt frustrated trying to make that happen amid the phone calls, e-mail, texts, meetings and the slew of questions and issues that come up over the course of a working day.

My brain had just gotten too crowded. With so much external distraction and so many issues competing for my attention, I was only able to give small amounts to any one. To make deeper and more meaningful connections between the disparate ideas in my head, I needed to free up both time and internal space.

That isn’t easy, as you surely know. I solved the problem simply: when my wife and I went to visit our daughter and her husband in Amsterdam, I didn’t bring my laptop and I didn’t activate my phone.

We hung out together, biked, walked and lingered in restaurants. But I also took a couple of hours for myself in the afternoons. I sat down with a journal and a pen, and free-associated. At first, it was just a jumble of thoughts about the new direction I believe our company needed to take. As the days went on, though, the thoughts began to sort themselves out, and clarify and cohere.

Time without interruptions and imminent deadlines was an incredible luxury. I didn’t feel rushed to arrive at conclusions or solutions. I could pursue an idea or a direction without worrying about its immediate utility. It allowed me to take a much more long-range view.

For a host of reasons—starting with the fact that it can take years to write a book, and decades to master your craft (not that one ever does completely)—it is highly desirable for a writer to take the long view; and to be prepared to endure setbacks and privation along the way. But you will learn to focus on one thing at a time, and to treat time itself with the respect it deserves. And you’ll be richly rewarded—though probably not with money! Though you may be surprised.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 296: MONDAY

MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES—MAKING SURE THEY COULD ACTUALLY FLY

I have great respect for the early pioneers of aviation, not only because of their ingenuity, but because of their sheer courage. They had the guts to fly in machines which, by definition, were unproven—because they had only just been invented.

I have already commented on Frank Piasecki in that regard. This is Igor Sikorski in action.

In 1939 Sikorsky designed and flew the Vought-Sikorsky VS-300,^[3] the first viable American helicopter, which pioneered the rotor configuration used by most helicopters today.^[4] Sikorsky would modify the design into the Sikorsky R-4, which became the world's first mass-produced helicopter in 1942.

Piasecki pioneered tandem rotor helicopter designs and created the compound helicopter concept of vectored thrust using a ducted propeller. A photo of Piasecki’s tandem (two) rotor design is at the bottom of this article.

By all accounts there was not only rivalry between the two men, but bad blo0d. Well, I guess that should not be surprising. Silorski was a Russian and Piacecki a Pole. In fact, around the time both men were developing the first flying helicopters, Hitler made an agreement with Stalin to divide Poland between them.

 

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 295: SUNDAY

US HEALTHCARE VERSUS THE WORLD—This graphic is really too big for this site, but it is so interesting, I’m squeezing it in anyway—without shrinking it too much.

This is quite a masterpiece and should really be seen full size. Then it is well worth a read. Check out The George Washington University’s Online Masters in Public Health or magnify it on the screen.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 294: SATURDAY

 SO WHAT’S THE COMPETITION LIKE IN THE BLOGGING WORLD?

GULP!

Certainly, I’d love if more people read this blog—but, fortunately, being #1 is not why I write it—just as well considering the sheer scale of the competition.

I write it to communicate with readers, potential readers, friends, and such family as are speaking to me (we are a hot-headed lot) and because I have learned to really enjoy writing it. Also, I have a sneaky feeling it is improving my writing. If the writing advice, I include from time to time, helps up-and-coming writers, then better still.

The following extracts from a piece by Bill Faeth give the scale of the competition in the blogging world—and also give some insight into how Google assess content. Thereafter, you are on your own.

Every 24 hours, 2 million unique blog posts are published. In light of this statistic, the quest to claim the #1 spot on Google’s search results for key terms in your industry suddenly seems harder than ever, doesn’t it?

Google’s search algorithm uses myriad different factors, known as “signals,” to determine quality of content. The factors and their relative weights are all a closely-guarded secret, but you’ll be pleased to know that content creators aren’t completely left out in the cold. It’s critical to not just acknowledge Google’s quality guidelines, but to also make them an integral part of how you approach the production of web content.

It’s definitely in your brand’s best interest to avoid using deceptive principles just because they’re not illustrated on the list, and uphold “the spirit of the basic principles.” There’s no substitute for reading the guidelines, but the points consist primarily of the following: 

• Create blog content, landing pages, and site pages for people, not search rankings.
• Don’t try to trick anyone, and don’t use any tactics you wouldn’t feel comfortable explaining to Cutts himself. 
• Invest significant time and resources into differentiating within your niche, and providing value.

Google also contracts with third-party organizations to utilize human quality raters, who use a prescribed method to describe the quality of search results. This feedback doesn’t measure the quality of content or affect results, but instead is used to determine how accurately their algorithm is indexing results by quality. 

Google has various categories into which content is separated, too, that help determine which articles pass the quality guidelines and which do not. Vital content is stuff that would come directly from a particular company’s site about their products or services. Useful content might answer questions the company website does not, provide reviews about the products or services, or perhaps suggestions for use. Relevantcontent might include an overview, expand on previous content, or perhaps answer less in-depth questions. Slightly Relevant would, as you may have guessed, provide information that only marginally relates to the topic at hand. Off-Topic, obviously, is content that has nothing to do with the search at all. 

Following several leaks of the guidelines given to search raters, an annotated version of the document has been made public. While the 43-page document is pretty much the opposite of light reading, and there’s plenty of information that’s not particularly relevant to inbound marketers, there are some outstanding insights on the definition of spam that are well worth incorporating into your research. 

 

Do Google’s quality guidelines contain all the knowledge you need to stay out of hot water, and create content people love? Probably not, but that’s okay. In fact, it's probably by design -- because the intent is clear: Google doesn’t hate content creators or SEO, they just probably won’t reward anyone who isn’t willing to put the legwork into building an authoritative website over time. There are no shortcuts.

Bill Faeth is Founder and CEO of Inbound Marketing Agents (IMA), a gold HubSpot partner in Nashville, TN. Check out IMA’s latest ebook,The Science of Enterprise Lead Generation.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 293: FRIDAY

CAN A RESTLESS MIND BE HARNESSED TO BOTH THINK AND WRITE CLEARLY

A subject I have touched on fairly regularly in these blogs is the matter of cognition—both how we think, and whether it is possible to improve one’s thinking.

Here, I express no particular expertise, except as the possessor of an extremely active and restless mind—while at the same time suffering from a form of dyslexia. The latter affects me in various ways, the most irritating being the inability to remember telephone numbers—and I have other short term memory issues as well. Also, I seem to perceive time differently. There, I’ll stop. We won’t talk about what is generally known as ‘creative temperament.’ I have enough pride to prefer not to air all my inadequacies.

I might like to be able to blame such matters on my advancing years, but the truth is I have been aware of such deficiencies since my early school days. In fact, I was excused from having to standup and recite by rote after my teachers finally accepted my condition.

Privately, I didn’t accept my various cognitive flaws, and, over the years, have worked very hard to compensate for them.

The irony is that although my mind resembles a turbulent sea—tossing thoughts around in what can seem to me to be a decidedly arbitrary fashion—I think and write with considerable clarity. Finally, it dawned on me that it was the very effort I seem to require to instill discipline into my sometimes befuddled mind that produces the somewhat paradoxical result of both thinking and writing clearly. Perhaps others, who don’t have to wrestle with such inner confusion, don’t have to think matters though with such diligence. Or maybe more of us than I realize have problems broadly similar to mine. When I have learned to mind read, I’ll give you a definitive answer. By the way, that was a joke! 

Let me tell you the effort required to achieve such a result has been—and remains—prodigious. In a way, I’m fighting my own mind (or certainly aspects of it)—and I have certainly been fighting my temperament.

All I can say to others, who are similarly at war, is that one’s efforts are richly rewarded—and that the ability to write clearly is a gift beyond compare. 

I feel truly fortunate. 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 292: THURSDAY

IF ONE PROPELLER IS GOOD, SURELY TO HAVE 18 IS BETTER!

ENTER THE ELECTRIC VOLOCOPTER

Yes, I am keenly interested in both rotary aircraft and in small plane development. I also believe that such aircraft will soon be powered by some hybrid-electric combination—and that electrically powered aircraft will become viable when batteries improve.

The Volocopter has appeared sooner than I expected—and, believe it or not, it has actually flown. Whether it will be viable or not is still an open question, but let me cheer it on. Anything this crazy has to be supported.

Let me quote from the web site.

At present a battery flight time of 20 minutes is possible, but in the near future this will be extended to one hour or more.

To enable a flight time of several hours right from the start, our two-seater Volocopter is being developed as a serial hybrid electrical aircraft with a range extender.

A range extender is an additional aggregate in an electrical vehicle which extends the range of the vehicle considerably. The most commonly used range extenders are combustion motors which power a generator that supplies the batteries and electrical engines with electricity. Range extenders run at a constant rotation speed with optimal efficiency.

e-volo, the Karlsruhe-based company, made global aviation history last year by successfully operating the world’s first manned flight by means of a purely electronically powered, vertical take-off Volocopter, the VC1. As the federal ministry of economics and technology granted 2 million € as a subsidy of the project-related costs, e-volo is working together with a research and industry syndicate to build the VC200, the first Volocopter in the world to carry two people.

According to Alexander Zosel, e-volo manager, the greatest challenge after technical realisation is to be able to place such an aircraft on the market. As the Volocopter is the first of its kind, an official basis needs to be created in the first step to allow for air traffic participation.

The relevant organizations, namely the German Ultralight Aircraft Association (DULV), the German Sports Aircraft Association (DAeC) and the German Federal Aviation Office (LBA) will work together with the project team of e-volo on the creation of a new manufacturing specification for the Volocopter, including legal regulations (where and when the Volocopter has permission to fly), and the training specifications for future pilots of the Volocopter.

In Europe, ultralight aircraft are defined as very lightweight motor-powered aircraft carrying up to two people. Internationally, there are several ultralight aircraft categories with country-specific certification regulations.

In order to fly ultralight aircraft in Germany, a private pilot license is required. This license  varies depending on the different categories.  According to national law, the various different categories of aerial sports equipment are put under the umbrella definition of ultralight aircraft. The maximum takeoff mass of ultralight two-seater aircraft may not exceed 450 kg in Europe.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 291: WEDNESDAY

RESEARCH IS A WONDERFUL THING, BUT NOTHING BEATS THE ACTUAL WRITING

Today, in a Safeway, a man asked me was I a longshoreman. I replied in in the negative, and asked him why he thought I might be. He said it was because of my cap. That caused me to raise an eyebrow: my cap—which is black—features a thermal gun-sight atop a rifle, and suggests that, if anything, I was a sniper. It also bears the name: MAGNAVOX.

I still have no idea why he thought I was a longshoreman.

The cap, nearly twenty years old, has a history. It was given to me by a friend of mine, John Looby, who was heavily involved with thermal gun sights at the time.

At the time in question, we were both attending an exhibition of military equipment near Fort Bragg—if memory serves—so we were mixing with some very wild people. In fact, that is the only occasion when I can recall the motley crew I was drinking with actually diving head first through our vehicle windows. Fortunately, they were open. They were 82nd Airborne or Special Forces—and the word ‘wild’ does not adequately describe them. All I recall is having a great deal of fun—and then darkness descended.

The following day I found that I had one of the worse hangovers I can ever recall—and that John, who was in no better condition than I was, had picked me to do a demonstration shoot. To make matters worse, the rifle I was shooting was connected to a TV screen, so that every hangover induced shake or twitch was magnified  on the big screens. Fortunately, most of my audience—about 40 strong—were in no better condition than I was.

Looby, I am delighted to say, opened the demonstration—and then missed his target. I hit mine largely because it would have been very hard to miss. The damn thing was close, I was sitting down with my rifle cushioned by a sandbag, and Magnavox’s thermal sight made my target crystal clear. Mind you, I could have shot perfectly well without it. The sun was shining. It was a perfect day.

I have had some wild times while researching—and many adventures—but, you know, nothing beats the actual writing.

I seem to have fallen out of touch with Looby. I regret that. He is a good friend—and a wonderful man.

NOTE: The illustration is not of a Magnavox. It is just to give you the genera idea. That said, this is extraordinarily technology. It allows you to shoot though fog, or smoke, or rain, or complete darkness—providing you can can detect the heat that emanates from your target.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 290: TUESDAY

MANY YEARS AGO—BEFORE I BECAME A WRITER—I WORKED IN ADVERTISING FOR A WHILE

RECENTLY, THIS HEADLINE GOT MY ATTENTION “Advertising Loses More Jobs Than Any Other Industry”

I never like to think of anyone losing their jobs—we writers are intimately familiar with financial insecurity—but I have to admit that I strongly believe the the U.S. does advertising to excess, so that if less ad people means less advertising, I’ll be delighted. The whole damn thing is completely out of control—and brainwashing is alive and well.

It won’t, of course. Such people will re-emerge as Social Media experts or similar. Hustling is too endemic to the U.S for the flood of propaganda to slow. Does it affect how we think and behave? You bet it does. Just look around—look at the choices we make—and weep.

But here are some figures from a blog on the matter by Dan Lyons.

September 4, 2013 at 3:30 PM

A lot of the job categories that have suffered over the past decade did so because of the recession and slow economic growth. In theory, some of those lost jobs will come back as the economy improves.

The loss of jobs in advertising speaks to something else altogether. Unlike, say, jobs building houses, jobs in advertising aren’t coming back.

Advertising and promotion managers are people who plan ad campaigns and decide where to make media buys. A decade ago, there were about 81,000 of these jobs in the U.S. As of 2012, that number had fallen to just over 28,000.

“Likely a major factor in the decline of such positions has been the decline of advertising in print media, such as newspapers,” the report states.

That decline in advertising in newspapers and other print publications has been well documented. That situation is never going to get better. It is only going to deteriorate.

This issue, however, goes beyond print publications. The real problem involves advertising itself, which simply does not work as well as it used to, no matter what platform it’s on. That’s the gist of The Naked Brand, a documentary made by Jeff Rosenblum, the CEO of Questus, a digital marketing agency.

Of course the waning power of advertising has huge implications for marketers. It means we need to move away from interruptive and more traditional tactics -- advertising, billboards, direct mail -- and embrace new ways of attracting customers by creating content that has real value.

According to the 24/7 Wall Street report, more than 50,000 jobs in advertising and promotion have vanished over the past decade.

To ride that wave, you need to think less about putting ads next to content and think more about creating the content itself.

Hmm! I guess I had that thought a very long time ago.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 289: MONDAY

THE FRENCH IN MALI—CAN THEY BE SUCCESSFUL?

Rarely a week goes by without my either reading or hearing some disparaging comment about the French and their fighting abilities. Why the U.S. media and many Americans persist with such petty behavior defeats me. The United States of America might well not have come into being without French help, and their sacrifices in both World War I and II were staggering.

Yes, they did surrender quite quickly in WW II, but you have to put that into the context of their appalling losses only two decades previously. They didn’t want a repeat of that slaughter. For all that, the Free French soon rallied and fought with distinction in both North Africa and subsequently in Europe, and the French Resistance accepted major casualties when they helped to drive out the Germans.

I first ran into the French Army in 1964—in Corsica—in the form of the French Foreign Legion – and a tougher, more disciplined bunch of soldiers you would be hard to find. Also, they were impressively stylish. Their berets were worn just so (I was with paratroops), their camouflage uniforms looked tailored, and their bearing was impeccable. Subsequently, the Legion turned into France’s Ready Reaction Force and became quite high tech—though the 2nd REP continued to jump out of perfectly good aircraft.

Given my ongoing interest in the Legion, I have watched their attempts to drive Islamic extremists out of Mali with only 4,000 French troops with interest. So far they have been remarkably successful given the sheer scale of Northern Mali. Just look at the size of the territory the French are trying to subdue—and wonder.

Will they succeed? You know they probably will. They excel at this kind of fast-paced, mobile, warfare.

By the way, one branch of my family, the Lentaignes, came from France—specifically from Calvados, Normandy. The full family name is Lentaigne de Logivieres and they were aristocrats who ran foul of the French Revolution and the guillotine. I’m a descendant of ‘the one who got away’—reportedly by making love to the jailer's daughter who lowered him to freedom in a laundry basket. His siblings were executed. After that close shave, he fled to Ireland. And the rest of the story is for another time.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 288: SUNDAY

THERE ARE SOME VERY FINE COMPANIES IN THE U.S.—WHICH TREAT THEIR WORKFORCE WELL

BUT THE BEHAVIOR OF ALL TOO MANY TOWARDS THEIR WORKERS IS REPREHENSIBLE.

OVER THE LONGER TERM, IT WILL PROVE TO BE BAD BUSINESS

There isn’t just one form of capitalism. In fact, it comes in as many varieties as ice-cream. It all depends on the various checks and balances on the free market established in the country concerned.

Most developed countries devote considerable effort to ensuring that workers have a social safety net and an extensive array of worker rights (and still manage to thrive, let me stress).

All seem to understand that to have a good game, you need good rules. No game that is worth playing lacks good, and thoughtful, rules.

In fact, in many cases, countries that look after their workers—extremely well—are doing better than us—much better than us if you count the wellbeing of the average citizen as being important.

After all, what is the point of a country that makes a few rich and exploits the rest of its inhabitants. Traditionally, that was the structure of a classic ‘banana republic’ where a few reaped the rewards and the rest tilled the fields for a minimal wage. Retreat a century and a half, and it was the structure of a slave owning nation—this United States of America. 

It is salutary to note that after all this time, the economic status of African Americans is still so far behind the rest of the population—and though there are many exceptions, it is not good.

Will that be the fate of the Middle Class generally as they slip behind? It seems entirely possible.

Distressingly, that is the economic structure the U.S. has been evolving since the 1970s. Business has dumped any concern for anything other than maximizing shareholder value—a false god at the best of times—and the results have done quite remarkable damage to the economic wellbeing of most Americans, and to the Middle Class in particular.

A byproduct has been underinvestment in infrastructure for decades. Much of the U.S, now looks decrepit or shabby—because it is. Much of it, particularly dams and bridges, is structurally unsound. That scarcely speaks well of the richest country in the world.

What should one call that particular form of American capitalism? The name ‘Predator Capitalism’ fits well because it is a mode of behavior that preys on all for the benefit of a few, which lacks conscience, scruples and loyalty, and where greed is the only accepted value.

Notably, it bears only a passing resemblance to Free Market capitalism, because Predator Capitalists rely heavily on:

• Corrupting Congress, and government at all levels. DONE
• Fixing the legal system in their favor. DONE
• Vast government subsidies of various kinds. DONE
• Forming monopolies, or de-facto monopolies. DONE
• Speculating rather than investing. DONE
• Exporting jobs without regard for their own workers. DONE
• Passing more and more medical costs to their workers. DONE
• Removing the security of defined pensions or raiding pension funds (in some cases). DONE
• Destroying unions. NEARLY DONE
• Removing job security. DONE
• Passing the costs of training onto the government whenever possible. DONE
• Blaming government whenever possible. ONGOING
• Despite raising worker costs, squeezing worker earning power whenever or wherever possible. ONGOING
• Underinvesting in plant, equipment, infrastructure, and innovation. ONGOING
• Evading taxes in every way possible to the point where corporate taxes, when offset by government grants and other subsidies, make—at best—a marginal contribution to the nation. ONGOING
• Polluting our air, land, and oceans to the great cost of the public at large (fatal in many cases)—but at no cost to the corporations responsible. ONGOING

All in all, the above adds up to reprehensible behavior. One could call it disgusting, and not be adrift. By any standards, it is both morally wrong—and incredibly unpatriotic. It’s as if the business community had declared war on the both the people, and the values, of this Great Nation.

Well, they did just that—and they are winning.

But, just look at the state of the country. If wage slavery is the future—and God preserve us if it is—be cognizant of the consequences.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 287: SATURDAY

I FOLLOW THE FINANCIAL WORLD TO GET MATERIAL FOR A STORY. THERE IT STOPS.

THE MARVELOUS BARRY RITHOLTZ IS THE MAN TO TALK TO ABOUT INVESTING

The following quotes from Barry Ritholtz (see photo) of THE BIG PICTURE blog but was actually written by http://25iq.wordpress.com/ I commend you to the pair of them.

This piece is not the easiest read, but the content, in my opinion, more than compensates. That said, I’m much relieved to be a writer and not involved with Wall Street—except as a fascinated and appalled observer, who would rather like to write a financial thriller once of these days. But there are a number of other major projects in line ahead.

A thoughtful observer, when contemplating both the threat and the actual damage to this country over the years, from both external and internal enemies, might reasonably conclude that terrorism is as nothing compared to the mayhem inflicted by our very own financial community—both recently by way of The Great Recession—and, previously, again and again over the decades. Though how quickly we forget. In every case, these financial geniuses have had to be bailed out by the American taxpayer.

Maybe we should think of them as financial terrorists—and act accordingly. I can think of no finer use for Guantanamo.

 

A Dozen Things I have Learned from Barry Ritholtz about Investing

As part of my “A Dozen Things I’ve Learned” series of blog posts I thought I would take on a list put together by Barry Ritholtz . My self-assigned task is to add my support to what Barry wrotehttp://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/10/ritholtzs-rules-of-investing/, while staying with my usual 999 word limit for any given blog post.  The task I assigned to myself is to elaborate on what he has written (rather than just repeating what Barry wrote) since the best support for the investing maxims themselves comes from Barry himself. Given Barry’s towering intellect, this is a scary exercise.

1.   “Cut your losers short and let your winners run.”  Loss aversion is highly dysfunctional for investors since it causes people to hold on to “losers” for too long to avoid the pain of a loss. The first half of Barry’s first maxim pushes against that aspect of loss aversion. Cutting losses short pushed against a tendency to hold tightly to losers hoping that they recover before then need to acknowledge the loss. The second half of Barry’s first maxim helps lower transactions costs, fees and taxes, but is also about the value of opportunity cost analysis.  Charlie Munger once put it this way:  “There is this company in an emerging market that was presented to Warren. His response was, ‘I don’t feel more comfortable buying that than I do of adding to Wells Fargo.’ He was using that as his opportunity cost. No one can tell me why I shouldn’t buy more Wells Fargo.”

2.  “Avoid predictions and forecasts.” The less complex the system you are trying to understand, the greater the likelihood you can make a bet which is both non-consensus and correct. Making a bet which follows the consensus and it correct will only deliver beta. The most complex system of all is the macro economy since it is composed of a nest of complex adaptive systems rife with both uncertainty (probabilities unknown) and ignorance (probabilities not computable). On a relative basis, the most tractable system on which one can make an investment and try to generate alpha is an individual company. Very few people can make non- consensus  bets which are also correct at a company level, but its is at least possibl;e if you are smart and work hard. 90%+ of people are better off buying a low fee index even when it comes to making bets on individual companies.  The greatest for investors often comes from the fact that 70% of people think they fall withion the 10% who can generate alpha. When it comes to self-appraisals humans are too often vastly over generous.

3.  “Understand crowd behavior.”  Humans often herd. People like what others like (path dependence) and especially in the presence of uncertainty or a requirement that they actually do some work, will follow other people.  Most notably when diversity of opinion breaks down, crowds are often *not* wise.  Buying when others are fearful and selling when others are greedy. is wise.

4.  “Think like a contrarian (occasionally).” As I noted in my post about Howard Marks, http://25iq.com/2013/07/30/a-dozen-things-ive-learned-about-investing-from-howard-marks/   you must both adopt a view that is contrarian *and* be right to outperform the market. Being a contrarian for its own sake is a ticket to losses since the crowd is often right.

5 .  “Asset allocation is crucial.” The amount you allocate to each investing category is a more important decision than the individual assets you pick within that category.  My thoughts on asset allocation for muppets are here: http://25iq.com/2013/05/13/asset-allocation-for-muppets-with-a-401k/  Giving advice to “know something investors” is something I have not yet tackled since they are know-something investors already (seems like bringing coals to Newcastle).

6.   “Decide if you are an active or passive investor.” My thoughts on active vs. passive are here: http://25iq.com/2013/01/16/charlie-munger-on-investment-concentration-versus-diversification/  As Dirty Harry said to the cornered criminal in the movie Magnum Force: ”A man’s got to know his limitations.”  “I feel lucky” is not the way a genuine investor conducts his or her affairs.

7.   “Understand your own psychological make up.” As Feynman famously said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.  Genuine self-knowledge is hard-won knowledge since no one has perspective on yourself by definition.   On this topic it is wise to read Charlie Munger  http://25iq.com/charlie-munger-book-to-date-chapters-1-5/

8.   “Admit when you are wrong.” Heuristics like “public commitment consistency” bias cause us to hold on to positions long after a reasonable analysis by a neutral observer  would have concluded that we were wrong.  For example, once you say publicly “X is going up”  it gives your brain a shot ofstupid juice when it comes to concluding that you might be wrong.

9.    “Understand the cycles of the financial world.”  Barry seems in agreement with Howard Marks http://25iq.com/2013/07/30/a-dozen-things-ive-learned-about-investing-from-howard-marks/    on this point.  Nothing good or bad goes on forever.  As Billy Preston sings in the well-known song things “go round in circles.”   Mr. Market is bipolar and for that reason market swings will always happen.  By focusing on the intrinsic value of individual investments And tuning out the talking heads blathering about their macroeconomic  forecasts, market swings can become your friend.   The irony is: the more you focus on what is micro in nature, the more you will benefit from macro trends.

10.  “Be intellectually curious.”  It is in “the micro and the obscure” where one can learn things which  others do not know.  To make a bet that is contrary to the consensus of the crowd you must possess  knowledge that the consensus has not adopted. You will mostly likely find that non-consensus knowledge on the frontiers of your own knowledge.   Really great investors read constantly and actively seek out alternative viewpoints.  Shutting out views you disagree with is a step toward an echo chamber.

11.   “Reduce investing friction.” John Bogle formed Vanguard on the basis of the “cost matters hypothesis” not the efficient market hypothesis. On that you might want to read  http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp2004AIMRefficientMrkts.html. Paying high fees, costs and commissions is one of the simplest investing errors to correct.

12.  “There is no free lunch.”  There is no substitute for hard work and rational decision making.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 286: FRIDAY

I’M MORE THAN HAPPY TO TALK ON THE PHONE, BUT HATE MAKING PHONE CALLS. THERE IS A REASON FOR THE LATTER

If I’m writing and somebody calls me, I often sound a little vague (even dazed)—and will forget to say something or other which would have been entirely germane to the conversation—and possibly even important.

The reason is fairly obvious. When I write, I switch into ‘the zone’ almost instantly, and from then on I’m in another world where the transmuting of thought into writing is all encompassing. Nothing else is relevant.

Well, such focus is both necessary, extraordinarily helpful, and deeply satisfying—and arguably rivals good sex (though I wouldn’t have thought that when I was younger) but it is not a state I leave with ease, and it can take me some minutes to adjust to the real world. In fact, if the phone goes, or someone knocks on the door, I normally feel shock initially; so if I sometimes seem confused when I answer the phone, that is the reason.

In fact, I rather like the phone, and regard chatting to people I hold in high regard as one of the great pleasures of life. So, if that is the case, why am I reluctant to make phone calls?

Well, this is where we bump into my particular form of dyslexia. Quite simply, I find it very hard to transfer a number, even if written clearly in front of me, to the point of actually dialing. Either I forget the number completely, or else I will transpose the digits. Beyond that, I can’t remember telephone numbers at all—not even my own. It is a deficiency which has inconvenienced me for my entire life. I also cannot remember house numbers, vehicle tags, credit-card numbers, numeric codes—or any of the miserable numeric inventions that so infiltrate our world today.

But, we all have our difficulties, and mine is slight in the scheme of things.

Now, at this point you will probably be thinking: Why doesn’t the idiot simply enter all his important numbers into his cell phone—and then it will dial them automatically at the press of a button?

Because, my good friend, I find entering numbers into my cell even more traumatic than dialing. But, I have battled away and have managed to enter some of the essential ones—and hope eventually to reach Nirvana.

What I would really like to do is dial directly from my computer through my wonderful Polycom loudspeaker phone—but I have never been able to find a computer guru to make that happen yet.

When I was growing up in chilly Ireland, back in the days when phones looked like the above illustration, and you had to go through an operator, the phone was always kept in the hall. This had the advantage of ensuring that calls were kept short, because in those days before central heating, the hall was normally freezing. Extensions were unheard of.

I used to ask my grandmother about ‘the olden days’ when she was growing up. Now I have ‘olden days’ of my own—and I value them. Mind you, I’m damn glad we now have central heating.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 285: THURSDAY

THERE IS A TIME TO WORK—BUT WHILE FLYING ISN’T ONE OF THEM

I have never been a fan of working while flying, but prefer to read or sleep. Though I love movies, I don’t like watching them while in the air. I have never really analyzed the reasons, but the Business Week chart I have included below does offer some credible explanations.

What is clear is that airline flying, whatever about its associated hassles, is unhealthy on top of everything else. That’s a thought we should probably ponder more than we do.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 284: WEDNESDAY

OUTSTANDING WRITING ADVICE IS OUT THERE—IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO LOOK

This blog covers a fairly eclectic range of subjects—everything from creativity to some of the more interesting developments in aviation—but I try not to wander too far away from writing (a broad enough topic in itself).

In particular, the budding writer is never far from my mind, so—every so often—I try and insert pieces which may be of some assistance to him or her. In that spirit, here is some advice from Elmore Leonard. I have trimmed the piece for length, so regard it as no more than a pointer. The full article is well worth reading—and is thoroughly entertaining. You’ll find it in that outstanding newspaper, the New York Times

ELMORE LEONARD
Published: July 16, 2001

1. Never open a book with weather.

2. Avoid prologues.

3. Never use a verb other than ''said'' to carry dialogue.

4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb ''said'' . . .

5. Keep your exclamation points under control.

6. Never use the words ''suddenly'' or ''all hell broke loose.''

7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.

8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.

9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.

10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

Do I agree with everything? No, I don’t, but it is hard to argue with Elmore Leonard’s extraordinary success in the marketplace.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 283: TUESDAY

KEEP A WEATHER EYE ON YOUR SUBCONSCIOUS MIND.

IT HAS VAST APPLICATION—BUT LACKS BOTH MORALS AND JUDGEMENT

(I have some affection for it, nonetheless—it helps my writing a great deal—and I can’t help feeling it has a sense of humor)

I went to an excellent boarding school in the UK (an Anglo-Irish custom), and was taught a great many things—some useful, and some a complete waste of time—but I don’t  recall ever being taught anything about how the mind works.

We were just instructed to use ‘it’ as if we were born with a Mind Manual in our tiny hands. Sadly, as best I can confirm—I was very small at the time—we were not.

I confess I have taken my mind—strengths and insights, flaws and all—for granted for most of my life. More recently, I have become intensely curious as to how the whole thing works—and whether you can improve it in various ways.

I have become convinced you can, if only because of my own efforts—long and difficult, though they were—to overcome my dyslexia so I could write. My determination to re-program my brain—for that, essentially was what I was doing—was, eventually, successful.

But I still feel I could do vastly more if I understood more. If that is the case—as I believe it is—I have to wonder why we aren’t all taught vastly more about the mind from a very young age. 

I found the following few non-sequential extracts on a blog written by S. Ali Myers

So why haven’t you heard more about the subconscious mind?  To this point, scientists and neuro-fanatics have been unable to explain what the approximately 90% of your brain that you don’t use does?   The subconscious mind exists within that 90% majority. 

Your subconscious mind is programmed by you, your family and friends, society and everything else outside of you.  Your subconscious mind does not discern between what is true or false.  Your conscious, or rational and reasoning mind does that.  The subconscious accepts everything.  That’s why it’s critical that you filter what is embedded in it.

We use the automatic functions of our subconscious mind on a daily basis.  Any activity that you have done repeatedly is planted prominently in your subconscious mind.  It is not by chance that repetition is one of the best ways to program the subconscious mind.  Ever wondered why you see the same commercials over and over?

Techniques for programming your subconscious mind:

1. Positive Affirmations & Mantras – An affirmation is any statement that you affirm, or speak.  A mantra is an affirmation or phrase that is repeated over and over.  When you repeat a positive affirmation, it is eaten up by your subconscious mind making a lasting impression.  Some examples of positive affirmations that you can repeat are:

• “I am filled with peace, harmony and joy.”
• “My positive thoughts produce positive things.”
• “I love myself and everything that is around me.”

You can say affirmations for a set amount of time or quantity.  Also, try repeating them in your head throughout the day.  The more you say your positive affirmations, the better your results will be.  Try the provided affirmations or make up your own.

2. Create positive habits and routines

Eventually, any activity or practice you partake in will become what we call, second nature.  Remember, anything you try that may be difficult or awkward initially, will become easier with time and practice.

Written by S. Ali Myers

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 282: MONDAY

JUST BECAUSE I’M FOCUSED ON ONE PROJECT DOESN’T STOP MY SUBCONSCIOUS FROM LOBBING OTHER IDEAS AT ME

I’m very proud of learning to focus—God knows it took me long enough—but though I write about ‘total focus’ and ‘being in the zone,’ and I am describing the situation accurately, I will admit that when I am not actually writing—say doing something in the kitchen—my mind may well drift to other projects, or even away from writing

(I can’t believe I revealed that—I rather like the image of being an obsessive writer).

Actually, I think about lots of different things if only because I have a wide variety of interests, and, of course, I think about people—probably a great deal more than they realize—but my fundamental point is that even when I’m totally focused on one writing project, my subconscious (which, as you know, I don’t control) seems to enjoy working on another. That would be bad enough, but sometimes it likes working several books ahead.

Currently, it seems interested in my long planned military novel which isn’t scheduled for quite some time. To that end, I’m exploring—when I’m away from writing—concepts like Maneuver Warfare, and the total integration of ground and air. Given how high-tech war has become, some of the details are rather hard to master.

Now I see why people write historical novels.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 281: SUNDAY

HOW NOT TO DRESS FOR A FIGHT—WEAR A TIE

One of the many pleasures of being an author is that I don’t have to wear a tie—subject to the rarest of occasions.

In truth, I loathe ties, and associate them with some form of oppression—where one is forced to wear the things for no better reason than to force you to conform. Also, particularly because I have a short neck, I find them exceedingly uncomfortable. Most men do—and you’ll notice that one of the first things that men do is to loosen or remove their ties,

In my younger years, I got into quite a number of fights and early on I learned—the hard way-- that to fight while wearing a tie merely invited your opponent to strangle you with it. And, let me tell you from first hand experience, it is no fun being strangled.

I am glad to say that Richard Branson agrees with me in the matter of ties. Let me quote him:

While out walking in London recently, I passed a group of uniformed schoolchildren moving in an orderly, single-file line, with teachers in front and rear.

Nothing unusual, except for one thing that made me laugh out loud: their identical school ties. Or more accurately, what was left of them. More than half the kids had cut their ties so that only three or four inches remained below the knot.

Intrigued, I asked the teacher who was bringing up the rear, “So what happened to the ties?”

He chuckled and said, “Well, the kids hate wearing them, but school rules say they have to. What the rules fail to specify, however, is how long they have to be -- so, snip-snip!”

Why didn’t I come up with such a naughtily innovative solution when I went to school?

I have always hated ties, maybe because I’ve never seen the point. They are uncomfortable and serve no useful purpose. I am lucky to have always worked for myself, and therefore have never been a victim of corporate dress codes. For years, a sweater and corduroy trousers were my standard business attire. Someone once joked, “The day Richard shows up at the bank wearing a suit and tie, you’ll know that we are in serious trouble.”

Sir Richard Branson is a thoroughly likeable man, who not only speaks a great deal of sense, but has managed to make himself over $4 billion. My only connection with him is that a rather beautiful woman, that I was once very fond of, became one of the first air hostesses for Virgin Airlines.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 280: SATURDAY

THE EFFORT THAT GOES INTO GREAT CREATIVE WORK EXCEEDS AWESOME—BUT THE RESULTS JUSTIFY IT

Yesterday, I wrote about some of the guidelines I follow when writing a thriller movie, but when I tried to recall a definitive example of the real thing, my mind went blank. Well, it had been a long day.

Today, inspiration struck and I realized that you need look no further than the awesome LA CONFIDENTIAL. It is stunningly good.

On the once hand, you can follow the plot with relative ease—and each sequence is satisfying in itself—but you still get hit with surprise after surprise until the totality of the plot becomes clear.

LA Confidential is also beautifully written by Curtis Hanson and Brian Helgeland, and despite being a decidedly grim story, still contains a refreshing amount of humor. The back story of its writing is fascinating and is a good example of the extraordinary effort and fortitude needed to write a phenomenal screenplay.

Let me draw on Wiki again:

Helgeland found that Hanson had been hired to direct and met with him while the filmmaker was making The River Wild. They found that they not only shared a love for Ellroy's fiction but also agreed on how to adapt Confidential into a film. According to Helgeland, they had to "remove every scene from the book that didn't have the three main cops in it, and then to work from those scenes out."^[1] According to Hanson, he "wanted the audience to be challenged but at the same time I didn't want them to get lost".^[2] They worked on the script together for two years, with Hanson turning down jobs and Helgeland writing seven drafts for free.^[1] The two men also got Ellroy's approval of their approach. He had seen Hanson's films, The Bedroom Window and Bad Influence and found him to be "a competent and interesting storyteller," but was not convinced that his book would be made into a film until he talked to the eventual director.^[1] He later said, "They preserved the basic integrity of the book and its main theme. Brian and Curtis took a work of fiction that had eight plotlines, reduced those to three, and retained the dramatic force of three men working out their destiny."^[

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 279: FRIDAY

IN A WAY, A STORY IS LIKE A STRIPTEASE. IT’S IMPORTANT NOT TO REVEAL TOO MUCH TOO SOON

Currently I’m wrestling with how much to reveal as the story progresses. My guiding principles are:

• To keep on surprising the viewer (appreciate that I‘m currently working on a screenplay, not a book).
• Not to show the villain too early, but to rely on the viewer’s imagination.
• To avoid making the plot so complex that the viewer will never quite understand it.
• In the interests of keeping up the suspense, to divert the reader where possible—but not to cheat. A red herring should have a legitimate place in the story.
• To avoid lengthy explanations as far as possible. Explanations are best delivered as part of the progress of the story.

Mind you, I don’t sit there with a checklist of working principles beside the computer (not that such an arrangement would necessarily be a bad idea).

On the subject of stripteases, I have never been a great fan of them—precisely because of the word ‘tease.’ I have always much preferred the real thing.

I saw my first strip tease in the South of France. The club was near empty because Johnny Hallyday was performing next door. In fact, I interviewed him after his performance. Johnny’s popularity is akin to that of Elvis Preslie, but virtually no one has heard him outside France and French Canada. Nonetheless, that has scarcely cramped his achievements. Here is what Wiki says:

An icon in the French-speaking world since the beginning of his career, he was considered by some^[3] to have been the French Elvis Presley. He was married for 15 years to popular Bulgarian-French singer Sylvie Vartan and the two were considered a "golden couple" for 20 years. Hallyday has completed 181 tours, had 18 platinum albums, and has sold more than 110 million records.^[4

^{Johnny also has an advantage over Elvis. He is still alive. He is actually one year older than me—which makes him 70. The above photo was taken in 2003.}

^{But I digress. Back to stripteases. Despite the nearly empty bar, the stripper proceeded to do her thing—and since I was just about all her audience, she sited herself, on the raised dais, directly in front of me. I would like to be able to describe my growing teenage excitement as all was revealed—which it was—but my strongest memory is of her sweat being flicked, as she danced, into my beer.}

^{Ah, the education of a writer. And that is all I’m telling you of that epic evening.}

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 278: THURSDAY

THE HERO IS A GERMAN NAZI WHO HOLDS HITLER IN HIGH REGARD—AND YOU WILL END UP ROOTING FOR HIM

A DEEPLY DISTURBING, YET MOVING, STORY—WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE TRUE

I have bemoaned the lack of thoughtful, intelligent, well written and directed movies—targeted at the sentient adult—a number of times in this blog.

Hollywood studios seem to have forgotten how to make them—or just don’t care to—perhaps because thoughtful, intelligent adults get short shrift in that town. Beneath the glitz and the glamor, Hollywood culture is deeply unhealthy, and corrupting.

Of course there are exceptions—SCHINDLER’S LIST being a notable example—but there are not many these days. And those that are made are invariably independent movies financed only after truly herculean efforts.

It is yet another American tragedy, because film (and its digital equivalent) constitute far too powerful and important a medium to be given over near completely to what appeals to the lowest common denominator.

JOHN RABE (2009)—a German-Chinese-French production—is a true gem of a movie which tells the truly remarkable true story of a senior Siemens executive, and a German Nazi Party member at that, who set up an International Safety Zone in Nanking, and helped to save over 200, 000 Chinese from the invading Japanese.

The scenes of the Rape of Nanking (which took place in late 1937 and early 1938) by the Japanese under the command of Imperial Prince Asaka, are portrayed unsparingly, and are quite horrifying—yet, fundamentally, it is the story of an honorable man, of late middle-age, doing his best under near impossible circumstances.

Many Japanese are still in denial about the Rape of Nanking, but it actually happened—and about 300,000 Chinese were killed during it for no particular reason except to demonstrate the superiority and power of the Japanese Army. Most of these were not combat casualties. They were either unarmed prisoners of war or innocent civilians—and they were slaughtered like animals. Officers held competitions to see who could cut off most heads in a given period of time—and had themselves photographed in front of their trophies. This was human behavior at its most callous and depraved.

Yes, it is a similar story to Schindler’s List in some ways, but it is a very different movie.

Strange to have a Nazi as the hero—but, as we say in Ireland, Nazi or not, he really was a decent man.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 277: WEDNESDAY

IRELAND AND AUSTERITY—YET ANOTHER AUSTERITY CREATED DISASTER

Irish author, James Joyce—whose statue in Dublin, Ireland, is pictured above—remarked in his semi-autobiographical novel, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), “Ireland is the old sow who eats her farrow.”

This is about as accurate and cruel a statement about Ireland, and its self-destructive tendencies, as has ever been made. But, what else could you expect from Joyce—a writer of truly stunning originality—best known for Ulysses (1922)—which which was banned in Ireland for decades (in the fine tradition of repressed Irish sexuality).

Incidentally, Joyce’s other works are well worth reading, and rather more accessible.

In the spirit of his own assessment of his native land, Joyce emigrated permanently while still in his early twenties, and thereafter lived in continental Europe in such places as Trieste, Paris, and Zurich.

I was reminded of Joyce’s scathing comment when I recently read a headline: “One Irish person emigrates every six minutes.”

Good grief—and this was the Celtic Tiger!

I had to emigrate from Ireland to the UK to find employment, but eventually returned to Ireland, fired up by the dream of helping to build the country. To that end, I put everything I had on the line to try and fight the curse of unemployment—and achieved a pyric victory in that the economic activity I created produced the number of jobs I was after; but I lost almost everything in the process.

In other ways, it was a very real victory for me, because in 1986, I committed to become a full-time writer—and thus fulfilled my true calling. Beyond that, the satisfaction and sheer pleasure I have gained from writing have exceeded all my expectations. And the financial rewards haven’t been so bad either.

Do I regret my earlier idealism? Not really; in the context of the time, it was the right thing to do. 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 276: TUESDAY

THE TROUBLE WITH SLEEP IS THAT IT DOESN’T MAKE BIG PHARMA ANY MONEY—HOSPITALS MAKE IT NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO SLEEP FOR A REASON

I’m writing this in arrears, so I cannot recall exactly when my back injury happened. I know I took about five weeks to recover, and was in such serious pain for the first couple of weeks, that sitting and writing was complete agony.

Funnily enough, I could stand, and lie down, without much pain, but doing what I love to do—need to do—was virtually impossible. What is more, I didn’t seem to be getting better, which was worrying.

Someone suggested going to the hospital. Based on previous experience, I rejected that option. ERs are not too good at dealing with back pain—and the all purpose solution seems to be medication.

In the end, I slept most of the time for several days, and then napped regularly once or twice a day for quite some time. That turned the tide and slowly the pain started to recede.

It felt wonderful.

Enough of that boring subject. I am only mentioning the subject to try and justify my letting six weeks go by without blogging. And I had been doing so well. I expect it is my Catholic upbringing. Guilt is their thing—and they are very good at it.

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 275: MONDAY

PUT GREEDY FOOLS IN CHARGE—AND THE CONSEQUENCES ARE PREDICTABLE.

SHAME ON AMERICAN MANAGEMENT

It has long been my contention that the U.S. has a serious management problem which lies at the root of a great many of the economic difficulties we are experiencing today.

As best I can determine it, the rot started in the early Seventies when the Powell memorandum galvanized the rich—in the form of major corporate interests—to mount a counter-attack against the perceived decadence and liberalism of the Sixties, and the threat of what were judged to be anti-business attitudes.

Much simplified, in effect, managements declared war on their own workers (and the unions in particular) and adopted the notion that management’s only duty was to optimize shareholder value—primarily as expressed in the value Wall Street put on the shares.

Corporate loyalty towards workers, suppliers, customers, the local community,  and the nation went by the board.

Thus started the carnage which exported millions of jobs, destroyed much of our industrial base, virtually froze the earning power of workers for more than four decades, undermined the Middle Class, contributed to our losing ground in market sector after market sector, stunted innovation, eroded the tax base, corrupted Congress (even more than before)—and made CEOS, frequently executives of decidedly limited competence, extremely wealthy.

I was therefor not remotely surprised to read in THE BIG PICTURE, Barry Ritholtz’s outstanding blog, that nearly 40 percent of CEOs on the highest-paid lists from the past 20 years were either bailed out, booted, or busted.

People of true caliber and integrity don’t behave the way all too many of our CEOs have for decades. It’s morally wrong, financially irresponsible, short-sighted in the worse possible way, and very much against the National Interest.

We are now reaping what America’s top managers have sown—and what we are harvesting threatens the economic wellbeing of all but the rich.

The great recession was just a taste.