THE STORY SO FAR: PART 100

SHOULD ONE ACCEPT THE WAY LIFE IS—OR QUESTION AND CHALLENGE IT?

Reportedly, there was a time when a samurai could test the blade of his sword on some unfortunate peasant—and no one would question his action. Today it would be frowned upon, and action would be taken. In modern Japan, as like or not, the samurai would be hanged. Cultures, together with their associated beliefs, do change; albeit sometimes very slowly.

Yet, generally speaking we are strongly discouraged from questioning the system on the grounds that it is both futile and socially disruptive. Indeed, conventional wisdom dictates that one should just get on with life.

I have never been able to accept such a viewpoint, and have had a tendency to question just about everything from an early age. Such an attitude has often been dismissed as “complaining,” but I have long held the view that if one is given a mind, one should use it—and a mind needs exercise.

The greatest opposition to such a questioning approach comes from: (1) Vested interests. (2) Peer group pressure. (3) Social conditioning. (4) Ignorance. (5) Laziness. (6) Fear.

In the U.S., I suspect fear to be a major factor because if you question the status quo within a corporate environment—where you probably spend half your waking life for five days a week—you stand a very good chance of losing your job, even if you are good at your job. And if you lose your job, you may well lose near everything else—from your personal dignity to your health care; from your car to your house. The U.S., despite the hype, is heavily authoritarian, and rarely more so than within a corporation. That is a truth we don’t face up to because merely to discuss such an issue would put our careers at risk.

I question because it is my nature, and because I find the process both intellectually stimulating, and rewarding. It is rewarding because I have found that the more I question and research, the more I find that there are answers to most issues out there; and that the world could be a vastly better place if we only bothered to look. True, there are some matters which are extraordinarily difficult to resolve—“wicked problems” come to mind—but I have found these to be in the minority. In short, what makes questioning the issues so satisfying is not just the pleasure of the journey, but the knowledge that that there are solutions to most of the questions—and that in many cases the solutions are already proven.

Although it tends to be our practice to specialize—to focus on specific issues rather narrowly—I deal with such matters holistically because, in reality, issues tend to be connected much more than we care to admit. For instance, housing directly impacts health, education, employment and the environment—not to mention the economy as a whole.

But what kind of issues am I talking about? Frankly, they run the gamut from the macro (big issues) to the micro (small issues), though I tend to focus mainly on the macro—at the personal micro level, I tend to be impractical. Here are a few examples of the subjects I think about at a macro level.

Unemployment The thing about unemployment is that it is not just a personal tragedy, but it is a cost to the community and the economy as a whole—with unemployment pay being only a small part of that cost. When someone becomes unemployed they go from paying taxes and spending their income—mostly in the immediate area—to needing support. Add up all the costs involved, including healthcare, and it would be surprising if the total real cost to the state was not, at least, $50,00 a year. Faced with that, it is hard not to wonder why we don’t treat the creation of jobs more seriously.

Unemployment inflicts untold misery on millions of people—and not just the unemployed. Many of those with jobs feel extremely insecure when unemployment is high.

Whatever is said publicly, business is heavily biased in favor of a fairly high rate of unemployment because it vastly strengthens employers’ bargaining power, undermines the power of unions, and keeps wages in check—if it doesn’t force them down, which is frequently the case at present..

Whether employers have given adequate thought to the fact that high unemployment depresses consumer demand is a good question. I find it unlikely.

Job Creation Republicans argue that job creation must be left to the free market and that government job creation projects are nothing but an expense which hard-pressed taxpayers cannot afford. There is no truth to that statement if the jobs created genuinely add value—a stipulation which applies with equal vigor to the private sector. In short, government could create jobs if it wished. So far, Republican intransigence has blocked that course of action. Worse, since the 2008 Great Depression, large numbers of government employees ranging from teachers to firefighters and police have been laid off by Republican controlled state governments.

Paradoxically, Republicans resist all efforts to cut defense spending even though there is an abundance of evidence to show that much of such expenditure is both unnecessary and grossly inefficient. In fact, if we switched a proportion of of our defense expenditure to other purposes, research indicates that we would create many more jobs with the same investment. Given that a strong economy is the primary support of National Security, it is fairly clear that we are currently misallocating our resources.

Since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, the vast bulk of both government support, and that of the Federal Reserve (which is not a government institution in the full meaning of the term) has gone to support the Big Banks, and through them, Big Business—which thanks to ultra-low interest rates can borrow at minimal cost. Meanwhile, savers are deprived of an adequate return on their savings—bank interest rates being typically less than inflation—and the real economy is capital deprived. In particular, mortgages remain difficult to get and Small Business is significantly under-capitalized.

In practice there is a great deal that government can do to reduce unemployment and accelerate growth.

• Set up a National Infrastructure Bank to remedy the $2.5 trillion shortcomings of our infrastructure.
• Set up State Banks along the lines of the highly successful North Dakota State Bank.
• Set up the modern equivalent of the Great Depression era Works Progress Administration on the basis that it is better to have people working than being marginally supported by a large number of administratively heavy, not very effective, schemes.
• Implement a National Energy Strategy.

The above will never happen as long as Republicans have the majority in the House because they are motivated by ideology—regardless of the evidence--rather than by a focus on what works. Meanwhile, millions of Americans suffer unnecessarily.

The Role of Government. There was a time when Americans had considerable trust in government. Today, after more than three decades of demonizing government, Republicans have severely damaged people’s faith in government without really replacing it with any alternative institutional support system. Nominally, the private sector is supposed to be the solution to all our needs, but the behavior of Big Business, in particular, has been so egregious—with a particular focus on the Financial Sector—that clearly it is not the answer. So what are we left with? Cynicism and the hollow feeling that we are on our own. Some people may want that. Clearly, judging by the popularity of such programs as Social Security and Medicare, most Americans do not.

Government is far from innocent in this matter—the bureaucracy and inertia of the Civil Service are legendary—but it strikes me that we might be better employed trying to make the government work better rather destroying it. Why so? Because government is, or should be, no more than cooperation writ large—and cooperation is the basis of a civilized life. Rugged individualism, for all the sloganeering, doesn’t get you very far. In reality, we all need help and all accomplishments—no matter how individual they appear—are achieved with help.

But what exactly do we want government to do? This is too big a question to answer in this blog, but essentially we want government to handle the things we can’t—without being too intrusive. Maintaining that balance is not easy, but it is critical.

Can we make government more efficient? The short answer is: “Yes,” and the quickest way to check that out is look at other countries and see what they get for their taxpayer dollars. For instance, Taiwan gets one of the best health systems in the world for less than half the U.S. cost as expressed as a percentage of GDP. Similarly, Israel maintains one of the most sophisticated military forces in the world but had a budget of only $15 billion in 2012. In contrast, U.S. total spend on defense in 2012 will be in excess of $1 trillion. But we need to garrison the world will be the immediate defense by the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. Do we really?

Apart from the fact that the Constitution clearly needs an overhaul (it was never designed to be treated as a sacred cow) it strikes me that our greatest problem with government is that it acts as if it was a separate entity, and feels remote and singularly lacking in both compassion and common sense. Can we overcome such attitudes and bridge such a divide? I don’t know the answer to that but it strikes me that perhaps the public and private sectors might become more integrated. For instance, perhaps it should be normal for people to work partly for the government and partly for business—splitting their week, so to speak. There may be better ways of working out the logistics but I was struck by the fact that most of the administration of the Swiss Army is done from within the private sector at minimal cost to the government. Such duties are just part of a citizen’s obligations—and they don’t seem to stop Switzerland being one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

 

Well, I have only touched on a few issues here, but I trust they illustrate the point that questioning the status quo is not necessarily harmful to one’s health, and that the U.S. might be a better place if we looked around a little more.

The answers really are out there.

 

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 99

THE THOUSAND YARD WRITER’S STARE

When I was young, I remember thinking that what I wanted, above all, was a life full of adventure.

Where did such notions come from? Blame books of high adventure too numerous to count; a vast number of movies; and a rather extraordinary home life dominated by my very difficult but charismatic mother—who believed that life should always be both interesting and entertaining.

I wasn’t thinking in terms of military adventures, or climbing Mount Everest (I hate heights though admire the courage of the intrepid who defy them). Instead, I craved unusual situations, encounters with fascinating people, involvements in ground-breaking projects, and travel to stimulating locations—all spiced with enough intrigue and danger to keep the adrenalin flowing. I have too much imagination to be physically brave, but if I sense there is a story in a situation—an adventure by definition—I tend to subordinate my fears and thrown caution to the winds. Afterwards, there tends to be a reaction, and I swear I won’t put myself in harm’s way again—but then another crazy situation looms, and I can’t resist. I’m not so much an adrenalin junkie, as curious.

I also thought it would be decidedly pleasant to punctuate such an existence with  an active love life—preferably with highly intelligent and sexual women. I have never seen the attraction of bimbos, but I find a good brain combined with wit—and that certain something—immensely appealing.

Needless to say, the pressures of real life initially conspired me to put my ambitions on the back-burner, get a real job, and get married—but eventually my true nature broke through the barriers that guarded my conventional existence—and after that I pretty much lived as I had hoped to, and paid the attendant price of insecurity, and of being something of a social outcast. Where adults are concerned, the world, after all, is primarily structured for married couples—or, at least couples. The intermittently single adventurer is not much catered for.

It is actually better to travel alone if one’s objective is to accumulate experiences to write about. You are totally focused on the task at hand; you are seen as less of a threat; people invite you into their company; you can write as and when you want, and you can go where your instincts dictate.

Do I have regrets I haven’t lived a more stable life and done all the sensible things people should do to provide for themselves in their old age? Well, I have regrets about all sorts of things—normally involving people—but, in all honesty I cannot regret the fundamental choices I have made. Overall, difficult though it has been at times, I have had a fascinating life and have been involved with some truly wonderful women along the way (together with a few who were not so wonderful).

In contrast, subject to some exceptions, I found normal work soul deadening and dull to the point of bringing on madness. In addition, I find I can’t really buy into an economic system which allows a few people to become immensely rich, but squeezes the economic life out of the majority in the most blatant manner. Not only do I believe there has to be a better way, but I have seen it. An economy such as this doesn’t have to ratchet down the earnings of the Middle Class month by month, have nearly 48 million people on food-stamps, have its infrastructure in urgent need of 2.5 trillion dollars worth of repair, be over $16 trillion in debt, and lock up 2.3 million of its citizens. There are better ways to run a nation—and I live in hopes Americans will soon wake up to that fact.

For my part, after the vicissitudes of the last few weeks—I count five serious setbacks in all—I am currently in THOUSAND YARD WRITER’S STARE mode—but before you assume I have hit burnout, appreciate that no small part of that look is searching for the next adventure.

I may be shaken, stirred and shattered—but one recovers—and I am ever curious.

You’ll be able to read all about this in CONFESSIONS OF A BOOK-WRITING MAN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 98

A HORSE, A HORSE! MY KINGDOM FOR A CAT!

I am, of course, joking. After my recent experience, it will be a long day in hell before I wish for a living, breathing cat. In fact, I have long held the view that if a writer wants to have a pet, it should be stuffed because real live pets are distracting. Much the same applies to babies—which should be kept in the washing machine (I write on the basis of some experience—I am the eldest of 12 and the father of 5). As for wives (or husbands), I’m not sure we should have them. Writers—of either sex—are notoriously difficult to live with; and all of us are polygamists at heart.

Lovers? But, of course. Writers need sex—for relief and research purposes—and there is nothing more romantic than love without commitment (unless it is love with commitment).

It’s tough being a writer. On the one hand we exist to illuminate the human condition; but on the other hand humans are grossly distracting in a work environment where focus is all.

As you may gather, I’m going mildly stir crazy. It has been a week, and I’m not yet over my bug, though both my appetite and energy seem to be returning, which is a decided relief. A warm bed, a good book and lots of sleep are working yet again—and without medication. Yet, I have a great deal of work to do and would like to get at it. What to do? I shall ask Voltaire. He has views on most things.

No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking."
--Voltaire,
French writer, historian and philosopher

Doubtless very true—but not much help. Also, one of the side effects of being sick is that you don’t think as clearly as when you are well; and I’m still running a temperature.

Back to bed, and a book, and sleep.

 

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 97

CATASTROPHE! THE TORTOISE & THE NIGHTMARE CATS

For the purposes of this blog, I am the tortoise—largely because my little publishing project is coming together so slowly. That said, it is coming together, piece by piece—a veritable mosaic of enterprise—modest enough in itself, but immensely satisfying to me.

Sometimes I don’t really notice the very real progress I am making. I guess distraction has a great deal to do with it. To quote an old saying: “When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to recall that your task is to drain the swamp.”

Well, alligators weren’t my problem recently: Cats were. I suspect I would have preferred alligators. They would, at least have had novelty value—and I could have let them loose in the corridors of this condo building for entertainment.

The elderly two cats proved to be a much more serious distraction than I could ever have imagined—because they were cats from hell! I had them to stay because my friend, Jane Carrdus, had just had a hip transplant; and she rightly felt she could not cope until she was somewhat recovered. I was glad to oblige—little knowing what lay ahead. Also, though not particularly a pet person, I have, in the past, had a long and happy history with cats—though they were all active animals and spent a great deal of time outdoors.

Nonetheless, there is a big difference between one’s own cats and someone else's (I guess it is probably the same with alligators). Also, I now live in an apartment six floors up so cats can’t wander and do what cats do in the great outdoors. On the other hand, they came with a litter tray and were, supposedly, trained to use it.

No good deed remains unpunished. Charlie (Charlotte), a striking white cat with three legs and considerable intelligence, dutifully used the convenience provided—but then threw up on the carpet just about every day. Chester, a beautiful Himalayan of no brain and worse habits, did not throw up, but decided that real tom cats didn’t use litter trays—and opted for my floor and elsewhere instead. And when he wasn’t asleep, he howled; and howled; and howled. Oddly enough, he even howled after he was fed.

Because Jane—who is eccentric—normally gets up at around 3.00 am to start her day (she likes to have her evenings in the mornings) and feeds the cats then, both animals expected me to do the same. If I didn’t oblige them, both scratched at my door and Chester howled; and howled; and howled. And so on.

Multiply by three and a half weeks, and the consequences can be imagined. Think water-boarding. As they say, everyone breaks. And writing requires a well rested brain and absolute focus!

Fortunately, I was able to return the wretched animals last Saturday. Jane is recovering at a rapid rate, and positively glowing with energy and good health. Clearly, we should all have such surgery.

I am in bed, ill, trying to catch up on my sleep, and suffering from the aftereffects of PCSD (post cat stress disorder) which has symptoms akin to bad flu—and may need to be treated with alcohol. And so much time has been lost! Grrr…

But wait: Doesn’t a cat called Charlie feature in my latest thriller, THE BOOK-LOVER’S MOVE? Indeed he does—and his fate lies in my hands.

It’s fun to be a writer; and quite tolerable being a tortoise.

 

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 96

BACK IN THE OLDEN DAYS…WHEN GRAMMAR & PUNCTUATION RULED MY WRITING WORLD

I blush to admit it, but it has been so long since I studied grammar and punctuation that I have forgotten most of the terminology. True, I can recognize a noun in good light, and almost everyone knows what an adjective is, but when one gets into more arcane terminology, and its rules, I’m in trouble. Ask me what a preposition is, and I’ll stutter and stammer.

I guess that is a terrible thing for writer to admit, but it is no more than the truth in my case. Instead I rely on my muscle memory to do the right thing, and I guess it is a tribute to my early education that—mostly--it doesn’t let me down. Nonetheless, like most writers, I still develop bad habits and make mistakes, so need to be corrected every now and then; and I put considerable effort into self-correcting. In particular, I tend to read and re-read my work as if I was reading out loud—and if the rhythm is not right, I correct accordingly. But no, my lips do not move when I read.

Recently, I’ve decided to brush up on my school-work—one should revise every half century or so—and here let me refer you to the rather marvelous Jane Strauss who knows how to explain all this stuff with impressive clarity. Highly recommended.

Grammar and Punctuation come into the “Know the rules to break the rules category”—in that they allow considerable flexibility. In contrast, spelling is just something you have to get right.

Personally, I take the view that I need all the help I can get—especially with spelling—and make extensive use of Microsoft Word’s spelling and grammatical aids.

But you make mistakes in your blogs! I hear you cry. Yes, I do—and I’m not happy about it—but here time is an issue, because I have real writing work to get to. This is not to decry the value of blogs, but more to say that I cannot afford to be too perfectionist about such informal musings.

I shall try to improve.

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 95

A PERSUASIVE CHART—BUT IS IT THE WHOLE TRUTH?

Every now and then my keen interest in economics breaks through even though this blog is primarily to do with my creative writing—and all that goes with it. Then again, why cannot one write about economics creatively—well, in style anyway? Being creative with facts is frowned upon unless one is of a political persuasion.

The merit of the above chart is that it is extremely clear. On the face of it, it implies that if you don’t get yourself a good education, you are toast from an earnings point of view—and have no one to blame but yourself.

Certainly, this argument is much advanced by the Right Wing who are addicted to the ideological notion that we should should all be rugged individualists who should be able to fend for ourselves. Once you are out of diapers, you are on your own, kid!

While not denying for a moment the importance of education, and the concept of personal responsibility, it seems to me that other issues are in play here too.

• Though numerous reports have commented on the generally poor state of U.S. K12 education, we seem to be remarkably slow at improving it.
• If we really believe that U.S. education is as important as we preach, then why don’t we invest in it?
• Since most competitive educational systems are reasonably transparent and have been researched thoroughly, why don’t we copy their best features—instead of almost making a point of doing something different?
• Why shouldn’t corporations—whose profits have never been higher—accept much more responsibility for both education and training?
• Could it be that the downward pressure on the earnings of all except college graduates and above, have as much to do with the corporate war on labor (which includes the destruction of the unions) as anything else?

As matters stand, we seem to be set on a path of creating an ever larger underclass—with the children of the fast declining Middle Class being mired in ever increasing debt if they want to go to college.

How is it that our competition do so much better?

One extra thing: the above chart understates the situation. Matters have deteriorated considerably since the Great Recession.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 94

UX AND THE CONFUSION OF CHOICE

I doubt very much that it is possible for someone who hasn’t been through a World War to appreciate both its immediate impact and its consequences. I was alive for only one year of the European War—I was born in May 1944—but my early years were spent living with the truly disastrous consequences. Europe was wrecked, drained and exhausted; and Britain, and its fast fading empire, were scarcely in better shape.

We lived in Britain for much of the first six years of my life—and I went to boarding school there from the age of nine. Primarily, I recall extensive bomb and missile damage in London, and shortages of just about all the basics—rationing was still very much in force—and consumer goods were practically non existent. Then, when the latter did appear, the quality was awful. British manufactured goods seemed to be particularly bad. Whatever about Britain’s pioneering role in the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century, its design and manufacturing expertise had largely been replaced by myth in the mid 20th. It all added up to an impressive lack of choice—and there were even fewer good choices. Indeed, not infrequently, there were none.

I have been thinking about that period while familiarizing myself with Windows 8. While I’m impressed with it in many ways, I cannot help thinking that Microsoft’s consistent habit of presenting the user with numerous different ways of doing the same thing is choice carried to excess. It is as if its designers lack faith in their own instincts and judgment, so are adding complexity instead of clarity—and have never heard of simplicity.

Such an approach also creates false choice. Here I am reminded of breakfast cereals or financial products where endless variations on a theme disguise both poor quality, and the lack of any genuine consumer concern.

Microsoft could bring genuine choice to the marketplace by introducing a completely new computer operating system free of the tortuous inner workings of Windows (which means that it can never be as innately reliable as it needs to be). Instead, it worships at the altar of backward compatibility, and eschews vision, clarity, simplicity and reliability.

This is the classic behavior of a corporate monopolist.

UX, by the way, is an acronym for ‘User Experience,’ and Microsoft prides itself on its investment in this area. The results have been excellent in some areas—such as in relation to Hotmail/Outlook and SkyDrive—and decidedly erratic in others, such as Windows 8.

The lack of direction, and of a clear and consistent vision, is palpable.

There is lack of choice—which few of us would wish for—real choice, where one can select between competing visions of quality—and the illusion of choice, where near monopolistic corporations offer endless variety of the mediocre backed by a permanent barrage of advertising.

Real choice would be a fine thing.