Saturday, July 19, 2014

July 2014: Andy Rooney on women over 40

The age of a woman doesn't mean a thing. The best tunes are played on the oldest fiddles.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.

Timothy Leary


FILE - In this Aug. 23, 2011 file image taken from video and provided by CBS, Andy Rooney tapes his last regular appearance on “60 Minutes” in New York. CBS says former "60 Minutes" commentator Andy Rooney died Friday Nov. 4, 2011 at age 92. (AP Photo/CBS)

This is hilarious. I’m surprised I haven’t run across it before. Given the extraordinary number of attractive women over 40 who seem to be around these days, I would say—if anything—it understates the case.

"As I grow in age, I value women over 40 most of all. Here are just a few reasons why:

“A woman over 40 will never wake you in the middle of the night and ask, 'What are you thinking?' She doesn't care what you think.

“If a woman over 40 doesn't want to watch the game, she doesn't sit around whining about it. She does something she wants to do, and it's usually more interesting...

“Women over 40 are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won't hesitate to shoot you, if they think they can get away with it.

“Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what it's like to be unappreciated.

“Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a woman over 40.

“Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over 40 is far sexier than her younger counterpart.

“Older women are forthright and honest. They'll tell you right off if you are a jerk, if you are acting like one. You don't ever have to wonder where you stand with her.

“Yes, we praise women over 40 for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately, it's not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffed, hot woman over 40, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22-year old waitress.

“Ladies, I apologize for all those men who say, 'Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Here's an update for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage. Why? Because women realize it's not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage!”


July 19 2014: Could we really fill our oceans with plastic? And, by the way, why would we want to do that?

“Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans.”
Jacques-Yves Cousteau


“You wouldn't think you could kill an ocean, would you? But we'll do it one day. That's how negligent we are.”
Ian Rankin, Blood Hunt


As best I can recall, I first became environmentally aware, in the sense of feeling personally concerned and outraged—when I was 16—so we are talking 1960 here.

I was visiting the Aran Islands—off the West Coast of Ireland—for the first time, and had fallen in love with the location. The islands were wild, wind-blasted, and wonderful—and achingly beautiful in a barren, rocky, inhospitable sort-of way.

Rugged or not, they were inhabited by equally wild, wind-blasted, and wonderful people—who still spoke Irish in those days, and dressed in traditional clothing.

It was another world—and, at that time—virtually free of modern appliances and amenities. If you wanted to fish, or travel to another island, or the mainland, you rowed in a traditional currach—once covered in animal skins, but now made from pitched canvas over a light wooden frame—frail transport indeed in the context of the awesome power and unpredictability of the Atlantic. But the Aran islanders are—of necessity—a hardy people.

The Aran Islands—as my readers will speedily deduce—led to my creation of Fitzduane’s fictional island, where the protagonist of many of my novels, Hugo Fitzduane, lives.

Then my friend and I came to the stony beach of the largest of the three islands, Inishmor, and we were somewhat shaken to see that this unspoiled gem of a place—as we had thought—was polluted with debris clearly brought in by the Atlantic tide.

It all seemed so wrong.

Little more than half a century later, I find it hard know what to say when I contemplate the damage we have done to the environment—and in particular to the oceans.

These gyres of waste plastic are bad enough—and the scale is frightening—but the situation is worse still when it is realized that an additional quantity has been pulverized and has ended up in the food chain—and who knows where else, and with what side effects.

Actions have consequences. Treating the only earth we’ve got in the way we do is going to have the severest of consequences.

It makes me sad—but glad I’m a writer. I can fight back, even if only a little. But if enough of us fight back…

So far, there are not enough of us. I’m confident there will be. Whether we’ll be in time is another matter.

Print


Friday, July 18, 2014

July 18 2014: Zero based creativity! Is there such a thing? If there isn’t there should be.

Curiosity is key to creative thinkers. They are always asking questions, and always seeking knowledge.

Creative thinkers have a willingness to change. The recognition that unwillingness or inability to change is fatal is something they have. By being able to change they are in charge of their lives, as they can adapt and have more mental flexibility. This is an important quality.

Highly creative thinkers have the ability to admit their wrong. Instead of wasting time defending against admitting they made a wrong decision they move on, admit their mistake, and learn from it. Truly intelligent, highly creative people are open minded, fluid, flexible and willing to admit mistakes – which ultimately make them freer. Not fearing failure is essential to success.

Cait Hurst, Nero Global Tracking


The supersonic bi-directional flying wing (SBiDir-FW) aircraft in low-speed configuration ...

There seems to be a profound human tendency to assume that just because things operate a certain way—or we think and behave a certain way—that’s the natural order of things.

We have a tendency to do this even though intellectually we may know perfectly well that our current assumptions would have been entirely different a few hundred years ago—and quite likely will be different again a few decades in the future. Or even tomorrow. We are conditioned—both by human nature and by vested interests—to embrace the status quo. We do so willingly. It’s familiar and it’s comfortable.

It seems clear that we crave a high degree of predictability in our lives—and though we accept a degree of change—by and large we would prefer that it be minimal.

Yet creativity is all about change—and one of the best ways of inducing creative thoughts is to question the fundamental.

Should citizenship be attached to a particular geographical entity—or could it be global and relate to a particular set of beliefs?

Do we really need an Army, Navy, Marines, and the Air Force—organizations which spend a great deal of time, energy, and resources competing with other—or might we be better off with one defense service?

Could a car-free city work?

The team that came up with the supersonic bi-directional flying wing seem to have been asking such fundamental questions. The solutions they have come up with are both simple in concept—and ingenious. Let me quote Gizmag on the subject.

Aircraft design is usually a compromise between subsonic and supersonic performance. At low speeds, broad wings provide more lift and help minimize takeoff distance, while swept back wings with a smaller profile enhance performance at high speeds. Variable-sweep wing (or swing wing) aircraft, such as the F-14 Tomcat and B-1 Lancer, get around this with wings that are spread broadly at takeoff and low speeds and can be swept back while in flight for improved performance at high speeds.

The supersonic bi-directional flying wing (SBiDir-FW) aircraft tackles the problem in a different way. It would take off in one orientation with broader wings, before rotating 90 degrees in flight to transition to high-speed mode with a shorter wing span.

“No matter how fast a supersonic plane can fly, it needs to take off and land at very low speed, which severely hurts the high-speed supersonic performance for a conventional airplane,” said Ge-Chen Zha, a professor in the University of Miami’s College of Engineering and principal investigator of the project. “The SBiDir-FW removes this performance conflict by rotating the airplane to fly in two different directions at subsonic and supersonic. Such rotation enables the SBiDir-FW to achieve superior performance at both supersonic and subsonic speeds.”

Zha hopes his SBiDir-FW will produce no sonic boom, have low supersonic wave drag, and low fuel consumption. A preliminary computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation for a SBiDir-FW business jet indicates that at speeds of Mach 1.6 to 2.0, there is no sonic boom.

“I am hoping to develop an environmentally friendly and economically viable airplane for supersonic civil transport in the next 20 to 30 years,” said Zha. “Imagine flying from New York to Tokyo in four hours instead of 15 hours.”

The $100,000 NIAC grant is intended to help the research team refine the aircraft design using CFD, examine the feasibility of the design, and conduct wind tunnel testing to verify the aircraft’s performance at supersonic speeds and its sonic boom signature. If all goes well, the team will be eligible for an addition $500,000 to continue development of the aircraft.


Thursday, July 17, 2014

July 17 2014: Militarily, Gaza is confusing—but we should pay close attention. We are strong in conventional weaponry, have access to nuclear if needed, have magnificent soldiers—but there is one force we continue to fail to master. It’s called credible communication. Let me emphasize the second last word.

“Half the published articles on Gaza contain a standard reference to its resemblance to a vast open-air prison (and when I last saw it under Israeli occupation it certainly did deserve this metaphor). The problem is that, given its ideology and its allies, Hamas qualifies rather too well in the capacity of guard and warder.”

 Christopher Hitchens


As part of my general interest in matters military—and of my planned military novel in particular—I have been trying to think through both some of the general trends in combat, and how the U.S., in particular, could change to best advantage.

This is too vast a subject to cover adequately in a post—or even a series of posts—but let me make one important point inspired by the Gaza situation.

Militarily, Israel is extremely strong—virtually across the board—and PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions such as bombs and missiles) are so accurate and destructive today, that I have to wonder how Gaza can sustain such a long bombardment without folding—while continuing to fire considerable quantities of rockets into Israel. 

I can only conclude that Israel must be showing quite astonishing restraint—while not getting much credit for it—and that Hamas must be extraordinarily ingenious at concealing their weapons amongst the civilian population. There is no other credible explanation that I can think of as to why so many days of bombardment can result in such minimal casualties while also failing to suppress the Hamas rockets. Here, I don’t wish to minimize the tragedy of some 220 dead and over 1,000 injured—but to emphasize these are very low figures to result from nine days of air, missile, and artillery assault by one of the most effective military organizations in the world.

The situation also makes the point that the public affairs battle is assuming ever greater proportions in a manner which is far from evident in conflicts such as Syria. But soon there won’t be a conflict anywhere where credible communication won’t be fundamental (temporary exceptions might be a few locked-down totalitarian states). 

My point is that Gaza makes no military sense as such—by traditional military standards—but it certainly demonstrates the constraints which seem to be increasingly applied to a modern military force. True, there is nothing new in this, but I think the degree to which information warfare is becoming important is new. Call it an increase in emphasis, if you will.

Is information warfare the same as credible communication? Actually no, but let’s not get technical at this stage.

Given the internet, social media, and a generation which has grown up entirely familiar with such tools, we shouldn’t be surprised at all this—though the rate of growth, penetration—and impact—of  such technologies and practices—is decidedly disconcerting if you have spent most of your career without them.

Is the U.S. prepared for such developments? Let me comment on the Army in particular (because I know it best, and monitor it most closely). Given our extensive experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, we certainly should be—but I don’t think we are—and I’m speaking from personal experience as well as general observation.

Why not? It would take a book to explain in the sort of nuanced detail that is required—but here are some initial observations:

  • The U.S. Army is quite astonishingly resistant to change. Put a little crudely, its culture says, “We whipped the bastards in two world wars—so why should we change. Besides, look what we did in the first Gulf War. We are still the greatest.” Yes, I know I’m ignoring Vietnam, and a few other conflicts where we have not exactly excelled—but I’m talking mindset here—not facts.
  • Culturally, the Army not only does not understand the media (let alone social media) but is actively hostile to it. It’s general reaction to any negative story, for instance, is to batten down the hatches and go all defensive. The view is that lying to defend the name of the Army is the right thing to do.
  • The Army hates to fess up. The concept of credibility is just not understood. Where possible, controversial matters are buried as being “under investigation,” and such “investigations” drag on until the heat is off. Just about everything is classified.
  • Fundamentally—culturally (and perhaps literally)—the Army believes the best way to communicate is with firepower.
  • The Army is weak at communicating internally. The branch system is one reason for this—and rank is another. The branch system means that armor types don’t listen to airborne troops—and vice-versa; and, needless to say, no one listens to logisticians. As for rank, higher primarily want lower to obey—and only to proffer advice (in the approved structured manner) if asked. The trouble with discipline, as implemented (and there are other ways), is that it is extremely authoritarian and antithetical to open communication. A consequence of this weak internal communication is that it is harder than it need be to change the culture—even if the proponent of such change is the Chief of Staff.
  • The Army is particularly weak at communicating externally—even to its friends (who it frequently fails to recognize). For instance, there are some outstanding retired Army officers and other constructive critics of the Army who constitute an unofficial brains trust—and which could be tapped into—but which is largely ignored. The core thinking behind Army external communication—leaving the media out of it for the moment—is that if the Army communicates with its senior retired generals, and with the main defense contractors (the deeply corrupt MICC or Military Industrial Congressional Complex Contractors which President Eisenhower rightly warned about in his farewell speech) all is well. But that is not the case. There is virtually no relationship between advanced military thinking and a star.
  • The Army is woefully short of the kind of people who understand, have the ability, and are willing to execute credible communication. This is an issue of critical importance. The trouble is the kind of person the Army needs for communication is the kind of person the Army likes to weed out. As far as the officer corps is concerned, the Army has a bias towards jocks who “go along to get along.” It positively hates original thinkers (and has no system for identifying and promoting them—only an informal, but highly effective one, for kicking them out). This isn’t to say it doesn’t contain some very bright people—though not nearly enough—but, being intelligent, they soon learn that if they want to get promoted, they should keep their mouths shut, and go with the flow. There is a saying that a U.S. Army his officer will lay down his life before he will risk his career—and, sadly, in my experience—it is mostly true.

Here endeth the lesson. It may be the most useful one I’ll ever deliver to the Army. Will anyone listen?

I haven’t given up hope entirely—but I’m not holding my breath. Changing an institution’s culture—let alone a military institution’s—is a formidable task and rarely done. Where it is, the following elements are required: a recognition of the problem; a crisis; quite exceptional leadership; ruthlessness.

Has it even been done? Yes it has—and by the U.S. Army at that. The leader involved was General George Marshall and the crisis is better known as WW II.

A decade or so later, the IDF (Israel Defense Force)—shortly after its formation—had its culture drastically shaken up by Moshe Dayan. The consequences of his reforms—in terms of enhanced military effectiveness—have lasted to this day.


 

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

July 16 2014: Love of story, love of being read to as a child, love of my grandmother, love of elephants—and memories of Elephant Bill

ELEPHANT COMPANY

The Inspiring Story of an Unlikely Hero and the Animals Who Helped Him Save Lives in World War II

By Vicki Constantine Croke

Illustrated. 343 pp. Random House. $28.

A book comes along like this once in a lifetime. You read it as a small child, or even an adult, and never forget the images it conjures up of a wonderful Englishman who lives in the mysterious forests of faraway Burma and of the kind native people who teach him about their lovely country. But most of all, you never forget the elephants! For this is a story about those magnificent creatures. Though he was officially known as Lt. Colonel J. H. Williams, the author was known to the world at large as “Elephant Bill.” That is because he spent 25 years living with the elephants in the mountains and forests of Burma.

Amazon review

The above review refers to the original ELEPHANT BILL but Vicki Constantine Croke’s new biography, ELEPHANT COMPANY, is just as well reviewed.


 

13elephant-master675

Stories have astonishing power, appeal, and durability—to the point where you would have to wonder. After all, the real world is so remarkable in itself—on just about every level—that you might think that reality alone would be enough.

Consider the endless wonders of nature and the fascinating developments in technology just by themselves. Surely, these should be adequately fulfilling.

Clearly they are not—because we fill our lives with stories at every conceivable opportunity. Some, of course, are true—or as true as we humans can manage (which is decidedly not the same thing) but many—probably most—are not. Somehow, we crave fiction. It is so often more satisfying than real life, it is free of the friction that characterizes reality—and it is certainly neater. It also distracts, entertains, educates, gives hope, and satisfies deeply.

In fact, when you think about it, it is hard not to ponder the notion that we might be vastly more content if we lived largely escapist lives—and the reality is that many of us do—and probably are wise to do so. Reality is a fine and necessary thing, but it can be wearing in excess.

As I consider this, I find it hard not to be struck by how vulnerable this human need for  the impossible expectations raised by fiction makes us to manipulation. We seem to need to be lied to. We pay lip service to rational thought and the truth—but we certainly aren’t rational, and we virtually run from reality towards myth if given a choice.

Still, that’s a heavier subject than I want to deal with today—and the truth is that my concerns about the abuses to which the story can be put (which are considerable) are outweighed by the fact that reading, crafting, writing, editing, polishing, and publishing stories is my life—and where all aspects of writing are concerned (apart from the interruptions which stop me writing) it is a joyous one.

I was introduced to stories by my much loved grandmother, Vida Lentaigne. Due to my mother’s tumultuous life—not to mention her uncertain talents for motherhood, and our difficult relationship—I spent a great deal of time with my grandmother when I was small, and one of her habits and pleasures was to read to me.

She was a wonderful and patient reader—and she introduced me to all the classic children’s stories from The Jungle Book to Winnie The Pooh—and left me thrilled, fascinated, and arguably singularly ill-prepared for real life. Life, as described in these stories, was excitement and high adventure—and positively never boring.

Being read to is a very special thing because the experience is not just that of the story itself, but of the intimacy and coziness of the situation. In my case, much of it happened at my grandmother’s farm in Brittas Bay, Co. Wicklow, Ireland—a place she had bought specially for us children. However, since I was the eldest, and the child regarded as most trouble by my mother, I was often sent there alone—so had both my grandmother and the farm to myself for some years. In fact, initially I was quite taken aback when eventually I was joined by various siblings and sundry cousins. The magic time when I was alone with my grandmother was over. But the important thing—which I have come to appreciate more and more over the years—was that it had happened. It anchored me emotionally in a way that my troubled home life and endless years at boarding school certainly did not. Also, I remained very close to my grandmother for the rest of her life.

Eventually, granny moved from what were primarily children’s stories to a wonderful series of books written by a memorable character called Elephant Bill. These were of particular significance to my grandmother because they were set in Burma, where my grandmother had spent most of her short but deliriously happy marriage. In fact, my mother was actually born in Burma.

Sadly, my grandfather, John Lentaigne, having made it through WW I (unlike so many of his peers) joined the British administration in Burma after leaving the army (he was a Ghurka officer) and there, after all too brief a time, succumbed to cholera. Before he died, he asked two things of my grandmother: that she become a Catholic so that she could bring up my mother in that religion; and that she return to Ireland, my grandfather’s homeland.

My grandmother did as my grandfather had wished—but Burma always retained a very special place in her heart. That gave a special quality to her reading of the Elephant Bill books.

Regarding her return to Ireland, as it happened she arrived during the civil war that followed the signing of the contentious treaty with Britain that gave Ireland independence—but grandfather could scarcely have anticipated that. Her subsequent career in Ireland was distinguished and she made significant contributions to the new state. She was also one of the first people to draw attention to the potential menace of Ireland’s new Fascist Party “The Blue Shirts,” and helped to ensure that it was crushed.

I hadn’t thought of Elephant Bill for years until, a couple of days ago, I read a glowing review of a biography of him. Who would have thought that after all this time he would be remembered—but, by all accounts, he really was a remarkable man—and his empathy for animals was extraordinary. All in all, it’s a fine thing that he is not forgotten.

I think of my grandmother with love and gratitude every day.


Tuesday, July 15, 2014

July 15 2014: Gargantuan simplicity: “To illuminate the human condition.” And how bloody impossible.

That is, there are no dangerous thoughts for the simple reason that thinking itself is such a dangerous enterprise.  . . . non-thinking is even more dangerous.

Hannah Arendt


I have always loved the idea that it is the role of a writer, “to illuminate the human condition.” It is noteworthy for what it leaves out. It doesn’t say, “Illuminate and improve the human condition,” and it doesn’t add the words “through entertainment.”

Hollywood must be shitting bricks (so to speak)!

It just lays out the task in all its gargantuan simplicity.

As far as I am concerned, it’s a task that more than justifies a writer’s existence. It is also impossible for too many reasons to mention—starting with the fact that we don’t really know how another person thinks (except in the most superficial way). 

What we do learn very quickly is that what people say and do are frequently entirely different, that interpersonal relationships are fraught with confusion and misunderstandings, and that the written word—while quite wonderful if used with style, passion, and integrity, is only revealing up to a point.

In short, one of the many odd things about humans is that we don’t have a way of communicating adequately. We make do with workarounds. We are pretty damn primitive in the communications department.

Fortunately, the phrase doesn’t concern itself with degree. A writer’s illumination may be dim, indeed, but it is still preferable to the darkness of ignorance. A little information allows the imagination to go to work—though whether accurately or not is another matter entirely. In truth, the consequences of such illumination may be disastrous. The phrase is entirely non-judgmental. It may open the door to the gates of hell—because the human condition may be just that.

Do I know—after all these years writing? The acceptable response is: “I’m optimistic.” Mine is not. I have no idea.

The consequences of a writer’s work are unpredictable. Arguably, that makes a writer mildly dangerous. Actually, if you consider all the political movements, other causes, and sheer mayhem that have stemmed from the written word, you’d have to wonder why we writers are allowed to walk the streets.

Sometimes we are not.


Monday, July 14, 2014

July 14 2012: How important is food? Try not eating and find out.

We may find in the long run that tinned food is a deadlier weapon than the machine-gun.

George Orwell


It is hard not to notice how often some plant we take for granted—such as spinach—turns out to have extraordinary medicinal properties (if one ignores the pesticides and herbicides we use to such excess, and with such abandon). I put forward spinach as an example—not because I have an inside track on its enhancing properties. So restrain that desire to corner the spinach market.

Over time—and it has taken me much longer than it should have—this has led me to the view that food is much more important than we give it credit for—and that we are almost certainly poisoning ourselves on a massive scale. Here, I am not referring to cyanide-type poisoning (where you get a satisfying near-instant death) but more a long, slow degradation of the quality of our lives which manifests itself as some kind of chronic condition (cancer, autism, an intestinal disorder—pick your ailment). “Slow poisoning” isn’t quite the right descriptive phrase to use (and besides Lucretia Borgia has virtually hogged it) so the term I have adopted is “lifestyle poisoning”—but the field is open.

But our longevity is increasing, I hear you say.

Well, that may be true overall—but it is heavily dependent on  income, race, and other social factors—so if you look at the figures in detail, they are a lot less reassuring. Secondly, we appear to be living longer sicker. Thirdly, our Canadian neighbors and the citizens of most other developed nations outlive us by two to three years. Multiply that by our population of roughly 316 million—and that adds up to roughly a billion years of human potential lost. That’s nearly a shocking enough figure to attract Congressional attention (though maybe not).

Food is confusing stuff because even while it is poisoning us, it is also keeping us alive. For instance, I managed to injure myself three months ago and didn’t seem to be recovering as fast as expected. Well, the body takes time to heal if grossly abused—but it was more than that—I was lacking energy. However, I was trying to recover while on rather a rigid diet which I had not modified after I was injured.

Two friends and an e-mail from the estimable Dr. Mercola identified the issue with ease—I wasn’t eating enough protein. I had overdone the vegetarian thing. A couple of helpings of dead cow and I was chipper again.

Why had I cut back on eggs, meat and fish? I have no idea. I can only plead that I must have struck my head in the fall.