(#92-1) January1, 2015. Consumerism has pushed us towards an instant satisfaction culture. Financialization has made short-termism endemic. I don’t much believe in either. But, there is a great deal I do believe in.

A TRUTH I BELIEVE IN—WORTHWHILE THINGS TAKE LONGER THAN YOU WOULD THINK. BUT HERE IS THE POINT: THEY ARE WORTHWHILE.

SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE, YOU HAVE HAD THE GUTS AND FORTITUDE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

STEVE JOBS THOUGHT SO TOO

“Even a small thing takes a few years. To do anything of magnitude takes at least five years, more likely seven or eight.” [1995]

I have read a great deal about Steve Jobs—both good and bad—but don’t recall seeing the above quote before. Yesterday I stumbled across it and it hit me with considerable force. It expresses exactly what I have found and believe in. It is a truth.

It is just as well that I do because I certainly wouldn’t have enjoyed any success as a writer if I hadn’t endured over what many would consider an unreasonable period of time and paid an unreasonable price.

Here, I am reminded of something my former boss, mentor, and friend, Art Damschen,  once said when I was in business and running the UK subsidiary of the Addmaster Corporation.

“Victor,” he remarked, “you are not at your best when being reasonable.”

I was quite taken aback by his observation—as was often the case. Art wasn’t particularly innovative, but he was perceptive, had good judgment, and admired my creativity and originality. He didn’t like it when I lacked the courage of my convictions. He didn’t admire “going along to get along” (to quote an expression common in the Army). He could also be cutting to the point of being cruel. When Art spoke, I paid attention.

Even though it was against his own interests, and those of our company—because I was a valued and appreciated employee at the time—Art encouraged my impossible dream of becoming a writer. Memorably, he gave me a copy of the Jack Hoffenberg book, A Raging Talent.

It was a significant compliment and scarcely a subtle hint. I owe a great deal to Art. He allowed me considerable operational freedom while still keeping adequate control. He was the antithesis of authoritarian but I never doubted his authority. I respected the man. Though I didn’t think of it that way at the time, I loved him.

I met up with him in La Jolla after I had become a Best Selling Author shortly before died. He was as charming, amusing, and cruel as ever. “Victor,” he said. “You’ll never be thin.”

Ironically, Art, a slim good-looking man, who had aged well, had acquired a small pot-belly. I let the remark pass. I thought he was probably right.

As it happens, he was wrong—and dead of a heart attack within months. I miss him.

I admire reasonable, rational people who are willing to compromise, but there is a thin line between reasonableness and spinelessness which you cross at your peril. Yet the the pressure to conform is relentless—and conformity kills creativity.

The main thing I regret—as a consequence of taking the long view (I tend to think of it as ‘thinking strategically’)—is how you lose so much of your base of support.

Here, I am not just talking about supporters in general—but those near and dear to you including close friends and family members, those you loved and depended upon emotionally—those you thought would stay with you through thick and thin.

Some do. Many, sometimes most, don’t. 

People lose not just faith in you, but respect as well. That breaks trust—and trust, once broken, is notoriously hard to re-establish. In fact—except in rare cases—it cannot be re-established. The best that can be done is to regain what we writers like to think of as a ‘level of trust.’

Not the same thing at all—but better than nothing, and the best most of us flawed humans can do.

Why do I take the long view? I can but theorize.

• When you ask many people what they want out of life, they often say—or write—’fun.’ They want to enjoy themselves. I don’t really think that way. I have a sense of humor and enjoy dinner with friends as much as anyone—but fundamentally I get my satisfaction, and enormous pleasure, from doing. Does that make me a serious person (as the French would say)? It probably does—but not, I hope, a dull one. 
• I tend to attempt difficult things and rarely succeed first time. That means I am pretty much forced to take the longer view. But, failure is a great teacher, so I tend to improve.Fail enough times and success has a habit of sneaking up on you. Success is pretty sneaky—and can be downright treacherous. I have to wonder why we pursue it so. Struggle is much more reliable. It is pretty much a guaranteed service.
• I learned to endure both at home and at boarding school. I had no choice in the matter. An unhappy upbringing has its advantages.
• Reading cultivates a historical perspective. Also, the characters in the books I both read (and write) normally go through hell before succeeding—and, even if they succeed, there is a price. Such is life. It keeps it interesting. Besides, if there was no struggle, what would we write about? You have to learn to see life from the point of view of a writer.
• My much loved grandmother achieved great things during her life—but they all took time. She didn’t stress this. She thought it was normal—and, thus, so do I. She was heavily involved in social change—and successful—but such change took decades. We talked about all this a great deal, over many years, and I absorbed her ethos.
• Experience. I have learned that most things take longer than you might expect, but that you can accomplish the near impossible if you stay with it.
• Struggle can break you, but it can also build character. I would like to improve my character more than just about anything. I think it is the purpose of life.

Many people not only crave social acceptance and the respect of their peers—but need it to the point of dependency. That is very understandable because most of us are conditioned that way by our home environments, our schools, and our institutions. We want to be liked. We prefer to be popular. We certainly don’t want to be excluded.

Deep down, I am as much of an emotional slob as the rest of mankind, but I’m not as people-dependent as most. I don’t need to interact face-to-face with people every day to feel I am a valid human being.

I still need people—but in my own way. Providing I know I can reach out when necessary, I am largely content to work alone—and work is what I love to do. It is my vocation, my passion, my pleasure, and my purpose. And, let me confess, it is also fun.

It is not a party, the bar scene, a football match, or Paris. It is all of these and more—because your only limits are your skill and your imagination.

But do I really work alone? Physically, I do. Emotionally, I don’t. In fact, I don’t think anyone really does anything worthwhile entirely alone—except die (and whether dying is worthwhile is something I have yet to determine).

I’m beginning to appreciate that if writing illuminates the human  condition—which is what I believe—the greatest beneficiary may be the mind of the writer.

Strangely enough, I haven’t thought of it that way before. Writing—to me—is my way of reaching out. But in the process, it appears, you also reach in.

Quelle surprise!

The truth is that the more I write, the more I appreciate the degree to which I am dependent on others—and particularly you, my friends.

Surprisingly enough, I still seem to have quite a few.

Happy New Year to you one and all.

VOR words 1,297.

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(#91-1) December 31 2014. Distracted Nation—does social media really help us communicate better—or is it mostly noise? Do we know how to tell the difference?

NEW YEAR (WRITERS’) ANGST ON

FOCUS VERSUS FRAGMENTATION

WORK VERSUS NETWORKING

E-MAIL VERSUS WRITING

The Atlantic—one of my favorite publications as regular readers of this blog will know—has just run a fascinating but disturbing piece called The Death of the Artist—And The Birth of the Creative Entrepreneur.

Hard-working artisan, solitary genius, credentialed professional—the image of the artist has changed radically over the centuries. What if the latest model to emerge means the end of art as we have known it?

• by William Deresiewicz
• Dec. 28, 2014

It is fascinating to me because I’m deeply interested in creativity—and how it can be harnessed for the benefit of mankind and the joy of those involved. And yes I do mean ‘joy.’ Satisfaction and pleasure certainly feature in abundance, but they don’t adequately convey the exhilaration of the creative process. I just love to think and then convert such thoughts into the written word. That’s nearly as good as it gets as far as I’m concerned.  Add a woman and some wine—and I desire nothing more. Heaven can wait. It is right here on Earth.

It is disturbing because it so reflects and describes my own situation. On the one hand, I rather fancy the notion of being a solitary genius (not that I think of myself as a genius, let me stress) whereas a combination of my analysis and circumstances is pushing me—apparently inexorably—towards being a creative entrepreneur.

When I say ‘my analysis’ I mean that in some ways I feel betrayed by my own mind. Emotionally, I would like to do nothing but write in productive solitude (with maybe a little company now and then), yet my inner voice says—quite firmly—that I cannot ignore the realities of the marketplace, but must reorganize my life to both write and deal with the commercial aspects.

Shucks!

I have been working on that for some time in the fashion of Sisyphus. I am not finding the transition easy. I have come to terms with the entrepreneurial aspect—I was in marketing before I became a writer and I am a serial entrepreneur—but I’m extremely concerned by the extent to which my focus is being fragmented. I like to do one thing really well—which is to write—and I’m not a good multi-tasker. Indeed, I don’t even believe in multitasking.

When I’m making love, I don’t write (the other way round, there have been some exceptions).

However, I seem to be living in a world which is pulling me every which way—and where focus is practically becoming socially unacceptable. Here I am referring to the vast array of social media and other tools of distraction at our disposal which—if anything—seem to be making communication even more difficult. There was a time you could phone someone and talk something through. Now the chances are that you will just get voice mail. And then—if they reply at all—they will text.

Texting is not the same as talking. 

Personally, I love e-mail (as well as hate it)—but apart from the fact that many people can’t write (or choose not to) the volume is so great that its advantages are substantially negated. And then you have the problem—if you, personally, take the trouble to express yourself with style, vigor, and clarity—that your opus isn’t read. At best, it will be skimmed.

Skimming is not reading.

Skimming is what agents and publishers do so that they can find something they can buy cheap and sell dear. God forbid they should read. Skimming is about the first few pages—followed, in most cases, by the delete key. Skimming is fast, efficient, effortless—and, not infrequently—mindless. Reading requires engagement—really paying attention.

To exaggerate to make a point—reading is becoming virtually un-American (no, of course it is not really).

In fact, I’m increasingly beginning to think that the art of comprehension is vanishing. That means, in many cases, we/they don’t understand. It helps to explain why so many issues—which are totally solvable—go unresolved. I am also noticing that people are becoming truly lousy at following through—even when they stand to benefit. And I’m far from the only one to notice.

Something is going seriously wrong in the U.S. with how we think and behave to the point where it is becoming cultural—by which I mean that it is generally accepted as being normal.

For instance we seem to be quite relaxed about being permanently at war. Have we given up questioning this sort of thing?

We seem to think it is acceptable to ignore facts. We fight shy of reasoned debate. We let issues fester instead of evolving solutions. We are politicizing just about everything. Education is much blamed—and it is certainly a factor, particularly where the less affluent are concerned, but it is much more than that. We don’t feel it is necessary to keep well informed. We seem to think democracy will take care of itself. We work because we have to—but then our primary focus seem to be on keeping ourselves entertained or otherwise distracted. We seem to be highly successful at it.

I am rendered near speechless by the findings expressed in the Pew Research Center graphic below. Or maybe the gains of the internet compensate for the distractions of e-mail. Or perhaps we are deluding ourselves.

Or maybe people don’t always tell the truth to interviewers. 

A further complication is that even if I exclude the distractions of social media and e-mail—a near impossibility—I find myself being torn in different directions creatively.

Creative limb from creative limb! Creatively painful!

Part of that is my own fault. My first love is writing researched action thrillers (full of gratuitous sex and violence) but I also feel the need to write non-fiction as well (a desire to make a difference, perhaps)—and more recently I added satire.

The characters sort of appeared and ordered me to.

And I also research, follow, and write about military matters and the economy. But, at least most of that comes under the banner of writing books.

Now, I am blogging in a fairly serious way as well—and have moved on to screenplays. And, if that wasn’t enough, it has been suggested that I present a TV series.

 And I could go on—but I’m frightening myself!

If all of this meant I was an enormous financial success it would be one thing—and it may lead to just that.

Pigs may really fly.

Nonetheless, for the time being, the primary impact is the sense that I am going to have to make some hard choices—and a New Year is a better time than most at which to make them.

My great fear, as far as far as society as a whole is concerned, is that we are trivializing life, replacing work with networking, and losing a great deal of social stability in the process. However, that is at the macro level—and I doubt that there is much I can do about it (except write).

At the micro level—my own life—my general feeling is that I need to play to my strengths and eliminate as many distractions as possible. If that means that I filter my e-mail more, don’t use social media or network as much as I should, so be it. Some choices have to be made.

My son, Christian O’Reilly (you can Google him—he is an award-winning playwright) once told me of an incident that has resonated with me ever since. Seeing him somewhat distracted by the necessity of making a living, his wife, Ailbe said? “Remember, no matter what, you are a writer, Christian.”

I, too, am a writer.  Important to remember that fact. It’s why I get up in the morning. It’s why I breathe.

I write best when I am so focused, I’m in the zone—so intensely absorbed, I’m relaxed. It took me years to learn how to get into the zone virtually on demand. These days, I sit to write—and I’m in it.

The sight of a keyboard makes me react like Pavlov’s dog. Well, not exactly. I don’t think the dog wrote. Perhaps he blogged.

I value focus over fragmentation. I think what we are doing to ourselves at present is insane.

Will I continue to blog daily? Yes, I will. I have an open mind on the form and the frequency.

VOR words 1,366.

---

 

 

 

 

 

(#90-1) December 30 2014. We profess to admire the military—but are largely ignorant of it (and prefer it that way). The MICC exploits that ignorance. We spend more than the rest of the world put together on National Security—and we keep on losing wars.

‘THE TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY’

JIM FALLOWS OF THE ATLANTIC HAS JUST WRITTEN A TRULY DEVASTATING INDICTMENT OF THE U.S ARMY’S SENIOR LEADERSHIP, THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CONGRESSIONAL COMPLEX, THE LACK OF ACOUNTABILITY, AND THE WAY WE,THE PUBLIC, REMAIN INDIFFERENT AND UNINFORMED BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTED

IT SIZZLES—IT IS ACCURATE—IT IS TRAGIC—AND IT IS WORTH READING IN FULL

Check out The Atlantic Declaration of interest—I know, like, and admire Jim. I have been interviewed by him on defense matters—and have flown in his aircraft. He is a thoughtful, measured journalist. For those reasons the concern he expresses in this piece really deserves to be both listened to—and acted upon.

There are no signs that either this administration or Congress will pay the slightest bit of attention. In fact, Congress is seriously complicit.

The following is a brief extract.

The Tragedy of the American Military

The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.

---

James Fallows JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015

I. Chickenhawk Nation

If I were writing such a history now, I would call it Chickenhawk Nation, based on the derisive term for those eager to go to war, as long as someone else is going. It would be the story of a country willing to do anything for its military except take it seriously. As a result, what happens to all institutions that escape serious external scrutiny and engagement has happened to our military. Outsiders treat it both too reverently and too cavalierly, as if regarding its members as heroes makes up for committing them to unending, unwinnable missions and denying them anything like the political mindshare we give to other major public undertakings, from medical care to public education to environmental rules. The tone and level of public debate on those issues is hardly encouraging. But for democracies, messy debates are less damaging in the long run than letting important functions run on autopilot, as our military essentially does now. A chickenhawk nation is more likely to keep going to war, and to keep losing, than one that wrestles with long-term questions of effectiveness.

Americans admire the military as they do no other institution. Through the past two decades, respect for the courts, the schools, the press, Congress, organized religion, Big Business, and virtually every other institution in modern life has plummeted. The one exception is the military. Confidence in the military shot up after 9/11 and has stayed very high. In a Gallup poll last summer, three-quarters of the public expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the military. About one-third had comparable confidence in the medical system, and only 7 percent in Congress.

Too much complacency regarding our military, and too weak a tragic imagination about the consequences if the next engagement goes wrong, have been part of Americans’ willingness to wade into conflict after conflict, blithely assuming we would win. “Did we have the sense that America cared how we were doing? We did not,” Seth Moulton told me about his experience as a marine during the Iraq War. Moulton enlisted after graduating from Harvard in 2001, believing (as he told me) that when many classmates were heading to Wall Street it was useful to set an example of public service. He opposed the decision to invade Iraq but ended up serving four tours there out of a sense of duty to his comrades. “America was very disconnected. We were proud to serve, but we knew it was a little group of people doing the country’s work.”

Of course, we are directly affected by wars—if only through the financial cost. That doesn’t impact immediately because of our disastrous habit of relying solely on borrowings to fund wars. However, the figures are so large that we’re going to feel the effects for a very long time.

According to a December 19 2014 Bloomberg report, Neta Crawford of Boston University puts the total costs of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at $4.4 trillion including interest and veteran’s care through 2054.

That is trillion with a ‘T.’ And since nothing is being done—and we are still actively engaged—that $4.4 trillion figure is likely to go only one way—up.

VOR words c.50.

---

(#89-1) December 29 2014. It’s time we became creative about creativity. It’s a largely untapped resource with pretty much universal application which can add value to virtually anything.

THOUGHTS ON

THE UNTAPPED POTENTIAL OF INVESTING IN CREATIVITY—BY WHICH I MEAN CONSTRUCTIVE CREATIVITY

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -Buckminster Fuller

I have become increasingly research oriented over the years—and, in fact, spend some hours at it every day. Primarily I do this so that I can write with more facility and authority—but I’m also innately intellectually curious. Additionally, I find that writing about a range of issues—which means I am constantly trying to master new concepts—exercises my mind and forces it out of its comfort zone. That said, I try and discipline my research so that I stick to certain themes of particular interest, and try and avoid anything that clearly is irrelevant to my writing.

Since I have wide interests, that still leaves me with a serious time problem—which you would think a well-trained mind would be able to resolve.

Clearly, my mind isn’t yet well-trained enough. I struggle—but, as with writing—that is partly the point.

Do I spend too much time on research and not enough on writing? I don’t quite know the answer to that. I suspect I should try and tilt my time allocation more in favor of writing, but my current research routine seems to be helping my writing so much that it is hard to be sure. Though I enjoy research greatly, I much prefer the actual writing.

It is so damn hard—but so rewarding.

But, it is, as they say, a dynamic situation. In the short term I’m resolving it by putting in more hours so that I have enough time for both. Anyway, the villain of the piece in terms of my time allocation is e-mail—a topic for another day.

I both love e-mail and hate it. And this year I have had more than ever before in my life to the point where I can’t cope adequately. Tough decisions await.

What my research is showing me—somewhat to my surprise and pleasure—is that there are answers to almost all the problems we face (except e-mail!) but that somehow we don’t seem to be too good at linking answers to solutions—even when those solutions are proven, are working currently elsewhere, can be viewed and studied in detail.

Why is this?

• FEAR. None of us like making fools of ourselves, but if you say, write, paint, or otherwise do something creative, you are opening yourself to both criticism and ridicule. Here I speak from first hand experience as an author, public speaker, and military thinker. At one stage in my life I received a terrible review in the New York Times—and it went through me like a knife (I’m tougher now) It helped that I ended up on their Best Seller list. But a bad review is as nothing compared to the consequences of creativity in the U.S. Here, you can lose your job for almost any reason—and that can ripple through to the extent that you lose your home. It takes sustained courage to be creative. It is particularly risky to be constructively critical about the military. In fact, there is a saying that an officer will lay down his life before before his career. In my experience, it is largely true. It is my belief that if we decreased economic fear—as many other countries have done—we would increase creativity in the U.S.
• GREED. We live in a money and power-driven culture where the incredible satisfaction that comes from creativity—is substantially ignored. This is ironic because many of us, arguably most—are not primarily driven by the money imperative (providing we have enough). I had better also concede that where greed is concerned, people are endlessly creative. How do you counter greed? You can’t completely. However, you can make it culturally less acceptable. One way to do this is to promote alternatives—such as the rewards that stem from creativity. In fact greed for creativity might even be a good thing! But probably not. Greed for pretty much anything is ugly.
• WRONG DEFINITIONS.We don’t define our goals, issues, and problems correctly—which makes it  rather hard to identify solutions. As best I can determine it, if you can frame a question correctly, you can normally find an answer. For instance, where healthcare is concerned, our political focus seems to be on funding it—whereas we are not looking at our appalling diet and lack of exercise. The fact that our longevity is roughly three years less than that of Europeans—and two years less than that of Canadians—should be a case of concern but doesn’t seem to be.
• SELFISHNESS. We don’t care. We are an incredibly selfish culture. I have mixed feelings about this hypothesis because—personally—I have been met with much kindness and generosity. Nonetheless, published research seems to indicate that it is valid. For instance, we seem to neither particularly aware or concerned regarding many social issues.
• IDEOLOGY. Ideology, dogma and prejudice tend to dominate over rational analysis. A corollary is that ideology is often used to mask greed. Are other societies less ideological or is this a predictable byproduct of human nature? Some are definitively more pragmatic and rational—particularly the Scandinavians. In the U.S., we have now deteriorated to the stage where hard data, even if supported by considerable scientific evidence, is brushed aside. That seriously undermines any possibility of effective government—or any meaningful cooperation. It does not augur well.
• AUTHORITARIANISM. For all our talk about ‘Land of the Free’ we are a surprisingly authoritarian culture—and authoritarianism tend to be anti-creative because creative people inevitably question authority. Authoritarianism isn’t confined to the military (where you can argue it is required—though I debate the degree). It pervades our corporate culture, government, national security, and many other areas.
• VESTED INTERESTS. Vested interests don’t want change and do rather well out of the status quo. They are also, by and large, extremely well organized. 
• LACK OF INTELLECTUAL CURIOUSITY. As a society, we seem to be woefully short of intellectual curiosity. Individually, intellectual curiosity—and talent—abound, but they doesn’t seem to translate into a determination to resolve national issues.
• FATALISM. We seem to regard quite a number of social problems as inevitable—even when they are not.
• POOR INVESTMENT CHOICES. We invest in the wrong things—like wars—and we don’t distinguish adequately between expenditure and investment. It makes no sense, for instance, for us to neglect our infrastructure the way we do. Currently, we are eating our seed-corn.
• SHORT-TERMISM. Primarily, we both think and act short term—and, as a society, we resolutely refuse to plan.  Other societies, which do plan, seem to do better—much better. The Chinese, for instance, have been growing at over 9 percent a year for 30 years. That is awesome. This isn’t about communism versus democracy. It is about what works. We badly need to evolve a flexible method of planning for the long term.
• FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND CHANGE. We don’t devote enough attention to the mechanisms and processes of change. This is an interesting one. In brief it means that we are much quicker to organize a lobbying group to change something than to understand how change takes place.
• NARROW THINKING. We seem to have a problem thinking holistically. For instance we resent subsidizing public transport even though it helps car drivers by making the roads less crowded. We focus too narrowly on issues. We need to become much better at joining the dots.
• LACK OF EDUCATION. Our population, as a whole, is not well enough educated. Sadly, that is self evident.
• CONSTITUTION. Our Constitution needs updating. This is a profoundly serious problem which we largely ignore.
• PROBLEMATIC MEDIA. We have serious problems with our media. and with how we disseminate information. We are not adequately informed. Actually, it is rather worse than that. We are selectively misinformed. Media owners have their own agendas.
• UNDERESTIMATION OF CREATIVITY. We grossly underestimate creativity. This is a core problem. It means, in a nutshell, that we vastly underestimate what we are capable of—especially when working together. We act like people who possess a vast quantity of gold—but complain that we lack resources. Creativity is a great deal more valuable than gold.

So much for the negatives. But the good news is that the answers are out there and relatively easy to apply (or would be if we were rational and not ideological). Where the economy, and other matters that are fundamental to a good quality of life—health, education, housing, jobs—we aren’t facing the intractable ‘wicked problems’ that have the Middle East in chaos, for instance. If you want to know more about ‘wicked problems’ Wikipedia defines the phrase rather well. It has a specific meaning.

I’m somewhat baffled at how to communicate this finding. To me, it is self-evident, but most people seem to regard such a viewpoint as naïve. Frankly, I would have said much the same thing a decade or two ago, but the evidence I have now accumulated indicates that I would have been wrong.

Since all of this is far too much to cover in a single blog, let me focus on creativity. Here I have long thought we should invest in it more because it is the ultimate problem solving tool—and everyone has it though most don’t make much use of it. Further, because it threatens the status quo, we make great efforts to confine it to the arts. We ghettoize it.

What is creativity?

the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships,or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods,interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination:

the need for creativity in modern industry; creativity in the performing arts.

DICTIONARY.COM

Creativity leads to innovation—which means change—and tends to be resisted.

How could we invest more in creativity?

Let me start by stressing the word ‘invest.’ I am somewhat uneasy doing this because it seems to stress the monetary aspect—which is positively not my intent. But what I am saying is that if we are going to invest considerable resources in creativity, we need to be fairly sure that we get more out than we put in (whether the return be financial or otherwise).

I’m not going to attempt to answer my own question comprehensively or this blog would turn into a book (one thing at a time). But some examples are clearly called for.

• EDUCATION. Schools tend to be rigid places which stress conformity in the interests of socialization. Here, we would listen to Sir Ken Robinson. His core point is that naturally creative children have that creativity crushed in school. He makes a persuasive case.

• THE ARTS. Most developed nations spend significantly more on the arts than we do—and achieve impressive results. Britain’s investment in the theater, for instance, helps to account for its international success in TV and cinema and underpins its truly impressive tourist trade. The arts yield both tangible and intangible results—and contribute greatly to our quality of life. They not only give pleasure but they stimulate. Creativity promotes creativity. It’s a virtuous circle. 
• INNOVATION CENTERS. Since creativity fosters creativity so seems to flourish better in agglomerations. We could do a great deal more to encourage these. The Japanese, for instance have constructed a complete city—a ‘science’ city devoted to research. It has proved to extremely successful.
• THINK-TANKS. The concept of a think-tank—a multi-disciplinary group focused on problem solving—is brilliant. One of its great strengths is that it promotes perspective and attacking the problem from a fresh angle. However, think-tanks have been largely hijacked by people with specific agendas—which runs contrary to the whole idea of a think-tank. Nonetheless, the basic idea of a think-tank remains valid—and arguably needs to be revitalized.
• RESEARCH. Both public and corporate investment has been cut back despite clear evidence that it pays. The main objection to government research is ideological. Corporations have cut back because they want to increase short-term earnings. That tends to put share prices up—and CEOs are largely rewarded through share options. Long-term profitability is affected negatively but by that time most CEOs have moved on.
• DESIGN. In terms of raw material, it costs pretty much the same to manufacture something whether it is badly or well designed. In fact, if the highest design standards are applied throughout—as Apple tend to do—a well designed product may cost even less to make. Nonetheless, bad design is commonplace. This is crazy because good design is one of the most proven ways of adding value. The potential to improve the quality of our lives through improved design is incalculable.
• INSPIRATIONAL PROJECTS. Society seems to need projects which rise above the mundane and are incredibly difficult to do. They entertain, inspire and uplift us. Historically, they have frequently been architectural—castles, bridges and cathedrals come to mind. Today we have NASA and the challenge of space. We could do with many more. For instances, I would argue in favor of building a complete city from scratch—ideally car-less and incorporating a very high level of sustainability.  
• WAYS OF FACILITATING HUMAN INTERACTION. The Constitution is no more than than a brilliant creative concept of how we might best govern ourselves. Right now, it clearly needs updating—although we largely seem to be ignoring that pressing requirement. But, the Constitution apart, there is enormous potential for us to to create new and better ways to interact. For instance, we don’t really have adequate mechanisms to develop communities—especially politically. There is huge gap between the individual and a congressman to the point where voting seems remote and irrelevant to many. Could we bridge that gap? I see no reason why not. Personally, I like the idea of some kind of non-political, non-religious community organization which one would join as a matter of routine. Have I worked out the details? No. I’m merely sowing the seed.

My argument is that we should consciously and deliberately invest in creativity as such to the point where virtually every human organization of any size would have a creative director.

People will argue that we can’t afford such an approach. My argument is that we cannot afford not to make more of this extraordinary resource—and that, primarily, it is about mindset.

Creativity creates its own value. Yes, it is disruptive and can be uncomfortable because it almost always evolve change—but look at what can be achieve with it—and wonder.

VOR words 2,232.

---

 

 

 

(#88-1) December 28 2014. Funny numbers.

ON THE FACE OF IT

OUR ECONOMIC PROSPECTS LOOK EXCELLENT—BUT THERE IS SOME DUBIOUS BEHAVIOR OUT THERE, AND SOME FUNNY NUMBERS AROUND.  SOME AREN’T SO FUNNY. SOME CONSTITUTE AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY.

FOR POVERTY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES TO BE AS RIFE AS THEY ARE IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS—FOR WANT OF A BETTER WORD—WRONG.

I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT WE REALLY ARE, AS A PEOPLE, BETTER THAN THIS.

MAYBE THESE THINGS DON’T MATTER—MANY SEEM TO THINK NOT. BUT MAYBE THEY DO.

It is very hard to go against optimism—and I don’t particularly want to. I think its great that people are heading into the New Year feeling decidedly more optimistic about the economy (whether they are right or otherwise).

However the idea of idea of being a writer—as I understand it—is to call it like you see it (within reason). ‘Illuminating the human condition’ doesn’t guarantee that what can now be seen more clearly is a pleasant sight. But there is so much to see that is beautiful, fascinating, or both—that your odds are quite good.

But maybe the guts of the economy and social issues aren’t the best things to illuminate if you want to focus solely on the beautiful..

Some thoughts.

• We seem to have learned virtually nothing from the 2008 Great Recession—the severest recession since 1929. In fact, the banks are already clawing back the ground that was gained by Dodd-Frank (limited though it was). And they are doing so blatantly. They don’t seem remotely concerned with public opinion.
• Financialization continues to increase its hold on the U.S. economy despite considerable evidence that—at a certain point—it becomes destructive. We are long past that point.
• A high growth rate and a booming economy should not be confused with gains in prosperity for most Americans. Why not? Because key costs are going up (housing, healthcare, education etc.) which more than cancel out any gains.
• Lower gas prices are a wonderful thing, but not if they lead to more driving, and reducing our efforts to develop a more sustainable economy. There is worrying evidence that this is already happening.
• A disturbing number of people are not in the labor force—and that number is rising fast. It cannot be accounted for by demographics alone. It seems that large numbers of people have rejected conventional work for various reasons. My theory is more and more people are disillusioned with U.S. working conditions. Through there are some commendable corporations out there, all too many seem to have no feelings—other than negative—for their workers at all. Add low pay, few prospects, anti-unionism, minimal vacation time, no sickness pay, ever increasing healthcare costs, no security, and authoritarian management and sooner or later people wonder: “Is the game worth the candle?” As far as many are concerned, it isn’t. This isn’t the kind of issue that grabs the headlines. It’s a structural problem—one of many.

Here, I touch on just a few. I would have preferred to have listed more purely economic issues—as opposed to social—but I don’t have the graphics to hand. That said, the two are interdependent.

Blame TMBD (Too Much Bloody Data). I shall try and improve.

The current trend is for the American Business Model to continue as usual—only more so. I happen to think it needs fundamental structural reform.

There are few signs of that happening—and it doesn’t seem to be a widely shared view.

Back in 2004 I thought there would be a recession in 2008—and that wasn’t a widely held view either.

But, I have no crystal ball. I’m more in the position of someone inspecting a building suffering from severe structural problems. Such structures can endure for many years—or collapse tomorrow. But, if you don’t repair them, sooner or later collapse is inevitable.

Countries don’t literally collapse. They just become decidedly more stressful to live in. That can happen with surprising speed. Consider how fast the Soviet Union disintegrated, our Great Recession took effect, or the speed of the recent drop in oil prices.

I’ll feel a great deal easier when I see repair work underway. This is a genuinely Great Nation, most of my friends—who I care about greatly—live here, and it deserves more maintenance that it is getting.

I am not without faith.

Happy New Year.

VOR words 573.

---

(#87-1) December 27 2014. Of wings and things.

ONE OF MY AVIATION OBSESSIONS

HYBRID ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT—IS BEING REALIZED (ALBEIT FAR TOO SLOWLY)

I’m not sure I accept the reasons for the slow adoption of hybrid electric aircraft—I think sheer inertia plus the difficulty of getting a new engine certified has a great deal to do with it—but this is what Dr. Paul Robertson of Cambridge University has to say (and here I am quoting from that ever excellent site www.gizmag.com ).

A quick aside on Gizmag. I read it daily to keep up with technology—and because it is an ongoing tribute to the more positive aspects of the human condition. Day after day, I cannot but be impressed—and cheered—by the ingenuity displayed. Apparently Gizmag now has 5 million readers—and I can well see why. Its stories are consistently well written, its photographic standards are high, and its range is wide. I find reading it makes me feel downright optimistic because again and again it comes up with answers to some pressing problem or other.

Whether these answers are applied adequately or correctly is another matter entirely—and a topic for another day. It is also not Gizmag’s function. It supplies the information. It is up to us to make use of it.

Currently, I am much preoccupied with the gap between problems and solutions. We have actually solved way more problems to do with improving the general quality of our lives than I think most of us realize—but seem to be slow at linking issue and answer. On the face of it, the internet would seem to be the solution, but so much information is out there that we are in danger of drowning in data. Framing the question correctly can go a long way towards resolving this, but I suspect we also need search engines geared to better comprehension of natural langue queries. I doubt we will have long to wait. However, in many cases we will still be faced with a multiplicity of answers.

We will then have to deal with determining the optimum solution for a given challenge—not a bad problem to have. But are we making the same progress with our politics and human interaction generally as we are technologically? It would appear not—particularly in the U.S. Nonetheless, even here, if you search globally, there are many more answers out there than we seem to understand. Fascinating stuff!

But I digress. Back to hybrid electric aircraft.

"Although hybrid cars have been available for more than a decade, what's been holding back the development of hybrid or fully-electric aircraft until now is battery technology. Until recently, they have been too heavy and didn't have enough energy capacity. But with the advent of improved lithium-polymer batteries, similar to what you’d find in a laptop computer, hybrid aircraft – albeit at a small scale – are now starting to become viable."

Gizmag is no stranger to hybrid aircraft. Volta Volaré promised its hybrid four-seater GT4 back in 2012, while just last month we featured the Faradair BEHA concept that will theoretically be powered by electric motors and a bio-diesel engine. The Cambridge/Boeing test plane is a much simpler design than both of those, however.

The single-seat aircraft, which is based on a commercially-available model, is powered by a Honda 4-stroke piston engine and a custom-made electric motor/generator. The two power sources are coupled so that either can drive the propeller. At times when a lot of power is required, such as during take-off, the plane uses both the engine and the motor to drive the propeller. Once it is at cruising height, however, it can use the motor only to reduce fuel consumption.

It is also possible for the motor to be switched into "generator mode" and for it to recharge the batteries while the plane is in flight. According to the University of Cambridge, this is the first time that this has been achieved. A module designed by the engineering department at Cambridge is used to control electrical current to and from the lithium-polymer cell batteries, 16 of which are housed in compartments in the wings.

The hybrid aircraft was tested at the Sywell Aerodrome, near Northampton, UK. Initial tests comprised a series of "hops" along the runway. These were then followed by longer flights at an altitude of over 1,500 ft (457 m). Ongoing tests are aimed at optimizing performance and fuel economy.

VOR words c.400

---

(#86-1 December 26 2014.The worst of years has also been the best of years.

RUMINATING ABOUT NEW YEAR RESOLUTIONS

THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE BROKEN—AND THE KEPT

AND THE GOODNESS AND KINDNESS OF FRIENDS

Privately, I have had a tendency to be extremely self-critical—and to focus more on my failures than successes. Though that is better than ignoring one’s failures, I’m not sure that focusing on one’s lack of successes is particularly constructive. Yes, you should certainly note them and try and learn what you can from them (normally a great deal)—but, arguably. it is rather more important to be aware of your achievements. They build confidence and resilience—which you need to achieve more successes. Faith in yourself is important—and the lack of it can be sensed by others.

If there is one thing I believe in absolutely (and there are many) it is that success breeds success—and what the world regards as success, and you do personally, are two very different things.

Yes, I do have material goals—though I am not particularly materialistic these days—but my primary goals, other than those to do with my writing, have to do with my character. I am painfully aware of my weaknesses and would like to improve my character before I die.

Can I? I actually think I can. I’m not sure I would have said that a decade ago—because, over time, we tend to become very set in our ways—but I have been discovering over the last five years or so that age is not a barrier to re-thinking things. On the contrary, it is a help. You have all that experience to draw upon. It is exciting.

I used to think New Year resolutions were a waste of time—because one rarely keeps them. Now. I’m agreeably surprised to find that I’m keeping them—even when they are difficult. I’m not totally successful, of course, but mostly. Evidently, my self-discipline has improved. It needed to.

Miracles do happen.

One area where I have failed dismally—yet again—is at my goal of keeping a daily journal.. I feel a writer should maintain such a thing, if only to ensure that one writes something every day—and to log those useful things, ideas (which have a tendency to wander unless corralled.  But—again and again—I start off well and taper off within a month or so.

Will I try again in 2015? I haven’t decided yet. On the one hand, I don’t particularly want to make a resolution that I am virtually guaranteed to break. On the other hand, it relates directly to my writing and would be an excellent exercise in self-discipline.

I think I’ll keep my decision to myself. Much as I don’t really feel comfortable talking about books I haven’t written, I debate the wisdom of talking about resolutions I haven’t kept.

I have kept to my resolution to blog every day and have been truly amazed at what a positive effect it has had. So why not combine the blog and the journal? Because my journal—as I see it—should primarily be a record of events and private. Also, I like to dump half formed ideas and odd scraps of information in my journal so it often looks like a bit of a mess. In contrast, I like this blog to be relatively neat and structured.

On the face of it, 2014 has been something of a disaster for me.

• I haven’t succeeded in getting my little publishing going.
• I hurt myself badly in April and was in pain and operating below par for months.
• I was completely drowned by two overly successful e-mail experiments.
• This is the first year for some time where I haven’t written a book (though I do have a book of essays on writing culled from this blog)..

I could go on, but I don’t want to depress myself—or you

The paradox is that I am ending 2014 feeling more positive and energized than I have in a long time—because apart from my setbacks, a whole string of good things has happened. Also I have found my writing developing in ways that I had always hoped for, but hadn’t been able to a achieve up to now.

I also have the sense that inconvenient though it has been in the short term (something of an understatement), my publishing company will benefit from being delayed.

Is that rationalization? Well, I’m sure there is some there, but—on balance—I don’t think so. I have certainly strengthened it quite substantially over the last year in very specific ways. The most important had to do with determining my brand image (which I couldn’t really get a handle on until this year—but which is fundamental).

I have also been the recipient of much kindness and have seen the true mettle of some very special friends. I feel much blessed. When you have nothing to offer in a material sense—and no current social position or status to contribute—it means a very great deal when people reach out. Many do not. The exceptional do.

Again and again, they have done just that. I just hope that such behavior is infectious. They have set a standard that I would be very proud to come close to. My character now has no shortage of role models. I just hope the damn thing pays attention.

It really is a wonderful life.

Happy New Year to you.

VOR words 889.

---