Afghanistan: A "Defining Moment"

Over the last few days I've been reading a paperback from the Harvard Business Review entitled On Leadership. The book is just one publication in a long series "designed to bring today's managers and professionals the fundamental information they need to stay competitive in a fast-moving world"- according to the inside flap anyway. As someone relatively detached from the formal world of business and management, I've found most of the book's entries (written by various "esteemed" authors) pleasantly succinct and insightful. Most pieces are eminently digestible and quite relevant to the world at-large. In my reading, one in particular jumped out at me: "The Discipline of Building Character."

I usually skip over any literature that prominently features the word "discipline" or "character", but upon reading the ever-handy "executive summary", I found myself intrigued by the author's conception of a "defining moment." Written by a renowned Business Ethics professor at HBS, the article makes a fundamental distinction between an "ethical decision" and a "defining moment". In the former case, the decision typically involves choosing between two options, one we know to be right and the other to be wrong (in an ethical sense). The later, more interestingly, involves making critical decisions where there is no "right" answer, but rather a number of difficult alternatives with varying and often imperceptible degrees of "rightness". In such cases, the author explains: "no matter which option we choose, we feel like we've come up short." The author's argument is that these so-called defining moments, taken cumulatively over one's life, form the basis of an individual's character.

I like this assertion. Over the course of all our lives, the crucible of character building is more often than not a catalogue of painstaking, introspective decisions. These moments challenge and reveal our core values, our integrity, and our identity. Fundamentally, they are a critical test of authenticity. Who am I? No facade, no bullshit. I think it's fair to say that Afghanistan presents Obama with such a moment writ large. I've followed the so-called AfPak policy making process very closely, and I still struggle haplessly with the search for a profoundly superior course of action. Of course, I'm not privy to the entire US national security apparatus, but I think most candid observers will acknowledge that our options are "not good", "bad", and "worse". I dismiss the knee-jerk capitulation of many politicians to McCrystal's troop request. It wreaks of typical party politics and unvirtuous expediency. In the end, this may be the "best" course of action, but the gravity of this decision demands intense, conscientious deliberation attended by all relevant parties. My hope is that this is what has occurred over the past few weeks.

The unfortunate reality is that we've painted ourselves in a corner in Afghanistan. Like the proverbial red-headed step child, we've ignored it, under-fed it, and starved it of any discipline. Our policy has been adrift for years without any clear sense of military vision or attainable objective. Is it really surprising that the situation has deteriorated drastically? The constellation of serviceable policy options that once existed has now shrunk to a handful of pathetically dour alternatives. I have absolutely no envy for the President's position, but a fine respect for his character. Solemnly, he will do what he thinks is right.

On a final note, it is my sense that the AfPak problem is virtually unmanageable as far as the US is concerned. However, when you are dealing with nuclear weapons (as we are in Pakistan), the risk of simple withdrawal is too high given the current level of instability. The question is, then, can we leave when things are "stable" (whenever this is), or will our leaving cause renewed instability? Are we in for a semi-permanent occupation? And if the long-term goal of this occupation is some sort of stability provided by pseudo-democratic governance and economic development (which is the real problem, along with education/literacy), can this be achieved with our presence. Maybe, but not at the barrel of a gun. Any sustainable solution will involve extraordinary cultural and economic changes that will take generations to occur and will require the involvement of a dedicated multinational coalition. Are we ready, as a global community, to commit trillions more dollars and hundreds more lives? Or will we lose our collective interest (again) once the issue has escaped the media spotlight?

Preach this Evangel

The Gospel According to Al

The prescient insights of UHF and the Great Monseigneur of Mock, "Weird" Al Yankovic:

Preach this Evangel

Paving Over Stalin's Grass

For those of us in the West, it was simply the Berlin Wall; for those to whom it mattered most, it was Antifaschistischer Schutzwall. To understand this distinction is to begin an authentic inquiry into the extraordinary and often subtle implications of 1989. It's hard to imagine that just over twenty years ago, this iconic, and seemingly indelible monument to the Cold War met its end at the hands of those it confined- both physically and psychologically. While recent media coverage has immortalized the event with all the tinsel of nostalgia and ceremony, deep and complex neuroses still cripple many residents of the "emancipated" East. Unfortunately, the explosive demise of East Germany and its festering psychological fallout cannot be sufficiently relayed by the spectacle of broadcast. A genuine pursuit of historical significance requires empathy. And real empathy is not virtual.

A faithful commemoration of “the fall” would entail nothing less than inhabiting the fragile lives of those who dwelt in its menacing shadow for so long. Any attempt to convey this plight in either words or images inevitably falls short. Our strenuous empathy requires the solemn physicality of place. In other words, you have to be there. However, sadly for Berlin, this monument of struggle is now almost totally gone. The notorious wall that interned a generation is quickly vanishing for good. While some may greet this summary extinction with joy or, worse, apathy, I think the complete lack of organized preservation is both harmful and wrong, and tragically represents a much larger social trend.

As its agitprop name suggests, the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall was foisted on the East German public as a prudent solution to keep the “fascist” West at bay lest the “capitalist cannibals” beset the happy collective. In reality, of course, the wall or “death strip” as it was known locally, was a penal rampart with unparalleled, methodical lethality. Stock media images of the relatively innocuous concrete slabs do not approach an accurate portrayal of the inhumanity. More than a barrier, the strip was a complex system of watchtowers, staggered fencing, anti-vehicle trenches, bunkers, and other cruel obstacles designed to kill or disable those daring to trespass (“Stalin’s grass” was the local nickname for the nail-spiked stretch of corridor intended to impale and trap victims’ feet). The soundtrack was equally unforgiving: the incessant, barking rasp of border dogs, the ghoulish crack of sniper fire, and the grinding wail of military vehicles. Taken together, the wall’s imposition on the human soul was immeasurable.

It begs the question: why would anyone want to preserve any vestige of such obscenity? Because it’s history? Yes- but most importantly because it’s ugly and you could never replicate its aura of depravity. No documentary, no blog, no research paper could ever record or evoke the stark drama of place. If we lose our tangible connection to the past, we forfeit a vital piece of our collective identity, and we resign ourselves to a fate where our only relationship with history is through media-sponsored simulation. We enter a frenzied hyperreality that is devoid of authenticity or originality; where the priceless topography of meaning is constantly razed and repurposed at the careless whim of society; where representation totally supplants reality. We become aliens in our own land, the characteristics of which are unrecognizable and always fleeting. We become passengers of a rudderless vessel at the mercy of a mercurial sea. Unanchored to the past in any meaningful way, we drown in the present. Defeated and demoralized we passively submit to the will of the Spectacle. In a very real sense, we ARE all Berliners.

I recognize the irony, but here is a....

...poignant documentary on the Fall:

...and a BRILLIANT fictional film I HIGHLY suggest renting:

SHIG

Blasphemer!!!!!

Per usual, Stewart nails it:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

SHIG

Join the Flock

Charlie and the Tree of Knowledge

If we accept the notion that Sean Hannity is God in the grotesquely metaphorical sense (described in prior post), Charlie Rose might just be the proverbial Tree of Knowledge.

I was watching an episode a few nights back and something peculiar caught my attention. I couldn't articulate it at the time, but after several days, it finally came to me (like Doc Brown and the Flux Capacitor): Charlie Rose was, indeed, the "answer" to the Spectacle of Hannity. I've had great affection for Charlie and the show for some time, but this cosmic revelation was a refreshingly new, visceral sense of enlightenment. It seems the molecules for this "Eureka!" had always been present in mind but, until this morning, had lingered deep under the surface, twinkling quietly in my subconscious like stars in a distant galaxy. As with any revelatory episode, I wanted to examine the causes and excavate for any truth- could I deconstruct the glow of the light bulb? Let us explore.

It so happened that the interviews featured on the particular program in question were with Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, and Malcolm Gladwell, of Blink, Tipping Point, et cetera. Both gentleman are highly celebrated for their uncanny ability to refine fascinating insights from seemingly banal human activity. They've carved out a wonderfully lucrative niche as venerable princes of pop-sociology. However, what struck me about their interviews (and what precipitated my epiphany) was that both men emphasized a central theme: the latent splendor of life. Levitt put it more inductively: "It's about asking the right questions." Gladwell put it succinctly: "you have to train yourself that everything is interesting". Then it hit me: this is the unspoken mantra of Charlie Rose- in precious few words, this is why I love the show.

Charlie Rose is a shining affirmation of this terribly unsung dictum. Everything is interesting, but only if you look closely and honestly, without pride or prejudice. As Charlie so effortlessly demonstrates, exploring the exceptional complexity of the world requires two critical assets: an open mind and the ability to listen- this is the Charlie Rose calling card. Not simply listening as in absorbing and processing sound waves, but listening in the much broader, more active sense: hearing, thinking, feeling, assessing, evaluating, studying, exploring and reacting in kind. The art and science of listening.

Similarly, Charlie is the embodiment of the open mind- but not simply an open mind in the sense of impartiality, but rather a governing ethos guided by a childlike curiosity for everything- an intellectual wanderlust. An insatiable appetite for all knowledge. Whether he's interviewing Warren Buffet, Charles Manson, LeBron James, or Jay Z, Charlie has an unmatched ability to elicit extraordinary stories from subjects of all stripes. The viewer doesn't need to avidly follow politics, sports, economics, film, or what-have-you in order to become engrossed in the program because, fundamentally, all people are interesting in some way- it only needs to be drawn out of them artfully. This is what Charlie does better than anyone else, but more still, he does it on every show, every night, across the breadth of the human stage. No agenda. Knowledge for its own sake.

Amid the intolerable din and tawdry bunting that comprise the phantasmagoria of modern television, Charlie Rose has somehow managed to preserve the fleeting virtues of nobility, integrity, and grace. The narcotic allure of Eden, with its Glenn Beck and its Girls Next Door, is strong but not absolute. His Tree of Knowledge continues to promise emancipation from the confining logic of the Spectacle and an escape from a captivity of diversion and exploitation. Those who partake in the forbidden fruit must submit to a new awareness and risk the retribution of God.

SHIG

Join the Flock

In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti

Hello and welcome to Sean Hannity is God.

Please join me as we partake in His Holy Sacrament, the Body and Blood of Hannity, the Bread of Heaven. Kneel in penitence at the alter of His Spectacle... for we are all humble supplicants.

To say the least, this venture is highly overdue. As a concerned, but contentedly aloof critic of media politics, I had long been self-satisfied to grumble quietly and derisively to myself and to a fairly intimate group of friends- part of me still is. However, as conditions clearly began to deteriorate, and the unmistakable contours of the tempest started to writhe and whirl in unison, I found myself wanting to broaden my audience- even though my voice would most likely prove little challenge to the marauding media vortex. Nonetheless, it is the principle that counts. In a more romantic sense, this blog is my stone hurling towards the forehead of the great Philistine warrior. And may Goliath fall.

Fortunately, Sean Hannity is not God (though he might argue with that). But my title is not simply a callous blasphemy attempting to incite the indignation of those I protest. Rather, I selected this mantra conscientiously for two reasons. Firstly, it's a seductively juvenile lampoon, and the sport of mocking from a distance is just something I relish. Secondly, and much more importantly, I see Sean Hannity as a fitting caricature of what is fundamentally wrong with 90% of modern media practice. If you pull back the curtain, the primary psychological appeal of most television programming shares some or all of the characteristics of Hannity's show on Fox News- of course, it is extremely rare to find all of these qualities present to the extent that they are on "Hannity". In that sense, Sean Hannity is the exemplar...the righteous epitome.... he is, in effect, the Supreme Being that permeates all space and time. He is pure Spectacle- but what do I mean by Spectacle???

Within media criticism circles (primarily academia), the notion of "spectacle" is much more than a facile description of something that appears "visually striking"- though that is certainly part of it. It is, rather, a theoretical philosophy that encompasses the comprehensive media experience and interprets the social implications. In his book (and film) called The Society of Spectacle, Guy Debord describes the theory in much detail- but I won't bore you with the relatively esoteric post-Marxist theory. I would, however, encourage you to watch the brief (9 min) documentary I made that attempts to distill the theory's core tenets into images and sound that all viewers can digest (see below). The point is, I will be using the concept of "Spectacle" as a framework from which to engage and critique media messages, particularly as they relate to politics and journalism.

Do I believe that there is some massive, Matrix-like cabal trying to subvert and enslave the human psyche?- of course not. Do I think that the majority of media today is Bread & Circus Brand opium for the masses?- surely. I think it's abundantly clear that while the profit logic of the system works for entertainment, too often we have seen this force invade and devour the journalistic function of media. Whether it's Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Ed Schultz, infotainment is the cheap fashion of modern media. The prudent firewall that had once separated the two distinct provinces has been irrevocably breached- and we are witnessing the impact in errant foreign and domestic policies grounded in sensationalism and fear rather than rational thought and intelligent debate. It's not necessarily that quality information is not out there (it is), it's that the majority of the voting public doesn't want or care to consume it. They'd rather submit to the throbbing, simian performances on cable news where an incredibly complex world is impossibly refined into snarky soundbytes that reinforce nakedly insular worldviews. I hope to combat this trend and hope you will join me on this quest (subscribe to SHIG on the right).

This is not to say that this blog is by any means the antidote to the poison, rather it is my attempt to bear public witness and provide sound insights into the media miasma. I think many people (myself included) often approach communication with a certain casual innocence rather than the critical awareness that is necessary to manage and appropriate messages without being subliminally coerced. So in writing this blog, I will examine and critique the public sphere, offer my own thoughts on the issues, and also direct the reader to outside information that I believe to be of good value. At the very least, I hope you find my words thought-provoking.

As I mentioned, I will leave you with my short doc on the notion of "Spectacle" as espoused by Guy Debord in his seminal work "The Society of the Spectacle". It's an amateurish filmic exposition of his compelling but underappreciated theory.

Hannity is God.