With the Gs away at camp and the NBA playoffs over, my television watching of late has been a little more, ahem, adult. Specifically I've been going through Season 8 of Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Season 2 of Louie.
CYE is always funny, but I must say that the storylines have gotten a little more ridiculous, and the plots a little less credible. I know that's a stretch, but for me to enjoy a book or a show, I have to believe that the events are plausible within the parameters of the author's conceit. I just finished Game of Thrones, for example, and I feel like, for the most part, the author created a universe of believable characters, events and geography. Say what you will about loyal wolves, dragons and fifteen year-olds leading men into bloody battle; it feels right. I watched the CYE last night where Larry is testing the prototype of an in-car periscope, and the series of events in which the device helped them navigate difficulties on the streets of New York struck me as contrived--just a bit, but nevertheless. That's the line, and they crossed it.
What makes Louie so good (and someone on Slate called it a show for the ages today, mentioning it in the same sentence as the Wire) is how it shows the absurdities of life and the foibles of humanity in all their deformed absurdity. Bad things happen to good people; relationships don't work, and the main character most often ends his days sad and alone. The only comedy that I can think to compare it with is Freaks and Geeks. The agonizing situations in which the Michigan high schoolers found themselves would have been knee-slapping hilarious, if they didn't ring so painfully true. When Jason Segel serenaded a conflicted Linday with Styx and candles in his rec room, or James Franco turned punk, a part of me wanted to pull the blanket over my head. Anybody who went to high school in the eighties could find several such moments in every show.
But Louie is darker still; perhaps because the 43 year-old protagonist doesn't have the optimism of youth. That makes it hard to watch, but the crucial moments are so poignant that they complement perfectly the humor of his standup. It's doubtless difficult to squeeze an episode into 22 minutes, and as a result, sometimes certain plot devices can feel awkward or contrived, and the humor is a little vulgar for me, but it's unlike any show I know of, and I'm looking forward to catching up. I still have a couple of episodes from Season 2 to stream, and I've also asked Tivo to start recording Season 3. After that, who knows? The Gs will be back, and all we really need is one show to occupy an hour each evening. Any suggestions?
Big D in the House
Friday, July 6, 2012
William Henry Harrison
I had enjoyed the book about the assassination of James Garfield so much that I was happy to stumble on Gail Colllins' biography of William Henry Harrison at the local library last week. Given his 31 day tenure as president, it's not surprising that it's a slim volume, but the book doesn't even get to that point until the final chapter. In fact, the first seven chapters, which cover the time leading up to the 1840 election are remarkable only for their dullness. The son of a Virginia-based signer of the Declaration of Independence, Harrison had a solid career in the military, first in the war of 1812, and then as an Indian fighter in Ohio, where he, perhaps unfairly, gained accolades for a decisive victory over Tecumseh at the battle of Tippecanoe. He spent a few undistinguished years in Congress, served as Ambassador to Columbia (before being removed by Andrew Jackson) and then returned to Ohio, where he served as a clerk of court, and tried to make enough money to support his ten children, an effort that was impeded by numerous failed business ventures.
That's the first three quarters of the book in a nutshell, but then it gets interesting. In 1840, riding a wave of dissatisfaction with Andrew Jackson, the Whig party hoped to mount a successful campaign to unseat the incumbent Martin Van Buren, who had been elected in 1836 after serving as Jackson's vice president.
The nominating convention was a series of regional meetings, and, somehow, the 67-year old Harrison won the nomination, selecting the Virginian John Tyler as his running mate, to balance the ticket--matching an Indian-killing frontiersman with a slave-holding gentleman (Tippecanoe and Tyler too). The campaign became the first to feature the kind of politicking familiar to everyone today. The presidential candidates had not made speeches previously, seeing it as immodest to stand up and proclaim their own virtues; but Harrison got on the stump, crafting an elaborate backstory touting his wartime heroism and frontier upbringing. Despite having grown up on a Virginia plantation, Harrison's backers portrayed their man as most comfortable in his Ohio log cabin with a jug of hard cider. In fact, he did not have a taste for alcohol, and his clapboard Cincinatti homestead was a far cry from the frontier dwelling featured in the party's literature.
A series of rallies across the country proved wildly popular, not least because of the cider provided to the men, mostly farmers at the time, who had scant access to news, and whose lives were plagued by the quotidian drudgery of life on the farm. This excitement produced a voter turnout of over 80%, a record that still stands today. At that time, most of the 26 states allowed all white men to vote, but 6 required that voters be taxpayers, and 4 others restricted the franchise to property owners, while South Carolina allowed the state legislature to decide how to cast its electoral votes. Harrison won a landslide, despite a victory margin in the popular vote of only 145,000 out of 2.3 million votes cast.
He arrived in Washington, fatigued from the campaign, and was immediately set upon by an endless retinue of well wishers seeking political favours or posts in the new Whig administration. This took a toll, but, determined to prove that his age was not an issue (average life expectancy was 45 at the time), Harrison kept a busy schedule, wandering unaccompanied around the Capitol, shaking hands, and even doing his own grocery shopping.
On a rainy Inauguration Day, Harrison spoke for over two hours--the longest inauguration speech ever--sprinkling his words with many allusions to the Roman generals of his schoolbooks. Then he caught pneumonia and died, a demise perhaps hastened by the same kind of 19th century medicine (lots of bleeding and an obliviousness to the danger of infection) that hastened Garfield's death 40 years later.
I can't say that I would recommend this book, as the first seven of nine chapters are a trifle soporific, but the final two, focusing on the election of 1840 and the climate in the nation's capitol were fabulous. It's easy to think that life hasn't changed that much in the last two hundred years, until you take a closer look at what people were doing every day; then you realize how far we've come.
That's the first three quarters of the book in a nutshell, but then it gets interesting. In 1840, riding a wave of dissatisfaction with Andrew Jackson, the Whig party hoped to mount a successful campaign to unseat the incumbent Martin Van Buren, who had been elected in 1836 after serving as Jackson's vice president.
The nominating convention was a series of regional meetings, and, somehow, the 67-year old Harrison won the nomination, selecting the Virginian John Tyler as his running mate, to balance the ticket--matching an Indian-killing frontiersman with a slave-holding gentleman (Tippecanoe and Tyler too). The campaign became the first to feature the kind of politicking familiar to everyone today. The presidential candidates had not made speeches previously, seeing it as immodest to stand up and proclaim their own virtues; but Harrison got on the stump, crafting an elaborate backstory touting his wartime heroism and frontier upbringing. Despite having grown up on a Virginia plantation, Harrison's backers portrayed their man as most comfortable in his Ohio log cabin with a jug of hard cider. In fact, he did not have a taste for alcohol, and his clapboard Cincinatti homestead was a far cry from the frontier dwelling featured in the party's literature.
A series of rallies across the country proved wildly popular, not least because of the cider provided to the men, mostly farmers at the time, who had scant access to news, and whose lives were plagued by the quotidian drudgery of life on the farm. This excitement produced a voter turnout of over 80%, a record that still stands today. At that time, most of the 26 states allowed all white men to vote, but 6 required that voters be taxpayers, and 4 others restricted the franchise to property owners, while South Carolina allowed the state legislature to decide how to cast its electoral votes. Harrison won a landslide, despite a victory margin in the popular vote of only 145,000 out of 2.3 million votes cast.
He arrived in Washington, fatigued from the campaign, and was immediately set upon by an endless retinue of well wishers seeking political favours or posts in the new Whig administration. This took a toll, but, determined to prove that his age was not an issue (average life expectancy was 45 at the time), Harrison kept a busy schedule, wandering unaccompanied around the Capitol, shaking hands, and even doing his own grocery shopping.
On a rainy Inauguration Day, Harrison spoke for over two hours--the longest inauguration speech ever--sprinkling his words with many allusions to the Roman generals of his schoolbooks. Then he caught pneumonia and died, a demise perhaps hastened by the same kind of 19th century medicine (lots of bleeding and an obliviousness to the danger of infection) that hastened Garfield's death 40 years later.
I can't say that I would recommend this book, as the first seven of nine chapters are a trifle soporific, but the final two, focusing on the election of 1840 and the climate in the nation's capitol were fabulous. It's easy to think that life hasn't changed that much in the last two hundred years, until you take a closer look at what people were doing every day; then you realize how far we've come.
Show me the Money Order
I don't think I've had to purchase a money order since I ordered tickets for the 1979 NBA All Star Game at the sparkling new Pontiac Silverdome, but I needed one yesterday as part of Worldwide's expedited application for more pages in her well-traveled passport. It's ironic that the Department of State requires payment by certified cheque or money order in today's world, especially when the IRS, in a mistaken belief that we had underpaid taxes, was able to directly grab the money from our bank account last year. This is a government that serves the people? I can top up the BG's cafeteria credit online and buy my bus pass via Paypal, but the federal government up on the hill is using an 18th century innovation.
I'm not one given to rant against the government, and, as someone who has worked in the federal courts and on USAID projects, I'm intimately familiar with many of the frustrating inefficiencies in those agencies; but this one struck a chord. I tried to buy the order at the UPS store, but they didn't sell them, so I went to the bank branch embedded at our local supermarket. "Do you have an account here?" the teller asked. When I replied in the negative, she sent me to the Customer Service desk, where, after waiting for a man to collect his "rain check" on the Liquid Tide on sale this week, I got my draft, paying the $1 service charge.
One wonders why the federal government won't accept its own legal tender; or a cheque drawn on a federally insured institution (which can be cleared immediately now); credit card; Paypal; wire transfer, or one of the slick new mobile phone payment systems. Everybody else does. There are reasons why each will not work, and I heard many of them when we tried to get PACER to accept credit card payments in 2002, but none are legitimate.
I'm not one given to rant against the government, and, as someone who has worked in the federal courts and on USAID projects, I'm intimately familiar with many of the frustrating inefficiencies in those agencies; but this one struck a chord. I tried to buy the order at the UPS store, but they didn't sell them, so I went to the bank branch embedded at our local supermarket. "Do you have an account here?" the teller asked. When I replied in the negative, she sent me to the Customer Service desk, where, after waiting for a man to collect his "rain check" on the Liquid Tide on sale this week, I got my draft, paying the $1 service charge.
One wonders why the federal government won't accept its own legal tender; or a cheque drawn on a federally insured institution (which can be cleared immediately now); credit card; Paypal; wire transfer, or one of the slick new mobile phone payment systems. Everybody else does. There are reasons why each will not work, and I heard many of them when we tried to get PACER to accept credit card payments in 2002, but none are legitimate.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Blogfathers
I wondered if there were any other dads blogging. I was sure there were, but nobody with my unique take on life the universe and everything, right? Welcome to the total perspective vortex, Big D! A Google search for best dad blogs yielded 165 million results. I clicked through to dadblogs.org top blogs, which included links to 100 blogs, 18 of which focus on Stay-at-Home-Dads (SAHDs I now know) and 3 on dads with daughters. I also looked at circleofmoms.com’s top 25 dad blogs.
I opened a dozen of the links that looked like they had the most to say about my situation and interests. I’m through with babies, and don’t think that the blogs of gay and divorced dads are going to have as much to say to me (unfair, I know, but without the application of some heuristics, I’d be online the rest of my life). About 25% of the sites I opened had not been updated in several months—that’s a dealbreaker in today’s world, so I closed them immediately. Several focused on very young children (I guess not many teenagers need an SAHD), and a few just didn’t resonate.
The two that I’ve decided to add to my RSS feed include a food blog and a DIY site. The latter (http://dadand.com/) looks pretty slick, and I’m hoping that it helps me step up my game, which is not particularly strong in the home improvement department. The author of the food blog (http://www.stayatstovedad.com/) is an editor at the New Yorker, and has recently published a cookbook, so he has some street cred.
I’ll try to stay current on this issue and report back as circumstances warrant. Let me know if there are any sites you think I might enjoy.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Family Affair
I grew up with family dinner, and for the most part, I look back on it fondly (It was usually at 6 o’clock, right when Get Smart was coming on Channel 20). We also ate dinner together at our house in law school every night (backgammon for the dishes), and when relatives visit, you can be sure that a shared meal will be the centerpiece of most days, and the focus--to some--of far too much conversation.
I’m also aware of the research that suggests sharing meals is a key ingredient in the recipe for overall well-being, and, although I’ve tried to make a family dinner part of our regular routine, the busy schedules of the Gs (Cheer, theatre, music, tae kwon do, legos, etc.) often make it difficult to sit down together at the same time. Plus, while I enjoy a late meal, Worldwide is more of a front loader, and has often consumed her calories for the day by mid-afternoon. And the dietary predilections of the Gs (one vegetarian, one eating essentially only meat and plain pasta) make it difficult to plan one meal for everyone. In fact, this was a source of conflict during my 2009 sabbatical, when I was trying very hard to experiment every night with dishes that the kids might like--and usually failing. They really wanted to please me, but, at the same time, their palates just weren’t ready for new tastes and complicated flavours, often to my frustration.
Adding to this is the idea that small snacks or meals throughout the day are a better approach to healthy living, and this is entirely consistent with the preferred lifestyle of everyone in the family, bar me.
So we don’t eat together that much--maybe a couple of times a week. We do sit together at the breakfast table most days, although I don’t usually eat, and Worldwide generally kibbitzes from the sofa with her coffee. And we do have our regular evening out, although it has gone from weekly to perhaps monthly; so there is plenty of family time, even if we’re not eating dinner.
In light of this, I was glad to see an article in Sunday’s NYT suggesting that the togetherness, rather than the consumption, is the key to the benefits of the family dinner:
Buttermilk Pancakes
This is from the original Joy of Cooking, although I use a little extra baking powder, and I make my own buttermilk by adding a tablespoon of white vinegar to a cup of milk, and letting it sit for 10 minutes (Thanks Cook’s Illustrated).
Sift before measuring, 1 cup flour. Resift with 1 tsp. sugar, ½ tsp. salt, 1 tsp. baking powder, ½ tsp. baking soda. In a separate bowl, beat 1 egg until light. Add 1 cup buttermilk. Combine wet and dry ingredients with a couple of swift strokes of your wooden spoon. Stir in 2 tbs melted butter.
Heat the griddle or pan, prepped with a little vegetable oil. Have ready with the batter a small bowl of chocolate chips, and another of fruit (Worldwide likes the frozen berry medley we keep on hand, thawed in the microwave, although blueberries do fine as well.)
Drop the batter on the hot griddle in tablespoonfuls (2 for a silver dollar, 3 for what we call a hockey puck, 4 for a “mancake”). Drop a handful of fruit or chocolate (or both) into the batter, pressing it down with the spoon, and adding a little batter to cover, if necessary. Flip after a couple of minutes, when bubbles appear on the surface. Cook an additional couple of minutes, using a spatula to see if the underside looks done. When it does, it is.
Serve with maple or pancake syrup. We keep both, as Worldwide and the Gs seem to, ahem, waffle, over which they prefer. Sometimes, I’ll also mix a little syrup and butter together and heat it in the microwave until the butter is melted.
I’m also aware of the research that suggests sharing meals is a key ingredient in the recipe for overall well-being, and, although I’ve tried to make a family dinner part of our regular routine, the busy schedules of the Gs (Cheer, theatre, music, tae kwon do, legos, etc.) often make it difficult to sit down together at the same time. Plus, while I enjoy a late meal, Worldwide is more of a front loader, and has often consumed her calories for the day by mid-afternoon. And the dietary predilections of the Gs (one vegetarian, one eating essentially only meat and plain pasta) make it difficult to plan one meal for everyone. In fact, this was a source of conflict during my 2009 sabbatical, when I was trying very hard to experiment every night with dishes that the kids might like--and usually failing. They really wanted to please me, but, at the same time, their palates just weren’t ready for new tastes and complicated flavours, often to my frustration.
Adding to this is the idea that small snacks or meals throughout the day are a better approach to healthy living, and this is entirely consistent with the preferred lifestyle of everyone in the family, bar me.
So we don’t eat together that much--maybe a couple of times a week. We do sit together at the breakfast table most days, although I don’t usually eat, and Worldwide generally kibbitzes from the sofa with her coffee. And we do have our regular evening out, although it has gone from weekly to perhaps monthly; so there is plenty of family time, even if we’re not eating dinner.
In light of this, I was glad to see an article in Sunday’s NYT suggesting that the togetherness, rather than the consumption, is the key to the benefits of the family dinner:
our findings suggest that the effects of family dinners on children depend on the extent to which parents use the time to engage with their children and learn about their day-to-day lives. So if you aren’t able to make the family meal happen on a regular basis, don’t beat yourself up: just find another way to connect with your kids.That sounds about right. I look forward to the Gs discovering new foods they like, and to amassing a list of family favourites I can trot out when they come home from college, the circus, tour, or whatever. Right now, chocolate chip cookies are the only thing we can agree on. BG loves pesto, as well as my vegetarian risotto and smoothies; OG likes a burger or a chorizo on the grill, and everyone except me is a big fan of my buttermilk pancakes (though Worldwide likes the fruit version, OG likes ‘em with chocolate chips, and BG likes hers plain). So we keep on truckin’; plenty of time.
Buttermilk Pancakes
This is from the original Joy of Cooking, although I use a little extra baking powder, and I make my own buttermilk by adding a tablespoon of white vinegar to a cup of milk, and letting it sit for 10 minutes (Thanks Cook’s Illustrated).
Sift before measuring, 1 cup flour. Resift with 1 tsp. sugar, ½ tsp. salt, 1 tsp. baking powder, ½ tsp. baking soda. In a separate bowl, beat 1 egg until light. Add 1 cup buttermilk. Combine wet and dry ingredients with a couple of swift strokes of your wooden spoon. Stir in 2 tbs melted butter.
Heat the griddle or pan, prepped with a little vegetable oil. Have ready with the batter a small bowl of chocolate chips, and another of fruit (Worldwide likes the frozen berry medley we keep on hand, thawed in the microwave, although blueberries do fine as well.)
Drop the batter on the hot griddle in tablespoonfuls (2 for a silver dollar, 3 for what we call a hockey puck, 4 for a “mancake”). Drop a handful of fruit or chocolate (or both) into the batter, pressing it down with the spoon, and adding a little batter to cover, if necessary. Flip after a couple of minutes, when bubbles appear on the surface. Cook an additional couple of minutes, using a spatula to see if the underside looks done. When it does, it is.
Serve with maple or pancake syrup. We keep both, as Worldwide and the Gs seem to, ahem, waffle, over which they prefer. Sometimes, I’ll also mix a little syrup and butter together and heat it in the microwave until the butter is melted.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Q2 Books
Earth and High Heaven, Gwethlyn Graham
Interesting look at the casual anti-semitism of Montreal in the
40s, as well as Quebecers' take on WW II and the Commonwealth. But the
forbidden romance dragged, and the ending was predictable. Likable heroine
though. Sam Goldwyn wanted Hepburn to play her. First Canadian novel to hit #1
on the NYT.
The Maltese Falcon, Dashiell Hammett
The first title in Worldwide’s new book club. The granddaddy of
the hard boiled detective novel, I heard the movie cast’s unforgettable voices
throughout. But I didn’t find the paper Spade as cool as Bogart’s, and all the
events and characters struck me as archaic, and, even a trifle ridiculous.
Imagine: How Creativity Works, Jonah Lehrer
Interesting study of the neuroscience of creativity. The secrets
include other people and unfamiliar surroundings. If you want to solve
difficult problems, think about something else.
Candide, Voltaire
Satire of belief that everything is for the best. Hard for slaves
and women to agree. I found this a little juvenile, and some coincidences were
implausible. Did enjoy the idea of the British and French pointlessly fighting
over the “few acres of snow” that would later become my birth country.
The Paradox Of Choice: Why More Is Less, Barry Schwartz
Research suggests that more choices make it harder to decide and
diminish our happiness in almost every way. 500 channels and there’s nothing
worth watching.
Haircut and other stories, Ring Lardner
Had been meaning to explore Niles Michigan’s own Ring Lardner for
some time. Found in him elements of Raymond Carver and Mark Twain, with lots of
sports to boot. Unpretentious and deceptively insightful.
Franny and Zooey, J. D. Salinger
2012 me did not enjoy it nearly as much as 1987 me had. I found
the world weariness of these twenty year old beautiful rich kids more naïve
than profound, and the many literary allusions a little grandstanding and
unnecessary. But the prose flowed nicely.
Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong, Terry Teachout
Not a complicated, or a perfect man, he learned music in New
Orleans Juvi and aboard Mississippi steamboats. An intuitive musician and a
tireless worker, he did more than perhaps anyone else to shape American pop in
the 20th century. Made every song uniquely his, no matter how hackneyed.
Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters, Richard
Rumelt
3 elements of good strategy: diagnosis, defining the challenge;
policy for addressing it; and actions for carrying out the policy. Simple, but
there are no guarantees of success and some may suffer; which is why most
strategies are vacuous bits of gossamer. By someone who knows the difference.
The Thin Man, Dashiell Hammett
Stylish whodunit. More fun to read than the Maltese Falcon, thanks
largely to the non-stop drinking, witty bons mots and the implausibly perfect
Nora.
The One: The Life and Music of James Brown, RJ Smith
Not the nicest cat, he seems to have sacrificed relationships,
money and health at the altar of success. Ran his band like a despot, but he made
it groove like no other. Endorsed Nixon, smoked PCP every day in the 80s. Dan
Hartman wrote Living in America, based on Stallone's vision for Rocky IV
An Economist Gets Lunch: New Rules for Everyday Foodies, Tyler
Cowen
Go where supplies are fresh, suppliers creative, and consumers
informed to find good food. Did not enjoy this as much as I 'd hoped. Author
seems more collector or detective than epicure: solving the puzzles and
maximizing the number of experiences appear more important than gustatory
pleasure.
The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and
Conspiracies--How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them As Truths, Michael
Shermer
Lengthy assessment of how we seek data to support what we believe
to be true. Interesting hypothesis that religion arose out of an evolutionary
need for order in larger societies, and that the search for extraterrestrial
intelligence stems from the same neural activity.
The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life, Steven E.
Landsburg
Enjoyable look at the economic principles underlying everyday
life, this is the first book (I think) in what might now be called a subgenre.
Written in 1993, it has the smug tone that is harder to maintain after recent
events and the rise of behavioural economics.
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking,
Susan Cain
Extroverts get all the attention because they never stop talking.
But the quiet ones have something to contribute. Plodding at times, and
diminished by excessive cheerleading, this is still interesting, never more so
than when parents are trying to shoehorn their children into normative spaces.
The Management Myth: Debunking Modern Business Philosophy, Matthew
Stewart
Insider with experience shows—with personal anecdotes and a
history of the profession—why Management Consulting as science is largely bunk.
Success is simultaneously simpler and harder than it seems. Be smart. Work
hard. Adapt. You don’t need a high-priced consultant to tell you that. Usually.
The Textile industry in North Carolina: a history, Brent D. Glass
Capable recitation of the facts. Copied business model wholesale
from New England; boomed as people left the farm and went to war. Roiled by
struggles between workers and management before quietly disappearing. Competition
from abroad was the reason, though it is not discussed here.
Caribbean, James A. Michener
Survey of Caribbean history, remarkable for its historical and
geographical breadth. But the movie-of-the-week stories and cartoonish
characters didn’t make it come alive for me—quite possibly the reverse—except
for the horrible treatment of slaves and natives by the Europeans. That
resonated.
The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America, Marc
Levinson
Began as humble NY tea merchant, grew rapidly by passing cost
savings on to consumers, using brands to assure quality in an uncertain time.
Government tried to stop it from driving small merchants out of business;
customers didn’t seem to mind. Eerily reminiscent of Wal-Mart
The Golden Compass, Philip Pullman, Ian Beck
Another great female heroine in a fantasy world that is part
Dickens, part Narnia. Devoured it, so I’m reluctant to criticize, but the importance
of the “Dust” and its undermining (validation?) of religion was hard for this
older reader to grasp. Perhaps the sequels will clear this up.
The Fix, Damian Thompson
Drugs, sugar, alcohol, gambling, pornography and technology all
work on the same neural circuitry within our brains. And the sellers of these
products understand this much better than we do. It’s hard to stay in control,
whatever that means.
The Mysterious Benedict Society, Trenton Lee Stewart, Carson Ellis
Utterly charming story of motley band of gifted orphans saving the
world. Utterly charming and often quite clever, Evie enjoyed this immensely,
and I did too. Diddy’s daughter dressed as Kate Wetherall for Halloween and was
shocked that no-one recognized her. Me too.
The Subtle Knife, Philip Pullman
Second book in the trilogy gives us another hero to help Lyra and
a number of parallel universes to complicate things. Richly nuanced and quickly
read, I say that my taste for fantasy has abated over time, and yet I’m already
halfway through the final book.
The Amber Spyglass, Philip Pullman
Wraps everything up nicely, but I grew bored in the underworld, as
well as the world of the noble creatures with wheels instead of legs. And never
has a final battle between the forces of good and evil seemed less epic.
It's Not You, It's the Dishes: How to Minimize Conflict and
Maximize Happiness in Your Relationship, Paula Szuchman, Jenny Anderson
Father’s Day gift from the Better Half (Signaling?). Is marriage
the ultimate moral hazard? Often funny, with many familiar situations, the use
of basic economics principles works a little too perfectly to be credible. Like
business, relationships are more complicated, consequences less certain.
Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition
and Strategy, Joan Magretta, Michael E. Porter
Useful primer on a business guru I was chagrined to not be aware
of until recently. A company need not be the best at what it does, but it does
need to differentiate itself on the value chain in some way. This principle,
along with the “5 forces analysis” will be useful in future planning.
Context, Cory Doctorow, Tim O'Reilly
Series of short, readable essays from someone with strong
and interesting opinions on intellectual property in the Internet age. Less
protection means more creativity. Anybody listening?
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Have it Your Way
Over a kid-free dinner in the Berkshires on Friday night (halfway between French Woods and Star Island), Worldwide asked for my thoughts on the cover story from this month’s Atlantic about why women can’t have it all. I had read a couple of posts reacting to the author’s argument that the deck is still stacked against women achieving an optimum work/life balance, but had not actually read the article.
I bought a copy for the flight home yesterday, and I had mentally sketched out this post, only to find that an article from this morning’s New York Times pre-empted a number of the points that I wanted to make:
I think everyone aspires to have it all, to realize their vision for a perfect future. My own fuzzy perception of this in law school--a choice I made--based on a vague concept of an interesting, well-paying vocation--involved a high-status job at a large law firm, a smart and beautiful wife, a large house in a cool city and abundant leisure time. Everyone, I think has a similarly personal utopian vision, but these visions inevitably run into the reality of competition and trade-offs. A good job at a large law firm in a cool city requires hard work in law school and a commitment of time that interferes with leisure activity. Plus, in a competitive world, there will always be people whose trade-offs make them better suited for specific aspects of your utopia--the people who choose to not have (or to ignore) children; to live at the office; or to sacrifice their retirement savings for positional goods. And some of them are smarter than you as well.
So the basic problem with “having it all” is twofold: firstly, every choice involves some sacrifice, and second, most people will not achieve the goals they set for themselves as young people. That’s not a dismissal of the value of ambition, but it is argument for a constant recalibration of the possible.
I do not mean to dismiss the article; I think the title is a little unfair, and it might have gone down a little easier had it been “It is difficult, especially for women, to achieve the perfect work/life balance.” I also think that the author does not spend sufficient time on the key factor in the equation: the division of labor among domestic partners. Perhaps this is because doing so would shut some women out of the discussion (and make it more complicated), but the fact is that the role of a domestic partner as breadwinner/enabler/caregiver/ is the most important contributor to the equilibrium. Both Ms. Slaughter and Ms. Chira reference “supportive husbands” and, as someone whose spouse is abroad for extended periods each year, I understand this role. I also understand that men are only slowly beginning to appreciate the need to take on increased responsibility at home in return for supporting their spouse’s career, and for the financial opportunity that a working partner provides. I think that the workplace is gradually evolving to facilitate the advancement of women, and the increased domestic commitment of men. Changes like working remotely and the “results only work environment” are helping our society to break free of the clock and attendance-based world of yesteryear. But marginal improvements and long term trends are small recompense to people facing the reality of the here and now.
I do believe that, in a country as prosperous as ours, we need to do more to support a healthy work/life balance, and to support a variety of approaches to what we once called our “jobs.” In the always connected, hyper-competitive, quarterly reporting world of today, I suspect that organizations that do more to support their employees’ lives outside the workplace will ultimately be more successful. But that’s a difficult principle to embrace in the face of the reality of fierce competition to make a sale or meet a deadline.
That said, the main reason that no-one can have it all is that such a construction is impossible by definition. The only path toward fulfilment is in making the trade-offs that optimize our own happiness, and in savoring the joy of the things we have--whether they be job satisfaction, family or personal achievement--rather than bemoaning those we have chosen to sacrifice in the pursuit of happiness.
One of the reasons that business and life advice is always somewhat unsatisfying is that it invariably comes back to a couple of fundamental truths familiar to everyone. It’s important to keep these in mind as we storm into a never-ending series of quotidian battles with assorted trolls. A supportive person can help us retain perspective on what is truly important in our lives, and to remember that the key to having it all lies in being happy with the choices we’ve made and optimistic about the possibilities ahead.
Update
Cold comfort for my generation, but the never-boring Penelope Trunk says that women who want high-powered careers should marry older men and get pregnant in their mid-twenties. I wonder if I'll pass that advice on to the Gs.
I bought a copy for the flight home yesterday, and I had mentally sketched out this post, only to find that an article from this morning’s New York Times pre-empted a number of the points that I wanted to make:
There is always a price to pay for achievement, or for trimming your sails — to some degree, for some periods of time — at work. There will always be someone who will work harder and advance faster and higher, and often that someone will be a man. It will feel unfair, even with the knowledge that there are incalculable benefits to having a rich family life that the most driven will never fully savor.In my view, the key to the issue is in the first sentence. No-one of any gender can have it all--particularly at the rarefied levels sought by the author, shuttling between a tenured job at Princeton and a post in Hillary Clinton’s office. Every decision at every level involves a trade off of some kind: marriage means commitment to one person; having children means a relinquishing of time and freedom; and career choice carries with it both a ceding of a certain amount of leisure time and the acceptance of a level of financial compensation that will either allow or forbid a set of lifestyle choices. And moreover, at every level, the competition means that most people will not realize their dreams, even if they sacrifice everything else. Such is the stuff dreams are made of.
I think everyone aspires to have it all, to realize their vision for a perfect future. My own fuzzy perception of this in law school--a choice I made--based on a vague concept of an interesting, well-paying vocation--involved a high-status job at a large law firm, a smart and beautiful wife, a large house in a cool city and abundant leisure time. Everyone, I think has a similarly personal utopian vision, but these visions inevitably run into the reality of competition and trade-offs. A good job at a large law firm in a cool city requires hard work in law school and a commitment of time that interferes with leisure activity. Plus, in a competitive world, there will always be people whose trade-offs make them better suited for specific aspects of your utopia--the people who choose to not have (or to ignore) children; to live at the office; or to sacrifice their retirement savings for positional goods. And some of them are smarter than you as well.
So the basic problem with “having it all” is twofold: firstly, every choice involves some sacrifice, and second, most people will not achieve the goals they set for themselves as young people. That’s not a dismissal of the value of ambition, but it is argument for a constant recalibration of the possible.
I do not mean to dismiss the article; I think the title is a little unfair, and it might have gone down a little easier had it been “It is difficult, especially for women, to achieve the perfect work/life balance.” I also think that the author does not spend sufficient time on the key factor in the equation: the division of labor among domestic partners. Perhaps this is because doing so would shut some women out of the discussion (and make it more complicated), but the fact is that the role of a domestic partner as breadwinner/enabler/caregiver/ is the most important contributor to the equilibrium. Both Ms. Slaughter and Ms. Chira reference “supportive husbands” and, as someone whose spouse is abroad for extended periods each year, I understand this role. I also understand that men are only slowly beginning to appreciate the need to take on increased responsibility at home in return for supporting their spouse’s career, and for the financial opportunity that a working partner provides. I think that the workplace is gradually evolving to facilitate the advancement of women, and the increased domestic commitment of men. Changes like working remotely and the “results only work environment” are helping our society to break free of the clock and attendance-based world of yesteryear. But marginal improvements and long term trends are small recompense to people facing the reality of the here and now.
I do believe that, in a country as prosperous as ours, we need to do more to support a healthy work/life balance, and to support a variety of approaches to what we once called our “jobs.” In the always connected, hyper-competitive, quarterly reporting world of today, I suspect that organizations that do more to support their employees’ lives outside the workplace will ultimately be more successful. But that’s a difficult principle to embrace in the face of the reality of fierce competition to make a sale or meet a deadline.
That said, the main reason that no-one can have it all is that such a construction is impossible by definition. The only path toward fulfilment is in making the trade-offs that optimize our own happiness, and in savoring the joy of the things we have--whether they be job satisfaction, family or personal achievement--rather than bemoaning those we have chosen to sacrifice in the pursuit of happiness.
One of the reasons that business and life advice is always somewhat unsatisfying is that it invariably comes back to a couple of fundamental truths familiar to everyone. It’s important to keep these in mind as we storm into a never-ending series of quotidian battles with assorted trolls. A supportive person can help us retain perspective on what is truly important in our lives, and to remember that the key to having it all lies in being happy with the choices we’ve made and optimistic about the possibilities ahead.
Update
Cold comfort for my generation, but the never-boring Penelope Trunk says that women who want high-powered careers should marry older men and get pregnant in their mid-twenties. I wonder if I'll pass that advice on to the Gs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)