nelboscofc@gmail.com – Page 2

Confused

A national anthem is a song created to make a political statement, yet many are now upset that the U.S. national anthem is being used to make a political statement.

A short guide to becoming valued and respected

Sometimes, just being a helpful and thoughtful person in the right place at the right time becomes a gift or talent in itself. Over time, that gift becomes experience, which in turn becomes skill. Don’t worry. You’ll figure it out.

R.I.P, R.P.

Not too long ago I went to a cemetery to visit the grave of a man I didn’t know. He didn’t know me, either. In fact, if his current status permits some knowledge of us, he was probably quite surprised by my visit. I like to think he was also pleased, and maybe even relieved.

The cemetery is in Portland, Oregon. It is a small hole in the wall. Or, more accurately, a series of holes next to the very large wall of a U-Haul depot in an industrial part of town that was in all probability less industrial when its vocation as a final resting place was imagined and established.

The man was a Civil War veteran. His small, simple tombstone declares only his first two initials, his family name, and “CORP. 41^st OHIO INF.” The man’s first two initials were R. P. His family name was—almost—mine. Most of the raised stone letters are worn, some almost completely illegible. I wouldn’t have known it said 41^st if I didn’t know something about him.

In my lifetime, R. P. has been a controversial figure, though I don’t know if he was controversial in his own.

R. P.’s 41^st Ohio fought in several important battles of the Civil War. When R. P. mustered out of the Grand Army of the Republic in San Antonio, he remained in the South, and by 1867 had made his way to south Georgia. There he married the widow of a Confederate soldier and began farming. He was among many who did so. They had been married less than a year when he took the cotton crop to market and never returned. The wife he abandoned was pregnant with his son. Neither they nor their offspring ever heard from or of R. P. again. Surely he was among many for whom that, too, might be said.

In generations older than mine, any discussion of R. P. was generally accompanied by expression of clear relief that he had married the mother of his young son. While there was some shame to be borne that he was a Yankee soldier, at least they were married. Conversation about R. P. usually included that fact and little else. He was by no means a respected or beloved figure among his progeny. In my generation and those generations younger than mine, nobody talks about him at all.

I am his great-great grandson, have known of him for decades, yet confess that I gave him very little thought in my lifetime.

The only reason I know of his grave is the internet. Genealogy is much easier than it used to be, and my father has accumulated an impressive amount of information about R. P., his great-grandfather. Most of that information comes from descendants of R. P.’s siblings who have tracked and traced facts that my father’s branch of the family neither possessed nor sought to acquire. The digitization of veterans’ and federal benefits records, and of the census, revealed a great deal about R. P. and his movements and entourages to those who undertook to research his life. His story is one that would not have been imagined by those he had left in south Georgia and the generations that followed them.

Of particular interest is the fact that the name he passed down to me differs by only one letter from the name he used both before and after leaving it as part of my legacy from him. Whether that difference is due to the vagaries of contemporary spelling or his ineptitude or sloth in crafting an alias for the short chapter of his life that was inscribed in south Georgia is unknown.

The context of the assembly of facts about his life is, ultimately, that R. P.’s story was representative of its times during those defining moments of the nation’s evolution and projection.

When he left his wife in south Georgia he returned to Ohio, whence he had enlisted in the war. There, he quickly married another woman, and they had two daughters. We thus know that R. P. was a bigamist. Surely that might be said of many like him. The family moved to Michigan, where one daughter died, young.

Some years later, the remaining daughter was stricken with consumption. R. P. accompanied her to a spa in La Veta, Colorado, a town south of Denver, where one of his brothers had settled as a farmer, businessman, and proprietor– or at least manager– of a sulphur springs bath. R. P. took her there to be cured, but the cure did not take and his second daughter, too, died, young. He took her body home to Michigan.

In a compelling part of the story that neither surprises nor shocks those of us in subsequent generations of what became our family, R. P.’s nephew, Elmer, among other pursuits, “tended” billiards halls in Colorado, and he, too, died young.

Not long after R. P. bore the body of his daughter back to Michigan, he and his wife headed west. They ended up in Portland. R. P. didn’t last long in Oregon and was buried where I found him. His wife remarried and is buried elsewhere. So R.P. has been truly alone.

R. P. does not enjoy the status of respected or beloved ancestor by my family, yet I was overcome by sorrow visiting his grave. He died not knowing the son he left behind in Georgia—perhaps not even knowing that his wife was expecting– and surely still grieving the two daughters he lost when they were young. Imagine the constant weight and special pain R. P. must have felt after surviving the horrors of several Civil War battles only to outlive his children. Imagine the pride and, perhaps, solace R. P. might have derived from knowing his son, by then an ordained Methodist minister. As the cemetery that was his destination is not a veterans’ cemetery, the only sentiment of his we can be certain of is the importance he placed on his rank and affiliation with an infantry unit in a war that had ended more than forty years earlier.

So R. P. could not have expected my visit– someone four generations after him, yet from him, calling on him to pay my respects. He could not have envisioned the many of us who now bear his (wrong, fake, misspelled, or, possibly, true) name. As far as he knew, he had not conferred it on a succeeding generation. Thinking of our current number provoked me to pour a libation on his grave. All I had was half a travel mug of coffee, so that had to do.

As far as I know, I am his only descendant via his son to visit his grave. I felt a strong sense of having honored this man somehow, even though I have no insight into what he considered an honor, other than the military service that defines him on his tombstone. I, in turn, felt honored to be with him, if only for a brief instant of his long, lonely repose.

Pay attention to the game in front of you– This means you, Jeff Van Gundy!

As we approach the playoffs, this missive is a heartfelt plea to NBA announcers to tell us more about the game we’re watching and much less about anything else.

It has become tiresome to watch an NBA game and hear the announcers talk about anything but the game they are purportedly there to broadcast. While I pick on Jeff Van Gundy in my caption, he is perhaps only the most visible and voluble of many transgressors in this respect.

I suspect I speak for others in declaring genuine frustration with the type of information NBA broadcasters are choosing to favor in their commentary. For example, it is increasingly common to have battalions of substitutions occur unremarked upon because Jeff and his ilk are talking about some other NBA story, or even non-NBA current events, rather than providing insight into the game we have dedicated our time to watch. While many sports fans correctly decry the usurping of sports airtime caused by the inevitable celebrity, human interest, and other stories the sideline coverage crews hustle to discover and present, it is far more insidious to the viewing experience to have the person whose very responsibility it is to describe the action in front of him (or, much more rarely, her) careen off on tangents that have little or nothing to do with the game being broadcast.

These guys — and Jeff Van Gundy, I mean you — go on and on about anything while we thirst for what they are quite specifically there to provide: knowledgeable, reasoned commentary on the game playing out right in front of them. The game being broadcast. The broadcast for which they are the soundtrack. Tell me about that rookie who just checked into the game, not about Joel Embiid’s or Ben Simmons’ absence from all games. And, while we completely understand and respect that you must praise any and all NBA coaches as masterful, humane geniuses, explain why the coach on the sidelines right down from you has chosen to play that rookie right now. Do your homework for the game you are calling. Under no circumstances should a viewer be able to correct your statistics off the top of his/her head, yet that happens with disturbing frequency as they challenge you through the screen, “It is NOT his first 3pg attempt of the game; he’s missed two in the past two minutes!” You should not authoritatively state that Player X has been very impressive or solid lately when just last night his careless turnover at the end of the previous game enabled the other team to win on a buzzer beater.

All we’re suggesting is that you pay as much attention to the game you are commenting on from your courtside seats as we do from our vantage points perhaps a continent or farther away.

You are really good at describing basketball. You know much more about basketball than we do. Please share your knowledge in a way that illuminates our understanding of the game we have chosen to watch. We have plenty of other sources for information or opinion on every other subject, but none for what we hoped to get from you during this game.

And, yeah, Jeff Van Gundy, this means you.

The whitewash of “good jobs” in American politics

Current political and economic realities in the United States have highlighted the sense of loss and frustration felt and expressed by less educated white males. These men have come to embody the core of support for American conservatism in its most extreme and extremist forms. As a group, they almost represent a formal cultural movement of men who are angry at the way things are– so angry that they rarely let facts get in the way of their resentment about the status quo.

Neither do American politicians from both major political parties. Feeling the political and societal heat, and sensing an opening, politicians draw attention to the plight of this “new” underclass and court its support. They all declare that the policies they promote are the answer. Once in office, they pledge to fix things and restore hope—usually via promises of “good jobs” to those whose employment opportunities have dwindled, withered, and, in some cases, packed up and left town.

To be clear, the demographic these politicians seek to win over when they speak about the need to create more “good jobs” is very specifically white men with less than a college education. This slice of America has become shorthand for “Trump voter” or even “Republican voter,” but no part of what’s written below has a direct link to partisan politics. Similarly, although this resentment-driven political movement is not just an “angry white male” thing, it mostly is; less educated white men are its primary cohort and vector as a sociological and political force. To ascribe more inclusive demographics to this issue is equivalent to proposing that a suburban white woman is the image usually associated with the term “rap star.”

American politicians, from the president on down, talk about the need to create “good jobs” for these men who have seen their fortunes fade and their political orientation harden. But what do politicians mean by “good jobs?” Any job can be good or bad, depending on circumstances. Is a good job defined by high pay alone, by generous benefits, by workers’ rights, by all of these, or by something else?

Given the context of their comments and the audience for their promises, a clear definition of “good jobs” has been forged for use in the lexicon of modern American politics.

In America today, white males who do not have a college education and/or who do not seek “desk jobs” have—for the most part—concocted a notion of employment that is carefully circumscribed by a romantic idea of honest, hard-working , skilled laborers who live by a code of professionalism and honor. In these jobs, men toil mightily, but also call it like they see it, tell it like it is, don’t take any nonsense from anyone, and demand respect. They’re the man, after all, and whatever work they do must be “manly” enough to justify accepting it.

Yes, this cohort of America has demonstrated what work it will do and what work it will not do. There is no moral judgement to be made about this, as anyone is free to accept or refuse any job. But it’s time to stop pretending that the less educated white male worker in America does not have a very clear idea of what kind of job he considers worth accepting. He does, and he also has a clear idea of what he will not accept. All the proposals for “retraining” or calls for greater access to education are beside the point for those who have already made their decision about what constitutes a “good” job.

Here is a list of some of the qualities that define a “good” job for less educated white males in the United States of America today. It is, above all, a “manly” list.

Involves heavy equipment, power tools, or vehicles
Requires work clothes, boots, and/or specialty protective gear
Characterized by very specific duties that require a very specific skill
Assumes clear work hours that do not involve extra commitment without generous overtime pay or other clear benefit
Permits frequent interaction with one’s supervisor and guaranteed “respect” from that supervisor
Identification as part of a team, not as a unit to be moved as needed
Coated with a patina of honor for occupying a recognized station of status—a job one can be proud of

Here is a list of unacceptable components or context of employment for less educated white males in the United States today. It is a list of features that are not “manly” enough.

A lot of reading, writing, or paperwork
Use of brooms, shovels, wheelbarrows or other inert, less dynamic or complicated, tools
Face to face customer service, such as is found in retail—in other words, anywhere the customer must be treated as if s/he is always right
Taking care of children or sick people, except as a driver
Subject to requirements for flexibility in hours and/or duties and/or subject to a boss’ sometimes arbitrary orders or decisions
Little or no opportunity to disagree with or challenge the boss or “system”

A handy shortcut for what is acceptable is this: Could the job be glamorized in a country song? If so, it’s a “good” job; if not, then it is probably not worthy of this demographic.

Using these criteria, possibly the “best” job is firefighter. It is no surprise, therefore, that the United States has far more firefighters than it needs and that community firefighting is almost always guaranteed to win outsized shares of municipal budgets, be spared cost-cutting, continue to expand to increasingly more luxurious facilities, and—often– feature (literally) scandalous benefits, overtime, and scheduling practices.

The unspoken (or at least publicly unspoken) logical result of this winnowing is that white males without a college degree who subscribe to the above consider most of the avenues of employment currently available to those without college degrees beneath them. That, in turn, means that they consider those who take these jobs—mostly women and Hispanic or other immigrants—to be not quite their equal.

Nobody has to look very far to witness clear examples of this ethos in American life. Here are a few that are so common as to be caricatures. Yet, for less educated white men, they are not caricatures but templates.

Construction site: White guy in vest and hardhat sitting in and operating digger, forklift, or other heavy equipment while non-white men operate shovels, brooms, wheelbarrows, or hand tools in the mud, dirt, or dust.
Skilled or unskilled labor: White guy with an air-conditioned vehicle and a clipboard or iPad talking on a phone or radio while non-white guys do all of the actual “work” that the group is there to do. (Paving driveways, loading and unloading anything by hand, clearing tables or washing dishes, landscaping, painting, roofing, planting or harvesting—these are some common examples.)
Carnivals: White men no longer work in carnivals, except in supervisory positions. Carnival operators in the United States hire Mexicans (mostly—and mostly from the same town in Mexico), since, as they explain when justifying work visas for these Mexicans, white men hired dislike the living conditions and pace of work and quit after a few days.

Therefore, when American politicians talk about “good jobs,” what they really mean—and it’s time to recognize and admit this reality—is “jobs less educated white men will accept.”

These politicians are pandering. They are addressing a subset of Americans and pretending to buy into that group’s definition of “good jobs.” They are also pretending that their policies will revive this kind of job, even though not enough of them exist, and not enough of them will ever exist. They are also, unintentionally but shortsightedly, insulting other American workers who accept the jobs white men won’t.

Perhaps worse, this constant refrain about “good” jobs for less educated whites tends to validate in that very audience its image of what a good job is. Sadly, that image is neither realistic nor reasonable– not only because it is based on a past economic structure that cannot be resuscitated, but also because it is—largely– based on emotion, pride, and false nostalgia.

This equation means that politicians who promise or pretend to promise “good” jobs to less educated white males either do not understand what their audience hears or they are cynically pandering to that audience by presenting a promising employment landscape that is nothing more than an empty promise. There are many examples. Coal mining as a significant source of employment is not part of America’s future. Heavy equipment, factories, and machines in general require less and less human input, so jobs that rely on interaction with them will become even scarcer. At the present time, America needs fewer—not more—firemen, as tougher building codes and better construction and prevention practices have drastically decreased the incidence of fires.

All these aspects of the contemporary American labor market are indisputably true and have been documented for at least a decade. Contemporary manufacturing jobs, for example, generally require education and/or training in order to thrive in a modern, computer-driven factory or assembly line. Manufacturing jobs also generally require a great deal more flexibility in terms of duties and schedules than they used to. In other words, even the jobs that are held up as the type of “good job” that these men might aspire to no longer fit their definition of good jobs.

Yet politicians fail to communicate this reality to these aggrieved voters—or to the public at large. Very few candidates for office, if any, have the integrity to say, “without higher education or training, it looks like the best options for jobs in the future include health care and retail and landscaping and other sectors you haven’t considered.” And, although everyone knows this to be true, almost no politician is on the record disassociating immigration from the loss of jobs, since none of them will say, “OK, if we eliminate illegal immigrants as participants in our economy, are you able-bodied white men looking for work willing to take the jobs they currently fill? If not, who going to pick the crops and work non-skilled construction and clean buildings and care for the elderly and wash dishes?”

Pretending that politics can deliver the jobs that white males without a college education consider manly enough to be worth their time is nothing more than taking advantage of these white males’ emotions to win their political support or silence them as a barrier to desired political or economic outcomes that will not involve them.

It is important to underscore—again– that, while much of the above characterizes any worker in the United States or elsewhere, less educated white male workers are the political force that expresses it. People have a right to seek jobs that appeal to them, and workers should be proud of the work they do. The underlying issue this piece seeks to expose is the relationship between a specific definition of “good jobs” and that definition’s deleterious effect on American politics. It is, thus, an attempt to establish definitions, and to identify the patterns that result from definitions. Papering over this slice of American reality, or failing to identify it for what it is does these angry white men– and the rest of the American polity– a disservice.

British Invasion- Soccer/Football- “Football”

More than a few explicitly British football (soccer) terms have perniciously crept into U.S. soccer commentary, despite the precedence of perfectly serviceable American alternatives.

Football: This is the only term we may be equivocal about, and that is because it is the word almost every language in the world has come to adopt to describe the sport. Use of “football” over “soccer” by Americans may be an affectation, but at least it’s not entirely due to an infection of British usage.

NB:

The British Invasion is when– unbidden and unneeded– explicitly British words and expressions infiltrate American public commentary and journalism. This is alarming because the resultant multiplier effect could cause an epidemic that infects ordinary Americans’ healthy vocabulary.

Although I strive for tolerance, for the purpose of this series of posts, my fundamental assumption is that American is better than, not just different from, British. This is– mainly, if not exclusively– because American is newer and made improvements to its dialect of origin. I do, however, confess to frequent unfair extrapolation from this arguably reasonable approach to almost wholesale– and borderline unfair– derision of British compared to American. I beg the reader’s forbearance for having fun with such a solemn topic. I’m just taking the mickey– or whatever it is Americans say.

Direct Current Leadership: No Alternative to Power

In most countries, the primary occupation and preoccupation of the leader is staying in power. Although international political and diplomatic discourse—and much media reporting– is predicated on the notion that rulers act on the basis of law, for the good of their nations, or with a strategic interest in some defined long-term benefit, rulers’ actions consistently prove these presumptions wrong. It is a strain of myopia to believe or pretend that most rulers in the world care about anything but continuing to rule.

Government officials and pundits in rich democracies often express surprise, disappointment, or even hurt feelings when, to use one common example, the ruler of a country that is not a rich democracy makes clear that, despite the laws or constitution that prohibit staying in office beyond his current mandate, he does not plan to leave his post. (NB: Because the overwhelming majority of such rulers are men, this article will depart from standard usage and use masculine pronouns.) Observers and international partners may also evince naive astonishment or shock when he uses his office for personal financial gain, to create opportunities for relatives or friends, or to menace and/or harm anyone who challenges his grip on power.

Yet this behavior is, of course, to be expected; it is the modus operandi in the overwhelming majority of countries. Most world leaders’ governing goals or principles amount to nothing more than remaining in power as long as possible. This is human nature, but these men’s obsession with occupying the top spot is, in general, also prudent and reasonable behavior. After all, most nations’ political systems and societies do not offer former leaders roles or niches that provide financial security, worthy outlets for their experience and energy, and– perhaps most important—the honor and respect they believe they have earned. Most rulers are thus– quite understandably— comfortable where they are and determined to stay there.

The importance the ruler places on remaining in office over any other priority is sometimes demonstrated by actions that twist or abandon his prior goals or aspirations. On many occasions, a country’s leader does something counterintuitive or unorthodox that momentarily astounds precisely because it doesn’t seem to fit a narrative or context that had defined his previously expressed identity or deliberate actions. (Former Yemeni president Saleh’s alliance with the Houthis is a good example.) Every single time this kind of thing happens, the leader is making the unusual decision or taking the unexpected step for the simple reason that he believes it’s good for him. He is never loyal to a party, ideology, set of laws, current allies, or his people. He is certainly not to be constrained by commonly-understood concepts of right and wrong. What is right is remaining in power. That’s all there is to it.

Examples of this abound. Scan the international news any day to find reminders or new occurrences of the by-now-standard artifices even elected leaders employ to remain in office. Just a few of the more common tactics are constitutional changes to allow extra terms in office, sliding into the office of prime minister from the presidency (or vice-versa) with attendant shifts of duties from the old office to the new, sudden alliances with former political enemies to maintain or retake power, and imposition by decree of “temporary emergency” measures which delay political processes and—literally—handcuff the opposition.

Yet the international community quite often pretends that these rulers and their systems of government stand for something other than holding onto power. Governments, media, and knowledgeable observers often express something like dismay when these leaders “forget,” ‘’neglect,” “fail to respect,” or even “betray” some presumably universal ideal. They aren’t. They have one ideal, and they admire it in the mirror. That is the fairest representation of all ideologies, policies, or philosophies.

And none of this should be a surprise, since the factors that help generate these realities are usually related to size and scale. Most countries in the world offer much less to exploit and much less to control than large developed democracies, so leaders’ ability to control and exploit what’s available in most countries is easily and quickly magnified. Even without resorting to violent oppression, there are many subtle but effective ways for a leader to ensure that his writ runs far and wide. (For the purposes of this essay, the leader’s effective control of security forces is assumed.)

Establishing control of a small country’s few banks or sources of credit creates stifling economic and political power. If one main port and airport serve the country, seizing the administration of those utilities confers significant leverage that translates into commercial, security, and fiscal advantages. Relatively new but increasingly important slices of power that most leaders hasten to carve out for themselves are cell phone networks, TV stations, and soccer/football teams (the latter being the true religion or faith of the majority of males in most countries). If a political leader gains enough influence—directly or through proxies—of these components of national economic and social identity, everyone else who matters will in some way come to depend on that leader. And that leader will have no incentive or impetus to relinquish his position.

Second, while all societies and countries have at least some diffuse elements of traditional power, most formal political systems are quite centralized—certainly compared to the example of the United States. In most countries, being the ruler means controlling the capital city; in most countries the capital city controls almost everything else. In contrast, the governor of any given U.S. state arguably has greater authority over the day-to-day lives of that state’s citizens than the U.S. president or Congress do. The local county or municipality government might even have more influence over Americans’ quotidian activities than their state government. It is thus difficult to establish a great deal of political control over the American population. Yet, in most countries, the national government controls the university system, owns and operates public utilities, and runs at least some TV networks and other media. Even many sports teams are sponsored by the police or army or some other state or parastatal institution. Consolidating control over a centralized system offers exponentially more power to a ruler than he might aspire to in a federal or less centralized political landscape. This scenario, of course, also underscores the role of the national leader and makes it that much more difficult to dislodge him or those close to him.

Related to this, in countries that once had regional or local sources of political power—perhaps through elected governors, for example—it is not uncommon to see a leader seek new ways to eliminate those poles of authority. A tried and true method is engineering the transition—usually with a façade of legality—from a system of elected governors and/or municipal chiefs to a system in which those subnational officials are appointed by the ruler himself. A ruler who successfully appoints regional authorities can also usually command the loyalty of those political and economic agents who depend on those regional authorities. They, too, are now tied to the ruler through their superior/ benefactor and would likely be replaced should the ruler pick someone else. In a small economy, this type of expanded web of patronage extends as far as school principals, factory shift bosses, the heads of local radio stations, and many other positions of relatively small-scale authority.

Most nations are, therefore, ruled by someone—regardless of how he came to power—who has amassed most of the levers of power and jealously keeps them at his disposal. The national budget, access to credit, opportunities for employment or contracts, identification with elements of national identity (sports teams, for example) are just some of the arrows in the quiver of authority controlled or strongly influenced by one person and his close entourage.

While in office, of course, a leader’s primary activity is to employ the prerogatives of power to favor and enrich himself and those who are close to him. Everyone in the country he governs understands this in the same way that he does. Sometimes, Western governments and media appear to be the only ones who don’t appear to grasp this basic concept.

In the end, however, the leader’s abiding aspiration is rarely just financial gain. It is perhaps more important that the leader also corner the market on honor and respect. Due to his many tentacles and influence, respecting and deferring to him as a matter of course is not only judicious, but likely inevitable. Over time, however, admiration and respect for him might be genuine– and earned. After all, the media the leader controls extol his proclaimed authorship of any measurable progress or glory and highlight his shining participation in almost every event of importance to and in the country. Over time, the leader becomes so closely identified with the nation that he begins to believe that he is the primary ingredient in anything of note that occurs in the country.

In this context, what is a leader to do when her or his time is up? At a certain point, it becomes inconceivable to him to leave power. Why should he? He rationalizes that nothing would work properly without him. Surely, the people have become dependent on his dedication, effort, and very persona, he imagines. Worse, what if someone else controlled all these tools of power he has worked so hard to amass and guard? In short: What would happen to him and to those he cares about—to say nothing of the many who owe their fortunes and lot in life to their association with him? This is too grim a prospect to imagine, so there is no point in entertaining the notion of leaving power.

Of course, the desire to remain in office is fairly universal. Even in rich, large democracies many leaders value their own power above all else. Why would someone seek public office, after all, if s/he didn’t believe s/he was better than the alternatives? If s/he is better, why should s/he leave? There is no shortage of Western politicians who stay as long as they can and muse about staying longer when they eventually, grudgingly, give up their office.

However, several traditional factors in rich democracies mitigate the worst instincts of their leaders to remain in power indefinitely, and some of them do not depend on the rule of law or a functioning system of separation of powers.

First, the sheer size of the U.S. and a few other large countries is complemented by a resultant decentralization of political and economic power. People who pay taxes to a state or a province and build businesses and universities in that state or province are people who end up with significant power that does not depend on the national government. They have fought for and secured separate, if not always equal, instruments of authority, and might seek prolonged dominance in the way that national leaders in the rest of the world do. Some might stay in power much longer than expected, or longer than would be possible on a national stage, yet, due to decentralization and dilution, their effect or influence on the rest of the nation remains minimal. In other words, if the citizens of Province X have let their governor stay in power so long, that doesn’t harm the inhabitants of other provinces or the nation as a whole.

Perhaps the most important means of preventing potential leaders for life in rich democracies, however, is that they have informal mechanisms to ensure that former leaders maintain a position of status and respect when they trundle out of office. This cannot be overestimated as a check on the ambitions of rulers and their accompanying cliques. This system has ways in which former leaders lose power but maintain, at the very least, self-respect. They start foundations or libraries, serve on boards, take up important causes, stay active in partisan politics, teach at universities, lobby on behalf of organizations or movements, and busy themselves in other prominent pursuits. Thanks to the internet, former leaders’ beaming countenances emanate from websites associated with all these new niches, and their Twitter and other social media presence allows them and their fans to remain engaged. Also reassuring to them is that their children and close colleagues’ children will always enjoy instant access to the corridors of power and the substantial perks and employment opportunities linked to that access.

Rich democracies are, well, richer, and their sources of power and prestige are not as concentrated. These factors have created conditions which all but guarantee future prosperity and respect to former leaders, easing the descent from their pedestals.

Because of these simple, self-evident truths, we should not expect that rulers of most nations in the world– nations which do not have the same wealth or traditional unofficial post-leadership systems and processes– will not seek to stay in power, nor should we continue to express surprise or whine and caterwaul when they do.

Western governments and media might reconsider the charade of comments and coverage that seem to assume that most rulers have anything but power as a guiding principle. Until and unless their societies find means to create continued status and respect for them and theirs in a post-ruling scenario, it should be assumed that all they care about is staying in power. Policies, statements, and commentary should reflect this understanding even as evolution beyond this zero-sum mentality and reality is encouraged. After all, alternate current has greater range and is more useful to more people than direct current.

British Invasion– “Meant to”

Meant to: Some Americans have recklessly begun to use “meant to” in place of “supposed to” or “have to.” These careless Americans may, in fact, mean to use this British affectation, but they do not have to, nor are they supposed to. For an American, “meant to” merely denotes an intention. It does not describe an instruction, requirement, or advisable action. An American may not discover that he is lost and lament that he was “meant to” turn left two streets back. An American may not see a calendar reminder pop up on her phone, excuse herself, and declare that she is “meant to…” be meeting with her boss in five minutes. Should this infelicitous usage ever escape their lips, Americans may, however, repent the meant. They should immediately say, for example, “Excuse me, but I was not supposed to say ‘meant to’ just then. As an American, I meant to say, and have to say, ‘supposed to,’ not ‘meant to,’ when I warned you not to mix those chemicals that just exploded. I apologize.” And they should mean it.

NB:

Busking Bravado

Most days, buskers are in evidence at a metro station I frequently use. They are usually present during morning or evening rush hours, and sometimes more than one vies for commuters’ attention and patronage. Not surprisingly, the level of artistry is uneven—sometimes astonishingly professional, sometimes earnest but unimpressive.

One performer, however, earned a spot in my heart for honest exposition of his modest talent and avoidance of much effort. One day, as I approached the metro entrance, I heard a simple and repetitive tune coming from…a recorder. Assuming that the music emanated from a second grader waiting for a parent or fooling around with friends, I scanned the area for the musician. I eventually identified the artist as a middle-aged man. Transfixed by this anomaly, I stayed for a few songs, expecting at some point to uncover a dare, hoax, bet, or some deeper artistic concept. Nope. Just a middle aged man playing the recorder badly. And hoping for tips. I didn’t give him one, and regret it. His performance was far from fabulous, but close to courageous.

Siren Call of Duty: Young White Males and Video Games

Young American white males, as a group, are in peril because of their obsession with playing video games. While they are not about to disappear as a demographic, it is clear that their devotion to gaming causes them present and future harm. Because they are “just games,” these young men, and American society at large, do not recognize the extent of the problem. Although excessive and obsessive playing of computer and video games is not uncommon in most countries, the analysis below applies primarily to the phenomenon as it exists in the United States of America.

While gaming engages girls as well as boys, men and women of all ages, and persons of all demographic and ethnic backgrounds, in the United States, young white males are, as a group, most uniformly affected because they are more likely to become obsessive gamers. This is due to two factors: 1) As a group, young white males are richer and possess the means to enable their gaming — through purchase of the required equipment and, crucially, the expectation of greater leisure to play games. 2) White males still enjoy enough of the residue of American society’s traditional white male supremacy to feel a bit more entitled and thus can sometimes engage in behavior that would be considered detrimental to personal and professional development if exhibited by other demographic groups — groups whose pursuit of anything not considered “striving” might give the wrong impression.

The fact of the matter is that computer and other video gaming has, for all intents and purposes, become the default activity of young white males in America. Parents, educators, and — in unguarded moments — these young men themselves confirm this without much hesitation. Gaming is an assumed behavior; it is something that these young men expect to be able to do whenever they have the opportunity. Often, this is manifested in “getting away with it.” Can I be late for dinner or work because I’m gaming? Can I do less homework and play a bit more and get away with it? Like with any addiction, however, sooner or later it becomes the focus of activity, rather than a distraction from other presumed duties. In time, gaming becomes the priority over anything else. I’ll tell my girlfriend I have too much homework or I’m sick so that I can avoid hanging out with her and play more. I can surely sleep an hour less, since there are so many online players across the world I have to beat. Excuses and rationalization begin to fuel outsized attention to this pursuit.

Ultimately, obsessive dedication of time and energy to gaming is an addiction like any other — and like any other addiction, this one has real consequences. Everyone is at least intellectually conversant with the ravages of addiction to alcohol, drugs, and certain harmful behaviors like gambling, but addiction to gaming harms those it touches in similar ways.

Negative repercussions are a frequent result. Did a young man fail a test he should have easily passed because the subject was “easy” and thus he decided that playing games rather than studying was permissible? Has he been late to work or tardy for school because he is either too tired to get up or because he has to squeeze in a game or two before heading out in the morning? To address the latter, one TV advertisement for a portable gaming platform “solves” this dilemma for the addicted gamer, and even refers to it as a problem . A young man is shown playing at home on a TV while the narrator intones that “the problem is as old as gaming itself.” His boss will “ride him like a rented scooter” if he’s late again. The young man picks up his portable gaming unit and is shown happily playing as he walks down the street and rides on public transportation to work. He is clearly trying to get his priorities straight — or mixed.

Ask young white males if they have suffered negative consequences as a result of gaming and they will probably admit that they have. Because gaming is not drugs or alcohol, however, they often will not consider these setbacks as negative in the same way that showing up for work or school high or drunk would be. Yet they fail to complete assignments, miss important deadlines, and let other tasks and chores of daily life slip or slip away entirely. These are clear negative consequences, and would be red flags and labeled as such if they were the result of drinking or drugging.

What might the future consequences be? We already know, since addictions are largely the same in the way they increasingly dominate the addict’s life. The advertisement for the portable gaming system mentioned above provides a glimpse of what lies in store for a now-teenage gaming addict. It features a young man who lives in his own apartment in a big city. This man has a job that he dresses for and must show up on time for, yet, even at his age and level of relative responsibility, gaming is still his default. This is true even though his devotion to it has been unfavorably remarked on by his boss. As if to reinforce this embrace of addiction, the slogan for the product advertised is “Never Stop Playing.”

Are there caveats to this negative generalization? Yes, but they only reinforce its validity. Quite a bit of thought and ink has gone into defending and promoting time devoted to playing video games as time well spent. Numerous undeniably positive effects of frequent gaming are proffered, posited, and even proven. The standard register of the positive attributes gaming teaches and encourages usually reads something like this: patience, reflexes, hand-eye coordination, organization of time and resources, teamwork, imagination, problem-solving, creativity, determination, appreciation of cause and effect, and many other virtues.

That is all true for what it’s worth. What it’s worth to most young white males, however, is applying those positive lessons and valuable new skills to playing video games.