Blue Highways

“There are two kinds of adventurers: those who go truly hoping to find adventure and those who go secretly hoping they won’t.” -- William Least Heat-Moon, “Blue Highways: A Journey into America”.

Twelve years ago, I could not have read that sentence at a more perfect time in my life. I had just completed 5 years working for the a monolithic corporation and a sense of stagnation sat on my shoulder. I was living on the outskirts of a gentile Southern city but suburban life wasn’t sustaining me. I felt a need for something different but the comfort of “the known” confined me to my familiar tracks. Yet, something rekindled my childhood love of motorcycles

With my first chance for a long vacation and just 6 months after buying my first road bike, I planned a 3-week ride that would take me 7000 miles through 16 states and over the Colorado Rockies. The first half of the trip would be with 3 other guys who I’d met through the online (yet fictitious) motorcycle club, the Denizens of Doom. We met for the first time at gathering, known as the Right Coast Ride, in Maryland. Two days later, we set out on our adventure and our paths would not separate until we reached the Ride ‘N Feed in Boulder, Colorado, a week later.

On that trip, I took one book to read: Blue Highways: A Journey into America by William Least Heat-Moon. I picked that book, which had been recommended by a good friend in college, because like Mr. Heat-Moon, we were making our way via the old, pre-interstate roads. In fact, our journey out only included about 6 miles of interstate required to get us across the Mississippi River.

As one would expect, we had our share of adventures from motorcycle accidents, mechanical failures, unexpected weather, large animals (e.g. bison), unusual and interesting people, and that typical motorcyclist malady, law enforcement officials. Early in this journey, I read the following sentence in the book which has stayed with me as a kind of touchstone for my choices:

“There are two kinds of adventurers: those who go truly hoping to find adventure and those who go secretly hoping they won’t.” (pg. 50).

My father, if he were still alive, would tell you that I was always a cautious kid -- I would always look before leaping. To be honest, I would “analyze it six-ways to Sunday” before my feet left the ground. I was a kid and young adult who liked the security of what was familiar and I expanded my universe not in giant leaps but in baby steps. I was not one to catapult myself into uncharted territory.

I’m not quite sure what the catalyst was but by the time I was 31, my sense of stagnation cultivated a need to venture beyond my own backyard. However, as I embarked upon this cross-country journey, I was probably one of those “secretly hoping they won’t” find adventure. Yet, something changed for me during that trip. By the time I limped into Lander, Wyoming, on a banged up bike with a mess of dirty clothes and in desperate need of a good bath, I was ready for change -- it just took me a few more days to realize it.

I could drivel on about this or that experience but a few days later, I was walking down the wide streets of Lander, and I remember saying to myself “I could live anywhere!” For me, that was when I knew I could take the road not taken. Four months later, I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area and my house in North Carolina was for sale. Little would I know at the time how propitious this move would be for me.

So, what’s my point? As cliché as it may sound, life is a journey and the linear way in which one step builds upon another can turn a seemingly small event, comment or decision into a life-changing sequence of events. By the time I arrived home from my journey, I had grown just enough such that I was “truly hoping to find adventure” or at least open to possibility of it.

Who watches the watchers?

For all its faults and failures, the American press is something I believe should be valued and protected. I realize that probably sounds like “motherhood and apple pie” speak but I think we Americans often take it for granted. I know there are the concerns about “media bias” and sensationalism, which are valid and justified, but I think we too easily loose sight of the vital role media has in keeping our power-brokers in check.

Power, apparently, is a very intoxicating thing and our history is rife with accounts where unchecked power took advantage of the system at tax-payer expense. Generally, such abuses happen when and where no one is paying attention. It some cases it can be like a magician’s act of redirection to keep the public’s eye off the power play in action.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in the capitalist system and that success should be rewarded but I also believe that success and the resulting power it brings should be kept in balance with the public good. For example, I think, in many cases, two companies merging can be a good thing as it will bring economies of scale and will help two smaller companies compete with one larger, more established player. However, I also believe there is a limit to such consolidation because consumers and the public generally lose when monopolistic power is approached.

Of course, our government has its own form of monopoly in the governance of our society and politicians seem to have a highly-developed sense of self-preservation. I must admit to being somewhat befuddled why someone would spend millions of their own dollars to be elected to a job that may pay a couple hundred thousand dollars (or less); obviously, there is more than the salary that motivates the candidate.

I will try to touch on some of the foregoing topics in later posts but my purpose in mentioning them is not to cast shadow over business or government but to highlight how the motivations behind one endeavor or the other might not always be in sync with the common good. For this reason, the press plays the very obvious role of being our “watcher.” Without the press being our professional watchers of business and government, we would be at least half-blind in my opinion. I’m not espousing anything that wasn’t addressed in our high school government classes but I think we tend to take the process for granted as we grow older and our lives become more complicated.

However, a phrase I have heard more often these days is “access to power” (or “access and power” depending on context). In more recent cases this phrase has been aimed at big media where our major news sources allowed themselves to be manipulated by members of our government in the furtherance of their political objectives because our journalists didn’t want to loose their “access to power” and thus their own “power.”

So, when FreePress.net sent me a mailing regarding a change in the application of postal rates to magazines, I took notice. According to FreePress and the New York Times this proposal was submitted by one of the biggest media players, Time Warner, and it seems to be biased towards, well, big media. Now, I don’t fault Time Warner for making such a proposal because they are tasked with one objective: do what is in the best interest of Time Warner, not necessarily the public interest.

Just like in business, I think it is good to have new small players constantly nipping at the heels of the media giants -- it keeps them honest. Thus, when the US Postal Service adopted this proposal, I think it failed to take into account its role in preserving the interests of the people. Whether the reader of this blog is conservative or liberal, I think we all have an interest in promoting a free and accessible press, down to the smallest player. In my opinion, I think there is a justifiable public interest in having a flat postal rate for all magazines (even in the age of the Internet).

Give it some thought.

To live, not to exist

Before I start, let me preface that this is my first blog post using MacJournal from Mariner Software. If this post looks a little odd, please bear with me as I get familiar with the software and the process.

Today a friend who publishes the “The Jack London Villager” shared the following quotation with me:

“I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry-rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.” -- Jack London

There are lots of quotations like this and I can’t help wonder if London might have had some influence on Neil Young writing “It's better to burn out / Than to fade away” in My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue) from the album Rust Never Sleeps. I doubt London meant it in the same way but I like to think there is some connection in the underlying sentiment.

Many years ago, in my youth, I learned a quotation which has become a motto which influences my decision making: “A ship in the harbor is safe but that’s not why they build ships.” Perhaps that is why London’s prose and Young’s lyrics resonate with me and, as discussed in the previous post, “Freedom vs. Security”, why I identify more with the quest for freedom than security.

Freedom vs. Security

A wise, old friend of mine made an interesting comment the other day regarding the tension between freedom and security. I don't remember his exact words but his jist was this: for one to live in a free society means that one must live with some risk. At first blush it seemed obvious, yet somehow profound.

If we are willing to live in an authoritarian society with a government that can carefully watch anyone it deems a potential threat then we should be, in theory at least, safer from others causing us harm. However, in my mind this only trades one potential threat with another -- could our government then become the biggest threat to our well being?

My belief is that danger is all around us and we cannot avoid risk but we can manage it. This was my philosophy regarding racing motorcycles in my retirement. I assumed the risk but I invested in the training, gear and practice to minimize my risk. This leads me to the "article" from smithfam.com. While this is not about our national security, it is about something almost as important -- our careers. Allow me to quote the relevant sections:

There are basically two kinds of People

1. Those who are motivated by freedom.
2. Those who motivated by security.

One has the courage of self-direction; the other is driven by fear. People motivated by security normally hold regular jobs in order to know in advance that their basic needs for food, shelter, and health protection will be taken care of.

People motivated by freedom often have several irons in the fire. These people fail more often in their endeavors but in the long run they usually end up more successful. They are more successful, because they have more irons in the fire, something usually works out successfully.

I think this generally applies to views of society and I believe I'm one who is motivated more by freedom than fear. That is why I don't think I am persuaded by the appeal to national security by those representing the Repubican Party. Personally, I'm surprised how this issue has ultimately trumped the philosophy of a small, limited government and strong personal freedom which, I thought, was the foundation of the Republican platform.

Do Wesley Clark's prior statements support George Tenet's claims?

I think, generally speaking, most blogs have only a couple of readers so going forward I hope to make my posts short to encourage repeat visits while still stimulating thought and dialogue on current political or social issues.

My current thought focuses on the assertion by George Tenet there had been no serious debate about going into war with Iraq:

NPR Story on Tenet's assertion

When I heard that assertion coming from the the ex-Director of the CIA, my mind immediately revisited a memory of General Wesley Clarke speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press. The MtP archives don't go back that far but I found the following two pages that relate to Clarke's comments:

Truth Out noting Clarke's comments on Meet the Press
March 2007 Interview of Clarke by Democracy Now

Clarke quotes a general on the Joint Staff saying “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” According to Clarke this statement occurred around September 20, 2001.

Tenet's book seems to have a healthy dose of CYA but on this point but I'm inclined to wonder if there isn't some truth in there?