Do Men Ever Visit Boston?*

When trying to figure out which medium-sized New England city would be the best place to move to, one of the deciding factors for Lowell was its proximity to Boston. I still stand by this major factor in the process -- Boston is just way more accessible from here than it is from, say, Worcester, Providence, or New Bedford. Boston offers tons of future possibilities for jobs, grad school (should I go that route), and cultural and sporting events. It's great to know how close it is.

But since I've moved to Lowell, you know how many times I've actually been there?

Once.

You know how many more trips there I'm planning?

At the moment, none.

Most of the stuff that I might want to do there I can already do here, only far more conveniently and far less expensively -- bars, restaurants, theater, sporting events, or whatever it is -- chances are, Lowell has it.

I do have a lot of loose-tie type of acquaintances (see the 'Being Lois Weisberg' entry, based off a chapter from the Tipping Point which was based off a New Yorker article) in Boston. All of them are wonderful people who I would love to see if I ran into (and presumably, vice versa). But you know what the chances are that any would come to Lowell? Not high. To a one, they are "totally down" for making plans, as long as those plans involve me traveling to and from their front door and making all other related effort.

That doesn't make them bad people, and I don't even mean it in a negative way. Far from it. I think part of maturing, for me, has been growing up out of a mindset inspired from too many GI Joe and He-Man cartoons during the formative years that divided everyone and everything into good/bad, friends/enemies. I've come to pretty much see all people in far more neutral terms. The more life experience I get, the more sense that makes to me.

But to reference my "Nice Guy Does Not = Tool" entry, I have no interest in maintaining absurdly asymmetrical relationships with anyone. Any interpersonal relationship that I've come to see as totally driven by my effort I've basically just backed off completely. I've found that a few have been resuscitated while some others have just sort of withered away. And that's not anyone's *fault,* or anything worth brooding over. That's actually a story as old as civilization itself.

I'd be happy to see any of those people again if I ran into them randomly. But especially given all the effort I'm putting into (and the returns coming back) on building a sense of community immediately around me, I don't need to exert wasted effort elsewhere.

So the funny thing is, I'm living like 20-something miles from a bunch of people I knew from college, grad school, or wherever, but I'll probably never see them, and I'm not quite sure that I care. The world keeps spinning, and my own trajectory -- right here -- keeps moving forward at a faster pace than I even could have guessed.

But back to Boston for a second. It's still great to know how close the city is. In a couple years, I'm either going to have to look for a full-time civilian job and/or figure out whether I ever want to go back to school. Boston offers tons of opportunities in both those realms.

And plenty of cool day trip possibilities in case Lowell ever starts to feel too small.

* This entry's title provides a handy mnemonic you can use if ever asked, under duress, to provide the royal court in order -- Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount, Baron.

Scotty Doesn't Know...

I need to see another memoir from some high-level Bush Administration appointee or commander who writes a revealing and scathing memoir about how everyone else (except the memoir's author, of course) is or was effed up, and that's the reason why the country is a mess, why Katrina was a mess, why we're in Iraq, etc. like I need to be punched in the groin.

Seeing the news media's coverage of the Scott McClellan book today made this dawn on me.

What courage does this take? What courage does it take to shrug your shoulders, point at someone else, and insist that you had no idea what was happening, or that somehow you were the one voice of sanity amidst a sea of madmen? How does L. Paul Bremer take himself seriously when he writes that he didn't understand or approve Coalition Provisional Authority Orders 1 and 2 when he was the goshdarned CPA head!?!?!?

Former legendary House Speaker Sam Rayburn was famous for always saying, "It takes a carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can come tear it down." That's a phenomenal quote.

I'm impressed by people who take a contrary stand and stick with it. I'm impressed by people who take ownership of the things they're responsible for. I'm impressed by people who open their mouths to say "I got it" and "How can I help?" when they can see that something needs to be fixed, or solved.

But I'm very, very unimpressed by the literary diarrhea (and no, that wasn't meant as bathroom humor) that is coming from the former Bushies, and will probably continue to bombard our libraries and bookstores for the next few years.

What I'm ready for is a memoir to come from someone -- anyone -- who openly and honestly admits fault in a reflective, thoughtful way.

I won't be holding my breath.

I would respect Scott McClellan (or anyone else, for that matter) who resigned his or her job in protest of some policy, action, or behavior of colleagues or superiors. I would respect anyone who spoke out against an injustice or even improper behavior they witnessed.

I even respect Jeannette Rankin for being the "1" who voted the way she did on December 8, 1941. That took guts.

But I don't respect any person -- military, government, private, or wherever -- who goes along to get along, and then leaves to personally profit by reinventing their career with their own rose-tinted glasses while throwing everyone around them under the bus.

USMC: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/world/middleeast/27afghan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

The link above will take you to a great NY Times piece that just made my day. It's about the success of a 24th MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) campaign to drive the Taliban out of strongholds in southern Afghanistan. Of ourse, the trick now is keeping them out (with only NATO and Afghans to do it), but it's clear the Marines have created a major momentum swing.

The Marines oversaw the quickest and most sweeping counterinsurgency campaign in the history of...history beginning in fall 2006 in Anbar Province, Iraq. There were of course many factors driving the Sunnis' wholesale rejection of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but here's one that I hope future historians don't leave out when they document the turnaround -- the battlespace owners were the Marines. Having spent time in training and overseas with each of the four major branches, I can tell you this: pound-for-pound, man-for-man, the Marines are the best fighting (and peacekeeping) force this country has.

Community Building and the Tao of Woody

One of the great enduring Woody Allen quotes is this: "90% of life is showing up."

I thought of this quote while catching up with a couple friends this weekend over the phone and e-mail. They asked me how the whole "community building" thing was going and I relayed the good news that all was well -- I'm really getting to know a lot of folks up here, everything's becoming more and more familiar, and I'm starting to run into folks all over the place. It's a great feeling to see the dream coming into fruition.

To put it simply, just as being anonymous and a 'stranger' all the time sucked, being recognized and feeling like part of a community, well, doesn't suck.

When talking about it, I noted that the progress I've made in the past couple months isn't thanks to any special thing I was doing, saying, or any other type of sleight-of-hand. On the contrary, I'd say it's mostly just a result of "being there." In other words, just by showing up consistently to places and being a generally good person, you're eventually going to start making friends/acquaintances and starting to see yourself as part of a larger community. Before long, people will begin introducing you to their friends, and a cascading sort of effect starts to take hold.

I would say this could apply to anyone trying to find community. I forget which of the Malcolm Gladwell books this was, but I know in one he cited a psychological study about how babies are more favorably disposed to faces they've seen before. Adults are no different -- the more people see you, the more comfortable they become with you (assuming you're not a complete jerk with no social skills). It's not entirely rational (not being a stranger doesn't make you *not* Ted Bundy) but it's something innately human.

So, Woody Allen might've been onto something with the "90% of life is showing up" quote.

Also, here's more evidence that being nice to everyone you meet is not only a good thing to do, but also works to your advantage. In the Afterword to The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki writes, "For me, one of the key lessons...is that we don't always know where good information is. That's why, in general, it's smarter to cast as wide a net as possible, rather than wasting time figuring out who should be in the group and who should not."

This seems like great advice for all people to heed. As someone who's been on the receiving end of a few eye-rolls and general scoffing from social climbers, I couldn't agree more. Just treat everyone you meet equally nicely, both because a) it's the right thing to do and b) it will ultimately enrich your own life when you do so.

A Monkey's...What?

Yesterday, one of my neighbors and I were gardening on Market Street. From our vantage point (towards Middle, Merrimack, and the river), it was a perfectly clear day -- a mostly blue sky, but with a few clouds as well. Seemingly out of nowhere, however, we got drenched. We looked back in the other direction, towards the Highlands, and saw that yes, there was an enormous rain cloud right above and behind us, and it was soaking us and our building.

I said, "Wow, it's a real monkey's wedding," which drew a puzzled look from him.

He hadn't heard the term before, but "monkey's wedding" is a common African expression used to describe a simultaneous occurrence of sunshine and rain. That's somewhat interesting on its own, but what's FAR more interesting is the number of cultures that use similar expressions to describe this weather phenomenon. In Gulf Arabic, it's a "rat's wedding." In Hindi (and other subcontinental tongues), it's a "jackal's wedding." In Korean, it's a "tiger's wedding." Just to make sure we're not forgetting our European brethren, the Bulgarians are known to use "bear's wedding."

In case you think I'm making any of this up, by the way, verification is a few keystrokes away via Google or Wiki.

This is what makes these terms truly amazing -- they developed independently of one another in completely faraway lands in near-completely unrelated languages. In other words, there's something human about seeing sunshine and rain at the same time and associating it not just with some strange or unlikely occurrence, but specifically with matrimony in the animal kingdom.

You don't have to be a total word origin and linguistics dork to admit that's pretty neat.

Finally Saying 'Uncle' on Gas Prices...And, Of Course, an Upside

Ever since gas prices started rising from those less-than-a-dollar days in 1998, the media has loved the subject. For a while, I've thought of it as overblown, because even a one-dollar increase in gas prices would affect someone's budget by $80/month at 20 gallons per week. However, I finally *get* it now that I've seen the news stories that explain the significance beyond the usual "Can you beeee-leeeeeve how much it cost me to fill my Escalade!?!?" sort of tripe.

Gas prices have a huge ripple effect on everything in our economy. Beacuse we're so dependent on gasoline for everything we do, when gas prices surge it makes it more expensive for wholesalers to move goods. Their price increases get passed on to retailers, and then the consumers are the next to take the hit. And when gas prices start affecting individuals' consumer behavior (as they're just now starting to do, at $4 + per gallon), retailers are hurt by the fact that people go to the mall less, go out to eat less, drive to the beach less, etc. What are those retailers then forced to do? You guessed it. We all suffer, while wonderful regimes like those in Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria win.

So even though the per mile cost of moving a car is still lower today than it was in 1980 (adjusted for inflation and overall fuel efficiency), according to the NY Times, it's three times higher than it was in 1998. And yes, it matters.

But here's a potential bright side -- maybe higher gas prices will help drive (no pun intended...honestly, notice how I didn't use 'fuel' there) the small-city downtown revival going on in America.

Personally, I love the fact that I can walk out my front door and be on Merrimack Street in less than two minutes. Everything I need is right here, and I don't have to sit trapped in a glass-and-steel box to go and get it. Even if gas were free, I would still feel that way. Now that people are starting to act rather than just complain about gas costs (the people who track this stuff are starting to notice decreases in both total gasoline purchased and in miles driven by Americans), maybe it will drive them back from the suburbs and exurbs into the naturally beautiful small cities that have mostly been left to rot for the past few generations.

In most cases, everything these cities need is already there -- beautiful old brick buildings, nice parks, churches, schools, etc. What's missing in many cases, however, is a critical mass of people who live and stay without pushing out to the suburbs for more land and open space.

As obsessed as we Americans are with gas prices (just try watching cable news for more than ten minutes without hearing about it), maybe we'll start acting on it, and there will be spillover benefits for the environment and the strength of our communities.

Using Logic 101 as Non-Defensively as I Can...

I'm having a truly great experience with work these days. As I wrote about in an earlier post, Chief and I are standing our department up from scratch. We're both hard-chargers, so it's a great role for both of us to be in -- sink or swim, and we're basically on our own to chart the course.

One of the things that he's teaching me is not to be defensive. I actually think it's natural and normal for people to become defensive when they feel like they're unfairly characterized. However, because defensiveness never comes off well in any setting, I'm glad he's working as hard as he is to beat it out of me. (By pressing all the buttons he's figured out need pressing, and doing it quite often).

One thing that's certainly a "button" for me is when people say -- teasingly or not-so-teasingly -- that I'm a ticket-puncher. I understand why they say it -- non-traditional pre-military background, and strong, openly-declared interests in writing and government as potential future vocations. It's a natural, easy heuristic for people to use, and an easy narrative to make fit. People love simple narratives for the mental shortcut they always provide. After all, when is nuance really worth the effort, anyway?

I guess the reason I get defensive about it is that there's enough truth running through it to bring it close to home -- I really am interested in pursuing a career sometime down the road in writing, government, or some combination of the two. I'm fully cognizant that what I'm doing now might help drive that engine in the future. But it's also touchy because of the implicit assumption of aspersions cast upon my motives for involvement with the one earthly *thing* that I love more than any other (U.S. military), the only *real job* I've ever had, and what I've dedicated my twenties to, at significant short-term opportunity costs.

So if I said it didn't touch a nerve, I have to admit I'd be lying.

To switch the gears back to the nuts-and-bolts of my life's trajectory, I'm also fully cognizant that it's a contradiction-in-terms to "plan" a writing career. For everyone who gets to be Tom Clancy or Robert Kaplan, there are hundreds or thousands who are just as talented but never do. It's also a contradiction-in-terms to "plan" a career as a high-level government appointee. And as a registered Independent with no party affiliation, my statistical odds of ever being elected to a partisan legislative body are officially close to zero. (The only Independents in recent Congresses -- Bernie Sanders and James Jeffords of VT, and Joe Lieberman of CT -- were prior partisan electees).

But okay, back to the original theme. When people kid me in person about ticket-punching, I'm just going to laugh, shrug, and throw a l'il barb back at them (thanks, Chief). But since this blog offers the advantage of a written format that allows for lengthier explanations, let me crack open my Logic 101 textbook to show you why it's wrong-headed in spirit:

(1) Use of inductive logic. Inductive logic basically means you're starting from the conclusion and then tacking on your premises in order to prove a point. You can use inductive logic to pretty much conclude anything, and you'll never really be wrong. You can ignore all the facts at hand, or just the ones that don't neatly fit, and your desired outcome is guaranteed. Just think show trials in Stalin's Lubyanka or "justice" for male desecendants of slaves in the post-bellum Deep South, and you'll see why inductive reasoning can be an all-around bum deal. So, in my case, it's a way to fall back on a preconceived shorthand idea and just plain ignore the fact that I'm not getting out, even with three neat holes in my Iraq card. In fact, I would say that volunteering for an Airborne unit in a critical-needs MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) with the highest op-tempo of any service would be pretty darn close to a 180-degree tilt from that. I'm tweaking the way I'll serve so that I can stay in one place and (hopefully) avoid any *individual* mobilizations, but I'm also virtually guaranteeing plenty more no-kidding on-the-ground time in one of the major current theaters.

(2) Mutual Exclusion. Mutual exclusion is a logical fallacy that wrongly assumes two things can't co-exist. To say that you can't love something and still benefit from it is actually a great example, and I'd use it if I were teaching basic logic. I actually proved this while talking to a friend recently who brought this whole ticket-punching topic up, which actually inspired me to do this blog entry. Here's how I responded (name changed to protect the innocent):

Me: So, you and Sally have been together for a few years now, huh?

Friend: Yep (breaks into big grin).

Me: Would you say it's been a great experience for you, I mean, overall?

Friend: Definitely. In this sense, definitely the best ever for me.

Me: Really? So in other words you're saying you don't love her.

Friend: Huh? (Getting upset). Whoa. I didn't say that. Where did you get that? Not from me. WHAT?!?! (Clearly confused and maybe angry)

Me: No, I'm just proving your absurdity from five minutes ago.

I'm not sure if he *got* where I was going but I trust that you will.

(3) Correlation as Causation. This is one of the easiest logical fallacies to spot in everyday life, like in news reports that say, "A new study shows that people who drink more than three cans of diet soda every day have higher rates of obesity and heart disease." The correlation has to do generally with the other health habits of the three-diet-soda-and-up crowd, but it's totally baseless either to infer that one caused the other. To tie things back to this blog entry's theme, the big idea here is that it's actually pretty natural for anyone with a strong interest and passion for world events, history, and government to want to actually experience the things that inspire great works of literature, non-fiction, and parliamentary debate (and all of this is said, of course, without even touching the feeling of seeing, on live TV, a jetliner directly impact a family member's floor of a building and believing him to be dead, and then realizing your own life had just been spared by a computer somewhere at Priceline that kept you off of United 93).

In other words, sometimes there's a natural correlation that's much more curvy and fuzzy than a single point-to-point solid line causation driving a decision.

So back to the whole let's-not-get-defensive-thing: If anyone who barely knows me ribs me about ticket-punching, I'll spare them all (or any) of this -- I'll just break out my Dr. Julius Hibbard laugh and make a joke about having walked past the usher at the door.

If it's someone who I know a little bit better (and actually cares enough to hear the answer), I'll just say (non-defensively, of course!), "Well, sure. Like most things, that's *sort of* true and also *sort of* not true."

And if they want the full story, I'll just refer them to the blog.