In and out of the Mitt?

I am not a political analyst, but I try to notice what politicians say and what is said about them. I have been intrigued by the nomination race for the Republican Party presidential candidate. What has struck me–and others–is how Mitt Romney, who seemed like a preferred candidate in the eyes of many, regularly manages to fumble the ball or become a highlight in a bloopers reel. I use a sporting analogy for a few reasons. One is new: I have just discovered that Mitt is the nickname given to the state of Michigan, because the state is shaped like a mitten. Another is that I think great or very good politicians are like star athletes (or star performers, in general): you tend to expect them to be able to ‘play’ well in all situations–in terms of skills, you do not expect them to make lots of mistakes if they are to stay long in the game. Like the star athlete, reducing errors, mistakes, or misplays matters a lot more than making spectacular plays. You also expect them to reduce the distance between their best and worst days–in other words, they should not be spiky (or erratic). That tendency to be erratic is often thrown by opponents as a criticism of Newt Gingrich. A few things struck me about Mr. Romney over the past week.

Consistent performer? You do not expect star performers to change the way they play too much: you stick with what got you to where you are. In politics, the tendency to flip-flop is often an accusation that sticks. Mr. Romney has the tendency, but so too do some of his opponents, such as Rick Santorum on birth control. Let’s call this consistency. Keen observers of sports will notice when an athlete changes something about their usual match performance: it often happens during a period of inconsistent performance and may herald more inconsistency while the player rediscovers successful form. A player may need a period of intense retraining in order to enhance performance–look at a tennis player’s service, or a batter’s stance in baseball or cricket, or a golfer’s putting stroke. When it happens on the fly, it usually leads to a drop in performance. Mr. Romney, rather then being the pillar of consistency, looks often as inconsistent as those he seeks to criticise.

It’s the shoes? You should also notice when the ‘equipment’ changes–shoes, racket, bat, headgear, sweater vest, cowboy boots–because these are important parts of the whole. They each and all make the player comfortable. We should all know how it feels to break in new shoes, and how hard that can be on game day–better to use them in practice a little to wear off that newness and stiffness. How they wear their equipment also matters. I think these are amusing things to notice as differences between the candidates, but not game changers–unless a successful Mr. Santorum legislates that we all wear sweater vests.

It’s the hair? Does the physical appearance of the performer matter? The physical aspects of an adult change, but not that much–when mature, height is fixed, but weight could change and affect performance. In the Republican nomination race, I am not sure what the candidates look like has been a ‘game changer’, certainly once the field lost womenModern politicians tend to be more conscious of their fitness

Ready for the big show? Another key to political success is how do you perform in front of the big audience. Wowing them in small bars or diners does not cut it as much as doing so in front of a packed auditorium, not least because it takes a lot of small venue performances to hit the same amount of eyes, hearts and minds as if doing the stuff on a bigger stage. That’s what really struck me in recent days when I have read about Mitt Romney. He seems to be using big audience appearances to destroy rather than bolster his credibility: he is looking like a choker. Accepting that a certain bias exists in the reports given by one media source, I take today’s report of Mr. Romney’s performance yesterday at Ford Field, Detroit, Michigan. The Washington Post states [my highlights] ‘But the event served up fresh evidence for Romney critics who say he can’t rise to the occasion and rally important elements of the GOP around his candidacy.’

Show the crowd some love. Mr. Romney does not seem to understand that having made his wealth, he keeps flaunting it in front of people who can only dream of the sums involved or do not need to be reminded that he and his family have made it big. ‘Romney strayed from his prepared remarks to note that he has four cars, including his wife’s “couple of Cadillacs” — casually reminding voters in this economically depressed state of his wealth.’ It’s part of a disturbingly casual sense of what money and financial and economic security means, and how in economically depressed areas such as Detroit this can only be a double poke in the eye–of the audience and of himself. Remember his casual $10,000 bet offer to Governor Rick Perry? Remember his liking to fire people? Remember tax avoidance schemes? Remember his not being concerned about the very poor? I’m sure those references call rolling back to many in the audience or who heard or read reports of the latest speech.

Not seeing his own problems. The Post mentions other commentators’ mention of ‘poor staging’ and ‘tepid response’. It is ironic that Mr. Romney is reported to have said of President Obama [again, my highlighting] “We have not seen a failure to communicate …We have seen a failure to lead, and that’s why I’m running for president.” But, if truth be told, Mr. Romney is failing to communicate in a major way.

To this casual observer, Mr. Romney seems to be getting more wrong than right, so cannot stand above his opponents, who are also getting wrong and right mixed up. If he’s come to play in the big time for THE prize, he had better figure out a way for those who matter to suggest that he drop down to minor league play.

 

Laughable? Words have meaning.

My older daughter and I were in conversation about who would be the new president of the World Bank. She had seen a report in the Washington Post over the weekend, which outlined a range of potential candidates, among them US Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She said “That is the most laughable option.” I asked her “Why?” She gave a bunch of reasons that made sense that the option may not be acceptable to many peoples of the world, but was it laughable? Why would we or others laugh?

Why do we laugh? For humour? To reduce stress? To distract us from our real concerns, which may include fear?

News reports about long lines trying to get hold of a new Nike sports shoe: reports indicate these may be bought for over US$ 200! What recession? Laughable!

Jobless recovery? Laughable? I would never make a joke about someone else’s plight in trying to get a job, or having lost a job, and all the economic and financial problems that may open up. But some would. I heard a report on NPR this morning, about two places named Dodge in Michigan. One resident in downtrodden-Dodge, a woman who had been laid off but hoped to be called back, and whose house was among few still standing in her street, felt that the Republican candidates offered nothing for someone like her. Another resident in upscale-suburb-Dodge, felt that the economy was struggling because those in power had no experience of running anything, and that his vote for a Republican would be for someone who would correct that skill gap. He would not divulge for whom he had voted: I wonder who .

People in Senegal are rioting in protest of their president’s attempt to change to constitution to retain power for a third term. Laughable?

Different strokes, for different folks. Plenty to think about next time you hear someone laugh or use the term ‘laughable’.

Trust your ears? I don’t trust mine. Listen well and learn.

Lent will not be a time of misery enhancement, as far as I’m concerned. Playing around as usual is fine, so long as I remember that I should be re-examining myself and my spiritual core.

I do not watch TV much–usually sporting events–and I do not include primary contests in that. When I do, I’m sometimes shocked out of moments of creeping sleepiness by a blaring ad–you know the kind I mean, touting some drug or drug-enhancement that I hope I do not need or know someone who needs it or them. Because I am often not fully focused, I wonder if I heard correctly. So, I have to cock my head to one side and test if ears and eyes working together can confirm. Our eyes lie often, and to describe how that happens sometimes, we have the term ‘reticular activation syndrome’–seeing something a lot once you own it or have thought about owning it. Imagine how many VW Beetles you used to see. But do our ears have similar problems? I know that once I sit up erect I’ll function better.

But the media in general is always trying to scare us. This week has passed with much glaring focus on soaring crude oil prices–US$ 107 earlier this week and still over US$ 105, when I last looked–and the terrible prospect of gas prices over $4 a gallon. But what is triggering this surge? Iran halting exports to the UK and France? But why worry? Other suppliers are there: Iraqi oil does function … well, sort of.

My suspicions turn to China–buying up minerals like they are going out of fashion. To that nation’s rulers, it’s all another elaborate game. They play nations off against each other, like mahjong pieces being turned over and passed around, in a way that feels right to them but makes little sense to us. And how does that make you feel? Like pieces in a racked tile feng shui?

So, Lent is not quite two days old, and checking my core has an appealing side. Wandering through the wilderness of personal values that need to be explored is asking a lot of myself but will lay the seeds for a better life. But, I will try to fill myself daily with something enriching–and on that, I understand that it may be too late to buy paczkis, and that trading intensely is a better way to lose weight than going to the gym or dieting because traders forget to eat. Pass me that donut!

Assurance

I spent most of the day needing to be somewhere, but could never quite get there. I dropped my wife off so that she could get there early; then proceeded to school with my daughter, hoping to get there later. I wanted very much to go, but somehow my movements did not get me to the right place.

I took a friend to her appointment at the hospital downtown, then met another friend for lunch nearby. I hoped that I would be able to do a ‘drive by’ and pick up what I needed, but it was not to be. When my daughter had to go to choir practice, I thought that would give me the chance I needed. But, alas.

So, I decided to take a walk and enjoy the surprisingly warm afternoon. My path took me past The National Cathedral. I walked in through a side door and saw that two more Ash Wednesday services would be held–at 5.30pm and 7.30pm, neither of which I could make. I asked if a priest was available and was told to go to the slype–a place or person of which I had never heard before. A retired rector, who now mentors new rectors, came to the Holy Spirit Chapel, and along with a group of visiting school children prayed for us, then administered the ashes.

I stopped feeling uncomfortable now that my face was appropriately marked. To have had my forehead clean all day was not what I had wanted; but all’s well that ends well.

Belly up!

Yesterday, I celebrated Shrove Tuesday as I have for most of the past 20 years–eating what Americans call pancakes, and I have always known as flapjacks. But, I was hankering for those good old pancakes that I ate in England–what Americans call crepes: drizzled with fine sugar and lemon juice. Those you can toss easily in a pan; the others are griddle cakes and flip better with a spatula. Oh, to hark back to the good old days! But, the celebration has been and gone, and in the American tradition I ate sausage patties–a hamburger lookalike. Where were my real sausages and even my bacon? The British have a heavy responsibility for losing the War of Independence.

But, I think a reprieve is at hand. I listened to the latest bulletins about the GOP presidential nomination race. Former Governor Romney was in Michigan and sampling what passes for Shrove Tuesday tradition there–paczkis–jelly-filled donuts. No chance of having a cultural confusion. These things–of Polish origin–are no sort of pancake. As I move into Ash Wednesday and consider what Lenten challenge I should take on, perhaps it will be to sample as many different kinds of Shrove Tuesday culinary traditions as I can over 40 days. Now, there’s something to put discipline to the test.

Lent is meant to offer a chance for self-examination and to me this fits well–though my wardrobe may not for long. I can do this sampling simply and with solace, even solemnity. I can do it in the confines of a darkened room or in the harsh wilderness. I will be a different person at the end of the process–and I do not mean that my shape will have changed, though I know that donuts are often calorie-heavy. I really don’t think this is something to impose on my family and hope that they do not feel compelled to follow my lead; merely, give me encouragement to go on for the whole 40 days. I will go immediately to find a hair shirt or nearest equivalent and knuckle down to research what to seek and where I need to wander.

Wish me luck!

Silence is golden-ish

Many phrases express the same sentiment when it comes to the need for silence. One is ‘Stop spouting hot air’. Having a Caribbean background I know ‘Talk is cheap; money buys land’, which is often thrust at politicians who love to talk and shower us with empty promises. From my English upbringing, I know ‘You’re all mouth and trousers‘: I used to love hearing that sung at football (soccer) matches when the other team would hear that coming from raucous voices from the terraces (usually when a big-name professional club visiting my lowly club was getting a drubbing by our part-timers and so-called less-talented squad).

Sometimes, the sentiment is really in terms of ‘Silence is golden’. Sometimes, the sentiment is ‘Why fill the air with noise?’ It can be other things, but the bottom line is ‘Hold your tongue’… and ‘Listen to the breeze blow’… and ‘Don’t let you mouth get you into trouble’. People are very good at using words to give their bodies or deeds more substance: like clothing, it’s another form of cover–remember the Emperor who had no clothes.

My church is putting on a Lenten series entitled Saturday Quiet Days. On March 3rd, it will offer ‘Simplicity, Silence, Sabbath’, led by Kurt Aschermann: he will offer ‘tools to help you remain spiritually grounded in a busy and complex world’ and examine three practices: simplicity (the art of balance), silence (the art of being still), and Sabbath (the art of sanctifying time). This attracted me when I first saw it last week, and I gave it a try on my own over the weekend. Yoga and meditation have the first two elements and are good for personal positioning each day; the focus on the Sabbath seemed interestingly new.

People are often very uncomfortable with silence. Watch a spooky film and see how people react when someone walks into a dark quiet room, or into a room and everyone stops talking. Suspicions rise immediately.

Yet, people often crave silence. Noise is extremely disturbing, even destabilising: look at how people react when bombarded by sounds. It is an effective form of torture. Countries have noise-abatement laws, not silence-abatement laws. You are very likely to be at odds with your neighbours about the level of noise they create, rather than the amount of quietness that they impose on you. You jump up in the middle of the night because of the sound of a glass vase crashing to the ground, not as a result of a feather falling from your pillow.

So, after the plug for a Lenten discipline, I suggest a little ‘Pull the plug!’.

Ganging up…

I spent an enjoyable morning and early afternoon at a symposium at American University on gangs and gang violence in the Caribbean. The audience was largely bureaucratic–representatives from academia, diplomatic missions, international organizations. I did not see any representatives from the topic group, ie current or former or future gang members.

The presenters spoke about gangs in the community. No single legal or statistical definition of gangs exists, so comparing statistics in the Caribbean specifically or across countries in general is hazardous. They are groupings of people, we can agree. For the purpose of many studies, the focus is on groups of at least two people, combined to undertake criminal activities. So, we are not talking about what I may call ‘innocent’ groupings like romantic couples, families, scout troops, or sports teams. I suspect that many people have images in their head of what ‘gangs’ look like; as with common images of ‘criminals’, the stylized image may not be accurate.

Jamaica has a long history of gangs and their impact on communities, especially in urban areas, and around political parties, and around drugs trading. Other Caribbean islands are playing ‘catch up’. Violence has been on the rise in the region and ‘gang-related’ links have been seen as behind much of this rise. But, it is also understood that gangs and organizations related to them are meeting needs of people, which were going unfulfilled. Whether that is for some basic essentials in life, justice, relative peace, or other things, the impact of gangs can be and has been significant. Some jurisdictions would like to portray the gangs as ‘foreign’ and all to do with deportees or other elements that were not part of the original society. Perhaps they have an influence, but the ground has to be fertile for the criminal element to take hold, as with anything that will grow.

Jurisdictions are struggling to deal with what they see as problems related to gangs. Some are drafting legislation. Little evidence supports that route as likely to deter and bring success, and less likely if the society has not been primed to make the legislation enforceable. A community’s hostility or distrust for the police and legal structures, which help gangs flourish, will still be there if anti-gang legislation is introduced. That communal attitude is more present than merely in societies’ downtrodden places.

Many elements of societies are afraid of what gangs may wreak on them. Yet, it is funny how some of the things that tended to mark gang members have become part of ‘normal’ culture. Things that make gangs and their members identifiable to each other, and to the broader community–clothes, skin markings, hand signs, and language–have also become parts of everyday life.

Some researchers want to move focus away from street gangs and to look at organized crime, too. The business-end of crime is relevant for many reasons. One is that other ways can be found to do what street gangs may ultimately be trying to do: wield power and influence. Standard structures can also be folded to meet these needs. Infiltrating politics through corrupt legislators is one route. Infiltrating businesses so that the legitimate activities can cover the illegitimate ones is also standard transformation for criminal groups.

My economist and social scientist view on things led me to think about what motivates the actors as well as what values societies try to promote. It does not seem to me that the reasons people join gangs is very different from the reasons people join other groups or clubs. It may be pull factors, such as the purpose or objective that drives the desire to belong. It may be some sense of wanting togetherness–the camaraderie–another pulling factor. It may be push factors–’alienation’ in a broad sense, that sense of not belonging that needs to be overcome. People may find value in belonging to gangs (as they do from joining clubs), and whatever rank they may gain there is worth a lot in their lives; the same way that some laud you with “I’m treasurer of the … society.” Gangs differ in that they are often on the harmful side of the line in terms of how they deal with other people; what good they may do for some does not usually compensate in the minds of most. Gangs may impose costs on members, or create bonds that are not as easy to pay off or break as with other memberships. They may also gain from inertia: once in, it’s easier to stay in than to leave. That is not too dissimilar to the bind many find themselves in when it comes to a job. For me, it’s worth looking at how people cling to gangs alongside the way people cling on to wanting to stay in any group–family-based, faith-based, interest-based, or otherwise.

A lot of gangs may do as criminal behaviour–and I am not selective in my view of what is a crime–like most human activity, can come down to incentives and risks and rewards. When those shift, so will behaviour. If getting caught in unlawful acts were highly probable, that would likely be an effective deterrent. Whether the ‘crime’ is speeding, filching funds, selling drugs, or whatever. White-collar crime is no better or worse than street crimes. Many would see suited financiers taking advantage of unsuspecting lenders as not so different from gangsters selling drugs to hapless junkies. Influence-peddling by politicians or vote-buying by businessmen can be on the same spectrum as gang-control in communities, if we choose to place them there.