For those of us sports fans who are fortunate enough to live in New England, the unprecedented comeback victory for the Patriots in Super Bowl LI has just worn off over the past weekend. Between the television appearances, the victory parade, the relentless obsessing on sports-talk radio, and of course the explosion of championship merchandise, the energy the victory produced sustained itself all week. Mercifully though, enough, as they say, is enough. Even the gloating over a fifth championship gets old after a while. Besides, the Celtics have won 10 of their last 11 games.

Still, it’s worth revisiting one memorable moment from last week for the lesson it teaches about winning and success. But first a little anecdote.

A couple of years ago a friend and I had been casually discussing our mutual awe of Patriots head coach Bill Belichick. This was at some point during the 2014 season, in which the Patriots finished with a 12-4 regular season record and then went on to win Super Bowl XLIX.  Notably, in week 4 of that season, the Patriots were unexpectedly and uncharacteristically beaten badly in a Monday night game in Kansas City, losing 41-14 to the Chiefs.  In the press conference following the game, as reporters continually pressed head coach Bill Belichick with questions about his team’s poor play, he repeatedly and frustratingly replied “We’re on to Cincinnati.” (the Patriots faced the Bengals in Cincinnati in week 5).

Now, Belichick has long had a reputation for being curt with the media in press conferences, particularly following a loss when his mood is sour. But still again, his demeanor during weekly Wednesday press conferences to discuss the upcoming weekend’s game is not much better. He remains famously tight lipped about strategy, never allowing an opponent even the slightest glimpse into his game plan. Instead his comments default back to age old fundamental football concepts like hard work and planning and focus and patience etc. etc. etc. For those who are true fans of this coach, these displays are enormously entertaining.

My friend and I began joking about these appearances and Belichick’s apparent contempt for this aspect of the process. His responses often seem generically designed for use week after week.  For example, in any given order, he will a) express respect for the upcoming opponent and compliment their strengths b) stress the enormous amount of work ahead in preparing for the opponent c) stress the importance of avoiding distraction and maintaining focus d) reiterate that the only thing the matters for the organization is the goal of winning.

It is all quintessential Belichick. It’s boring, it’s predictable, it’s generic, and the media hates it. But if you’re a fan, it’s great. As my friend and I chuckled at the idea, we started to imagine a post Super Bowl victory press conference in which Belichick compliments his team’s victory, it’s performance, dedication, and effort, then immediately shifts his focus to the upcoming season, stressing the amount of hard work and preparation ahead, etc. I laughed so hard at this image that beer came out of my nose. We got a lot of mileage out of this, the running line became “Good win tonight, solid performance in all three phases, lot of work in front of us getting ready for next season.”

Then came last Monday morning’s press conference with Roger Goodell presenting the Lombardi Trophy and Belichick addressing the media, and it happened. Belichick actually went there:

I watched this press conference in real time and I almost gagged when this moment came. I thought to myself, “He just stole our f**king joke”.  Sure enough, at 6:30 PM that evening I got a text from my friend. Our joke, as it turns out, wasn’t a joke at all, it was just Belichick being Belichick. We didn’t exaggerate enough for this joke to work. We needed to picture the guy on his deathbed, terminally ill, with loved ones at his side, reminding him of his full, wonderful life, with him replying “Great life for sure, but a lot of work ahead getting ready for the afterlife; sin atonement, soul preparation, prayer, those kinds of things.”

Still, I was a little taken by how accurately we were characterizing the coach when we were actually trying to satirize him. Even among his most hardcore fans, Belichick can be a source of amazement. Of course, sports media embraced this comment as further proof of why and how this coach sets himself aside from his peers. But I needed to ponder it a little more in depth.

Going back to the week 4 loss in the 2014 season, Belichick obviously belabored the mantra that his attention was on Cincinnati because he had absolutely no interest in, patience for, or intention of, discussing an inexcusable defeat with reporters, let alone address the assinine insinuations that his starting quarterback may be showing signs of his inevitable demise. Belichick is a serious guy; he does not indulge foolishness.

But even following a win, Belichick will only spend a limited time reflecting on the game just played. For example there might be a game that the Patriots won by a score of, say, 38-10 (and by that I mean it was likely 38-3 with three minutes left in the game). Belichick’s post game comments will follow the same formula; congratulate his team on it’s victory, compliment his opponent, downplay the margin of victory, point out where he sees the need for improvement leading up to next week’s opponent. His attention always lays ahead, how to improve, how to prepare for what is next.

For most people, this would seem an exhausting way to live one’s life. After all, it’s one thing to understand that during the season, the weeks are short with little time to waste. But seriously, the morning after winning it all, the focus is on next season? What is the point of winning if it can’t be celebrated, shared, and enjoyed? To some, to many in fact, this obsession with preparation and hard work may seem almost pathological.  That could explain in part, why Belichick and the New England Patriots are the most loathed head coach and team in the NFL.

I see it a different way. In the same way that I am thankful for having been able to watch and witness Larry Bird during his time with the Celtics, I am equally aware and appreciative of the era of greatness in sports that is the Belichick era. It’s something special when all of the necessary factors for an organization to be successful come together. It’s even more more special when this can be sustained for multiple seasons. It’s something entirely different when an organization can sustain this level of  success for approaching two decades.

This does not happen by accident, or circumstance. It happens because some unusual force drives these outcomes.

Belichick’s public persona during press conferences completely belies his true self. He is complex and interesting, respected and beloved. Someday, when his legacy is chronicled in sports media lore, all of this truth will spill out to the masses of football fans everywhere.

Bill Belichick was destined for nothing else than to be the greatest football coach ever. He is the son of a coach, the father of coaches, a student of the game, a dedicated lover of the game. He wants two things, to coach football and to win. He represents what we all wish that we could be, someone who does what they love for a career and who excels at it. What is not to love about that?

BP

 

P.S.  Oh yeah, Tom Brady probably had something to do with it too.

 

 

Whatever.

The first ten days of the Donald Trump presidency (a.k.a. “the new normal”) have certainly delivered all the chaos that had been expected and more.  From the pomp and ceremony of the inauguration, to the ensuing protests and marches, to the firestorm of executive orders, to the predictable media responses ranging from head scratching to warnings of Armageddon, it’s been a challenge to keep up.

I try to keep things in proper perspective. When governmental power shifts from one party to another there is inevitable political upheaval, but our system was thoughtfully designed to handle the turmoil. Still, while it’s nothing new or unusual for a new administration to shake things up implementing policy changes, the Trump White House has gone zero to sixty in three seconds.

Throughout these past ten days, I’ve found myself missing Barack Obama more and more. I was not alone in feeling a sense of longing and sadness as he and his wife boarded the helicopter to be ceremoniously flown away from the Capitol following the swearing in of the new President.

Obama’s election to the presidency was, of course, historic in and of itself due to the simple reality of his ethnicity and skin color. For many millions of people both in the U.S. and worldwide, the moment of his inauguration implied a promising new era of opportunity for people of color in high elected office, and possibly even a disenfranchisement from the established political order. Today, despite a nagging cynicism in some pockets of our culture, I happen to believe that the significance of his election (and reelection) and the hopefulness that it evoked are still alive and robust. I also believe that regardless of one’s political inclination, it is dishonest to deny Obama the esteem he has earned.

As much as I respected Obama for achieving such a monumental milestone in history, it was his time in office which won my admiration, captivation, and trust. While his oratory skills, his confidence in front of crowds, and his public charisma are his most obvious political assets, it has become apparent that his most powerful asset is a fierce intellect coupled with a sublime emotional intelligence. In my view he was, and is, the consummate fusion of style and substance.

Still again, Barack Obama is nothing if not cool. Very cool, in fact. He is the kind of cool that people who are not cool wish they could be, the kind of cool that people want to be around. It’s the kind of cool that comes effortlessly from all aspects of a dynamic personality. It comes from having an easy confidence while remaining humble, from knowing when to be humorous and when to be serious and to be good at both, from being aware of self-image yet still genuine, from having a good heart and allowing it to show.

It’s also about understanding the things that mean the most in life and having those things mean the most to you. At every opportunity, Obama has consistently and repeatedly made clear that his his greatest and most cherished role in life is that of husband and father. His impeccable example as a family man is inspiring beyond words. And incidentally, as effusive as I may be in praise of Barack Obama I would offer the same level of admiration for his wife Michelle. The two have each lived lives of almost impossibly impressive accomplishment, especially at such a young age, yet together with their daughters have been the steadfast embodiment of integrity and class.

Obama was inclined to acknowledge the reality that when you sign on for a career in politics, you invite the political disdain of a large chunk of the population. Any president is going to have detractors while in office and Obama understood this. Nonetheless, I found exceedingly irritating, even offensive, the animosity directed at him on an almost personal level by anyone with a capital “R” next to their name. His record and his views were misrepresented repeatedly and his critics remained in perpetual dispute. This pattern of heated rhetoric and hyperbolic resistance was nauseating. Just my opinion.

The renowned presidential historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin, has said that it requires 50 years before a president’s true legacy can be understood. Perhaps this is true, but I would like to think that this is a legacy still in progress. This nation can only benefit by the Obamas’ voices continuing to be heard, and their presence continuing to be felt. The example that they set, the inspiration that they provide, the sheer coolness that they exude, all is badly needed in our culture and in our times. For example, for all of the freaking out and hair pulling going on in response to the new Trump White House, it’s helpful to tap into Obama’s levelheaded sensibility. In that regard it’s worth revisiting Obama’s response to his final question from his final press conference, January 18, 2017:

I’m looking forward to the next chapter of the Obama story.

BP

This is an experiment in trying to successfully embed video content in a post. Another baby step in figuring out how to do this.

Earlier this year in late April, I was able to attend a performance by Alan Doyle and his band The Beautiful Gypsies at the Tupelo Music Hall in Londonderry NH. Someone captured the video of the opening song and uploaded it to Youtube.

A little background here for added perspective. My son Ben had long been a fan of Alan Doyle and his former band Great Big Sea when he turned me on to their music. When Ben saw that there was a show scheduled just up the road in NH he suggested we go, so I grabbed tickets. For anyone not familiar with this artist, Alan Doyle has a very fun and upbeat style of performance with very active audience engagement. While we waited in anticipation for the start of the show, Alan very casually took the stage unaccompanied to begin the show with a solo a capella number. It was a most enjoyable show.

FYI Tupelo Music Hall is a BYOB venue, which Alan references toward the end of the song. I hope you enjoy the video, if I have attached it correctly.

BP

I had originally promised myself that I wouldn’t get too preoccupied with the 2016 election as subject matter for some of these first posts.  But hey, with just two weeks to go until election day I might as well take advantage of the political season.  Besides, I’m not familiar enough with either the Cubs or Indians organizations to comment on tomorrow night’s World Series Game 1, the other hot topic of the week.

With polling results favoring the Democratic nominee for president and shifting in support for down ballot Democratic candidates for national and state legislatures, both presidential campaigns have been turning their focus toward voter turnout.  For the Clinton campaign there is a concern that complacency stemming from double digit polling leads will diminish support on election day.  Meanwhile the Trump campaign, and the Republican Party as a whole, fear that the ever increasing realization among GOP faithful that their nominee is a train wreck will yield the same result.

For the Clinton campaign, higher turnout will help achieve the kind of landslide presidential victory that implies voter mandate, easing Congressional political resistance against the Executive agenda. Furthermore it could dramatically improve Democratic chances to regain valuable Senate and House seats, possibly even reclaiming a Senate majority.  For the Trump campaign, which is largely in damage control mode, higher turnout will hopefully leave these same down ballot seats less vulnerable.

Political rallies are a seemingly endless display of scripted political theater with an occasional mention of actual policy. They are an exhaustive partisan scramble of ballyhoo and blather, hoopla and hullabaloo, with music, cheering, campaign signs, and the random act of violence against protesters.  Naturally, the candidates typical approach for galvanizing support on election day is to appeal to voters’ loyalty to both candidate and party. Of course, as the electorate becomes more and more biased and divided, such as we see in this year’s election, the more logical this strategy becomes.

In a perfect democracy things would not work quite this way.  Candidates and parties would be committed to public service in sheer pursuit of the common good, impervious to the influence of money and special interests.  Voters would not only be educated to the proper role and limitations of government in democratized society, but also astute and knowledgeable about the suitability of candidates seeking office. Participation in the elective process would be the product of a strong sense of civic pride and duty. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as perfect democracy.

That’s not to suggest that imperfect democracy is the same thing as bad democracy. Democracy itself is a social construct, and imperfection is a fundamental aspect of the human condition, and as such the notion of imperfection is intrinsically implied in the idea of democracy. Plus, there are degrees of imperfection, and although there are plenty of things that are wrong with our nation’s democracy there are plenty more that are right with it. Still, it is helpful to keep and hold the vision of perfection as the gold standard that we can and should strive for.

Anyway, back to 2016.  With two of the most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history vying for the nation’s highest office, there certainly must be something more than loyalty driving voters (especially early voters) to the polls.  If nothing else then, it’s worth exploring this question as a wholesome diversion from the sloppiness of the past 18 months.

I came across an interesting formula for determining whether an individual will vote which was attributed to two researchers named William H. Riker and Peter Ordeshook, developed and introduced in their essay “A Theory Of The Calculus Of Voting” published in the American Political Science Review in 1968. The formula is as follows:

PB + D > C

where

P = probability that the individual’s vote will affect the outcome of the election

B = perceived benefit if the voter’s favored party or candidate were elected

D = the aforementioned civic duty

C = the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting

It was explained that because P is essentially zero, the product of PB is also near zero and effectively negligible in explaining why individuals vote.  This leaves D as the primary motivation for voting which must exceed the cost and effort involved. The concept of D is developed further to include a) the social obligation to vote b) the desire to affirm one’s importance to the political system c) the desire to affirm the political system itself d) the desire to affirm a partisan preference e) a general interest and enjoyment in the political process(voters in this last group are generally referred to as “nerds”).

Based on this breakdown, the essential takeaway is that people do not vote because they foresee or expect personal tangible benefit from the effort. Rather, they decide to vote based on principle. While the details or nuance of the principle may differ slightly from individual to individual, the notion that the motivation to vote serves a higher, more honorable self interest remains consistent.  

I see this as a powerful truth and a signal of hope for our electoral process and our democracy in general. While it is undeniable that the 2016 electoral cycle has been mostly messy and unattractive, particularly in the media coverage, it is equally undeniable that the country will emerge from it intact. It would be ironic if somehow we could achieve high turnout in spite of the political chaos.  It would also be a source of encouragement if voters turn out not because the candidates are asking us to, but because we collectively understand the importance.

BP

 

 

Remember this guy?

That’s coal power plant employee Ken Bone back in his prime, at the peak of his stardom, asking a question about energy policy at the second presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

His unspectacular question, ostensibly focused on the challenge of reconciling the economic and environmental effects of the energy industry, basically boiled down to something like: “Can you tell me how your energy policy will be responsible and environmentally friendly while not costing me my job?”.  Trump answered first, initially mentioning (accurately) the problematic role of foreign companies’ ownership of U.S. oil refineries, then ridiculously promising energy prosperity that will eliminate the national debt, before completely jumping off topic to rail against the effect of Chinese steel on U.S. markets.  Clinton answered next, first addressing Trump’s steel industry comment (in an attempt to score cheap political points), then proceeding to give a somewhat meandering and vague reply which was rich in rhetoric but short in detail, before finally referring Mr. Bone to her campaign website for a full explanation of her entire policy. She erroneously characterized the U.S. as being energy independent, but to her credit she did at least mention climate change as a concern.

For his efforts, Bone was rewarded with instant social media super-stardom.  He was immediately and universally embraced as a most welcome distraction from the ugliness that is the 2016 election cycle, and his rise to internet fame was meteoric. Amidst the darkness and gloom of a Donald Trump candidacy, his substantive debate question and his apparent sincerity suggested the potential that some degree of integrity still exists in American democracy, as well as the sense of hope that somehow this nonsense can and will be put behind us. As he was transformed from man to meme in real time before our eyes, the components of his image each gained their own celebrity: the eyeglasses, the mustache, the prodigious girth, the innocent everyman image of a guy snapping pictures with a disposable camera in 2016.  And most notably, the overwhelming object of public affection was his red cable-knit sweater, a Plan-B fashion choice chosen only after he split the pants of his beloved olive suit. In a most preposterous display of feverish internet overreach, in some circles he was even being referred to as a hero.

Unfortunately, as they say, when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

As the whirlwind week of KenBonemania transpired, his bubble ultimately burst when he naively and absentmindedly hosted a Reddit AMA under his own personal account, allowing curious reporters access to his internet past.  Alas, in short order we were introduced to the actual person who is Ken Bone, including his recollections of dodging insurance regulations, his debatable interpretation of gun violence, his sometimes less than Puritan internet activities replete with odd pornographic preferences, and his TMI promotion of vasectomy. It was the inevitable undoing of hollow internet fame, and as quickly as it began, the myth of Ken Bone the hero was dispelled. And now, it is hard to tell whether to feel more sympathy for the man himself, or for the throngs who flocked to purchase authentic Ken Bone Halloween costumes.

Still, there may be some valuable enlightenment to be gleaned from this fiasco.

First and foremost, the Ken Bone saga should and hopefully will serve as a reminder of the recklessness and unreliability of contemporary internet and social media meme culture.

Defined as ideas, behaviors, styles, or usages that spread from person to person within a culture, memes may serve a legitimate function in the transformation of popular culture. Intuitively, this should be a gradual process which allows for only the assimilation of credible and worthwhile cultural influence. However, in our modern technological age, this process can (and does) occur with lightening speed, often ahead of the ability to contain irresponsible or out of control transfer of influence.

This was one of the first online reactions to Mr. Bone’s fall from grace.  Publications from Forbes to Salon to The Washington Post all joined in cautionary lament of the repercussions when, by virtue of its sheer reach, the internet itself decides who and what is culturally important. And by “the internet”, I mean masses upon masses of internet users.

While he certainly embraced his fifteen minutes of fame, Ken Bone neither invited nor possessed control over his celebrity. He was the object of his own saga rather than the subject. Whereas he was built up to be something he is not, something other than just human, he can scarcely be blamed for just being who he is.  Nonetheless, his anonymity is lost forever and it is questionable whether that fact will be to his benefit.

While it may be pleasant to think that the online community could conceivably become more discerning in its consumption of internet celebrity, even the least cynical among us would concede that’s a fool’s wish.

Second, this episode highlights the irritating tendency for people to be much too liberal in attributing the word hero. This issue has been a popular topic of debate for some time.  Just Google “Overuse of word hero” for plenty of examples. To be clear, by definition this word can apply not just to people who accomplish acts of greatness or courage, but also to people who are greatly admired, usually for possessing fine qualities. While the argument can be made on a case by case basis whether the word is appropriate for the recipient, the general rule which should apply is that the wider the application the more the word becomes diluted, and the less honor and prestige it carries as a compliment.

There was nothing heroic about Ken Bone appearing at the debate and asking his question, except perhaps the effort to carry all of that bodyweight onto the stage. There is also nothing heroic about simply being a good citizen.  There is a certain level of decency and virtue that should be considered the baseline for good citizenship. It should be somewhat disturbing that when we see it we would regard that baseline as something extraordinary, but perhaps that speaks to the civic and political climate of our times. Still, let’s save the word hero for people who have actually earned the accolade.

Lastly, it is worth taking a closer look at the question the Mr. Bone asked the candidates, specifically his motivation for asking it and how that relates to the election on a broader scale.

The actual text of Mr. Bone’s question is this: “What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?”

During an interview with The Washington Post on the day after the debate, and again later while appearing on The Jimmy Kimmel Show, Mr. Bone attempted to elaborate on his debate question and his broader views on the election and the candidates.  He described himself to Kimmel as “more undecided than ever” following the debate, though he did admit to slightly favoring Trump heading into it. In his interview with The Washington Post he was more specific about which candidate he favors and why.  Consider the following quotes taken from the WP interview:

{“Mr. Trump represents my personal interests very well,” he said.

“I like his economic policy better than Senator Clinton’s.” Bone believes Trump “Would probably do more to protect my job in the fossil power industry”.

“But Secretary Clinton is a better representative for all of America,” he said. “It puts me in a difficult position.”

“I don’t want to see anyone’s rights stripped away. We fought very hard to get equal rights for groups that have never had them before. I’m so glad that they have them now. I don’t want them to lose those rights. So this election cycle, personally to me, is about my interest vs. the common good. It’s a tough one. I really haven’t made a final decision yet.”}

These are extremely revealing comments, not simply just to explain Mr. Bone’s position, but much more importantly as a window into the political soul of a Republican leaning voter and potential Trump supporter. As such it is worth a closer look at his actual words.

The concept of self-interest as incentive is central to the free market economic policies which are favored by the Republican Party and by conservatives in general.  It is also central to the debate question posed by Mr. Bone, which he indicates when he says that Trump “represents my personal interests very well”. He goes on to clearly draw the distinction between candidates saying “But Secretary Clinton is a better representative for all of America” and continues to explain his reluctance to see equal rights stripped away.

He goes on further to crystallize the conflict: “So this election cycle, personally to me, is about my interest vs. the common good. It’s a tough one. I really haven’t made a final decision yet.”

A tough one, indeed ! It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what is being expressed here, particularly in the context of the 2016 election.

Regardless of one’s personal political views, it is inconceivable to deny the fact that as a presidential candidate, Donald Trump is the equivalent of a circus clown. His campaign has been preposterously void of substance or integrity, and the prospect of his presidency is widely regarded both domestically and internationally as potentially destabilizing, and not in a good way as his supporters would suggest. The notion that an individual voter would cast a vote for Trump in an effort to serve their own narrow self interest should be troubling to anyone who takes this election seriously.

Let’s go back to the start of this post for a moment. A week ago we had Ken Bone being hailed as the the only positive thing to come out of the second debate. For a moment, he was a hero, symbolic of everything that is good about America. Couldn’t this suggest that our social media culture, as well as perhaps our national politics, might be a little warped?

Personally, I’m not comfortable with the notion that putting one’s own interest ahead of the common good (to paraphrase Bone’s own words) is anything to celebrate. I have little sympathy for the loyal Republican voters’ dilemma on Nov. 8th, after their party elected this nominee in the primary while ignoring several qualified candidates. But for undecided voters, one of whom Mr. Bone identifies himself, I do find it concerning that this election’s choice, at least at the top of the ticket, would be a tough one.

BP