Month: April 2023

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is over a year old. The last few months have seen heavy fighting in the Ukrainian southeast provinces that Russia has claimed for its own. Russia launched a major offensive in this area that has, by all accounts, gone nowhere. The Ukraine is poised to launch a counter-offensive designed to regain sovereignty of the territories that Russia now controls.

In the meantime, Russian assaults on Ukrainian infrastructure have continued. In particular, Russia has targeted facilities generating power. Presumably these attacks were to inflict maximum discomfort on the Ukrainian people over the winter months. As with the Russian offensive, these assaults seem to have little impact on the Ukrainian will to resist, though it would be wrong to fully discount the damage and hardship engendered.

While Ukraine is publicly optimistic about its military position, it is hard to envision their counter-offensive driving Russian troops out of the disputed areas. As weakened as the Russian military may be, Putin will certainly use all of his resources to avoid withdrawal. He has too much personally at stake to allow that to happen.

There have also been some attacks within Russia, though they have been few and far between. Responsibility for these attacks have been disputed, though what is clear is that the Ukraine doesn’t have the capacity to bring the war to Russia. (Side note – It is almost laughable to see the indignation of Russia whenever these attacks occur. As if they cannot fathom why someone would want to harm “Little Ol’ Me”).

There was some thought that international pressure would force Russia to backdown. There always has been little chance of that as long as Putin is in power, but any spark of hope died when China declared its “neutrality”. China, supposedly, will not provide weapons to either Russia or the Ukraine, but neither will they condemn the Russian invasion. Even if it is true that they will not sell weapons to Russia (which I doubt) it would take a fully united international response to get Russia to even consider a change in position, and China has made that impossible.            

There have also been calls for negotiations, but it is hard to see a basis for compromise. The Ukraine certainly would want Russia to withdraw from all disputed territories, and, as noted above, Putin will not let that happen. Nor is the Ukraine going to be inclined to cede those provinces to Russia, especially when Russia has been unable to establish a firm foothold there through military means. A plebiscite of the inhabitants’ desires is theoretically possible, but it is hard to see how agreement could be reached on the details of such a vote. Bleeeding Kansas is a more likely precedent than Schleswig.

What is inevitable is that the end of this war will be messy. They always are. As much as historians like to focus on how wars start, how they end often has longer lasting consequences. The classic case is the Treaty of Versailles, a victor’s peace that imposed conditions on Germany that made WWII if not inevitable, much more probable. The end of WWII saw the rise of the “iron curtain” which killed democratic movements in eastern Europe, and led to a cold war that instigated an arms race we are still in the midst of today.

Recent United States experience proves the same. The first Iraqi war was relatively easy from a purely military perspective. It was not hard to drive Hussein out of Kuwait. However, the battles bled into sanctions which only increased the Iraqi government’s repression of dissident sects (the Shias and the Kurds). Eventually this provided an excuse for the second Iraqi war, in which militarily objectives were quickly attained. But the subsequent Sunni insurrections and the rise of ISIS resulted in significantly greater losses than the war itself.

The chaos surrounding the withdrawal of Russia and the United States from their respective wars in Afghanistan also highlight wars ending badly. Both countries hoped to install a government favorable to their interests. Both failed miserably. The result is a despotic regime impervious to international influence, devoted to taking the country back to the Islamic Middle Ages. There is no end in sight to the suffering of the Afghan people (especially women).

Which brings us back to the Ukraine. What now? We can hope for a miracle like the removal of Putin, or Ukrainian exhaustion leading to the cession of territory, but, contrary to popular opinion, miracles are very rare in times of war. We can also conjure up scenarios where either Russia or the Ukraine score decisive military victories which decide the issue. However, there is no evidence such a breakthrough is on the horizon.

What is probable is a stalemate for the foreseeable future. The Ukrainian counter-offensive may dent Russian positions, but it’s hard to envision them fully driving Russia back across the border. After the failure of the winter offensive, I don’t foresee Russia launching another for some time. They are more likely to dig into defensive positions and continue to declare their shaky hold on the disputed territory a victory.

To the extent there is a solidification of positions, less conventional warfare is sure to follow. Ukraine will want to try and bring the war to Russia proper but can only do so through covert action. Russia will continue to bomb and is likely to get less discriminant in its targets. Any way you look at it, more death and destruction will follow.

The international community will also be dragged further into this, but not as peacemakers. As the Russian bombing continues, Ukraine will call for more and more sophisticated weapons. They are likely to get them. That may spark China to drop its “neutrality” and supply Russia with whatever it needs to continue its aggression. Not a pretty picture.

I wish I could engender some optimism about this situation, but I can’t. This is just another predictably bloody wormhole arising out of an idiotic, meaningless war. We never learn. I am afraid that we never will.  

I was listening to a Spotify playlist the other day and the Beatles song “Norwegian Wood” came on. I have heard this song hundreds of times but was still drawn to listen for the sitar that makes it so distinctive. However, the song begins with a few bars of a beautiful acoustic guitar and this threw me. I momentarily wondered whether I was hearing a cover version. Then the sitar began and all was again well with the world.

This brief episode led me down one of those proverbial rabbit holes. It dawned on me that when this song first aired in 1965 the vast majority of people listening to it not only had never heard a sitar used in a pop song, they had never heard a sitar, period. In fact, most probably did not even know that such an instrument existed. I wondered what it must have been like to hear this “strange” sound with no frame of reference as to its origin.

This led me into considering those innovations that come so out of the blue there was no prior context to categorize them. Most inventions evolve from something familiar. Gutenberg’s printing press may have been a deviation of cataclysmic proportions, but what came out was still a book, and people knew what a book was. The first transatlantic flight was an incredible achievement, but the real shock must have been when people first looked up into the sky and saw a man-made machine passing overhead.

The most famous reaction to an innovation in modern times might be the projection of moving pictures onto a large screen. Legend has it that when the Lumiere brothers first exhibited their film showing a locomotive coming straight toward the camera as it pulled into the La Ciotat Station in 1895 people were so startled that they screamed and ran to the back of the room. Film historians have noted that the closest technique prior to that time producing a naturalistic moving image was the camera obscura, and that would have been no equivalent to what the Lumiere’s were presenting.

There is a similar sense when you hear Boomer’s wax poetic about Pong, a simple game with two “paddles” on either side of the screen batting an imaginary ball back and forth at incredibly slow speeds. When this game first hit bars and arcades it was a wonder. This was nothing like the pinball machines which dominated prior to then. While it was quickly eclipsed, Pong still holds a special place in the hearts of many.

Of more import was the invention of the microscope. The telescope may have brought objects closer, but people knew that the heavens were full of wonders. The microscope, on the other hand, reveals an unknown world that totally engulfs us, and what a bizarre world it is. It wasn’t just that we were seeing everyday objects close up, we were seeing other living organisms on our clothes, on our bed sheets, on our skin!!! It had to have been a shock, to say the least.

Similarly, the discovery of the X-Ray at the turn of the 20^th Century must have been mind-boggling. The was no precedent for being able to see through something seemingly solid. Could such superpowers even be imagined prior to that discovery? Those shown an early X-Ray and being told that they were looking at the inside of their own body must have been incredulous.

Probably those most amazed by innovation were our stone age ancestors. The invention of the wheel, or the transformation of rocks into tools must have been awe-inspiring. Not surprisingly, Gary Larson has captured the likely tenor of those times in the cartoon below.

 J. Krishnamurti understood the power of this unadulterated mindset better than anyone else I have encountered. He put it in terms of stopping the internal monologue which moderates experience. He used the example of a person who witnesses an incredible sunset and then returns the next night to experience the same. However, the mind will inevitably make comparisons, dulling the impact regardless of the reality.  

I think that one of the reasons little children can be so fascinating is because they do not have that filter. For young kids so many things are innovations without context. We can watch their amazement at the everyday and be entranced by it. We may chuckle, for example, at their astonishment (or fear) of fireworks, but we all secretly wish we could experience that same sense of the unprecedented.

A favorite mind game has always been the question if you could go back in time to witness one historical event, what would it be. Some will say Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address or the Signing of the Declaration of Independence or an original Shakespeare play being performed at the Globe. However, I fear that they all would be somewhat disappointing, knowing what we now know.

On the other hand, if we could erase our memories of things to come and experience the first phonograph record, or the first photograph, that would be something. A new way of experiencing the world that most of us could not have conceived of before that moment. That would be a time trip worth taking.

Alas, you cannot erase what you know. As much as I revere Krishnamurti, I cannot turn off the internal monologue. It is constantly babbling away, interposing itself on experiences. Still, with the rate of technological change, I have little doubt that we are in for surprises that few of us can contemplate. The trick will be to enjoy that when it happens.

From The Beatles to Krishnamurti. As far as rabbit holes go, not too shabby.     

Free speech is an easy concept to rally around. We are ‘Mericans. We have the right to say any damn thing we want, any damn time we want, any damn where we want. Left or right, we are all wary of proposals that limit free speech, aren’t we?

And yet, we are uncomfortable with unfettered speech. We know how damaging mere words can be. We know that the phrase, “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me” is hopelessly naïve. “Names” can leave scars, often deeper and harder to mend than broken bones. We also know that speech can quickly lead to action, and that action can be very damaging indeed.

Knowing this, we accept limits on our speech. We don’t countenance those who barge into any setting shouting whatever nasty epitaphs might be running through our minds (unless they’re in Congress).  We know that our place of work is not a free speech zone. Spouting off around the proverbial water cooler, or even worse, on social media, about what idiots your bosses are or how worthless your company’s products are, will get you fired, and we accept that.

These rules get a lot trickier when you are dealing with the efforts by the government, or even entities funded by the government, to curb speech. The First Amendment was directed at the government for good reason. Censorship has been the cornerstone of authoritarian regimes since time immemorial. Control what is said, and how information is disseminated, and you go a long way towards controlling the populace.

These days the tension between concerns about governmental regulation of speech and the recognition that there are limits to free speech is being played out in classrooms nationwide. Most of the focus has been on limiting topics to be covered in K-12 schools, or what books are acceptable in school libraries, but these tensions have spilled over to the university level as well, where notions of academic freedom make boundaries much harder to negotiate.

In 2022 Florida (where else) passed a statute that establishes a new post-tenure, five-year review cycle for professors at the state’s public institutions. Governor DeSantis was not shy about his reasons for signing this bill (is he ever?). He was quoted as saying that the bill would keep faculty and curriculum in line with what he calls the state’s priorities, which, of course, means his priorities. Considering the nature of politics in the United States, no doubt similar bills will soon crop up in other states around the country.

 It will be interesting to see how this law is enforced. At first blush, tenure or no, it is hard to see how the firing of a professor for statements that angered the powers that be can pass constitutional muster. In fact, such a firing would go to the very heart of the of the First Amendment. My guess is that Florida really doesn’t care about constitutionality and is more concerned with the optics of such a bill and the angst it will bring.

Another side of this coin is presented by the case of Kareem Tannous, a non-tenured business professor at Cabrini college. Tannous was recently fired after a series of personal tweets became public criticizing Israel in harsh terms. Among the tweets was one saying that “Israel and Ukraine [elsewhere called Zionazi Ukraine] are societal cancers and must be eradicated”. Another urged that we “dismantle #AparthiedIsrael by any means necessary”.

Tannous is one in a growing list of academics disciplined, or fired, for expressing incendiary opinions. Some have successfully sued for damages or reinstatement. Others have weathered the storm and continued to teach. Tannous claims that he is now blacklisted and has sued Cabrini arguing that, as an institute that receives state and federal support, it violated his First Amendment rights.

In attacking Israel, Tannous targeted one of the few issues on which both left and right kind of agree. While the left (I realize that I am shamelessly generalizing here) is often uncomfortable with the machinations of the Israeli government, especially under Netanyahu, there is still widespread support for our most reliable ally in the Middle East. The right, with visions of Armageddon dancing in their heads, is even more hawkish in its embrace of Israel.

Yet, few would countenance the firing of Tannous if his criticism stopped at lambasting Israeli policy, especially since it was done outside the classroom. We recognize the need to allow debate, even where views expressed may be unpopular. In fact, many of us welcome those who speak at the edges of consensus, reminding us that none of these issues are so black and white that all sides shouldn’t be aired.

The question becomes trickier when the speaker goes beyond criticism to an incitement to action. In exhorting his readers to eradicate Israel “by any means necessary” Tannous is clearly endorsing violence. “By any means necessary” embraces war, terrorism, bio-chemical attacks and any other nasty iteration of mayhem that mankind can envision. It takes this from impassioned criticism to exhortation of the worst kind.

Tannous denies his comments are ant-Semitic, but if he wants to eradicate Israel, what does he propose to do with the seven million Jews that live there? Considering the history of violence against Jews, and the on-going and seemingly intractable anti-Semitism that continues to pollute our world, it is hard to imagine that Tannous just wants to wipe the state of Israel off the world map and leave the populus there. Is there any doubt that if he has us eradicate the state, he would have us eradicate the people there as well?

To all of this he would probably respond that he is just a nobody who has no following and no ability to carry through on his unrestrained fantasies. All of that is probably true. But, on the other hand, he is a teacher. And one of the things that we expect from teachers is that they will not judge their students by any criteria other than their performance. In Tannous defense, there is no evidence that he has discriminated against his students because of their ethnicity but could a Jewish student in his class feel comfortable knowing his views on “eradication”?

 A similar issue arose with respect to Penn Law Professor Amy Wax who declared that the country would be “better off with fewer Asians” and that “on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites.” Wax is till teaching. Unlike Tannous, she did not advocate violence, but you still have to wonder how she can possibly be fair and impartial to Black and Asian students in her class while holding these views. I know that if I was of those ethnicities I would avoid her classes like the plague, even if it meant missing a class I would otherwise like to take.

There is no doubt that this is a slippery slope. If we advocate for the removal of Wax and Tannous we open the door for the Floridians who would remove any teacher who says something they do not like. And, for that reason, maybe it is a door that must stay firmly shut. But if you’re going to take that position have the guts to look a Black or Asian or Jewish student in the eye and tell them this yahoo is who their stuck with.   

For years, Major League Baseball has been taking hits for the way its games dragged on. It has been losing viewers by the droves, even for marque events, like the World Series. While it has been easy to throw baby boomer rants about youngsters with miniscule attention spans, the truth was that fans of all ages were turning off the games. It was time for change. All that was needed was someone to push through those changes, and that person was Theo Epstein.

Epstein’s problem was that baseball has one of the most conservative fan bases imaginable. The rules are sacrosanct. Any change disrupts time-honored traditions that will destroy our venerable national pastime. He also had to convince the players. How could they adjust their batting gloves for the 10^th time, or meander around the mound, if they had to be ready to bat or pitch in 15 measly seconds?

But push through the changes he did. A clock now determines when the batter must be in the box, and when the pitcher must deliver to the plate. Violations result in a ball or strike. Some said it would never work. One player predicted the clock would have to be abandoned within two weeks. But here we are into the first week of the season, and the clock is going nowhere. The games are quicker and more enjoyable to watch.

Epstein might have been the prefect catalyst for altering the rules. He was the wunderkind General Manager who led the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs, two teams desperate for post-season success, to World Series wins. He epitomized a youth movement in the sport and had overseen drastic changes in how games are managed, and players evaluated. As a consultant to the Major Leagues in respect of on field matters, he had the power. If anyone could convince the hidebound to move it was him.

Baseball is not alone in being resistant to change. If, as Albert Einstein said, “[t]he measure of intelligence is the ability to change”, most come up short. That is true for huge enterprises like Major League Baseball, companies, both big and small, as well as us puny individuals. Even Al didn’t quite measure up, spending over 30 years of his life fruitlessly searching for a unified theory in physics.

At least MLB did something. The corporate graveyard is filled with companies that were on top and then tanked because they could not alter what they were doing to meet new challenges. It wasn’t long ago that Blockbuster was the go-to source for films to watch at home. Had they been better run they would have seen that the days of physical DVD’s were numbered and used their name recognition to usher in the streaming world, but it didn’t happen.

As much as CEO’s like to paint themselves as visionaries, and are paid as if they are, most are sloggers who have climbed through the ranks via their management skills, not their foresight. Making fundamental changes to business operations is not only a professional risk, but a personal one as well. It is the type of risk that few of these multi-millionaires are willing to take.

Those that do take the risk tend to drag the rest of the business world with them. As annoying as Jeff Bezos is, and as maddening as Amazon can be, they have forced all other retailers, both big and small, to rethink how they get their products to the public. Vendors can no longer rely on a prime spot in a megamall to capture customers. They must adapt to the technology, and re-envision how, and if, those stores can compete in a digital world. There is no longer a choice.

A catalyst can also be an antagonist. It is difficult to imagine the achievements of the American space program without the Soviets. The threat of the USSR advancing in the exploration of space prompted the investment of time and money that led to the July 1969 landing on the moon. I doubt if the United States would have made that commitment otherwise, even though advances in propulsion technology made the timing right. We needed that catalyst.   

It’s not just businesses, or governments. Most of us have trouble identifying when it is time for a change in habits. It’s one thing to have change forced upon you. It’s another to admit that the way in which you have been doing something for years has passed its expiration date. Most of us are creatures of habit who dread breaking with the familiar and comfortable, even when we know that it no longer works.

The list of changes that we know we should make, but don’t, are legion. There is always weight and fitness. There is all that time wasted in front of the TV. There is the general inertia that stops us from engaging in the world as we should, whether it’s keeping in contact with friends, or volunteering our time to help others.

As with CEO’s, very few of us are seers. We are stuck with suppositions about what the future will hold and what that will mean to us. We know there are alterations that should be made, but that makes it no less complicated.  It is very easy to talk yourself out of changes that, in retrospect, were obvious.

That is why a catalyst is often needed. Maybe it’s someone like Theo Epstein. A person who speaks with authority, either personal or professional. Doctors can certainly get your attention, but so can friends, even if it only by example. Seeing someone you know and respect take control of their life can be a spark to act similarly.

These may be obvious truths, but they are ones that I have to keep repeating to myself again and again. Change involves risk, and I can be very risk averse. The drive to inertia runs deep. As bizarre as it seems, seeing citadels of orthodoxy like Major League Baseball move forward helps spark action. In fact, I think I will lay down on the couch, put on the Phillies game, and contemplate where to go next. Sounds like a plan.