Younger and Stronger - using 1/6 formula

Looked back at book Younger Next Year by Chris Crowley and Henry S. Lodge and learned more from a second reading. Seems like you create some inflammation in your body when you exercise vigorously. The authors explain that the slight pain you inflict on your body, down to the cellular level, creates growth and creates greater strength and health in the long run. They promote the use of heart monitors to keep good track of your pulse. In general terms, the maximum pulse rate can be derived by using the number 220 and deducting your age. In my case, the age is 63 years-- so my max heart rate would be approximately 157 beats per minute. You then strive in your exercise regime to get to 65% of your heart rate, or higher with more rigorous workouts. You might even move beyond aerobics to anaerobic levels-- with rates close to 100% of your max, maintained for a minute or two-- with sprinting 100 yards or some other relatively extreme behavior, for a senior person that is. The overall result is that you start feeling better and your body maintains itself at a more youthful level from the age of 60-85 years. It's kind of a natural preservative-- like dipping yourself in citric acid to reduce your physical detoriation with an exercise habit of one hour a day for six days a week. I think of the formula as 1/6-- one hour per day/six days a week.

So far this book has been a good influence in my life. I have been combining gym workouts for strength, about 2 per week, with 3-4 days walking the hills adjacent to my neighborhood in Austin. There is a bit of cultism or self-absorption perhaps in the authors' fondness for their system-- but I am falling into line with many of their assertions. I have not bought the heart monitor, a strap that goes around your chest and signals your pulse rates to the wrist monitor you wear like a watch during the workouts. I have noticed pulse rates on the elliptical machine and other apparatus at the gym and sure enough when I hit about 120 bpm (beats per minute)-- a line of sweat forms at my brow and telltale moisture appears at the neckline of my shirt.

Jimmy Fallon-- Most Cheerful Man on Late Night

Watched Howard Kurtz on his Reliable Sources show this Sunday morning on CNN. His guest Ken Tucker discussed Jay Leno's firing by NBC, for an 8 minute segment entitled  "Jay Leno, fired and smiling." Tucker was asked whether the the late night format, a 60 year old tradition,  can be revived to something different for the future.

Tucker wondered about the wisdom of NBC's second firing Leno, this time for Jimmy Fallon, a guy he predicted will draw a smaller audience than Leno. Tucker took issue with Fallon's inability to interview heavyweight guests like Barack Obama. Fallon, he added, lacks awareness of the late night tradition and history. He predicted  Fallon and NBC will swoon in the ratings like Conan did. Tucker unceremoniously called Conan O'Brien ... "a shriveled carrot of a man... pushed to the margins, there's no buzz."

Tucker feels the Johnny Carson mantle should have been passed to David Letterman rather than Jay Leno. Letterman has more gravitas than the others. Tucker said Jimmy Kimmel, Fallon's likely main competitor, understands irony, from the School of David Letterman, but reveals nothing of himself. Letterman, unlike Kimmel, understands the late night franchise, talks about his life and has interests beyond Hollywood and the world of entertainment.

"Is Jimmy Fallon just an empty, though stylish suit, bound for low ratings?" Kurtz called Fallon "the most cheerful guy on late night" and cheerful goes a long way on television. Fallon has musical chops and can do a skit as his SNL pedigree guarantees. Kurtz and Tucker pointed out Fallon's savvy regarding the internet, Twitter and his demonstrated ability to go viral with clips. Maybe the new job description for  late night TV host has becomes or devolves to to a guy with a baton in his hand-- a symphony conductor for all things electronic.

Tucker likes Stephen Colbert, playing the real Stephen Colbert and not the twisted right wing persona, as a late night host for a major network. Colbert, however, may be even smarter, kinkier and more of a cult hero than Conan-- a prescription for limited ratings. Colbert's interviews play like standup with the interviewee serving as the straight man to Colbert's virtuoso improv. Late night hosts are supposed to be modest and must always make the guest look good. Colbert's pace is frenetic, offering little of the soporific pleasures of Late Night Starring Johnny Carson. We loved the familiar tropes and Ed McMahon's big brotherly guffaws for years until we got sick of them. Colbert does not provide the needed space. He races along, not the optimum rhythm of late night which allows some room for relaxed viewer participation. Jon Stewart is better at that.

Ken Tucker never has to make decisions with unknown outcomes. He always knows everything-- the definition of a critic. A Ken Tucker endorsement probably proves Stephen Colbert makes the absolute worst choice as late night host on network television! But I did enjoy much of what Ken Tucker had to say about the latest skirmish in the Late Night Wars.

A-Rod in the Wrong Pond

Read the New York Times recent piece on Alex Rodriguez's struggles with the New York Yankees. A-Rod was a big league ballplayer for nearly ten years, 1994- 2003, when he moved his baseball skills to the town that never sleeps. Rodriguez was signed away from the Seattle Mariners. Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks  signed A-Rod to an enormous $252 million dollar contract to play, a deal that as "big as Texas" and maybe the beginning of the end for the one of the greatest athletes to cross the the chalk white lines. I saw A-Rod play a few times in Arlington in the 2001-2003 seasons. Tom Hicks would position himself just a row or two back from the batting circle but the scrutiny did not effect Rodriguez in a negative way. A-Rod averaged 52 home runs per season and played an extremely graceful shortstop for a guy standing 6 ft. 3 in.. Rodriguez later admitted to taking steroids during the Rangers years but the enormous skills cannot be denied. What has happened in the years since has the feel of a Greek tragedy.

Rodriguez hungered for baseball immortality and legends are built in places like Yankee Stadium. The Yankees always hunger for the best that money can buy and they took the pricey contract off Tom Hicks's hands and brought the superstar to New York. Derek Jeter, a Yankee legend not to be displaced, played shortstop and so A-Rod became the starting third basemen in what should/could have been a great run of Yankee championships. Instead, the Yankees won a single championship in the near decade Rodriguez has been with the club. So what went wrong?

Alex Rodriguez does not flourish under post-season playoffs pressure. The allows two options: 1) play for a second tier team that rarely gets into the playoffs, 2) play for a dominant team like the Yankees and please fans and writers during the regular season but draw their ire during the post-season. The psychological explanation for why a player performs at unbelievable high levels during the regular season but folds into a mockery of his usual capable self is very complicated. Everybody has their level of optimum performance and many people hit a wall of fear, and possibly a collapse, a Peter-principle level of failure. The Peter-principle, though, is based on the notion that we get promoted to our level of incompetence and stay there. A-Rod's talents seems to belie any possible level of incompetence; the guy has skills unmatched by his peers. The problem, though entirely in his head, is very real.

I remember attending a Cooperstown traveling show, a little mini-version of the Cooperstown Hall of Fame museum being exhibited at the Museum of Natural History in New York City. The most interesting baseball object was the thick spiral notebook compiled by baseball uber-agent Scott Boras on behalf of Alex Rodriguez, the notebook that may have closed the deal on the $252 million dollar contract. Boras compiled three entire sections of the notebook to a comparison of Alex Rodriguez's statistics to the other American League shortstops-- 1) Alex Rodriguez vs. Nomar Garciaparra, 2) Alex Rodriguez vs. Derek Jeter and 3) Alex Rodriguez vs. all other Shortstops. A-Rod, no doubt, dwarfed all the others in terms of numbers, but numbers do not tell the whole story.

Hopefully there is a happy conclusion to the enigma that is A-Rod. He may have arrived on the American baseball scene at the worst possible time-- a perfect storm of obscene money, horrible drugs and a society too focused on results. The golden years of modern Yankees history- the Fifties and Sixties with Mantle, Maris, Berra, Whitey Ford, culminating in 1961, occurred at the birth of television way before the ESPN era of sports fetishism. A-Rod maybe would have struggled with success in 1961. The Yankees had Tony Kubek at shortsop, surely no A-Rod, but he got the job done. Maybe A-Rod would have been better with an Ernie Banks career, a fantastic personal record played on the fringes of the spotlight. He could still be respected and admired, even if under-represented in World Series history. Under the present circumstances he has a Sisyphus-like struggle trying to roll a massive baseball uphill against the squawking of social media, lame-stream media and whatever psychological pressures are self-implosed. Maybe he will find a way back to a smaller pond and play another five years of a game he likely once enjoyed.

How To Win the Lottery

There are several ways to win the lottery.

1) First, of course, buy a ticket.

2) Wear blue. The color blue promotes your success with the lotto.

3) Read books. The people most likely to win the lottery are often big on reading.

4) Be generous. Leave good tips. What comes around goes around.

5)  Pick your numbers rather than go for Quick Picks. This is a proven fact.

6) Fast for 8 hours prior to buying your ticket. This leaves you in good shape should it also be the day for your annual physical and the customary blood work.

7) Visualize yourself as a winner!

The above methods are not guaranteed, suggestions only.

McLuhan at Authors Luncheon (Dec 1966)

http://www.wnyc.org/story/146063-marshall-mcluhan/

(Listen to a few minutes of McLuhan on Sara Fishko's radio show-- see link above)

Marshall McLuhan’s 36-minute lecture, “Address to the Author’s Luncheon,” a talk delivered to members of the book publishing industry on Dec. 7, 1966 at the Shoreham Hotel in New York City, provides a window to his principles or probes, as he preferred to call his mental explorations. Early in his talk McLuhan states he no longer used the term "global village," for "global theater" is more appropriate. People are no longer interested in jobs, they want roles. People want involvement in the electronic environment, and are no longer satisfied with being a cog in a machine. The machine, the old industrial environment, had passed and the world was moving to an electronic environment. McLuhan's speech works to prepart the audience of publishers for a revolution in their world, a revolution he felt was well underway. I will trace the first thirteen minutes of McLuhan’s talk and number each of McLuhan first four points. 

1) “Humor is grievance.” (4:30)

McLuhan makes his first serious point, an observation on the nature of comedy. Jokes in Canada revolve around bilingualism and the problems of French Canada but a new round of jokes resulted from “a new interface, a new irritation area” and led to “great floods of Newfie jokes” much like the Italian and Polack jokes making the rounds in the United States. 

"Humor as a system of communications and as a probe of our environment—of what’s really going on—affords us our most appealing anti-environmental tool. It does not deal in theory, but in immediate experience, and is often the best guide to changing perceptions. (The Medium is the Massage   92)

2) Children’s reading distance is 4.6 inches. (7:00 min.)

McLuhan’s talk swings quickly to TV viewing and the change in children’s near point reading distance likely resulting from television viewing habits. McLuhan comments “the average reading distance for a grade two child is 4.6” from the printed page.” He admonishes the publishers: “The printed page you provide is useless for TV child. The TV child is a Cyclops, only uses one eye. He’s a hunter, he’s not a reader.” McLuhan intrigues and frustrates with these remarks though the audience listens politely and attentively. The TV child “cannot see ahead because he wants involvement.”

McLuhan’s hint at chastisement for the publishing audience reflects a level of dismay at their lack of recognition of Rome burning around them. The publishers can be excused for their tepid response to McLuhan’s news on children. McLuhan’s comments directed at children’s books were only a preview for his next warning for the publishing industry-- the transition from hardware to software.

McLuhan uses lighthearted name-dropping as a method for preparing the audience for heavier material. He mentioned Timothy Leary, being neighbors with Jack Paar and an encounter with Ann Landers, the gossip columnist. He adds some more quip but stops quickly with the comment: “Xerox is software.

3) The Publisher’s Grievance—interface of Hardware vs. Software.  (11:30)

McLuhan switched directions quickly, connecting point #1, humor is grievance, to point #2, your industry is changing, and pronounces with some authority: You have a big grievance; you don’t know how to get off the hardware hook into software. Xerox is software, and you’re still in the hardware business. Get off the hardware hook and get into software.” The book publishers, he instructs, look in the wrong place for the future—at books. The future is software. Software suggests the scene from The Graduate when Benjamin  (Dustin Hoffman) gets a single word of advice— plastics-- for preparing for the future. McLuhan’s word is software and, of course, he is correct!

“I don’t have very much time,” he tells the audience. McLuhan planned for an entire speech and may only be allotted twenty minutes of speaking time. The speech eventually covered thirty-six minutes. McLuhan pinpointed the future of the publishing industry as the battle between hardware vs. software in a roomful of ink-stained New York publishers. He emphasized the prohibitive expense of hardware production where producing a single page document for office use costs “$1.95, the same as a book.”  The authors and publishers can be excused for being on the wrong side of history back then, but by now, there's no reason to whine. Jeff Bezos founded Amazon in 1994 and created the next revolution-- book industry 2.0.

McLuhan, still not sure of his time allowance, got to point #4 quickly and made a mind blowing statement: “Let me tell you a simple principle that you can use in your business. When a fast form goes around a slow form, the slow one collapses.”

4)  “When a fast form goes around a slow form, the slow one collapses. (13:00 min)

He repeated the phrase two times, for emphasis: “A speed up in any part of your enterprises will dissolve and destroy the slower parts of your enterprise. Put a fast spin rim around a slow one and the slow one disintegrates.”

McLuhan’s fast spin rim phrase has profound implications for society under satellite conditions. Our recent history races forward by faster forms encircling and dominating slow forms. McLuhan said television went around the movies and transformed movies forever after. He calls the satellite ring above the earth a fast moving rim capable of destroying the earth, or at the very least transforming the earth to garbage, or a new set of clothes:

"Put a satellite ring around the planet, and all arrangements around the planet disintegrate. It becomes garbage. Garbage is clothing." (Author’s Luncheon 1966)

McLuhan employes colorful language declaring the world garbage, and refers to the new environment as echo land.  The satellite ring around the planet turned the globe to a programmed environment. The earth itself became an art form, McLuhan stated. Nature existed no longer. Ecology arose. The photograph of a spinning globe, the Blue Marble, taken from a space capsule forever changed man’s understanding of the earth, rather than learn about space, we learned about ourselves.

McLuhan asked himself what technology might go around television as the dominant electronic medium and hypothesized the hologram might be next. Sadly, McLuhan died in 1980 before personal computers and cellphones entered the  marketplace, though he envisaged this development back in 1965. Check out the statements made by McLuhan gave in New York in May 1965, and a summary of the speech by a New Yorker reporter:

"He  discussed the depth-involving qualities of sunglasses, textured stockings, discotheques, and comic book; reported on the iconic properties of Andy Warhol’s signed soup cans: and predicted a happy day when everyone will have his own portable computer to cope with the dreary business of digesting information. Dr. McLuhan has earned a reputation among the cognoscenti as the world’s first Pop philosopher." (New Yorker  May 15, 1965  p.43)

Texas Football

The Longhorns of the University of Texas are a nationally known brand. The wonderful logo of the Longhorn steer, printed on the sides of the helmet, has a primal appeal. We like animals and used to work closely with them and they have a purity, simple, strong, dependable-- just like a good football player. But has the football experience held on to its primal appeal? I have been attending games with some consistency since around 1996. I was first attracted by the arrival of Ricky Williams, the archetype for a great football player. Ricky was bigger than life and most of his opponents. He literally rambled across the field and brought a certain joy to the game of football.

One of the best things about the UT football stadium experience, watching players on a natural grass field, has since been removed. Football played on a natural field reminds us of our rural origins. People sliding and tackling on grass and the resulting grass-stained uniforms reflect the physical reality of contact. Natural grass fields get torn and muddy depending on weather conditions, a disturbing development for the TV transmission. The TV camera always wants a perfect field, un-muddied by reality. Television makes the game more antiseptic, ready for prime time. And now the experience of going to a Texas football game resembles the couch potato experience at home. The jumbotron screen above the south end zone provides images of players ten time their actual size. Plays are hurriedly repeated, like the instant replay enjoyed in the living room. Ads are displayed in various forms across the stadium. The field has been changed to an artificial surface. The jumbotron screen has dwarfed the student performers and the band members, cheerleaders, and pom squads look like tiny ants fighting hopelessly to compete with the electronic fireworks. I recall the days when people would actually count the points with the cheerleaders doing backflips at the edge of the north end  zone. Now, though the backflips continue the cheerleaders are hardly noticeable. Who can keep their eyes off the mega-screen? Interestingly, the band members got demoted from their seats near the playing field to a remote location in the south end zone. These are student volunteers but apparently their contribution does not qualify for a decent seat!

In the short time since the Big 12 got invented as a combination of the Big Eight and four schools from the Southwest Conference, much has changed. Schools have moved around, changed conferences for physical geography has been replaced by electronic cut and paste. Conferences are aligned on the basis of TV ratings, where the real money lies, and physical reality again gives way to electronic marketing concerns.

Texas has had its struggles this year, another discussion, but a valuable few steps would be tearing down the jumbotron, re-installing natural grass, and moving the band back to their rightful position in the student section. If we choose to go to the stadium, let us watch a football game. If we want a living room experience, we can stay home for that.

McLuhan on CBC  (May 18, 1960)                                              

Marshall McLuhan can be seen on a YouTube clip from a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) television program entitled Explorations aired on May 18, 1960 on what must have been an early experience for him performing on the relatively new medium.

McLuhan, 49 years old, looks sturdy and vigorous, a ruddier appearance than the somewhat gaunt look he would take on over the course of the next two decades, an incredible journey by anyone’s standards. McLuhan wears a heavy wool suit and betrays an eager enthusiasm, possibly because he wrote the script for the Explorations episode, as his biographer Philip Marchand reports, as part of a media education curriculum designed for 11^th grade students. (Marchand 158) The clip indicates a beginning step in McLuhan’s journey to educate the world to the ways of electronic media. McLuhan tosses off challenging concepts, more easily comprehended fifty years after the CBC video presentation, but delivered with a steady optimism.  He introduces a colloquialism—“with it” as central to grasping his main point, the connectedness of post-literate, electronic man in a global family. McLuhan’s aesthetic, equal parts dedicated instructor and Promethean gift-giver, offers nothing less than a series of earth-shattering notions presented as cheerfully as the day’s algebra lesson. The video gains charm by its timing, prior to McLuhan gaining world fame, and reveals McLuhan firmly in command of a Weltanschauung for Echo Land well in advance of the publication of The Gutenberg Galaxy 1962) and Understanding Media (1964).

The YouTube clip extends just over 8 minutes (8:43), a small segment of a half-hour show devoted to the subject of teenagers. At the end of the clip McLuhan comments on the difference between adolescents (print era) and teenagers (electronic era); adolescents with their training in individualist print culture are always searching for personal identity while teenagers, a product of electronic culture, seek group identity.

The camera shows Alan Millar, the CBC host for the program, standing before a pay telephone at the edifice of an appliance store. Millar, a man of soothing voice and good TV hair, serves as puppet for McLuhan’s ideas. He states the world “is now a global village.” Millar hesitates a full beat, a pregnant pause, and repeats the phrase slowly… “a global village. ” He allows time for “global village” to sink into the minds of the 11^th grade audience and the next camera shot displays a bookcase, a “symbol of the age just past,” a time when we “had just one medium.” The plot thickened and the stage well set, McLuhan enters the frame to resolve matters lest the audience mourn excessively over the loss of the book with an explanation of the phrase “with it.” By “with it” we mean “we’ve understood completely, we’ve got the message as it were in every way possible.”  As for the print era man “they were not with it, they were away from it, by themselves with their own private point of view.”

McLuhan’s logic sounds airtight, but the 1960 audience may lack reference points for understanding the significance of being “with it.” The Beatles and hippies have not yet happened and the introduction of CNN and MTV are twenty years in the future. McLuhan offers help in the next few sentences:

"The new media has made everything into a single unit like a continually sounding tribal drum where everybody gets the same message all the time… a princess gets married in England, an earthquake in North Africa, a Hollywood star gets drunk… I use the word tribal. It’s probably the key word of this whole half-hour."

McLuhan has circled  back to the concept of globalism, beginning the scenario with the term global village and ending with the story of the tribal drum. Millar delivers a line straight from McLuhan’s script designed to acknowledge the viewer’s distance from such abstruse subject matter as media and connectivity. Millar asks, “Aren’t media, as I think most of us feel, on the edges of our life?”

“Media is at the heart of our life because the media work through our senses,” answers McLuhan.

The video clip features provocative set design, the placement of a pay phone in front of an appliance store. Consumers from the sixties viewed television as properly placed alongside refrigerators and dishwashers in an appliance store. The telephone, however, seemed divorced from television. The telephone, managed by the AT&T monopoly, seemed like a utility service similar to the water utility or lighting department, and hardly related to the television industry. McLuhan, of course, saw things differently. He tied telephone and television together as communication media even though nobody imagined a way to talk back to their television set. Today we interact constantly with both our telephone and television and communicate between them. CNN broadcasters regularly encourage us to tweet our viewpoints, send personal reports or photos, or vote our perspective on the topics of the day. McLuhan’s educational program anticipates the convergence of phone and television communications and, no doubt, would have added computers to the discussion should anybody have had the least clue to what he meant.

The 1960 clip reveals McLuhan’s fondness for revelations gained from colloquial speech, his clever use of the metaphor “global village,” so powerful it is repeated to the present day, strange retrieval of  past functions, the drumbeat of tribalism being revived by electric circuitry, and the fierce impact of a new media environment—the electronic media, a rival the book. McLuhan viewed media as extensions of our bodies and as reshaping our sensory balance. He intentionally concluded on the interface, how we access media through our senses. Imagine the video if McLuhan had designed it for 12^th graders!

McLuhan famously descried any concern with the content of TV shows. He studied television from a macro perspective, anticipating the ways television has become part of a spectrum of environmental services. He felt the debate over the “false claims of advertising” was wasted effort in comparison to decoding Madison Avenue’s power for “icon-making and image making,” decades before these views could be fully understood.  And possibly not yet understood.