1. Agitating for
underdogs, by any means necessary
When President Obama was campaigning for his first term, I
started hearing about a Chicago community organizer named Saul Alinsky and his
book Rules for Radicals. Alinsky’s
biographer, Sanford Horwitt, has claimed that Obama (also a former Chicago
organizer) and his 2008 campaign were influenced by Alinsky’s teachings. The
book popped up so many times in political articles and commentary that I finally
decided to read it for myself.
Rules for Radicals
is Alinsky's treatment of how organizers (think of them as agitators for
change, especially in labor actions against large corporations) should be
chosen and trained, and how they should operate. He goes through the personal
traits a good organizer should have, what they should expect as they get
started working in a community, and what they should expect at the beginning of
an organizing action. Alinsky also has the "rules", which are better
called tactics for prompting change.
I was expecting Rules to be some sort of dirty tricks book.
What I actually found was a common-sense tactical plan that any underdog might
use against a more powerful opponent. This book was truly fascinating, and
based on years of practice as Alinsky worked in various labor actions from the
30's until he died in 1972.
I did struggle trying to figure out which way Alinsky’s
moral compass pointed, or how well it worked. In the first part of Rules he talks about his affinity for
Judeo-Christian rights and values, the preciousness of human life, and how the
moral life is the most practical life, the only road to survival. Then he
spends an entire chapter on means and ends, essentially boiling it down to a
question of whether a particular means suits a particular end. Alinsky talks
about how in war, the end justifies almost any means; we may have to choose the
good of mankind over our personal conscience. I think he dealt with any moral
dilemmas in organizing by assuming that if he was fighting for the little guy,
his cause was just. The struggle was akin to warfare. It then just became a
matter of “winning” (Charlie Sheen would be proud), and whatever it took to win
was acceptable.
I'm also not sure what Alinsky's political affiliation was.
He talks about the "Have-Nots" vs. the "Haves", always
taking the side of the Have-Nots in any situation. He says in one passage that
revolution is a cycle: once a group of Have-Nots takes power, they turn into
Haves and try to maintain their status, then need to be pushed out by the next
underdog. In Alinsky's view, whoever is in power at a given time is likely the
opposition. His definition of "leaders" and "organizers" is
interesting: leaders are trying to gain power for their own use, while
organizers are trying to gain power for others (i.e., the Have-Nots) to use.
The most interesting thing I picked up from the book is an
impression that Alinsky might not be too impressed with Obama now. The
President acts like a "Have" in my view, with all the gala concerts
and lavish parties at the White House, plus many vacations in distant (and
expensive) locations. All of this during tough economic times. I haven't
researched how Obama lived while he was a community organizer in Chicago, but
these days he seems more interested in keeping his lifestyle than in trying to
help the Have-Nots. I wonder what changes in Washington Alinsky would be
agitating for if he were still alive?
2. The multiple,
mutual benefits of a few good friends
I recently read VitalFriends: The People You Can't Afford to Live Without by Tom Rath. The subtitle
in particular caught my eye. It’s quick reading, but has at least three things
I thought worth sharing. The first is that we don't need that many friends to
give and get the benefits of friendship. Just 3 or 4 close friends may be
enough. That's comforting news for introverts like me. I’ve rarely had more
than a few close friends at any time (along with many good acquaintances), but I've treasured those relationships.
Second, we can sometimes make a mistake Rath refers to as
the "rounding error". That's when we expect a single friend to be
well-rounded enough to meet all our needs. It's a sure way to frustrate both
people! Everyone has different strengths, and there may be just one strength
that a friend uses to help you. You might have one friend who helps you work
through your latest struggle, another who motivates you to meet that stretch
goal, and a third who's just fun to be around. That's okay. Rath's
encouragement is that we appreciate our friends for their strengths and not expect
any one of them to meet all our needs.
Third, the research Rath performed identified eight key
friendship roles. See if you spot any of these among your friends:
The Builder - a motivator and coach, someone who's
encouraging you to do more but not competing with you
The Champion - someone who stands up for you, and accepts
you as you are
The Collaborator - a friend with similar interests and
ambitions, someone you may partner with on projects or teams
The Companion - that person who's always there for you (note
this may be a mutual role)
The Connector - a bridge builder who expands your network
and helps you get what you want
The Energizer - the life of the party, a fun friend
The Mind Opener - someone who expands your horizons, who
asks good questions and encourages you to think about things in new ways
The Navigator - the friend you ask for advice, who helps
keep you headed in the right direction
As I read through these roles I spotted a Champion, a
Collaborator, and a Companion among my closest friends. I also noticed that
with one friend I'm a Mind Opener of sorts, with one or two I'm more of a
Connector, and for another I might be a Builder. I don't think I'm an Energizer
for anybody!
The book was helpful for getting me to think of specific
things to appreciate about my friends, and look for ways to be a better friend
myself.
3. The strange case
of the missing hummingbirds
One of the best parts of spring is the return of the
hummingbirds. We put up a feeder in the birch tree close to our deck, and the
hummers are easy to see from the sliding door. Knowing when to put out the
feeder has been guesswork in the past, though. Last year I think I was about a
month late, based on when a friend said he saw the first one of the season. Our
only visitors were a male and female who stayed around until early October.
This year I'd like to have more of the little guys buzzing
around. As spring approached I kept checking this map on hummingbirds.net; you
can see that the first reported sightings in central Indiana were in early
April. So, three weeks ago I prepared my first batch of nectar and put out the
feeder.
The nectar is easy to make, along with being fresher &
cheaper than store bought. Just use a 1:4 ratio of sugar to water, boil a
couple of minutes to kill stuff that might grow in it, then let it cool. I use
plain table sugar, 1 cup in a quart of water. I've read that sugar is better
than honey since it tends to stay purer, longer, when outside. Never use
artificial sweetener because there's no nutritional value for the birds.
