Adventure

The sense of the word 'adventure' has changed over the years. Originally meaning 'the prospect of something about to happen', it became 'the chance of something happening', and then 'hazarding or risking the future'. It slowly mutated into 'a perilous undertaking' (around 1314!) and then 'a novel or exciting incident' (around 1570!) before becoming what it is today, a literary genre, a detour that brings entertainment to our boring lives.

It's the same thing with the word 'emergency'. Originally meaning 'something rising (from a liquid medium)' and related to 'submerge' (to place below the surface of a liquid) and 'merge' (to blend into a liquid), it became 'something happening in a fluid situation' ('emergent' appears around 1450) and then 'an unforeseen occurrence'. Now it connotes disaster and danger, having blended in our minds with 'urgency'.

But looking forward and backward, as a social historian is wont to do, one sees things sometimes a little differently. Whether or not you believe in the theological claims of Jesus Christ, something emerged about 2000 years ago. Its advent was apparently prophesied, and at the very least it was keenly anticipated. Out of Bethlehem, that phenomenon would come to change the world.

Such change phenomena always have their detractors. But the change they inspire is incontrovertible. The reason that many have come to suspect others of thinking that President-elect Obama is like a messiah is a simple one. He has campaigned on a message of 'change that you can believe in' and 'the audacity of hope'. It is a timeless message, and one that appeals to all kinds of humans. Not all who believe are uncritical, swept up by the audacity of hopeful change. Many see the possibilities of the adventure, and are glad that it has come in their time.

Me, I'm just looking forward to seeing people this December who I've not seen for a while. I wonder what it's like for those who are not coming home, and those who are coming home after their first extended period of being away from home. I wonder about those who have no homes to return too. I wonder as I wander.

Coincidence

My previous two posts sort of juxtaposed in such a way that people started asking me if the Sewer Rehabilitation Project had anything to do with the Great Visionary Eulogy Statute. No, no, not at all. Just God showing me what life is sometimes about.

But it isn't always rubbish that suffers confluence. Sometimes, good managers and leaders from very different backgrounds also come together in synergy. As in this piece, pointed out to me by the man named Henry. It brings both Arsène Wenger and Barack Obama together in one piece — two great visionary leaders of true class and quality.

President Obama & Global Connectivity

While visiting the Washington Post, I realised that the map I was looking at looked a lot like another map I'd seen in my research. So I went back to it and had a good look.

Do you know which cities are ALPHA, BETA and GAMMA-class Globally-Interconnected Cities? Is your city one of them? And what is the link between being a Global City and supporting Barack Obama for President of the USA?

First of all, you can look at the list of GaWC Global Cities here: [MAP] [TEXT]

=====

(UPDATE): A brief note of explanation here, as requested. A Global City is one which for economic, cultural, social or other reasons takes a disproportionate role in the affairs of the world. Currently, the four top (Level 12) ALPHA-class world cities are London, New York, Paris and Tokyo (in alphabetical order). These are followed by six other ALPHA-rated cities at Level 10: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hongkong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore. The GaWC ranking I've used here is based on the levels at which the city provides advanced services (e.g. law, medicine, media, finance) to the rest of the world. There are other rankings; Foreign Policy journal's October 2008 issue has one based on 24 metrics, but the top ten are roughly the same. (/UPDATE)

=====

Next, you can look at a graphic representation from the Washington Post of which counties went for whom and by how much here: [LINK to WaPo Interactive Map]

Here's some numerical data.

In alphabetical order, the three ALPHA world cities on the US map are Chicago (O +1,001,099), Los Angeles (O +662,350) and New York (O +411,186).

The one BETA world city on the US map is San Francisco (O +168,101).

The GAMMA cities on that map are, in alphabetical order, Atlanta (O +182,030), Boston (O +139,072), Dallas (O +114,991), Houston (O +18,468, which is rather low in comparison to the rest), Miami (O +243,567), Minneapolis (O +190,657), and Washington DC (O +218,195).

I then went to the text list, which gives DELTA cities: Baltimore, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Richmond, Seattle. Denver was added recently and isn't on the 2004 list.

Every single one of those cities went for Senator (now President-Elect) Obama in a big way. But there are two possible objections to this simple analysis. Firstly, the big cities have always been projected as pro-Obama; secondly, this looks like cherry-picking with no basis in fact.

These objections are easily dealt with: look at the maps; there are largeish cities which went for McCain (e.g. Salt Lake City by 90,000) and some that went red in previous elections. But none of the most globally-interconnected cities are in red; all of them went blue this year. Barack Obama won in almost every demographic category; the largest category of people who voted against him were old white Protestant males in rural areas.

There does indeed seem to be a link that shows President Obama's support is large in cities that are well-connected to the rest of the world. And that bodes well for the future of the US in the global milieu.

Summer's End

Today is the day known as Summer's End. I realise that all good things come to an end; yet, their end is the beginning of more good things. I have two months left before I can launch the last aerofoil into the burning sunrise and catch the wind beneath my wings.

I spent time with many interesting people this week and learnt a lot. I learnt about why some people get eaten up by other people that they think are enemies. It is saddening to watch John McCain bumble and waffle and splutter his way through his hatred and distaste for Barack Obama. In the end, the Obama campaign launches a 30-minute video that is nearly as inspiring as Reagan's 'Morning in America' (which I still remember) and does not mention McCain even once.

It says a lot about leadership when it employs the politics of discontent and division to run a campaign, an institution, or an environment. I've watched the almost two years of the long campaign and seen how McCain, once respected as a possible Republican successor — an outsider who would make all things good — has deteriorated from maverick into mouth. He is frustrated; deep down inside he is all burned up, angry, bitter. He has no future, despite the sound, fury, indignation and powerful forces he still wields with a more erratic and dangerous hand.

To invigorate his flagging campaign (which at its peak once appeared to allow the junior Senator from Illinois no chance at all), he allows his principles to fall away. Instead of picking a steady and reliable running-mate (as Obama has with Joe Biden), he picks a person who is seriously not qualified should he fall away. It would be amusing, were it not for the fact that they are running for the White House, still the greatest centre of power in the world. What happens there will affect all of us.

And yet... without McCain (and in the primaries, Hilary Clinton), perhaps Obama would never have burned so brightly or had such opportunity to prove himself as a sane and level-headed leader. I thank God that we have seen Obama come out ahead so far through grueling fire and painful decisions. His detractors think he is untested. I think he has been tested quite a bit. The nature of the test is important. McCain was a war hero because he was shot down for his own folly, captured and survived it all. Obama went through tests for brains and organisational ability; he was a people-builder. The economy now requires that; the old and ungracious who have run out of ideas should at least have the grace to step aside.

I turn my eyes downwards to the earth. I am Number One Fire Goat, and I bow to the eight corners of the world. This is the small place of my heart, the place I stand. It is summer's end, and although winter comes, life will rise again in spring. I have had a great year, a wonderful year, a year of change and growth and mastery. I thank the Highest for all that He has tested me with, and hope that in my little space and time I will serve well.

Change We Should Believe In

It's of course one of those things that gets to me, that although I support Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America, I will not be able to vote for him in November. That's because I'm (according to various authorities) a citizen of the European Union, for one.

But I'm also a citizen of the world, and a teacher. And as a teacher, I find myself reflecting a lot on what the big nations get up to when they publicly take up positions on education. Senator Obama's position on education, as on November 2007, is something that I can believe in: a well-rounded education, proper support for teachers and schools, accountability of teachers, accountability to the future of all our children, specifics which he occasionally elaborates on in other speeches. He has obviously thought about what educational outcomes ought to be, not just the first-stage and second-stage arguments about what education is and how it should be carried out.

Even if, as some cynics charge, this is all a pipe-dream, it is a good thing to dream about. And it is certainly a better thing to work towards in the long term. I wish the Senator all the best, especially in the face of cynicism masquerading as experiential wisdom. I can just imagine what some of my previous superiors in many different institutions might have said; I am fairly certain most of them are McCain types, and at least one is very much a William Jefferson Clinton person in both good and not-so-good ways.

But as my grandfather used to say, "Everybody has something good about them; it's just that for some people you have to look harder."

Psalm 125: The Audacity Of Faith

Anyone interested in Senator Barack Obama's campaign for the White House in 2008 would probably have read his book, The Audacity of Hope. In it, the Senator speaks about what it means to live in a pluralistic democracy and having to cope with perilous issues such as religious orthodoxy and political expediency. He concludes that in many areas, Americans have no choice but to admit a freer and broader discourse at a personal level – and then elevate this discourse to a higher level without rancour.

This is always going to be hard for some people to take. As I was reading Psalm 125 yesterday, I could see only too easily how an abiding faith might possibly turn into the stubbornness of faith, rather than the audacity of hope.

They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.
As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever.
For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.
Do good, O LORD, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their hearts.
As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the LORD shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity: but peace shall be upon Israel.

To me, it has always been of near-paramount interest and wonder that the name 'Israel' means 'he who wrestles (or contends) with God'. To have a nation rooted in an abiding faith that one has been granted the right, as Jacob was, to contend with the Almighty, is to have a unique status indeed. It is a status that needs the countervailing weight of even more graciousness and humility than usual.

Psalm 124: The Fowler's Snare

Yesterday's reading came from the 124th Psalm. I have been reading these psalms in the context of Barack Obama's sterling run for the presidency of the United States of America. What strikes me is that he has learnt so much and so well. His three commandments to his team – always show respect, do things from the bottom up, no drama – are a brief and powerful body of advice that every organisation should at the very least consider thinking about.

It is these qualities that deliver one from the fowler's snare. As Psalm 124 says:

If it had not been the LORD who was on our side, now may Israel say;
If it had not been the LORD who was on our side, when men rose up against us:
Then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was kindled against us:
Then the waters had overwhelmed us, the stream had gone over our soul:
Then the proud waters had gone over our soul.
Blessed be the LORD, who hath not given us as a prey to their teeth.
Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped.
Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth.

In Christian symbolism, the fowler is the hand of the Accuser. The Accuser's main tools are pride and wrath among all others, for these were his greatest weaknesses. Obama seems to have been saved from these by his friends and confidantes and the team which serves him. I feel humbled and I think I should learn from that too.

So I am going to do what is right and show respect to those who should be respected for what they do and why they do it. Sometimes, it is when I think I am right that I can fall most headlong into error. The only way to escape? Be respectful, do things from the bottom up, and no drama.

Distinguished Visitation

So I woke up at a quarter past eight, for the third time (or perhaps the fourth) this morning. I shot myself up with coffee, black and unvarnished as a chunk of ebony. Then I sat back and waited for the customers.

The first thought to enter my brain was, "Is Obama going to win the Democratic presidential nomination and will he be the next US President?" Not a surprise, that one. It's been a frequent visitor. But why Obama, and not Clinton or McCain?

There is a fairly good reason, as reasons go. Kishore Mahbubani, now Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and once Singapore's ambassador to the UN, offers an unusual one. Mr Mahbubani tends to love his neat little patterns a lot, so for him the three candidates can be neatly placed into a past-present-future model. I'm sure you could guess which candidate fit where without reading the whole thing. Mr M got a couple of details wrong; he tends to leave out the fragments that don't fit, but he is otherwise lucid and entertaining.

Well, a morning visit from the Ghosts of US Presidential Elections Past, Present and Future is nothing to be sniffed at. I wasn't taking it sitting down. So I stood up and went for a long walk.

By the time I got back, I was still mulling over the Mahbubani piece. The important question for anybody else in the world is, "Which candidate is likely to benefit us the most?" In Southeast Asia, a mixture of Muslim and Communist and Secular Pseudo-Democratic and Catholic and Mindless Dictatorial nations, this isn't likely to have a unanimous answer. Even in 'tiny red dot' Singapore, the Old Man said 'McCain' while Kishore says 'Obama'.

Why? The Old Man had McCain as the pragmatic realist, while Obama is too much a man of the uncertain future. But the most likely thing about the future (besides the fact of it not having happened yet) is that it will be uncertain and surprising. Best then, as far as I can see, to pick the most flexible of the lot. So Obama it is.

The Politics Of Hope

It's been a long time since I last wrote much about US politics. In that time, I've seen the incumbent president preside over terrible things in the name of hope. He has not been the success that many hoped for; he has had the worst ratings of any sitting Commander-In-Chief in history. It is a waste. He has not done a completely bad job, but most of it has been a stench in the nostrils of the American people.

And in the last year or so, I've come to support Senator Barack Obama. The points against him are manifold – people say he is too smart, too devious, too inexperienced, too angry, too mixed-up (in many ways). The points for him are that he learns fast, that he is disciplined, intelligent and willing to learn from everyone who contributes positively. Most of all, he advocates hope and a more inclusive position on political affairs. As an educator, used to dealing with young people of all kinds, I believe that the points against him are not damaging. The points in his favour tilt the balance to the positive.

You see, if Senator Obama triumphs, he will have done it by being a good student and a good teacher. He will have done it by educating and being educated. He will have transcended the difficulties of his past, dealt with the angry seniors (Rev Wright, President and Mrs Clinton, Senator McCain) and worked with the rest for the future that is to come. Of course, only time will tell whether the audacity of hope will win out in the end.

Some critics complain that Senator Obama says too much about the intangibles. To me, this is the good part; that he has said anything about the intangibles puts him head and shoulders above many of his peers. Why? Because he also has detailed and interesting policy statements on many issues. These statements show that he has given many issues deep thought while looking forward positively. And if we do not look towards a better age, how will we live in faith that the best is yet to be?

The Kennedy Criterion

One of the touchstones of American presidential nomination in the last 50 years or so has been the likeness of the candidate to that Democratic icon, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It has never been easy, least of all for the relatives of that historical figure, to come out from under his shadow. That shadow is as long now as it was then, for legends behave that way.

Enter Caroline Kennedy in the New York Times, writing on Senator Barack Obama.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

It is a powerful shot. It is much more powerful than saying, "You're not earnest enough, Mr Principal." It can certainly be compared to Lloyd Bentsen's famous retort, which made Dan Quayle look completely out of his depth. And it could spell the difference between a Clinton candidacy and an Obama one. If the luck of the Irish rides the storm out to the end, then the senator from Illinois might want to start spelling his surname O'Bama.