Archive

Author Archive

MIRACLE History – Part 3

February 28, 2010 George Leave a comment

Cover of the March 1980 issue of Sports Illustrated (credit: Heinz Kluetmeier)

Little did Heinz Kluetmeier know when he snapped the photograph above that his artistic vision would encapsulate one of the greatest feats in the history of amateur sports. He would also make a powerful political statement about the strength of American resolve found in ordinary men. Team USA Men’s Ice Hockey victory over the Soviets at the Lake Placid Winter Olympic Games in 1980 was a defiant action toward a nuclear-capable Communist/Socialist aggressor. American sentiment toward the Soviets prior to 1980, the history of the 1980 Team USA Men’s Hockey Team, and the visual components and compositional elements of Kluetmeier’s work reveal a timeless truth about American valor: America does not need superheroes or super weapons to prevail in its struggles; it needs only patient and consistent principled competition among good men to prevail.

Note: For a complete list of outside works referenced in this series, please click here. Read Part 1 of the series here. Read Part 2 of the series here.

Kluetmeier very deftly exemplifies the concepts of team and discipline in “Miracle on Ice.”  Although some of the figures embracing each other on the ice appear to be mangled, and are difficult to count, approximately fourteen figures appear in the photo, including the player’s arm reaching in from the left border.  This accounts for seventy percent of the twenty players on a hockey roster; we can surmise that, had this been a double-page spread, Kluetmeier could have included the entire team, including the coaching and training staff as well.  Teams train together; teams practice together; teams live and eat together; teams sweat and bleed together…and teams celebrate together.  The body positioning of the players in the photograph suggests a camaraderie that transcends the boundaries of coworker relationships.  The embraces suggest a distinct familial connection between each of the players; the dog-pile to the left of the net, while a common celebration among athletes, suggests that they are not teammates, but brothers.

Despite all their differences as former college rivals, these men discovered that victory would demand unique contributions from each unique skill set of each unique member to achieve the triumph which they celebrate in this depiction.  No one of them defeated the Soviets alone; they achieved victory as a unit, and their interlinked bodies, albeit contorted, demonstrates this unitary quality.  Their frozen mouths and squinted eyes, depicting a glee unparalleled by children on Christmas morning, suggests that even youthful vigor and innovation can deflate the dogmatic, machine-like systematic approach of their more senior counterparts.

Team USA was not only good; they proved better than the Soviets.  The line contours in Kluetmeier’s photograph buttresses tenets of American idealism that we hope will remain timeless.  The three metal supports holding up the panes of plexiglas in the middle-ground resemble the columns of Greek architecture.  This classical architecture, found all over this nation’s capital, from the U.S. Supreme Court to the Lincoln Memorial, suggests a virtue inherent in American political institutions which has spanned the boundaries of time and which has rooted itself Athens, the birthplace of Western democracy.

The saluting sticks, a familiar hockey tradition, reach from bottom-left to top-right.  It is as if they reach up to Heaven, and point toward the right.  But they also point up to Old Glory; if the viewer squints his or her eyes, the figures resemble the Marines hoisting the American flag at the Iwo Jima Memorial, with their hockey sticks becoming the very flagpole which Old Glory adorns.  This icon reminds us of the myriad struggles and growing pains our young nation has endured, and reinforces our belief that patient and persistent effort will help us to continue to develop.  The triangular shape of Old Glory, and the implied triangular contour of the mass of player bodies provides another visual element to the piece: stability.  Triangles are very widely-recognized in the world of visual art as contributing stability to a piece.  In the context of “Miracle on Ice,” the triangular shapes suggest that America, when operating like Team USA, is not only stable, but always will be.  Although the United States is a secular nation, the player arms outstretched toward the heavens seem to be praising the very God in whom “we Trust.”

The 1980 U.S. Men’s Olympic Ice Hockey Team fought a protracted uphill battle.  Boys became men; factions became a unit; simple men became national heroes.  The twenty men who skated for Team USA during the 1980 games at Lake Placid accomplished a feat that conventional wisdom regarded as impossible.  Heinz Kluetmeier captured the pinnacle of the celebration of this feat and, through the lens of his camera, has allowed us to participate in that struggle with the players.  We are encouraged to soak in the easing of forty years’ tensions about the nuclear arms race, fears that the Soviets would invade the United States, and worse, that America would not be able to adequately defend herself.  As ordinary Americans, we identify with and empathize with the players in the photograph.  We cheer them on as national pride swells up inside of us.  We recognize and rest upon the notion that disciplined teamwork, dedication, and constitution of character will always prevail over our encroaching enemies.  We recognize that the process of democratic gains requires a melting pot of personalities, skill sets, and ideals.

Thank you for joining IntelligencePlease.com for this look back at the 1980 Team USA Hockey team. GO USA!

Would Modern Environmentalists Be Upset?

February 26, 2010 George Leave a comment

Following up on yesterday’s post about sustainability policy, here are the lyrics to one of reggae’s most beloved anthems (Bob Marley’s “Redemption Song”):

Old pirates, yes, they rob I
Sold I to the merchant ships
Minutes after they took I
From the bottomless pit
But my hand was made strong
By the hand of the Almighty
We forward in this generation
Triumphantly
Won’t you help to sing
These songs of freedom?
‘Cause all I ever have
Redemption songs
Redemption songs

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
cause none of them can stop the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look? Ooh!
Some say it’s just a part of it
We’ve got to fulfill de Book
Wont you help to sing
These songs of freedom? -
‘Cause all I ever have
Redemption songs
Redemption songs
Redemption songs

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our mind
Wo! have no fear for atomic energy
‘Cause none of them-a can-a stop-a the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look?

Yes, some say it’s just a part of it
We’ve got to fulfill de Book
Wont you help to sing
These songs of freedom? -
‘Cause all I ever have:
Redemption songs
Redemption songs
Redemption songs
These songs of freedom
Songs of freedom

I’d love to hear some alternative interpretations for what seems to be pretty straight-forward…fire away in the comments section.

Putting Conservation Back into Conservatism

February 25, 2010 George 2 comments

[Blogger's Note: I began this sometime last fall before COP15, but lost track before the holidays; despite my time management ineptitude, these topics are still as timely as ever.]

James Murdoch, son and heir-apparent to conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch, argued near the end of 2009 in the Washington Post that conservatives and conservationists make natural allies…or at least they ought to. It’s a refreshing read, too, because with both major parties playing Alinsky politics it’s easy to forget that, aside from the sum of our available natural resources, our future economic growth and cultural-historical legacy are on the line. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a fisherman since I could hold a rod and reel, I’m a habitual recycler-reuser-reducer, I really appreciate having had the good fortune to visit some really cool places during my short time thus far on the planet, and I firmly believe that there’s an economic opportunity here – involving the free market – that we don’t (or shouldn’t) want to miss.

Follow me: author David Pink argued in one of his books that right-brained people will rule the world one day. Certainly we can’t get along without the analytical types, but it’s the creative ones – the technological innovators – that have ushered man through various epochs across time and which policy makers seem to agree are the backbone of the American economy (this, by the way is true; small firms’ marginal costs of production are lower than those of larger firms). Pink’s argument goes something like this (and I’m paraphrasing here, not directly quoting):

Raise your hand if you own an iPod.

Lots of you? Good. Keep your hands up.

Now, keep your hands up if you knew you wanted one before they ever had been invented.

No more hands? I didn’t think so.

How could you possibly know you’d want a thing before it came to be? It’s the people thinking about what you want before you know you want it who really transform society – these are the people that reshape and redefine paradigms in a society.

This argument extends to green products, technology, and sustainable services. Glenn Beck may have assassinated Teddy Roosevelt’s character on live television at CPAC this year, but like my good friend J.R. Lind (@jrlind on Twitter) at Nashville Post Business once reminded me, sustainability is good business. Something tells me ol’ Teddy would be awfully proud of today’s Republican Party if they could find a way to get on board with sustainability-as-economic-policy ethos. It’s just going to require re-framing the debate to some degree.

Personally, I liked the way President Obama put it in his State of the Union address:

I don’t like the way the President and progressive Democrats are going about shaping and “solving” the problem…but I liked the way the President put it: whether or not the science is settled is not the chief issue here – there’s an economic opportunity to be had, and in the wake of an unemployment around 10%, it’s time for the Congress to act. We on the Right agree that bad science should not inform policy, but it’s equally important to remember that policy activists and elected officials are NOT scientific experts (unless by coincidence), and to paraphrase Dr. Richard A. Muller, PhD (Physics) the falsification of one area of data does not discredit an entire theory en masse. The Right is terrified that going green will mean capitulation to a radical socialist agenda [sic]; the most devout opponents of anthropogenic warming theory will reject any and all green movements. Of course, new regulatory schemes should be opposed, but it’s possible to look at conservation through our own lens.

Republicans won a major concession in the State of the Union, when President Obama included nuclear energy in his energy strategy. Nuclear power plants will help provide safe, renewable energy, and will create some jobs. Wind and solar will take a similar nibble out of the jobless numbers – but wind turbines are expensive and inefficient, and solar panels will get more expensive before they get cheaper.

The Right needs to go further. Falling back on small government and low tax rhetoric, too, simply won’t fill the bill – the average American doesn’t take our high polemic seriously anymore (beyond sharing our disdain for the sitting Democratic government – we should recognize that this could only be temporary). Republicans have plenty of momentum in their favor, and, like Rep. Paul Ryan, can seize this opportunity before sliding backward into campaign mode this year. Here’s the good news: it’s entirely possible to be green and pro-business all at once.

The government contracting apparatus provides the perfect setting for a pilot program to see the benefits of sustainability, with minimal impacts to the private sector. Last fall, President Obama signed an executive order establishing sustainability goals for greening up facilities and processes across the federal government, including prime and subcontractor goods, facilities, and practices. Contracting and procurement reform in this area – since it has to take place anyway in order for businesses to comply with as-yet undetermined standards and definitions – is our chance to establish a tiered, incentive-based approach to green business. Rather than allowing the federal government to bludgeon businesses everywhere by standing up new regulatory apparatuses with cap-and-trade schemes, the Right should prop up a reformed procurement system which gives preference in the awards process to contractors who meet certain tiered sustainability goals.

This is also a nice way for traditionally pro-Big Business Republicans to throw a nice-sized bone to small businesses, since the marginal costs of pollution abatement are lower for small firms than they are for large firms; the costs of risk-taking in green innovation are also smaller. The conclusion of this policy approach is a set of sustainability practices in the contracting environment (no pun intended) which can be voluntarily extended into commercial markets by companies who see real long-term benefits from sustainability in procurement space – just like John Q. Public who never knew how awesome the iPod would be before it was invented. Small businesses thrive, costs are lowered, small and large businesses collaborate, and the government is largely kept out of interfering with commercial markets – we merely reform a legacy process for the purpose of achieving a policy objective that has several fringe benefits. There are long-term political benefits to this strategy as well, as there is clearly a well-expressed demand for green products and investments/practices.

We – and certainly I – are a long way off from having an exhaustive, comprehensive approach for going green, framed within the context of our own ideological narratives. But it’s not altogether impossible with a little bit of creative thinking. We don’t have to agree on the science of global warming, but we should probably start from the same basic assumption that sustainability is good for business. Finally, we need to remember that we have a real chance to wrestle this issue away from the Left, but we have to act quickly and intelligently, and remember that committing to this policy arena is not capitulation if we come to the table with our own detailed approaches. Here’s hoping we have a champion on to take the reins and lead the Right into a new era.

Cross-posted at TheNextRight.com

MIRACLE History – Part 2

February 23, 2010 George 1 comment

Cover of the March 1980 issue of Sports Illustrated (credit: Heinz Kluetmeier)

Little did Heinz Kluetmeier know when he snapped the photograph above that his artistic vision would encapsulate one of the greatest feats in the history of amateur sports. He would also make a powerful political statement about the strength of American resolve found in ordinary men. Team USA Men’s Ice Hockey victory over the Soviets at the Lake Placid Winter Olympic Games in 1980 was a defiant action toward a nuclear-capable Communist/Socialist aggressor. American sentiment toward the Soviets prior to 1980, the history of the 1980 Team USA Men’s Hockey Team, and the visual components and compositional elements of Kluetmeier’s work reveal a timeless truth about American valor: America does not need superheroes or super weapons to prevail in its struggles; it needs only patient and consistent principled competition among good men to prevail.

Note: For a complete list of outside works referenced in this series, please click here. Read Part 1 of the series here.

The Lake Placid Olympic compound provided another theater for combating communism; it was a proving ground for capitalist and democratic idealism, as socialist and communist regimes from all over the world sent in their ground troops to try to capture the coveted gold medals; it was a symbolic arena in which the United States would test its strength and constitution against a very unwelcome Soviet foe.  Lake Placid was a place for the United States to literally “start sweating” and uniting under the “common faith” for which President Carter pleaded. Yet the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and Muslim fundamentalists seized a U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran.  The United States feared a Soviet invasion.  The U.S. Olympic Committee, expressing disdain for Soviet hegemony, decided to preemptively boycott the 1980 Summer Games in Moscow in hopes that the Soviets would boycott the pending Lake Placid Winter Games. The plan backfired, and Premier Brezhnev released a statement from the Kremlin, a domineering jeer, saying in essence that the whole of the USSR and the Eastern bloc would show the world how great they were by defeating the United States in Lake Placid.

Team USA Men’s Ice Hockey won a Gold Medal in 1960, but according to the Smithsonian Institute, “…teams from the Soviet Union had dominated Olympic ice hockey, and they were the overwhelming favorites in 1980,” and “few outside the team expected much at the Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, NY.”  During an exhibition round in early February 1980, the Soviet Union defeated Team USA 10-3 in front of a sell-out crowd at Madison Square Garden in New York City, according to Evan Weiner, correspondent for NHL.com. Kevin Allen, writing for ESPN Classic, says that “The Americans trailed in six of their seven Olympic wins,” signifying that every game could have provided an early exit for the team, that each game would relentlessly test the strength of the team.  He continues, saying that “…the Soviets weren’t hockey gods, but they were legends.  [Several Soviets present] were all members of the Soviet team that had [defeated] the NHL All-Stars in the 1972 Summit Series.  The NHL All-Stars thought they would dominate the Soviets in all eight games.  Instead, they needed a goal by Paul Henderson with 34 seconds left in regulation of the final game to win the tournament with a 4-3-1 record.”  Not even professional hockey superstars could trump the talent of the encroaching Soviets.  To make matters worse, the Soviets again dismantled the NHL All-Stars at Madison Square Garden in 1979 by a score of 6-0.  And thus the question remained: how, if not even professional All-Stars can win, would the United States defeat the Soviets during the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics?

This question perplexed Coach Herb Brooks.  He explained to USA Hockey as he interviewed for the Head Coach position, “All-Star teams fail because they rely on talent of individuals, and the Soviets take that talent and turn it against you in a system that is designed for the betterment of the team.  I want to take that system and beat them at their own game,” or so goes the somewhat fictionalized Walt Disney account of the story, MIRACLE.  Brooks knew that supermen or super hockey players could not defeat the Soviets.  Instead, he held tryouts in Colorado Springs, and selected 26 twenty-somethings after watching only a day of drills.  Many players had only recently finished college.  Just as there was tension in America about how best to solve the problems exacerbated by the Cold War, a split among the team was evident.  The team consisted primarily of University of Minnesota and Boston College alumni, many of whom had played against each other in the NCAA’s prestigious “Frozen Four” National Championship tournament. It would take incredible discipline to temper the egos and brash machismo of youngsters.

Herb Brooks’ players knew him for his hard-nosed coaching tactics, which included keeping the team on the ice to skate “suicides” for several hours after tying the Finnish national team in exhibition play.  He was, according to the team physician, able to unite the team against him.  “Well, maybe if they hate him, they won’t have time to hate each other,” said the doctor.  Yet despite his unrelenting and grueling physical demands on his players, his belief that “strong legs feed the wolves” produced serious results.  After their 10-3 exhibition spoiler three days prior to Opening Ceremonies, early round play included a 2-2 tie to #3-ranked Sweden, and a 7-3 win over #2-ranked Czechoslovakia.  But when the day arrived to play the Soviets, many were still uncertain about what the outcome would be.  Legendary ABC hockey broadcasters Al Michaels and Ken Dryden had an on-air conversation about the monumental showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union- political equals but completely unevenly matched in the world of hockey.  Michaels said of the game, “[This is] an event that needs no build-up, no superfluous adjectives.  In a political or nationalistic sense, I’m sure this game is being viewed with varying perspectives.  But manifestly, it is a hockey game.” Dryden followed with his own ill-boding commentary, “[The United States] will be playing against probably the best team in the world: a team that is far better than they are, a team that has dominated hockey for the last fifteen years…It’s one thing to be young and promising.  It is quite another to be good.”

To Be Continued…

MIRACLE History – Part 1

February 21, 2010 George 2 comments

Cover of the March 1980 issue of Sports Illustrated (credit: Heinz Kluetmeier)

Little did Heinz Kluetmeier know when he snapped the photograph above that his artistic vision would encapsulate one of the greatest feats in the history of amateur sports.  He would also make a powerful political statement about the strength of American resolve found in ordinary men.  Team USA Men’s Ice Hockey victory over the Soviets at the Lake Placid Winter Olympic Games in 1980 was a defiant action toward a nuclear-capable Communist/Socialist aggressor.  American sentiment toward the Soviets prior to 1980, the history of the 1980 Team USA Men’s Hockey Team, and the visual components and compositional elements of Kluetmeier’s work reveal a timeless truth about American valor: America does not need superheroes or super weapons to prevail in its struggles; it needs only patient and consistent principled competition among good men to prevail.

Note: For a complete list of outside works referenced in this series, please click here.

In 1989, the New York Times’ Robin Toner reported that in 1947 “…two out of three Americans saw the Soviet Union as aggressive and warlike.”  This sentiment prevailed as Harry Truman adopted George Kennan’s strategy of containment of Communism abroad as official US foreign policy, as well as adopted the Truman Doctrine, which said essentially that the US would intervene in South and Central American countries if the Soviets attempted to interfere in the West.  Further, she asserts that a 1947 Roper Poll demonstrated that “…68 percent saw [the Soviet Union] as aggressive.”  Toner also reported that a Gallup Poll taken in 1981 revealed that “…47 percent saw a nuclear war as a likely part of the decade to come.”  Although this Gallup Poll was conducted after the Games, we can surely speculate that prior to the Games, a higher percentage of Americans believed nuclear war to be imminent between the two nations.

Irving Goldman analyzes world-renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead’s research on predicting political behavior in a 1952 edition of The American Slavic and East European Review.  Mead argued that “…Soviet leaders are systematically creating for themselves a picture of reality as they wish to see it,” and that she “liken[ed] them to the lady who sent herself flowers.”  Soviet education at the time, in Mead’s words, attempted to build a state servant “who is driven by his own internalized deep involvement in the never-ending struggle, by his deep dissatisfaction with things as they are.”  This method and attitude stands in diametric opposition to the “Anglo-American notion of finding a mid-point between two positions.”  Mead suggests that during the time period between WWII and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, Americans viewed themselves as peaceful diplomats who were interested in working together to find a common solution.  By contrast, Americans regard the Soviets as narrow-minded, tunnel-visioned warmongering bullies who were bent on exercising their newfound nuclear capabilities on Western culture.

Kluetmeier’s “Miracle on Ice” demonstrates the American ideal that Mead postulated.  The subjects in the photograph are all Team USA hockey players.  Clearly wanting to make the winners the subject of his work, Kluetmeier allows us to partake in their jovial on-ice celebration.  With the foreground of the picture accentuating the figures embracing each other, and the crowd dissipating into the darkness of the stands in the background, Team USA is frozen in the spotlight, as if actors in a black box theater.  Only the player wearing number nine on his sweater has his name “Broten” visible to us, the viewers.  By and large, the players on the ice are nameless faces; but they are distinctly American faces, with the letters “USA” emblazoned on two of their sweaters.  Perhaps Kluetmeier meant to suggest that these players represented the millions of nameless faces scattered across the country, looking for hope in a seemingly irreconcilable nuclear arms race, and who finally found repose in the arena of sport?

The team celebrates under Old Glory, flying in the center-background, and its triangular shape seems to provide an umbrella of shelter for her jubilant foot-soldiers.  Yes, these particular Americans found a midpoint between the involvement in a class struggle and complacency about an untenable situation: they banded together and defied the Soviet Union. But like the Cold War, they did so without eradicating cities from the face of the planet.  The use of color film and printing provides a quintessential element to American celebrations: the repetition of red, white, and blue.  With the players being the central focus of the work, and Old Glory providing the canopy under which they celebrate, the use of these red, white, and blue colors instill in us a sense of national pride.  The player uniforms, in fact, are adorned with stripes and studded with stars, just like Old Glory.  It is as though each player is wrapped in the warm embrace of Lady Liberty herself.

Robert Dallek writes in The American Style of Foreign Policy: Cultural Politics and Foreign Affairs:

Advocates of the idea that there is no substitute for victory in the contest with communism and that we may have to fight a nuclear war which we could survive see [individualistic policies] as ultimately restoring a nineteenth-century world of greater personal freedom.  The destruction of Communist power would end the Cold War, partly eliminate the need for a powerful centralized government, reduce the pressure for conformity, and allow the individual more leeway to follow his own star…

According to Dallek’s account of individualism, defeating communism meant more to the American people than simple physical security.  It meant freedom and self-determination.  Yet no American, it seems, wanted to actively engage in all-out combat.  He continues:

When Eisenhower entered the presidency, the Korean War was more than two and a half years old, with no clear end in sight.  The heavy cost of human life, money, and domestic tension made continuation of the status quo ‘intolerable…’

To better describe the types of “domestic tensions” of which Dallek writes, “…acute anxiety and self-doubt gripped the United States.  Talk of a ‘missile gap’ and of a shift in the military balance of power to Moscow became commonplace.”  How, exactly, was the United States going to defy the growing threat overseas, which had the ability to attack America from afar, without engaging in an all-out conventional war; or worse yet, a nuclear war which would inevitably result in mutually-assured destruction?  This was a difficult question for American policy-makers to answer, and it was no easier to answer through the lens of sport.

A protracted struggle against communists in Vietnam further shaped American foreign policy narratives.  American involvement in foreign wars no longer meant providing for the safety and security of free peoples around the globe; involvement mean power-posturing in different corners of the globe, seeking a psychological dominance or superiority over Soviet Russia.  Dallek writes:

Vietnam echoed the point.  Like Eisenhower and Kennedy, Johnson could not think of Vietnam as a local struggle between Vietnamese; rather, it was a contest for all of Southeast Asia and a major test of American staying power in the Cold War.

In Walt Disney’s MIRACLE, a somewhat fictionalized account of the 1980 U.S. Men’s Ice Hockey Team, segments of actual speeches given by former President Jimmy Carter occur in the background throughout the film.  Regarding the nature of the internal turmoil of the American soul:

This is a crisis of confidence.  It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will…For the first time in our history, the majority of people believe that the next 5 years will be worse than the last 5 years…We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking.  Working together with our common faith, we cannot fail.

To be continued…