The Future - A Discussion Influenced by Two Books

Discussion of the continuum of time is fascinating to me. It is probably one of the reasons that I have been so drawn to physics and astronomy as "down time" reading in my life. In my last post I referenced the variability of history; that is, none of us really know what happened in the past, unless we experienced it directly. Even then, studies have shown that people's perceptions of what happened to them are often times inaccurate even minutes and hours after the event, let alone years after. This is how you end up with two people who were present at the same event remembering vastly different things. History is "set" in that it has happened, but it is very dynamic in terms of the ways it is interpreted, not to mention remembered (consider, for instance, the way that Dwight Eisenhower's Presidency is viewed at the present time (average at best) compared to how it was viewed twenty to thirty years ago (exceptional)).

Today, however, I want to look the other way, to the future. This post is inspired by two books that I recently read. The first book is The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon by Brad Stone. The second book, also referenced in my last post, is But What If We're Wrong?: Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past by Chuck Klosterman. Both books were good reads, although I would more strongly recommend Stone's book on Amazon and Bezos if you are looking for more accessible, easy reading. Klosterman's book was one that I found alternatively plodding and fascinating, (seemingly) depending largely on which chapter I was reading and if my mind was in a place to contemplate deep thoughts. Ultimately, however, both books were enjoyable in their own ways.

The topic of this post, however, isn't to give you a book review. It is, instead, to springboard off my last post's discussion of the past, and look a bit towards the future. Klosterman's book does this quite a bit, but there was one topic he touched on, ever so briefly, that got me thinking. Towards the end of the book Klosterman, for the first time, touches on the subject of climate change/global warming*. He notes that as he wrote the book and discussed its' premise people would often ask him if he was going to tackle that subject. Klosterman explains:

"Now, I elected not to do this, for multiple reasons. The main reason is that the Earth's climate is changing, in a documented sense, and that there is exponentially more carbon in the atmosphere than at any time in man's history, and that the rise of CO2 closely corresponds with the rise of global industrialization." ~ Klosterman, pgs 239-240 (emphasis is the author's)

Now, Klosterman first tackles this topic in his book by saying he didn't see the need to tackle it because the science is settled**. Klosterman isn't a scientist, so how can he say this? Well, he can proclaim this, I would guess, because nearly every reputable scientist in the world, regardless of culture, religion, political affiliation or anything that typically divides individuals, says that it's real. To just note a few things, I would send you to Slate's Bad Astronomy blog, authored by Phil Plait. Plait writes about all sorts of things, including amazing pictures of the universe which give me (and should you too) a real sense of how small and insignificant we all are. But Plait also does a great job of bringing the reality of our terrestrial existence to the table along side looking up to the skies. And the research he writes about isn't pretty folks. Now, here's the kicker. Not only does nearly every reputable scientist in the world agree that this is happening, and that it is bad, but so does the majority of Americans. That's right, over 60% of Americans, as of March of last year, worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about climate change/global warming.

Now,  that still leaves less than 40% of the population in this country that doesn't worry that much about it. My wife would likely fit right into that 40%. She does, however, acknowledge that climate change/global warming is real, and likely a big issue. She just doesn't worry too much about what tomorrow will bring, let alone 40 years from now ... let alone 400 years from now. She's an "in the moment" person. That doesn't mean that she doesn't care; she is in favor of green initiatives, and supports a clean environment. It just means that, as the Gallup question was worded, she'd fit into the group that doesn't worry about it either a "great deal" or a "fair amount." And I think that not only is that fair, I suspect that a good number of the people in that 40% would fit into her category: agree that it's real, agree it's an issue, not super likely to impact me in my immediate future so I don't worry about it, but I'll do what can to combat it.

So add that up, and I would imagine that you'd have (at least) over 80% of Americans who a) believe climate change/global warming is real, b) believe it is a problem that we should do something about, and c) over 60% of them are worried enough about it to worry a "great deal" or "fair amount" about it. (I am assuming that the 60% plus who worry that much also believe in points A and B, but I think that makes logical sense). Even if it isn't exactly there, even if it is around that ballpark, that's a tremendous majority of people. How often do we have roughly three quarters of our society in agreement on anything? The problem, of course, lies in who constitutes the remaining 20-25% of people.

These are the people who deny that climate change/global warming is real, or believe it may be real, but it isn't a problem and is solely just a normal part of Earth's existence so we can't do anything about it. And, amazingly, there seems to be a hugely disproportionate number of people in the US Government who fall into this 20-25%. They are, disproportionately, Republicans, which is somewhat ironic given the fact that the GOP positions itself as the party of national defense, and climate change/global warming is almost unquestionably one of the most imminent dangers to our national security. (Please take the time to click on that link; it isn't long, but it gives you a good understanding of the complexities of this issue). The GOP likes to hark on the dangers of a nuclear North Korea, Russia (well, this President Elect not so much), ISIS, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran, but it by and large blatantly ignores a coming disaster which is many times more certain to impact our country.

A nuclear North Korea is nothing to ignore; it is potentially dangerous, and certainly takes a great deal of  political nuance and energy to maintain safely (or, at least, it should). But, right there, you have the difference: North Korea is potentially dangerous. We can debate the level of that danger, but it is a possibility. Climate change/global warming is as close to a certainty as you can have. We could destroy ourselves before it comes to pass in a way that does it for us, but if we don't start taking it seriously and working to counter its' effects, then it is all but guaranteed to end our way of life, at least as we know it. Ignorance regarding climate change/global warming, a refusal to acknowledge it is real, and a refusal to support efforts to counter it/lessen it should be viewed as placing our national security at significant risk. And we have an incoming administration that, by all signs thus far, is going to do all of those things.

That, finally, brings me to the second book, by Brad Stone about Amazon and the company's founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos. One thing that stuck out to me in the book, among many things, was that Bezos so clearly seems to have been driven to take advantage of the internet to change the way that goods are provided to consumers. He did this to build a huge company with huge value and, ultimately, huge profits. And he did all this, seemingly, to push an agenda. That agenda, one could very realistically argue, is Blue Origin. That company, driven by Bezos's personal fortune, is striving to take humans to space, to explore space, to build a future in space, and ultimately, to survive in space and in other places away from here. Bezos, of course, isn't the only insanely rich person to have this goal. Richard Branson, of Virgin Galactic, and Elon Musk, of SpaceX are both in hot pursuit of similar goals. The common strand between these three men, of course, is their vast fortune. According to Forbes, Bezos heads the trio with an estimated worth of $45.2 billion, with Musk coming in with an estimated worth of $10.7 billion, and Branson's net worth a "distant" $4.9 billion. Within these three there is a huge variance of net worth; Bezos is reported to be the fifth richest person in the world, with Musk the 94th most wealthy and Branson ranking number 286. But these are three billionaires we are talking about, and they are using their wealth and resources to push for the skies.

You don't become a billionaire accidentally, unless you're born into it. For those who build and maintain that level of fortune, competition is a common thread. Bezos is famously competitive, pushing Amazon to higher and higher levels of productivity, striving to become the everything store. I haven't read books about Musk or Branson, but what little I have read in different articles indicate they are much the same. But being competitive alone isn't enough: you must also be a visionary with the ability to evaluate the current environment, project what is likely to come next, and a fortitude to gamble that your projection of what the future holds is going to be right.

Amazon started as an online bookstore, but, based on the book, it was never intended to be that. Bezos drove the company with a goal of being a store for everything, first, and then a technology company, second. But, ultimately, he drove it so that he would have the resources to push to the next frontier: space. He bet big on Amazon by betting that the internet was not a fad, and would, in fact, revolutionize everything about commerce. He was right. He bet big on the concept behind the Amazon Kindle, betting that although earlier e-readers had failed, people would read on a tablet rather than on books alone. He was right. He's not always been right, but you don't become the fifth richest man in the world by being wrong. He's been right most of the time. He's betting on space; the question is why?

And that, ultimately, brings me back to the concept of the future, by way of global warming, and, really, by way of the certainty that mankind will be annihilated. Because we will, no doubt about it, if we stay on the Earth alone. It could be climate change/global warming; betting on that would be like betting on a low yield, safe bond option, because the outcome is pretty likely, it's just a matter of time. It could be a nuclear holocaust, which is more unlikely than climate change/global warming happening, but would be clearly devastating to humanity and the Earth in general. It could be any number of things. The aforementioned astronomer, Phil Plait, wrote a book entitled Death From The Skies, in which he describes the various ways that the earth could be destroyed or, at least, the ways in which mankind could be annihilated, including asteroid impact, gamma ray bursts and, an absolute certainty, the sun expanding as it reaches the end of its' life cycle. The point, at the end of the day, is this: the Earth will be destroyed, or at least humanity will be ... we just don't know when. It could be relatively soon (a gamma ray burst could hit from Eta Carinae at anytime, at least cosmically speaking***), it could be at the end of the Sun's life cycle (roughly 4.5 billion years from now according to best estimates). It could be any point of time in between. But it will happen.

Pushing more carbons into the atmosphere to accelerate climate change/global warming just increases the chances that humanity's end will be sooner, rather than later. It's all probabilities, but I think it's at least something we should be insisting that our leaders take seriously and discuss. President Obama put it best, in his farewell address, when he said (I'm paraphrasing) that this is something we should be debating a response to, not debate about the legitimacy of. Unfortunately, we are clearly stuck in the latter debate, not the former.

So, anyway you cut it, we're screwed. It's just a matter of if we are trying to delay the inevitable or stare down the barrel of ye old gun and say "bring it on." Now, as I bring this post to a close (at least I think I am; way too long again - sorry to my 1.75 readers out there), I have to note one thing: I am, clearly, leaving religion out of this. My religious beliefs are powerful, very meaningful to me, and personal to me. I'm not looking to use this space to push them out to the interwebs, although I'm happy to share them with anyone who asks. But one thing, regardless of your religious beliefs, that is pretty evident is that even to those people who believe in God, believe in the afterlife, and believe in the religious end of the world: none of us really know when it is going to happen. The best we can tell (again, history it is a flawed thing) the Apostles really, truly believed Christ would be coming back in their lifetimes. The next few generations of early Christians did the same. Somewhere along the line that thinking went to "well, it'll happen sometime." I draw comfort from the idea that their is an end game to all of this; I am just not rushing to bring it on through our own actions, or inaction as the case may be. Put another way: if the rapture were to occur tomorrow, I could live with that. But if it wasn't supposed to happen until the year 5297 AD and we, instead extinct ourselves, mostly or entirely of our own doing, in 2297****? Well, that would be a shame, even if I was long enough gone to be blissfully unaware of it.

It probably feels like this has been a pro climate change/global warming science post, but that's honestly not my point. Here is my point: we have to work hard to create the future we want. Yes, that includes working hard to figure out ways that we can slow the rush towards sea levels rising, sea life dying, and weather getting more extreme (to name a few things that plausibly can/will happen via climate change/global warming). But I've already established that I believe, firmly, that science has given us enough evidence to believe that life on this planet will not endure; there are too many variables in the universe above for that to be the case. Because of that, working hard to create the future we want involves people beyond Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Richard Bronson getting on board with the idea of space travel. We, as a species, need to diversify our portfolio. We are continuing to put all our eggs as a civilization in the basket of space ship Earth.

For the overwhelming majority of our existence that was the only option we had. Only in the last 50 years, plus or minus a few, have we had other options. Unfortunately, ever since the end of the Apollo program our collective push towards this has been neutered, and that leaves us woefully dependent on the foresight of a few rich individuals to push the agenda. I talked to a person the other day who legitimately looked at me and said that they thought NASA had been completely shut down years ago. This was a very intelligent person who is focused on the here and now, and doesn't think about space. That's how far our own space program has fallen out of the common discussion. That's sad.

If we want to make the future of mankind even possible, then it is time for us as a society to do what we can here to keep perfecting our imperfect existence and to protect this planet, because right now it's all we've got. Simultaneously we need to be pushing hard towards the next frontier, because without the ability to travel comfortably within our solar system, semi-easily to other star systems, and to terraform anything remotely close to workable (Mars would be a good start) ... well, the future is pretty bleak. We have to think beyond our own lifetimes, and the lifetimes of our children and our children's children. To this day we read the works of Plato and Aristotle, we talk of Christ's life over 2,000 years ago, and I think the majority of people just assume that what we (as a society) do today will be reflected in 2,000 years by our ancestors. But we've been on this Earth, as a species, for the blink of an eye on the cosmic timeline. It stands to reason that we could disappear from the cosmic timeline in the blink of an eye as well. If we don't take an active role in figuring out how we, as a people, will get there ... well, if we don't start working hard on it let's just say that I don't like our chances as a civilization. And the thought that all we've accomplished as a species would just go *poof* in large part due to our own inaction and lack of resolve? That's a really, really sad thought to me. So I'll keep buying from Amazon because it has the best deals, but I'll be even happier to do it believing that I'm helping, indirectly, to fund Bezos in his push towards the future of space travel, and his attempts to improve the viability of our species, civilization, and society. The future will not come easily, but nothing in life worth having does.

* Throughout this post I will generally say "climate change/global warming." That is intentional. Both US political parties are guilty of trying to politicize this issue, and the terminology used is a part of that. I, for one, believe that we should push our governmental representatives to depoliticize this issue, so I am going to use the terms interchangeably. It doesn't matter which you choose, at least to me. Just be responsible for learning the facts of this, and for pushing a pro-survival (as in, pro humanity  surviving) agenda.

** Later in the two plus page section on this topic, Klosterman has an even more insightful take, when he says of the climate change/global warming debate that "(t)here is no intellectual room for the third rail, even if that rail is probably closer to what most people quietly assume: that this is happening, but we're slightly overestimating - or dramatically underestimating - the real consequence." What Klosterman says here is, in my estimation, extremely true, extremely dangerous, and extremely indicative of our times: as a society America has polarized on any number of issues to the point where the isn't a middle ground. Either you are a climate change/global warming believer (and, accordingly, a liberal hippie who is functionally a lemming), or you are a denier (and, accordingly, a small minded conservative who, is also, functionally a lemming). The middle ground is vast and has room for people who believe that climate change/global warming is real, but not as driven by man as by the natural functions of Earth's geological cycle, as well as people who believe that the Earth is doing its' thing but that man is exacerbating it, perhaps exponentially. I'd probably fit into the latter category. The best defense of the former category I've ever read was written by the late Michael Crichton, in his book "State of Fear." His argument is located in Appendix I, under the header "Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous." Crichton notes the dangerous nature of politicizing science through the example of eugenics. He then makes the connection to climate change/global warming, while specifically noting that he is "not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities (in the debate) are not superficial." Crichton's main point is to argue that the real argument about the data is being suppressed by the consensus, and that "any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression." For evidence, he points to the fact that the loudest opponents of climate change/global warming were retired professors who had little to lose (at least to that point; Crichton passed away in 2008 and "State of Fear" was published in 2004. Needless to say, to quote Stanley Goodspeed, "Kind of a lot's happened since then.") I don't fully agree with Crichton, but one point, made in the book proper, does ring somewhat true in my opinion: mankind has a way of glorifying its' own role in things. I have little doubt, based on what I've read, that climate change/global warming is real, and that man is a major contributor to the warming curve. I also have little doubt, based on what I've read, that the Earth would be on a warming upswing, even if we never existed in the first place. That is what makes the lack of the third rail in this debate so damning in my estimation. 

*** Although if we don't have the horror of a GRB when Eta Carinae goes boom the supernova will go from being the (likely) end of humanity to a really amazingly cool thing to see in the sky! No reward without major risk, am I right?

**** So 2297 feels insanely far out there, right? And 5297? It seems like fantasy, pure fantasy, for most of us I would imagine. But here's the deal: it is now 2017, which means that 2297 is a mere 280 years from now. 280 years ago (1737) doesn't really feel that long ago if you're a student of history. Benjamin Franklin was alive (he was born in 1706; he was even married 280 years ago). So was George Washington (he was nearing his 5th birthday 280 years ago today). But what about the other number? 3,280 years seems like a long time, even for me, a student of history. Through dumb luck (because I did pick these numbers at random) 3,280 years ago was 1263 BC, which is the date commonly cited regarding Moses leading the Israelites from Egypt. In other words, the Exodus occurred roughly 3280 years ago. The point in this, of course, is to point out what's happened in human history as a point of reference for how long ago "today" will be for our distant relatives in the future. I'd be remiss if I didn't point out, however, that on the scale of Earth's history (let alone the universe's history) 3,280 years ago is less than a blink of an eye. The Earth's history is roughly 4,500,000,000 years long, so, yeah, 3,280 doesn't really factor in. And that timeline (roughly 4.5 billion years old for the Earth) is very widely accepted... unless you are a strict creationist who believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. But if you believe that there are probably a number of things you'd disagree with me on, including the entirety of the premise of this post, the last post, and probably most of my posts. In fact, you very likely wouldn't have even made it down to this fourth footnote. Either way, this digression is officially over. 

Required Reading - Billy Joel: The Definitive Biography

First, it's crazy to think that it has been since November of 2013 that I have posted on here. I missed an entire NFL season, I've been to a few concerts, and I've lived a lot of life in the past 14 months... and nothing posted here. To quote Stanley Goodspeed from The Rock "kind of a lot's happened since then."

I'll get into the kind of a lot perhaps, or perhaps I won't, but part of my 2015 goals (I hate "resolutions," but I can live with goals) is to read at least a book a month. So far this year I've finished three, so I'm not off to a bad start as I write this on February 1st, 2015.

Awhile back, when I used to try to update this blog at least periodically, I went through and tagged things. One of the tags that I used was "required reading." I suppose that was a toss out to the approach taken by professors in my under grad and graduate programs. The joke, of course, is that nothing is really "required reading." One class in my graduate program I decided to test that theory, didn't even buy the books, much less read them, and still got an A with little effort. The key is what you know, not how you learn it.

That said, I am an avid reader, and I believe that reading, in the various available forms, is a crucial part of gaining knowledge and informing your world view. I have a huge book collection, and I despise electronic books. The only way this will benefit me is if the world loses all electricity. Solar flare here we come! Of course, this blog would then be lost to the ages as well, which wouldn't happen if I was documenting my thoughts in a journal instead... but then, with my awful handwriting, it would take someone who can decipher my chicken scratch anyway ... and I digress.

As I look back at this blog, here are the books that I've written reviews on and tagged as "required reading":

• 2011: I wrote a post about, intermittently, Jeff Pearlman's book on Walter Payton (which I had not read, but had just finished the Sports Illustrated excerpt on) and a prior Payton book, Never Die Easy. Honestly, I think I tagged it as "required reading" just to add a tag, but I think I wrote the post to explore thoughts on celebrity, and athletes in particular. More on that to come in a future post.
• 2009: I wrote a post about Big Russ and Me by Tim Russert. It's now been over six years since his death, and I really do miss that man. It's funny how you can miss someone you've never met, but Russert's unexpected death left a hole in the lives of many people. 

And... that's it. I love reading, and that was the best I had. So, in the spirit of a new year, and with lots on my mind, and with the need to (very much selfishly) put it out there for the world, but really for me to see, let's give it a new shot.

Billy Joel is my favorite musician of all time. That fact will surprise a lot of people, especially given the fact that I have been to (checking antsmarching.com... please hold) 35 Dave Matthews Band shows (plus three Dave and Tim Shows) in my life. Well, I also love DMB, but there are two major considerations: 

1. DMB tours a lot more (yearly) and much more closely (hello Deer Creek!).
2. DMB tickets are cheaper (as long as my wife continues to let us sit in the lawn - it gets much more expensive when you want to get closer to the stage, but still the most expensive DMB tickets are roughly equal to the cheapest Billy Joel tickets). 

I've written before that my love of DMB dates back to 1994's release of Under The Table And Dreaming, which is impressive given that I was roughly eight at the time. Well, my love for Billy Joel predates that, to a handful of dubbed cassette tapes that my older brother gave me when I was roughly four or five. By 1993 I wanted Billy Joel's River of Dreams for myself, and it was A) a Christmas present from another kid who was at my mom's day care, and B) one of my first cassette tapes ever. Today, I have every Billy Joel album (including Kohuept and Songs From The Attic) on both cassette and CD. When Billy did the River of Dreams tour I remember my dad and brother racing to Indianapolis to see him in concert ... and I remember thinking how much it sucked that I didn't get to go. Many of the family vacations of my youth involved me singing along with Harry Chapin, John Denver, Neil Diamond... and then putting on my headphones and pressing play on my walkman to listen to whatever Billy Joel cassettes I brought with me. When my mom and dad would agree to put in a Billy Joel cassette, it was an awesome moment in the trip: I could sing out loud, rather than having to keep my singing in my head. The cassette release of Greatest Hits Volume 1 & 2 probably got more walkman play than any other cassette: it was routinely the one album that would put me at ease enough to get me to sleep on the road, and to this day it is one that I draw up on my I Pod to help me unwind when I can't stop my mind.

This last fall, a close friend shot me a text with a link to this article from the New Yorker, entitled "Billy Joel, Thirty-Three-Hit Wonder." It was written by Nick Paumgarten, and I savored it, reading a bit at a time, and loving every minute of it. Then I realized that there was a book by Fred Schruers set to be released, and the first thing I did was send a text to my mother and sister-in-law asking if either of them were planning on buying the book for my brother for Christmas, and if not, that I would be. I got the word to get the book for him, and put the book on my wish list as well. 

I first saw Billy Joel in concert in Auburn Hills, Michigan, in the late spring (early summer?) of 2007. I had recently (in the fall of 2006) given in and gone to my first real concerts, seeing Dave Matthews Band at Tinley Park, Illinois, and seeing Roger Waters and his band doing a bunch of Pink Floyd hits, including an entire second act consisting exclusively of Dark Side of the Moon, at Deer Creek. When I realized that Billy was touring, it was time. I bought an extra ticket in hopes that my brother would join me and my friend Mike, but he was unable to join us, so Andy tagged along instead. We were running late to the show, due to traffic heading around Detroit, and Mike got progressively more and more pissed, Andy and I handled it better, but we were all thinking the same thing: "I don't want to miss a minute of this (expletive deleted) show!" We got to the Palace of Auburn Hills, parked, and ran to the venue. As we hit the walkway heading towards our seats we heard the initial notes hit to "Prelude/Angry Young Man" and we knew the show was just starting. We rushed in, singing along, and didn't stop for the whole night. Simply put, Billy delivered, even at the age of 57 (five days before his 58th birthday). 

And then Billy fell of the touring radar. I continued to see DMB, I added in other shows as they were available for other acts (Matchbox 20, The Goo Goo Dolls, etc). I figured that Billy had probably finished touring, and I was feeling pretty blessed that I got to see him even once. Then, after Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy hit the eastern seaboard, there was a concert (12.12.12) and Billy played. I didn't see the show and heard that Billy wasn't looking or sounding good from some friends, so I, reluctantly looked up the show ... and couldn't have disagreed more. Further, the reviewers of the show seemed to agree with my interpretation, as Billy seemed to have stolen the night. He rocked, he had the presence, and his voice still sounded great. The ensuing "residency" at Madison Square Garden was announced, and then a few other tour dates trickled out. Before I knew it we had purchased tickets to see Billy at The Palace again in February 2014. Once again I reached out to see if my brother and his wife would want to join in the show, and it didn't work out. My wife, mother-in-law, and I went and had a blast. While the show was shorter than the previous show I saw, I also had to remember that it was almost seven years later, and Billy was turning 65 now. Every song he sang, however, gave no indication that he couldn't still bring it with the best of them. And then they announced it: Billy Joel - Wrigley Field - July 18, 2014. As an avid Cubs fan, and a fan of DMB and Pearl Jam, having seen both play Live at Wrigley, it wasn't a question of it I would go. It was simply a question of how much money I would have to spend on the secondary market after I was unable to buy the tickets prior to the show selling out. 

I had learned my lesson the year before, for the Pearl Jam show. That time I thought "there's no way these tickets will sell for this much, I'll wait for them to come down." In related news, sometimes I'm an idiot. I passed on the Pearl Jam tickets at 1.5 times the face value... and ended up paying, let's just say, a bit more than that. While it was totally worth it, I was not going to relive that experience. As soon as the show sold out, and I was unable to get tickets, I went to StubHub, went to the same general section I had been in for both the DMB and Pearl Jam shows (upper deck, down the right field line) and bought two tickets. I then called my brother, told him to get the day off work, and that I was taking him - no questions asked - just the two of us. It was time. 

This isn't about reviewing that show - Billy brought it, as expected, only days after his mother died - but let's just say that while I hope to see Billy again before he hangs up his playing shoes for the last time, finally seeing him live, with my brother who got me hooked on him all those years ago, was the pinnacle in many ways. So, when I had the chance to buy him the book for Christmas it was a no-brainer. Furthermore, it was equally awesome when he bought me the same book for Christmas. And so, with all this background, I sat down to read the book.

What can I say about the book? It's phenomenal - Schruers does an incredible job throughout the book of interspersing Joel's life story with the lyrics he has written. The best part of the book is how it definitively ties together lyrics that you always suspected were based in real life experiences. Schruers breaks the book apart in sections, each playing the part of a certain act of Billy's life. There are the origins (entitled the Ballad of Billy The Kid), which looks at Billy's childhood, family history, and goes up through his early music career. The second section, about him breaking through, is entitled They Say There's a Heaven for Those Who Will Wait. This section looks at Billy's rise, going through most of his albums, and into the late 1980s. The next section, entitled It's All or Nothing at All, looks at the end of his pop-music writing career, encompassing Storm Front and River of Dreams, and the ensuing tours for the following decade and a half. Finally, Schruers looks at the fourth chapter of Joel's life, entitled "A Legend in His Time: Ain't It Sweet After All These Years." At the end of this section Joel talks very frankly about his impending death, and about his experience on the Earth. He talks about what he would say to an 18 year old version of himself, wonders if the 18 year old would listen, and muses about the intersection of mortality, history, and the future. 

The best part of the book is that these discussions the Billy has are frequent, and they give such tremendous depth to all of his work. I am very familiar with all of Billy's studio albums; in fact, the one he (and most fans probably) hate the most, Cold Spring Harbor, is one of my very favorites for the rawness in the lyrics (not to mention the more folksy feel). This book has made me go back to them all, listening again, seeking confirmation and better understanding. This is doubly so due to Billy's own willingness, as examined in this book, to examine his own lyrics and the reasons for them. Reading about his own method for constructing songs ("backwards" according to Billy), sheds light on why a song like "Nocturne," the ninth track on the aforementioned Cold Spring Harbor, can resonate so deeply without even a lyric. For a fan of Billy Joel this song lifts the veil and allows you to see the brilliance that exists within a man who is historically aware enough to acknowledge that he wouldn't be here "without the Nazis" (a reflection on the way his family was forced to leave Europe to survive, ultimately ending up with his father in New York). For a fanatic, such as myself? Well, this book is a tome of information, insight, and is quite simply a joy. The book certainly meets my criteria for rating something as an exceptional book: I'm a bit sad that it's over. But the beauty of this work is that it is a self-fulfilling cycle: while the book may be over, Billy's music never will be, at least not for me. This book enabled me to get even deeper into the music than I was before, and that is a gift. As a country we love our heroes, and we want them to be largely infallible (click here for my previous take on this regarding Walter Payton and the aforementioned Pearlman book). Billy Joel is the exact opposite: he is beloved because he is every bit as screwed up as we are, and he made a living presenting that imperfect existence in a way the resonated with anyone who was willing to listen, and was being honest with themselves. Billy's music is unbridled human existence presented through the guise of piano music. It is a series of history lessons mixed in with the philosophical questions man has been asking since the beginning of time in many ways. And it's all wrapped up in a catchy tune that enables it to become rather timeless. 

My son will grow up singing Dave Matthews Band for sure (poor kid, he doesn't have a chance in between his mother and me), but he will also grow up singing Billy Joel. Already, at five months, he is familiar not just with "Lullabye," but also with "2000 years" and "Leningrad" from being sung to sleep. There are many more to come. As I watched Billy take the stage after receiving the Gershwin award (one of so many awards he has received through the years) I thought about how fortunate we are to have music as a release for creative expression. Specifically, how fortunate we are to have had Billy Joel to explore his own existence, his own depths of solitude, and his own moments of euphoria. At the end of the day, most music is in some way about the human experience. Billy Joel simply does it better than most.

On Life

Periodically I feel driven to write about something based on something I've read. Normally this happens when I'm either: A) royally pissed about something, or B) shocked and numbed by something. Today's treatise happens to be a unique combination of both. I don't promise that this will be deep and thought provoking anymore than I can promise that ever. Sometimes I hit the mark; often times I miss. But I do feel like right now is a good time to share with you some of my personal philosophy, particularly on life in general.

Today I finally got around to reading the excerpt that Sports Illustrated had from Jeff Pearlman's new book on Walter Payton. The book has taken a great deal of heat lately for taking an iconic figure, best known for being an amazing running back and an even better person, and running him through the mud via bringing out all the skeletons in his closet. And it does this a full twelve years after the man passed away tragically, well before his time. I've heard the vehement crack back against Pearlman from the likes of Mike Ditka, Mike Singletary and Brian Urlacher. I've heard the halfhearted defenses from some in the Chicago sports media, promising us that the author was only doing his job as a journalist. And I've talked to a few people about it, seeking out their views on the issue.

I'll be the first to say that it pained me to read through the excerpt. I'll also say up front that I will undoubtedly own the book someday after I run into it for $3.00 at the bargain book store or Amazon.com, mostly because that's where all sports books go, and I have a book buying addiction. But the excerpt mostly got me thinking of the reason why the reaction was so vehemently against Pearlman. Honestly, you are hard pressed to find anyone who will stand up and say "yup, that was Walter, he was suicidal, depressed, hiked up on pain killers, and generally negative in life after the NFL." But why the negative reaction? Ditka, Singletary and the likes almost seem as if they are defending a Saint or a war hero with their adamant rebukes of Pearlman's work. The answer, in fact, may sit firmly in that last thought.

Hero ... can a football superstar truly be a hero? Charles Barkley famously articulated the concept that he was not a "role-model" and that he didn't want to be. What was lost in translation for much of the media who belittled Chuck for "dodging" his status as a defacto role model was that his argument was actually quite sound. "Stop looking to me to raise your child from an NBA game and commercials and step up and do it yourself" was really the gist of Barkley's sentiment. On the flip side, the media is right: Barkley was a role model, whether he liked it or not, because kids will always look up to those they wish to become. Hell, a good many adults will do the same thing. Both sides were right, and both were also wrong. It all depended on your point of view.

And still, what hurts the most about the new revelations about Payton, true or not, is mired in that same controversy. In this case it comes down to one question about Payton: hero or not? Walter the player was brilliant, but he also played right before the dawn of the new media age which would lionize sports stars like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and Peyton Manning. That Payton was an all time great is not in question if you watched the tape, but what made him more than a football icon was the way in which he carefully crafted an image that was supported by all those around him. If the book is right he was a part of a sham marriage for the last decade plus of his life ... but his wife has nary a negative word to say about him. She stood by him until the end. She did not take the opportunity to make it a big deal, to allow it to tear apart Walter's image. If what the book professes is true, many other key players around Payton had the same opportunity ... and passed on taking the man down.

What does that tell us? It's impossible to say for certain, but if I had to guess I'd say that it reveals one simple fact: Walter Payton was bigger than life, and served a greater purpose as an idea than he did as a man. And those around him understood that, and worked hard to protect that image. Mike Singletary famously had a fallout with Payton due to Walter's infidelity ... yet he came back to his side in the end to make peace, counsel his friend as he headed towards death, and now stands up to defend him. Mike Ditka still has his back over a decade after he passed. Something about Payton's legacy is worth defending it ... and these people are defending in an outspoken, forceful way.

And that leads me to the opposite of Payton's death: the sudden and extremely unexpected death of Apple icon Steve Jobs. The man who created Apple, was forced out, then came back to Apple when it was on the scrap heap and built it into a mega power in the media world. The same Jobs who stepped down as CEO barely more than a month ago. Last I checked, we don't even know what happened. The media speculates it was cancer, or something of that ilk, but for all we know it could have been a car crash. Jobs in death is much the same as in life: shrouded in intentional mystery. Jobs is the anti-Payton: there is no image to protect here beyond that of a brilliant business man. You could tell me anything about Jobs personal life at this point from him being a devout Catholic to him routinely flying to Taiwan to solicit prostitution, and I'd probably not be able to argue with you. We don't know him. Many may admire him. But we don't know him.

Jobs legacy will be in the tangible: Apple is now a major world player, and it wouldn't have been without his return. The IPod you use daily is a reminder of him. The IPhone that your friends are falling over themselves to use is a reminder. If you are super geeky, the computer you have is a reminder of him. But very few people will draw on Steve Jobs, the person, for inspiration. Many people, conversely, draw on Walter Payton the person for inspiration. Steve Jobs was a person. Walter Payton became something more: a concept, an idea ... a hero.

It's all summed up in the title of Payton's book: Never Die Easy. It's a simple concept that is illustrated beautifully in the way he ran the football: don't take the easy way out, and if you are going to fail then do so giving it your all. It's a creed you can live by. And when we take an assault to the idea that we have raised up ... to the hero we idolize ... then we react very negatively. That's what your seeing around the nation as Pearlman's book gets its ten seconds of fame before it will undoubtedly fade into nothing, and then eventually into my bookshelves off of the discount rack. We need Payton now more than ever because he is not a man, or the memory of a man, but the memory of something we all can hold on to for strength. And we are not alright with someone trying to wake us up to a simple and extremely beautiful fact: we are all human. It's what gives us life, that imperfection that allows us to fail and allows us to experience joy when we succeed. Walter Payton may or may not have done the things outlined in the book. I don't know, and honestly I don't even care. Because at the end of the day I know that there are two Walter Paytons living inside my mind: the man and the idea. The man may have been flawed, but it doesn't matter because I didn't know him. The idea is the athlete, the greatest of all time, the hero. I know him deeply ... and he will live on inside of me forever.

Required Reading - Big Russ & Me

It's hard to believe that it has now been over a year since Tim Russert was taken from us. In the middle of the most exciting Presidential campaign of my short life, the campaign it seemed Russert had been made to cover, he was suddenly gone. On my old site I wrote at the time that "In the midst of a life changing, possibly political landscape changing election this country has lost its preeminent political-journalistic figure." Russert certainly was just that: the preeminent figure in this country when it came to politics. But he was also much more, which is why I'm going to feature his first book today as my first "Required Reading" recommendation. Although Father's Day has just passed, I'm sure if you read this book you will come out with a new found appreciation for your own father. I know I did.

"Big Russ & Me" is a memoir written by Tim Russert about, and ultimately for, his father. It takes you through Russert's life; his modest upbringing in South Buffalo, his education in the Jesuit system, his early jobs, the decision to pursue a law degree, and ultimately his latching on into the political world, ending with him at NBC. Russert tells his story through the story of his father. He explains his views on the man who he affectionately calls "Big Russ," and he shows how the further he got in life the more he appreciated all his dad did for him.

We all can use a little perspective from time to time, and this book gives you that. It causes you to rethink your views on parenthood, and to appreciate the little sacrifices that end up making such a huge difference. Russert may be gone, but many of his virtues live on. This book exemplifies how special the man was, and how fortunate we were to have him as a part of our lives.

(Click on the title of this post to be taken to Amazon.com to view or purchase this book)