Vanity, Envy and Competition Part 5

This is the final segment in my essay on Vanity, Competition and Envy.  Previously we have explored the tight relationship between our cultivated need for praise, our fragile egos, the endless oscillation between insecurity and vanity, and the envy that results or feeds this dynamic.

In this segment we will look at competition.  Praise, vanity, envy, insecurity – they all have at their core either an explicit or implicit comparison between ourselves and other human beings.  And that comparison is nurtured or confirmed through competition.

Of course there are times when we are praised for having done well in comparison to our own capabilities or previous accomplishments, but I would argue that these are the exception rather than the norm.  Almost every aspect of our culture and society is based on competition and there appears to be a basic assumption that the competitive spirit or drive is a fundamental and even desirable element of human nature.  Moreover, competition is seen in a generally positive light as the primary motivation for personal achievement, character development and the general progress of civilization.

But is this really true?  Is competition a positive force in our world?  Is it a necessary one?  When I think of competition I remember a Peanuts cartoon I saw long ago.  Linus is telling Charlie Brown about a football game he just saw on TV.  He describes in vivid detail over several panels how his team snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in the final seconds of the game.  He can scarcely contain his joy.  On the last panel, Charlie Brown, looking pensive as always, responds ‘How did the other team feel?’

The fact is that competition creates winners and losers.  In many cases, the winning and losing have only psychological impact, though clearly this impact should not be trivialized.  But in other cases, losing has more dramatic consequences – the failure of a business, the loss of prestige or reputation or self-confidence. 

There are numerous platitudes about the benefits of failure and losing.  Our culture accepts as orthodoxy that the struggle of life requires competition and that it is important to experience both winning and losing to develop character and resilience.  Indeed, there are many contemptuous references these days to a perceived tendency to make everyone a ‘winner’ – trophies or participation medals for every child in a sport and grade inflation at schools come to mind.

Losing and failure are declared to be prerequisites for later business success by every entrepreneur and executive on the motivational speaking circuit.  The idea that people learn from mistakes does indeed seem to be a truism.  But is a competitive environment required to create the conditions for the crucible of success and failure?  Could cooperation be just as effective for development of character and capability, but far less damaging than competition?

Much of my life has been characterized by competition – in school, in sports and in business.  The moments of winning, of being acclaimed as ‘better’ than my competitors, were stimulating, but they were also unsettling, creating a separation between me and my competitors that was at turns awkward and alienating.

A competitive instinct is viewed as a favorable character trait, as in ‘that person is a real competitor’, or ‘he/she has a real competitive drive’!  But how is this competitive spirit different from a basic energetic trait?  What we are really saying about a person is that they will work hard, overcome obstacles and endure heartache, pain and fatigue (and even failures or setbacks) to succeed.  Does that character trait have to be defined in terms of beating someone else at something or proving someone is better than someone else?  Aren't the characteristics commonly associated with a ‘competitor’ – work ethic, resilience, energy, passion – valuable and commendable qualities in any endeavor, and particularly well suited for working cooperatively?

Would focusing human energy more on cooperation rather than competition be a laudable goal of 21^st century society?  Can human passion be developed to as high a level when there is a common goal rather a prize that can only be defined or won by beating or diminishing another? 

Cooperation would not imply an easy path with no frustration or disappointments.  All human activity is subject to the vicissitudes of success and failure, of agony and ecstasy.  The difference is where the motivation lies – in achievement for the sake of a group and one’s own self-fulfillment rather than proving oneself better than others.

Competition was a necessary by-product of our quest for survival and progress in the first fifty thousand years of our evolution.  But perhaps cooperation is the key to the human race surviving the next few millennia!

21st Century Fascism

Donald Trump continues to defy all expectations.  His surprising popularity has been analyzed every possible way, and it seems to rise in almost inverse proportion to the condemnation he receives from every quarter.

The question for me is whether Trump is truly the neo-fascist that he appears to be, or whether he is masquerading as one in a cynical but clever ploy to gain the nomination.  He has been compared with Il Duce (Benito Mussolini of the ‘glory’ days of the short-lived Italian empire in the 1930s) because of his huge ego and his smug proclamations.  Indeed, the continuous smirk on his face and his puffed-up demeanor are amazingly similar to those of Il Duce.

Calling Trump a fascist is not really an exaggeration.  Fascism has the following characteristics:  a fanatical demagogue as a leader; a maniacal embrace of nationalism; a set of enemies that are blamed for the current perceived downfall of the state (e.g. immigrants, Muslims, blacks, media, political correctness, liberals, tax laws); a belief that a strong leader can ‘solve’ economic problems through central control; a belief that a nation can recover its past glories by adopting an aggressive, unyielding position on global affairs; a strategy of economic growth by large infrastructure projects and military build-up.

It is difficult to discern what Trump’s platform and plans are, but his appeal to ‘angry’ Americans seems to parallel the classic fascist pattern.  The big difference between Trump’s rise and those of Hitler and Mussolini is that the economic conditions are far less dismal today than the late 1920’s.

The ‘anger’ that is accepted as a given in today’s political environment is somewhat of a strange phenomenon.  Clearly our political process is frustratingly dysfunctional.  However, the country is not in any great economic or social distress when compared to the rest of the world.  So why the almost palpable anger?

For the average white American, there are certainly unsettling trends – the increasing diversity of our society, the changing sexual and gender mores, the decrease in traditional religious affiliation, the erosion of American influence in world affairs. 

But these trends and circumstances do not really impact people in a very direct way.  The everyday of our lives is no worse for these changes.  Our economy, though not robust, is still functioning fairly well and indeed performs better than that of almost any other nation on earth.  We still have all of the freedoms, opportunities and pleasures that make the U.S. an incredible place for most of its citizens.  Very few of the people who are so angry are in any type of distress, other than psychic.

I believe the anger is a manufactured entity, a Frankenstein created by right-wing media, bloggers and politicians that is now out of control and about to destroy its master, the Republican Party. Let’s hope and pray it doesn’t also destroy the whole country.

Sportsmanship

The recent Super Bowl was yet another reminder of the decline of sportsmanship in the sports world.  I rarely watch football, but when I do I am disheartened by the endless, mean-spirited displays of poor sportsmanship that occur after almost every tackle, reception, interception, sack or touchdown. Taunting, mocking, grandstanding and rubbing your opponents nose in his or her defeat are standard behavior in most sporting events these days. The gracious victor, the humble sportsman is almost extinct.  Instead, most contests are spectacles of trash-talking and in-your-face confrontations, expressions of the worst in human nature.  How has it come to this?

I suppose it all ties back to money and the business of entertainment.  Television has always reached out to the lowest common denominator, and once it was discovered that people who sit mindlessly watching hours of sports on TV enjoy seeing crass behavior there was no holding it back.

It may be entertaining for fans to see someone perform a dance in the end zone after scoring a touchdown for their team.  But I would argue that it is appealing to our baser instincts.  We know that the opposition is already disappointed.  Why do we want to make them feel worse?  Our own joy and satisfaction are already assured.  Do we really need to revel sadistically in the face of the opposing team and fans?

Worse still is the fact that this type of behavior has become expected entertainment for viewers.  Trash talking and victory dances have become a type of art form that is encouraged by fans and the media.  Of course the only ones delighting in each instance are the fans of the mockers and the grandstanders.  The opposing teams fans are grinding their teeth in bitter frustration and perhaps even fury.

One may argue that this form of entertainment is harmless, just boys (or girls) being boys and having a little fun.  But I don’t view it as harmless.  It sets an example for everyone in terms of acceptable behavior.  It erodes the general civility of our society and of sports in particular.  It has all of the classic characteristics of a cheap thrill – momentarily titillating, but insidiously damaging in the long run.

The other justification that might be raised for this type of behavior is that it is a clever strategy to throw one’s opponent off his or her game - to deal a psychological blow – and therefore an acceptable tactic.  But I find this specious reasoning.  Following this line of argument could make any ploy acceptable, including purposely injuring an opponent, which, sadly, in many sports is also increasingly utilized to win at all costs.

With so much money at stake in professional and college athletics, it is not surprising that such despicable behavior has become the norm.  But this behavior trickles down to impact every sports contest, and we are the poorer for its dissemination.

Healthcare Woes

The U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any other developed nation in the world, yet our people are less healthy on average than most of those nations (data from OECD, the World Health Organization and the World Bank).  Here is one view of the spending data:

The U.S. in healthcare, as in so many things, is somewhat of an enigma.  At the top level, our healthcare must surely be more sophisticated than any other in the world.  Our medical research is more extensive and more richly funded than any other nation’s, as shown by the following chart:

Biomedical research and development expenditures classified by country in 2012 in billions of U.S. dollars:[2]
Country	Total	Public	Industry
United States	119.3	48.9	70.4
Canada	5.3	3.3	2.0
Europe	81.8	28.1	53.6
Asia-Oceania	62.0	19.3	42.7
Total	268.4

Our medical technology, surgical procedures and disease treatment are probably the best in the world, though that is my own wildly subjective assessment.  (I couldn’t find any convincing data – too broad a topic)

But our population is not as healthy as that of many other nations and does not score as well when health indicators are evaluated (see World Health Organization data, not included here). How can that be?

Before we look at the reasons for our low scores on health, let’s look at why our healthcare is so expensive.  I can think of several reasons:

1. The fear of lawsuits and litigation causes doctors to order more tests and undertake more procedures.
2. Our doctors and health executives are compensated significantly higher than those of other developed nations.
3. Our complex insurance structure adds significantly to the costs.
4. Our market-driven healthcare promotes newer and more expensive drugs and procedures.
5. We have more advanced (and thus expensive) treatments, technology and capabilities for the most serious diseases, injuries, etc.

I can’t measure the relative impact of these factors, and I have not done a rigorous search for data, but I believe this is a reasonable set of factors that would be hard to dispute.

Please note that only one of these factors actually contributes to better health outcomes (number 5).  This would explain why our very costly healthcare does not produce the best health in the world.

As to why we have lower scores in health indicators, one merely has to invoke the usual contradictions in U.S. society – the widening income gap, the number of uninsured people, poor access to healthcare in impoverished areas, our large prison population, our drug problems, our problems with obesity and our focus on treatment of disease rather than wellness and disease prevention.

As in most things, the U.S. is both a place of wonder and a place of stubborn disappointment.  The freedom that many of us have in managing our healthcare, and the incredible array of options for treatment are probably unique in the world.  But a sizable part of our population has the type of access to healthcare that one would find in a much poorer, under-developed nation.

So what is the future for U.S. healthcare?  I am certain that one day in the not-too-distant future we will shake our heads at the thought that we did not provide basic healthcare for all of our citizens or make it possible to obtain insurance if they had a pre-existing disease or condition.

But the future of healthcare is daunting.  The combination of several factors will require us to make difficult decisions:

1. People are living longer and the care needed to maintain quality of life and life itself is growing ever more capable and expensive.
2. As medical technology, drugs and treatment become more sophisticated and capable (which of course leads to number 1!), the costs and effort required increase.
3. If healthcare is provided at ‘no cost’ to everyone and access is easy and pervasive, then there may be an ever-increasing demand that overwhelms the system.

These factors may cause healthcare costs and effort to skyrocket.  There are already predictions of people born today living to 150.  If one assumes that the healthcare costs during this lifespan will increase at least linearly, and possibly exponentially over the last 50-80 years, then the healthcare system will certainly be unable to sustain itself.  We will become a world that focuses most of its energy and resources on maintaining life, rather than enhancing or enriching it.

There are also the questions of how to curb the appetite or need for healthcare.  Even with a focus on wellness and preventive medicine, human beings will ignore good advice and engage in risky behaviors that jeopardize and even ruin their health.  Should the obese have an added health tax?  Should the elderly be discouraged from endless rounds of physical therapy and other quality of life treatments by some sort of surcharge?  Should a smoker or drug-user be denied care or forced to pay extra to receive it?  Should sexually transmitted diseases be taxed to encourage less promiscuous behavior?  These may seem like draconian or big brother tactics, but a desperate need to rein in costs may eventually trump the hesitancy to apply such limits.

We are facing a brave new world of longevity/life expectancy, medical breakthroughs and treatments, and social awareness.  These will create a perfect storm of expense challenges and ethical dilemmas.  If our civilization manages to emerge from the political and socioeconomic crises and the menace of global warming relatively unscathed, then global health will be the final hurdle on the path toward a world that is more equitable, peaceful and enjoyable for all its denizens.

Tribes

It has always intrigued me that people so easily and passionately associate themselves with groups.  Alumni of Ohio State University demonstrate an almost religious devotion to their football team; Coca Cola employees will never be tempted by another sugary drink; Chicago sports fans support their baseball teams loyally despite an almost perfect record of disappointment; Marines put 'semper fidelis' bumper stickers on their cars and consider themselves lifelong marines; citizens of every country proclaim the virtues of their land and bind themselves to it by a fierce nationalism; ethnic groups celebrate their common attributes and find either refuge or exclusivity in their shared experience.

What is the nature of this tribal impulse, this compulsion to associate with a group and embrace both its successes and failures, its triumphs and tribulations?  Is there some deep need within us to belong to something larger than ourselves, to attach ourselves to a substantial organism so as to avoid the oblivion of anonymity and solitude?

In some cases, and especially in earlier times, it was clear that the attachment had a practical and utilitarian aspect.  The tribe offered protection from an uncertain and dangerous world, from wild animals or malicious neighboring tribes.  The tribal efforts to procure food and water would certainly have greater chances of success than the efforts of a single person or family.  Membership in a tribe bolstered survival chances substantially.

But many of the tribal loyalties in today’s world bear no relation to our ancient tribal inclinations.  Certainly the intense emotional bond that many have today with their college or city sports team can no longer be interpreted as having any utilitarian component.  Other than some minor bragging rights, the success of a sports team has little impact on its fans lives.  Yet fans will go to absurd extremes in demonstrating their loyalty and tribal membership – even killing one another in some cases.

The tribal association known as nationalism or love of country is perhaps more understandable, as it has a direct impact on the well-being (or at least the perceived well-being) of the citizens.  But nationalism is a slippery slope, and it has been responsible in the past for many a virulent form of fascism or imperialism. And as the world becomes more global and more inter-dependent, it may be that nationalism actually works against one’s own self-interest.  Yet I suspect that nationalism will not die easily, as it is the most expedient rallying cry of the demagogue.

Tribalism is sadly interwoven into the fabric and orthodoxy of most world religions.  Part of any religion’s resilience is its claim to be the single truth and path to Godliness, and most religions develop a cultural ethos with a strong tribal hold on their members.  Consigning non-members to eternal damnation or death is a pretty effective tool in creating a strong tribal message!

Of course the rich diversity of religious culture is something to admire in the world, and the world would be poorer for its absence.  However, I would argue that the diversity could be maintained without the absolutism and dogmatism that create such conflict and disharmony between individual religions as well as the non-religious.

Cultural and ethnic tribalism are also a complex combination of positives and negatives.  The U.S. has long been the so-called melting pot of cultures, and has been somewhat successful in blending cultures to retain interesting attributes while breaking down the prejudices and separateness that cultural tribalism can easily perpetuate.

One might argue that it is sad to see a melding of cultures and the loss of the pure essence of a particular group’s heritage.  But if no assimilation occurs, then the probability of alienation and hostility is strong when groups live in close proximity and share common resources and political/economic systems.  

Today some cultures do indeed seem resistant to ‘melting’ and assimilation.  Europe, for example, has been unsuccessful in assimilating its Muslim population for a variety of reasons. One might also argue that Jewish populations have also maintained a fairly separate, tribal unity – understandable for historical reasons of persecution – but somewhat problematic nonetheless.

So why do we allow ourselves to be drawn into these tribal relationships?  Is there some basic biological need for them?  Are they simply the most readily available form of community, which might be characterized as a fundamental social need for most human beings?

Are tribal associations an anachronism that should be shed by the new, progressive man or woman?  Aren’t we citizens of the world, joined together in common plight with all of our fellow human beings in an ever more challenging and urgent quest to find harmony on earth and solve common problems?  Can we preserve some of the wonderful diversity of our tribal communities while blunting their sharp edges?  Can we be passionate members of our tribe without also being adversaries with other tribes?  Of course we can, and it is part of our required evolution as a species.  If we succeed we will be the ‘meek who inherit the earth’.  If we fail, then we will join the dinosaurs in the dustbin of the universe.

Martyrs, Murderers, Heroes and Psychopaths

Another mass shooting, this time in San Bernardino by two Islamic extremists.  Before that, a mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic by a Christian extremist. And of course there are others before those too numerable to mention, from heinous elementary school slaughters to movie theater massacres. Are these people psychopaths, murderers, heroes or martyrs?  The sad truth is that they are all of the above.

I read a book several years ago about the Columbine shootings.  The author provided evidence that the two boys were psychopaths, not just troubled teenagers who had somehow been traumatized into a murderous rampage by adolescent grievances.  These types of killings (Sandy Hook, Colorado Movie Theater, Virginia Tech, etc. etc.) are clearly the result of twisted minds.

How does someone shoot down people in cold blood without being somewhat of a psychopath?  Even in moments of burning rage, I cannot imagine doing what these people have done.

The perpetrators of these ghastly crimes come from very different backgrounds and appear to have a wide variety of motives.  For some, the act must simply be an expression of a deep sickness and tortured soul.  For others, the act is inspired by some sort of political or religious zeal – white supremacy, radical Islam, radical Christian or others.  In decades past, revolutionary and ideological fervor was often the cause of such attacks.

We cannot ignore the fact that human beings are violent creatures.  When we line up on opposite sides based on tribe, or country or ideology or religion, we do not hesitate to commit the most hideous torture and murder imaginable.

The assailants in Paris a few weeks ago were generally miscreants with criminal backgrounds.  But somehow they were converted to deep religious belief that inspired them to kill innocent people and sacrifice their own lives in the process.  The murderous San Bernardino couple is a bit more troubling.  They did not appear to have the traits of psychopaths or criminals, but were somehow convinced that the community around them was their enemy and that the murder of their colleagues was justified.  They probably believed they were doing a noble deed in the cause of their faith.  And they will be hailed as heroes and martyrs by more than a few people.

At first this seems irrational.  How can the murder of innocents ever be justified?  But of course every government rationalizes the murder of innocents in its efforts to implement its military and political goals.  Oh no, you say, we never purposely target innocent civilians.  Sadly, though, that is not true.  We try to ‘minimize’ collateral damage, but the cold calculus of war often ‘requires’ the sacrifice of innocents.  In World War II, the allies purposely targeted civilian populations and killed millions of ‘innocent’ civilians in order to break the will of the enemy.  War has no conscience.

We are always at war; at war against Islamic extremists, at war against Christian extremists, at war against Hindu extremists, at war against white supremacists, at war against drug gangs and cartels.  One group’s madman is another’s hero.  Many of the horrible deeds are done by psychopaths, but some are done by thoughtful, introspective intellectuals.  The human psyche is still a mystery.

We make heroes out of killers, because they further our cause.  Is a Navy seal who kills whomever he is ordered to kill under any circumstances a hero or a villain?  He is both.  We are all capable of becoming killers.  I would kill to protect my family, or perhaps even to avenge it.  And so it goes on.

How many potential Islamic extremist killers are out there, waiting for the opportunity to wreak their mayhem on our society?  How many Christian extremists, or anti-government nutjobs are sitting in their gun-filled basements, preparing for mayhem and destruction?  We just don’t know.

But one thing we do know:  only a tiny, tiny fraction of the Muslims in the U.S. will ever commit a violent act, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of the Christians in the U.S. will do the same.  Will we allow ourselves to abandon our principles of fair treatment, multi-culturalism and a free society in a desperate and futile attempt to feel safe?  I hope not.  The world will never be totally safe.  We are infinitely more likely to die young from an auto accident or an illness than from a terrorist act.

In the end, we must choose love over hate, while doing our best to stay safe and prevent these tragedies from occurring.  We are awash in weapons, in hateful speech and uncontrolled emotions.  We must learn from the best models available how to preserve our democracy while being vigilant. Compromise is in order - let's allow the NSA to listen more closely so that we can identify potential terrorists of any stripe (and put safeguards in to avoid misuse of that data), but let's also get rid of every military style weapon in the country.  Australia and Scotland did it and they have reaped the rewards.  Let's learn from others!

John Lennon is Dead

As the 35th anniversary of John Lennon's death approaches, I thought I would post something I wrote in the days after his shooting:

John Lennon is Dead

That the death of John Lennon would first reach my ears through the rasping medium of a Howard Cosell monologue is a droll footnote to a sad tale. I don't know why I was watching Monday Night Football. It was one of those evenings that shatter one's pretensions of self-discipline and purpose.  I had probably contemplated reading a good book but ended up giving in to the addiction of my youth.

It was the week before final exams, and Boston had grown very cold and subdued.  The initial gaiety of the post-Thanksgiving preparations for Christmas had already subsided and the city was caught in that funny period between the two holidays.  No matter how hard the merchants and admen try, they cannot obliterate that dead zone in early December.

But Monday Night Football was impervious to the subtleties of the season, and Howard and Dandy Don Meredith were still in their heyday.  When the announcement was made, it reached millions of people and its stunning effect swept across the country.

My first reaction was shock.  Assassination was not an end I could imagine for John Lennon.   Rock stars had not fared well in the 70's, but they generally died from drug overdoses and motorcycle accidents, which were more like a professional hazard.  Being stalked and gunned down by an assassin cast Lennon's death in a very different light.

The initial shock began to transform itself into focused emotions, the most striking of which was a deep aching melancholy. I began to phone friends, passing the grim news and sharing memories of a youth that seemed suddenly to have ended.

My earliest associations with music centered around the Beatles.  In 1964 I was ten years old.  My sister was an authentic screaming-teen-beatlemaniac. Every day after school she would drag me down into our basement and we would play Beatle 45s until Mom yelled down that it was time for dinner.

Sometimes we would dance and she would show me the latest moves - the monkey, the jerk, the watusi. And always we would memorize, song after song, verse upon verse.  I can still sing along with scores of Beatle songs, rarely missing a word.

After the Beatles' conquest of the U.S., I left the tutelage of my sister and forged my own relationship with the Fab Four. In school I was a recognized Beatle expert. I led the Beatles songs in the bus on field trips. Three friends and I joined together as a pretend Beatles group, and the girls in our class were willing to pretend right along with us, so powerful was the elixir of Beatlemania.

By the end of 1965 the album Rubber Soul had come, and with it a transition out of the cuteness and innocence of their early image.  I was horrified by their longer and disheveled hair and the unabashed display of smoking on the album cover.  But the new sound in their music enchanted me and soon I was growing and changing too, just a few paces behind the lads from Liverpool.

Junior high, with its painful initiation into the rites of social intercourse, was the time when music first became a solace to my oft-injured soul.  And though I did not understand the details of their own quest - their age and sophistication were well beyond my tender years - somehow the combination of rebellion and truth-seeking in the Beatles music was comprehensible and comforting to me. I was searching too.

By the time I reached high school and began grappling with the issues of war, civil rights and social justice, the Beatles were in the final stages of collapse as a group. I have never regretted their breakup.  The Beatles had been able to stay one step ahead of the "rock impressarios" up to that time, but it was inevitable that they would have become yet another big business band and a monument to self-parody had they continued.

I continued to listen to Beatle music through college and beyond.  Though my interest in rock music offered up other heroes it was never the same. Other groups might capture my feelings for a few months or even a few years, but the Beatles were like lifelong good friends.  We had learned about the world together and nothing would ever change that.

Those four British boys were uniquely gifted as a group, creating songs and a sound that were far greater than the sum of the parts.  Their solo efforts never came close.  There was plenty of individual talent, and a generous portion of charm and wit, but their incredible impact on this world was circumstantial - a perfect union of those mystical forces that create an historical moment.

The day after the shooting, I walked over to MIT and found that Lennon's death was the topic of every conversation.  All of my friends and co-workers were grieving in some fashion. Radio stations played nothing but Beatle music and stores were quickly sold out of every Beatle album. In a review session that I attended, an Iranian graduate student announced, with eyes glistening, that he was dedicating the session to the memory of John Lennon.

Throughout that day and the next few, I wrestled with my memories of the Beatles and tried to reconcile sentiment with reason. John Lennon, whatever his faults or vanities, had stubbornly spoken for the idealist in all of us.  Why can't we just give peace a chance?  Why can't we imagine a world without war or hatred?

On the Sunday following his death, a rally and candle vigil was held in downtown Boston at Copley Square - timed to coincide with a worldwide ten minutes of silence for the fallen legend. The day was brutally cold, but still thousands came.

The embers of the 60s had smoldered and glowed throughout the 70s. Many had hoped that the gentle integrity of Jimmy Carter might fan them into life again, but it was not to be. Then, suddenly, a reaction of cynical pragmatism gripped the nation. Dreams of social equality and international peace were abandoned in a frenzy of greed and nationalism.

The year 1980 rang the death knell for the innocent questing spirit of the 60s.  The Soviets were in Afghanistan, the hostages were in Iran, and a disgruntled public voted in Ronald Reagan as president a month before the death of John Lennon.

The Beatles had served as an alter-ego for our generation. And now, a part of them was dead, shot down as if to exclaim once and for all the absurdity of believing that love could change the world.

The cold and the wind forced the crowd to huddle together for the ten minutes of silence.  The closeness had an electric effect, and I could see many around me weeping, yet smiling through their tears. I felt those twin currents of hope and despair surging through the crowd, but somehow the mood was triumphant. It was the end of an era, but love would carry the day.