Imprimatur

Word of the week: Imprimatur.

My friend Ben McAllister (one of the 'X or So') suggested this one. Latin words used in English, like et cetera, ad hoc and de facto, are often printed in italics, as if to say "we have no equivalent so we're just borrowing this from Latin." I'm not sure why we don't similarly acknowledge words we borrow from French or Farsi with italics. In any event, according to Merriam-Webster, Imprimatur is defined as: a license to print or publish; a mark of approval or distinction.

After further exploration (i.e. - Wikipedia), this word has an even more intriguing context. According to Wikipedia, an Imprimatur is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics. No implication is contained therin that those who have granded the Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed. The term is also used more generally to mean any official endorsement (not necessarily by a church).

Where'd All The Good People Go?

The melodic Jack Johnson song of the same title asks “Where’d all the good people go?” After reading Inside The Great American Bubble Machine, I am left asking the same questions and coming to the same conclusions. In Johnson’s words: Where did all the good people go? How many train wrecks do we need to see? We have heaps and heaps of what we sow.

I don’t want to sound like a nostalgic Pollyanna. But the Kennedys, Goldwater, even the reviled Joseph McCarthy held serving the public good as their highest aspirations (even if it was misguided at times). They served the public with vastly different ideologies but none placed the pursuit of wealth above their belief in the public good. Sure, wealth was nice, but the pursuit of obscene wealth at the expense of the public good was regarded as almost ignoble in the 50s and 60s. But what's happened since then?

Between 1966 and 2006, the median household income increased roughly 30%. However, the total output of our nation (real GDP per capita) more than doubled. So where did all the money go? It is a complicated answer but the biggest contributor is an explosion in income inequality. In 1978, for example, the top 1% of households earned 8 times the average household. In 2006, it was 23 times. Moreover, for the top 0.1% the increase was from 86 times to 546 times the average. The rich are getting richer - and at a faster pace. I have nothing against wealth or the super-rich unless the pursuit of wealth supplants the pursuit of public good. And in the case of Goldman Sachs, according to Inside The Great American Bubble Machine, it has.

This blind pursuit of wealth at the expense of the public good is nothing new. Goldman Sachs is simply the latest and perhaps the grandest example of greed. What’s horrifying about Goldman is that they carry the Gordon Gecko torch unapologetically - as if they are incapable of understanding why anyone would pursue anything other than wealth. After a quarter of record profits and bonuses, despite a sputtering economy that they helped to create, Goldman is now locked in a battle with the US Government to actually reduce the value of the government’s (read: your and my) stake in the company. And even more horrifying, Goldman has now spread itself so deeply into the recesses of power within government and politics that is has insulated itself against its only two threats: competition and regulation.

Is wealth wrong? No. But the pursuit of wealth above the public good is antithetical to American ideals. Where'd all the good people go? They certainly aren't at Goldman.

The Greatest Sports Rivalry Ever

What would come to mind if I asked you to name the greatest rivalries in sports? Go ahead, give it some thought.

I've noticed that there are two types of people when it comes to sports rivalries. The first group immediately begins to list rivalries. Some will start with their own rivalry: New Englanders will overwhelm you with their disgust for the Yankees, Duke alumni will begin to recite their numerous victories on Tobacco Road. Others, maybe those without a personal connection to a great rivalry, will ponder the question more deeply to identify a list of rivalries with real gravitas. These "listers" can be found simply enough. Just google "greatest sports rivalries" and a myriad of lists appear. Listers, I would guess, comprise 80% of the population.

The other 20% is more circumspect. They avoid the urge to begin with individual rivalries. They start with criteria. They ask: what makes a great rivalry? And then they apply this criteria to find rivalries that meet their standards. I am in this minority. So, what makes a great sports rivalry? Here are my criteria:

1. Joy-heartbreak quotient (JHQ). The joy-heartbreak quotient is simply the difference between the joy created in the world when a team wins and the heartbreak created when a team losses. It is the number of people who feel joy multiplied by the intensity of their joy less the number of people who feel heartbreak multiplied by the intensity of their heartbreak. In great rivalries, more people care about the outcome and there is more intensity. Army-Navy is certainly a rivalry but not many people outside the armed forces care much about the game so the JHQ for an Army-Navy game is certainly less than, say, Michigan-Ohio State.

2. Durable. I respect and in many ways admire the old days. Football without helmets. Baseball without lights. Hockey without teeth. Uphill both ways in the snow and all. But I am more interested in rivalries that have withstood the test of time. The JHQ calculus is magnified by years of fans experiencing both sides of the equation as their team flows through the crests and troughs of winning and losing. Steelers-Cowboys and Giants-Dodgers were surely great rivalries in their heyday. But they have faded.

3. Frequency. The best rivalries are forged from frequent battles. Many of the best rivals are in the same division or conference, play each other several times a season and then have to meet in the playoffs where the stakes are even higher. Sure the Cowboys-49ers battles were great games but nothing compared the year-in and year-out Redskins-Cowboys rivalry. Frequency multiples the JHQ.

4. No "I" in Team. This is less a rule and more a caveat. There are terrific rivalries among individuals: Ali & Frazier. Arnie & Jack. Nadal & Federer. These are certainly rivalries but they have no durable anchor beyond the individual contestants. They have no longevity beyond the individuals themselves. Sure, 78-year-old barbers still argue about the greatest boxer that ever lived but choosing sides is often a matter of personal preference rather than allegiance to the home team. The great rivalries transcend individuals because the enemy never goes away. New Yorkers despised the Red Sox with Cy Young just as much as with Roger Clemens.

With these guidelines in mind, I humbly offer my thoughts on the The Greatest Sports Rivalry Ever. But first, the honorable mentions: Redskins-Cowboys, Oklahoma-Texas, Auburn-Alabama, Patriots-Colts, Pepsi-Coke and Mac-PC. These are all worth a Saturday afternoon on the couch. But for real passion, intensity and JHQ, not many rivalries can create the adrenaline as these five:

#5 Maple Leafs-Canadiens. This is your basic French vs English rivalry. But it's hockey, it's Canada and it's faded recently so fifth place may even be generous.

#4 Michigan-Ohio State. This is the best institutional rivalry in the world. They are competitive in football, basketball, and probably even water polo. But it's the football that makes this a great rivalry.

#3 Red Sox-Yankees. This is almost the definition of rivalry. I almost got mobbed once for wearing a Red Sox hat at Yankee Stadium (and the Red Sox weren't even playing).

#2 Tar Heels-Blue Devils. This is purely a basketball rivalry but when HBO makes a documentary about your rivalry, it must be serious.

#1 Tie: Rangers-Celtic and Boca Juniors-River Plate. Surprised? I know what you are thinking: soccer, really? Actually, these two rivalries exceed the rest of the list by orders of magnitude. Fans are separated by riot police. They exit the stadium in opposite directions and walk a mile before being allowed to turn back. Boca-River is class warfare. It is the "millionaires" vs the "people's team." Rangers-Celtic is religious warfare. This cross-city Glasgow rivalry is Protestants versus Irish Catholics. What these two rivalries lack in market size they make up with intensity. They are ancient (1888 and 1931 respectively) and both sets of teams meet at least twice or more a year and then again (usually) to determine the league championship. Nothing in football, baseball or hockey here in the US compares to these two rivalries.

On second thought, what's so great about rivalries so intensely savage that they require riot police and incite not joy and heartbreak but rather perpetuate hatred and even more hatred?

The Road

Critics often use the word "haunting" to describe films that permeate our subconscious deeply. Even the blinding midday sun that washes over us when we leave the theater is powerless to rinse away the most acrid scences. These disquieting memories resurface in slow, contemplative moments. They settle on our minds and demand attention while we sleep. These films are rare.
It is even more rare that a book, without the benefit of surround sound and digital effects, can grip our minds as relentlessly. But haunting may not be adequate enough to describe Cormac McCarthy's The Road. Get past a stream-of-consciousness style that Faulkner would envy (read: sentences without verbs) and it is a truly haunting story. It will bury itself deeply in the recessses of your mind. It will horrify you and yet, in the end, it will renew your faith - not in the world but in yourself. It will remind you, in your own quiet contemplations, that we live by the grace of God alone. And that may be the most haunting quality of all.

Land Of The Free

A betting man would not have put money on a group of criminals winning a struggle against the largest and most powerful military on earth. In truth, it was more that the British lost the war than we won it. We were simply more determined and more willing to meet any hardship than the British. As much as any other ethic we embrace, the willingness to meet hardship has been a constant hallmark of our American Spirit. This is true from Montezuma to Tripoli no less than from immigrants enduring the hardship of starting with nothing or pioneers braving the wilderness of our manifest destiny.

A young woman not more than a few years out of college is standing the midwatch tonight on the quiet, darkened bridge of a warship in the Persian Gulf. She has slept only a few hours and has responsibility for the lives of over 200 shipmates tonight. Another man, only a few days beyond boyhood really, just stumbled off a bus onto the hard asphalt near Cape May, New Jersey to endure the shockingly loud indoctrination rites of Coast Guard basic training. Both know that there are ways to earn a living that allow more sleep and less "indoctrination." But they are willing to meet these hardships.

I am proud that both of my brothers and my cousin and uncles served in the military. If asked, they would have endured the hardships of Valley Forge, Gettysburg, The Ardennes, or (as my cousin did) Fallujah. So today I celebrate both our Independence and the willingness of Americans to, as John Kennedy put it, meet any hardship to assure the survival and success of liberty.

What Is "The Word of the Week?"

I want a broader vocabulary. Words are tools. They can express big thoughts as well as subtleties. I don't want a vocabulary of fancy words to impress my friends at cocktail parties. I simply to more directly, more accurately express my own thoughts.

I love finding a word that concisely describes an entire thought. But arcane words are useless (no one will actually know what thought I am trying to concisely articulate). The Word of the Week is meant to highlight words that strike a balance. They are on the fringes of our daily vocabulary. They can be found in newspapers and novels but are not commonly used in conversation. These words are useful because they are used by professionals to directly and accurately convey an idea. It is good to know some of these words.

The Word of the Week is also meant to highlight words that are just plain interesting. They are less useful in conversation but their history, derivation and usage tell a good tale.

Pyrrhic is a great example. It means "costly to the point of negating or outweighing expected benefits." It comes from King Pyrrhus of Epirus who sustained heavy losses in defeating the Romans. Pyrrhic is a concise expression of an idea. It is used infrequently but I've seen it twice in the last month. And it has an interesting story.