There are supposedly no irreplaceable people in the work world.
There are, however, people in the media world who are so identified with their work that they really cannot be replaced. Paul Harvey was one. Heaven help the eventual replacement for the Dodgers’ Vin Scully.
And now there is Jeremy Clarkson, “sacked,” to use the British term, by the BBC (“the Beeb,” as it’s known across the pond) from “Top Gear”:
Jeremy Clarkson’s contract will not be renewed after an “unprovoked physical attack” on a Top Gear producer, the BBC’s director general has confirmed.
Tony Hall said he had “not taken this decision lightly” and recognised it would “divide opinion”.
However, he added “a line has been crossed” and he “cannot condone what has happened on this occasion”.
Clarkson was suspended on 10 March, following what was called a “fracas” with Top Gear producer Oisin Tymon.
The row, which took place in a Yorkshire hotel, was said to have occurred because no hot food was provided following a day’s filming.
An internal investigation began last week, led by Ken MacQuarrie, the director of BBC Scotland.
It found that Mr Tymon took himself to hospital after he was subject to an “unprovoked physical and verbal attack”.
“During the physical attack Oisin Tymon was struck, resulting in swelling and bleeding to his lip.”
It lasted “around 30 seconds and was halted by the intervention of a witness,” Mr MacQuarrie noted in his report.
“The verbal abuse was sustained over a longer period” and “contained the strongest expletives and threats to sack” Mr Tymon, who believed he had lost his job.
Mr Tymon did not file a formal complaint and it is understood Clarkson reported himself to BBC bosses following the incident.
After that, the BBC’s director of television, Danny Cohen, felt he had no choice but to suspend the presenter pending an investigation. …
Jeremy Clarkson took a slightly dull and failing car programme and turned it in to the biggest factual TV show in the world.
But this sacking has nothing to do with style, opinions, popularity – or even his language on the show.
It’s about what stars are allowed to get away with off screen, a topic that’s been top of the agenda for the BBC in recent months.
The corporation has had to overhaul all of its policies and attitudes towards bullying and harassment, and a long verbal tirade and a physical assault would have crossed the line for any member of staff.
Clarkson may be popular with the audience, and the BBC really did not want to lose him, but this was a star who admitted he was on his final warning and a corporation that was under intense scrutiny over what its top talent can and cannot get away with.
Top Gear, which is one of BBC Two’s most popular programmes, will continue without Clarkson, who will now become the subject of a bidding war by other broadcasters.
The magazine show is one of the BBC’s biggest properties, with overseas sales worth an estimated £50m a year for the corporation’s commercial arm, BBC Worldwide. …
Whether Clarkson’s co-presenters James May and Richard Hammond will remain on the show has yet to be confirmed.
All three had their contracts up for renewal this year, with Clarkson’s due to expire at the end of March.
Hammond tweeted: “Gutted at such a sad end to an era. We’re all three of us idiots in our different ways but it’s been an incredible ride together.”
May also updated his Twitter profile to say: “Former TV presenter”.
This is most likely the end of the original Top Gear as we know it. (Though Clarkson and his colleagues may well end up on another British channel on another show, as a Facebook friend predicted Wednesday.)
The considerable irony here is that had Clarkson been an American media figure he probably would not have been fired. We Americans are the supposed prudes, and yet for decades people in the entertainment world have gotten away with actions far worse than this (see Polanski, Roman) and maintained their jobs. Notice that after “misremembering” his exploits in Iraq NBC hasn’t fired Brian Williams … yet. Keith Olbermann is, to use the name of one of his segments, apparently The Worst Person in the World to work with, and yet he moves from one employer to another.
On the other hand, some of the things Clarkson has said over the years probably would have gotten him fired here. Clarkson fits the British definition of “politically incorrect,” and once called former British prime minister Gordon Brown … a term that will certainly not be reprinted here. (No, it doesn’t start with the letter F. It’s worse.) That’s a bit ironic given that the U.S. has the First Amendment and Britain has no counterpart, but on this side of the Atlantic free speech is not unlimited, particularly when it offends the chronically offended.
Facebook Friend Larry L. Tebo compares Clarkson with the great American car writers:
Love him or otherwise, Jeremy Clarkson stands apart from every other living automotive journalist simply due to the fact that he has so much STYLE. I’ve loved great automotive journalists since I was a boy first reading Ken Purdy’s prose and even the pedestrian-but-informative output of Floyd Clymer. I loved Brock Yates gonzo style and incisiveness, and David E. Davis’ intelligence, wit, and again…..STYLE led an entire generation of car guys to the promised land of “no boring cars”, and indeed, no boring stories. Charles Fox wrote about cars with a feeling of beauty in his words. Jean Shepherd wrote about everything, but when he wrote about automobiles, as he did for quite some time as a monthly columnist in Car and Driver, he brought the human spirit of warmth along with his incomparable humor to the subject, making cars much more than just machines. That’s what all these writers did with cars, and that is what makes them so special. Clarkson is almost like a distillation of all of these greats, IMO, into one very cranky, very funny, very irritating, yet a very ingratiating person who commands attention because he is so damned GOOD at what he does.
Why is Clarkson so important in the car world? Jalopnik explains:
The third biggest loser in this sad saga of Top Gear is the wider car media, and the business that surrounds it. Of course the first is the vast fan base that has followed the show for many years. The second, assuming the brand struggles to survive, is the team who work on it – and I can’t imagine how they feel right now. But sitting here it strikes me that so many people also engaged in this business of writing or making films about cars haven’t stopped to understand just what Top Gear did for all us ordinary folk. Nor what it did for the car industry in general.
Top Gear has acted like some vast, entirely free marketing service for all of us. I have always viewed it as the primary sales funnel for my videos, and the analytics support the theory: 350 million people watch the three boys doing their thing on a Sunday night and a very small percentage think they might want to know a bit more about the car featured that week, and so they type the car’s name into YouTube and they might just happen across one of our low-budget productions. A very small percentage of 350 million is still a very large number.
I’m like that little, nagging fish constantly nibbling a whale shark’s barnacles. I’m a TG parasite, and it’s worked bloody well for me up to now.
More importantly Jeremy, James and Richard have not just maintained the public’s love affair with the motor car, they’ve grown it – a feat I’d have thought impossible ten years ago in the face of political and environmental pressures. The conventional car print media – the one I have always been a part of – has failed in many ways with dwindling circulations and diminished influence, but its biggest crime is a total failure to connect with a younger audience. Thankfully for all of us, Top Gear’s role as compulsory Sunday night family viewing has excited a whole new generation of youngsters to not only be interested in cars, but to love cars. And for that I think it has already shaped the car industry as we currently know it, and how it will be in the future.
I suspect Clarkson and his colleagues will reappear elsewhere. Clarkson is the indispensable man of “Top Gear.” (The lack of him is why the U.S. “Top Gear” is severely lacking.)
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz announced this week (from Politico):
In an interview Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” the Texas senator told his TV hosts that he “grew up listening to classic rock” but that that soon changed.
“My music taste changed on 9/11,” Cruz said.
“I actually intellectually find this very curious, but on 9/11, I didn’t like how rock music responded,” he said. “And country music, collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me.” …
Cruz did not mention any specific country music that resonated with him or which rock artists did not respond well to the terror attacks.
“I had an emotional reaction that said, ‘These are my people,’” Cruz said. “So ever since 2001, I listen to country music.”
But it’s interesting nonetheless that Cruz now considers himself a country fan because country music is different than it used to be. And you can trace the change to right about that time. It has traditionally valued “authenticity” giving high praise to those who know how to keep their country real. It’s debatable as to how sincere that commitment has been but the musicians and the fans used to truly believe in the small town ethos, religion and patriotism which have always been fundamental to the genre.
There is a rebellious streak as well, some of it coming from an unlikely source for such a traditional form: women. Back in the 1960s when southern culture was resisting the changes wrought by the counter culture, singers like Loretta Lynn sang about being freed from non-stop pregnancies by the invention of the pill and Jeannie C. Reilly “socked it to” the uptight conservative hypocrites of the Harper Valley PTA. Ted Cruz is probably too young to even know about those songs, but I think we can be sure he wouldn’t approve of them even today. They displayed a shocking irreverence toward family values.
But if the transformed Cruz is a fan of the modern stuff it’s a good bet that a conservative fellow like him (albeit one who once refused to associate with anyone who didn’t go to an Ivy League college) is into what they call “bro-country.” (The dudes who sing those songs like to think of themselves as “outlaws” but their juvenile commercial tropes bear as much resemblance to the original country outlaws like Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash as they do to Mozart and Beethoven.) …
When country loving social conservatives like Cruz and Huckabee complain about violent rap lyrics or get upset about the sexual impropriety of pop music they either aren’t listening to modern country or they’re unaware that the traditional values many of “their people” are celebrating in song these days aren’t about family, God and and the red, white and blue. They’re about crude, drunken jerks treating women like whores. I suspect that’s not the image to which Senator Cruz was trying to relate when he confessed to converting to country at the age of 31.
This whole thing is silly, obviously. Ted Cruz’s musical tastes are only interesting to the extent they make him seem like a regular guy. But come on — nobody changes what music they like for political reasons. That pandering comment is so awkward and calculated it makes him sound like an automaton. In fact, it’s very hard to believe that Ted Cruz has any interest in music at all. The image that comes to mind when you see him isn’t some guy rocking out to the Stones or singing along to “The Angry American.” It’s Richard Nixon walking on the beach in his black socks and wing tips.
In addition to the obligatory slam of “bro-country,” the Salon writer threw in an obligatory mention of the Dixie Chicks, who announced in France that as Texans they were ashamed of George W. Bush. Which ended their careers in the country genre (and really as relevant music acts) not because they dissed Bush, but because they dissed all their soon-to-be-former country fans who voted for Bush.
In addition to ignoring rock music’s 9/11 responses such as Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising,” Neil Young’s “Let’s Roll” and the U2 Super Bowl show, Cruz’s statement comes off as inauthentic pandering. (I don’t support Cruz for president because I support no one either now or formerly in Congress. Governors should be the only people allowed to run for president for the foreseeable future.) There are certainly artists who write and perform music to express their political beliefs, whether or not they should. I doubt that many music fans listen to music based on adherence to their own political worldview. I haven’t been listening to more country based on anything other than how it sounds.
USA Today reports on the personality of the Wisconsin Badgers, who play North Carolina in the West Region semifinal tonight:
Whether it’s two-man passing drills or player-coach communication, there is a way of doing things within the basketball program under coach Bo Ryan that is as consistent as the state’s fall foliage. To Ryan, the old-school coach with a peach basket in his office, it may as well be 1985. The reason the regimen doesn’t change much? It works.
This year — as a seasoned team continues one of the most celebrated runs in program history — there is another calling card: Laughter. It may as well be the locker room soundtrack for a team that finds itself in its fourth Sweet 16 in five years.
“We can flip a switch,” senior Josh Gasser said. “It’s important to have fun. With this team especially, the looser we play, the better we are. … We are all goofballs. We are all kids, but we can still be adults and take care of business on the court.”If you’re looking for a stressed No. 1 seed buckling under the pressure of trying to reach a second consecutive Final Four, you’ve come to the wrong locker room. They may not be quite as free-spirited as the 2013 Florida Gulf Coast players — a No. 15 seed that laughed and dunked its way to the Sweet 16 — but good luck finding another Sweet 16 team this loose.
What distinguishes this Wisconsin team, which will play North Carolina in Thursday’s West Regional semifinals, from the 13 others under Ryan is not necessarily the talent or experience (and the Badgers are rich on both fronts). Assistant Lamont Paris says the difference is the blend of personalities that creates a unique mood — at specific times — in practice, film sessions or even on rare occasions during games.
This team can toggle from laser-focused to light-hearted and back to ultra-serious as easily as they execute a jump stop.
“That is a unique trait this team has,” Paris said. “Most teams cannot do that. For most teams, the water faucet is on or off. … It’s a looser climate overall.”
***
Even in the waning moments of Sunday’s victory against Oregon, with the outcome still in the balance, Sam Dekker managed a smile as one of the boys tasked with wiping the court had a small mishap.
Even in the locker room the day before the game, players roared in laughter as they spotted a media member they thought was a spitting image of Kaminsky. And there was sophomore Nigel Hayes — often the instigator of comedic shenanigans — tossing out challenging words — cattywampus, onomatopoeia and antidisestablishmentarianism — during the press conference to keep the NCAA site stenographer on her toes.
“I loved it,” Gasser said.
When characterizing the looser mood of the Badgers, Hayes uses the apt metaphor of a muscle. Much like the team’s intensity, a muscle cannot be flexed 24 hours a day, or it’s not pliable. It needs to relax at times, and when you do flex it, the muscle is potent.
“If you were to just sit and flex all your muscles,” Hayes said, “you’d just pass out or be lightheaded. Every now and then you need to let go and then, when you get on the court, flex again.”
This approach works for this Badgers team because, well, it works. Under the spotlight and scrutiny of March — and through the grind of a season that, frankly, will be judged on whether they can reach the Final Four in April — a little levity goes a long way.
“I’ve seen a lot of teams in this tournament so far just come in really tight,” Koenig said, “especially the higher seeds and with all these upsets. They are playing really tight. We do a really good job just playing loose.
This team has a little more leeway because of consistent results. The team has lost just three games all season, and only two with national player of the year candidate Kaminsky on the court. Paris said the team has not had consecutive games in which he has not felt good about the way they played.
When it comes to player-initiated levity, Paris said, “You can’t do it and play average basketball because then it is a hoax.” The light-heartedness happens “often enough, but not too often. If it’s happening too much then it’s a circus and loses its value. It happens when it needs to happen and only then.”
***
Players say the tone is set from the top. Film sessions are critical for constructive criticism; the tenor is serious. But occasionally, in an effort to keep things fresh and light, Ryan will remind players what can be lost amid the grind: This is fun.
On one occasion, Koenig said, Ryan showed a video clip of Kaminsky getting fouled and pouting. Ryan sneaked in a quick scene of “Napoleon Dynamite” because of similarities in the title character’s appearance with the 7-footer. Everyone erupted in laughter. Then, quickly back to the next teaching clip.
Against Minnesota earlier this season, Hayes says he slipped and went down on his knee, kept his dribble and scored. Ryan used the clip in film session, then stopped it and started playing Harlem Globetrotters music.
“People on our team understand situations really well,” Kaminsky said. “We know when to be really serious and to be hard on people. We know when to be light and when to take a step back and appreciate what we are doing. This is definitely one of the more interesting teams in the country because of the personalities and characters we have on the team. It’s so much fun.”
The biggest change can be seen during some teaching moments in practice. As players are getting scolded, possibly after consecutive turnovers, a player may break the silence with a question or perhaps even a carefully worded and placed light-hearted comment.
“These guys can get away with it just because of how their personalities are,” Paris said. “No one would even try it in the past … Then 45 seconds later we go back to playing intensely. They only play one way.”
Hayes says perhaps half-joking (it’s impossible to know) that the lighter climate is a credit to his sophomore class because they arrived with a mix of personalities. He said they weren’t the “uptight, keep-to-yourself type of guys and our personalities have definitely rubbed off throughout the whole team. We are a lot looser and have a lot more camaraderie.”
***
Players use a group app on their cell phones to send one another pictures, personal jabs and one-liners. Sometimes it ‘s personal, all the times it’s hilarious.
“We love to give each other crap,” Koenig said. “My roommate reads them and dies laughing. No filter. Nigel has more corny jokes to the media. Adults think he is funny. But I’m actually the funny one.”
No cliques on this team. Gasser says he will stay in the Kohl Center up to 12 hours a day hanging in the locker room or playing video games. There is no rush to go home.
The Badgers excel in many areas, including minimizing fouls and turnovers. Keeping quiet is not one of them.
Though the light atmosphere may have been in the embryonic stage last season, Hayes showed what was to come as a freshman when Ryan applauded Hayes for coming early to an early-season practice by saying “Good job, the early bird catches the worm.”
Hayes responded with, “Coach, do you know that the second mouse always gets the cheese?”
Looking back now, Ryan said, “I thought that was pretty good. I had never heard that one. He can tell you what a big group of geese are, he can tell you what a big group of sheep are. He has all those names they give to groups of animals and still has time to make the Dean’s List. That’s amazing.”Hayes says if they preface one player’s name with the word “uh”, it will trigger immediate laughter. The reason? Top secret.Players now have almost as many inside jokes as they do ways to attack defenses with the nation’s most efficient offense. Hayes calls sophomore Vitto Brown a storytelling maestro who can spin a compelling, if not embellished yarn as soon as he enters a room.
He said players will spontaneously strike a runner’s pose, as if ready to burst out of the starting block, for another personal joke. Another antic is attaching nonsensical accents to random words they come across.
“We make the words sound nothing like they are supposed to,” Hayes said. “Take ‘federal prison.’ Frank may walk in and say, ‘Feder-ah-ley Pri-zone.’ It may not be funny to anyone else. It’s really funny to us.”
If these cast of characters win four more games, it’s anyone’s guess how they’ll pronounce two other words: National champions. That remains the singular goal. And by laughing at times in pursuit of it, they believe their muscles will flex best when most needed.
“Don’t tell any other team that!” Hayes warned. “They may start doing it too, and play better.”
Before the Badgers’ round-of-32 game against Oregon, Hayes tested the stenographer in Omaha with a series of challenging words before answering a reporter’s question.
The moderator allowed him to do the same on Wednesday in Los Angeles, but Hayes was impressed with more than just her transcription abilities this time around.
Oops.
Those microphones pick up everything. Hayes’ reaction, along with teammates Sam Dekker and Frank Kaminsky, made the moment even funnier, too.
Some of this probably comes from Ryan, who, not trying to be funny, once interrupted a game by telling one of his assistants to make sure one of his players’ hair was cut before the next practice. Anyone who has heard Ryan’s news conferences and his habit of answering the question he wants to answer, which is not necessarily the question he’s asked, knows that he’s not the dour autocrat many coaches seem to be.
As you know, I was in the UW Marching Band for five years. Among other things, the UW Band has been known for its institutional sense of humor. That’s immediately noticeable at any public band appearance. (In Seattle, band members said, “Hey Seattle! Is that the Space Needle or are you just glad to see me?”) College humor (mostly of the you-had-to-be-there style) is what it is, but you have to have a slightly warped view of the world to present to the world 3/4-time, Chinese and Russian versions of “On Wisconsin.” One UW Band concert featured a spontaneous performance of Milli Vanilli, which of course involved no actual playing. (Think air trumpet.) And of course there was the final band concert for a senior, whose mother was noted by UW Band director Mike Leckrone as wearing a shirt that said “My son plays in the Wisconsin Band,” after which Leckrone said, “I hear he’s not very good.” (Rim shot.)
As a UW student I knew a few football and basketball players. I attended a couple of practices, and remember thinking at the time that being a college athlete didn’t seem very fun. (Independent of all the losses of the ’80s teams.) I had to be at the UW Fieldhouse for some reason one night, and the basketball team was there eating dinner. (Chicken, for those interested.) Not a word was said, and they all seemed to be rather grim. Certainly athletic teams have their own moments outside the public eye, and they were getting a paid-for education at a world-class university, but
Certainly athletic teams have their own moments outside the public eye, and they were getting a paid-for education at a world-class university, but no one seemed to be very happy to be there. In contrast, marching band practices opened with a drill that evolved into including the Bugs Bunny square dance song. And we definitely had more fun on the road trips (while being more successful) than the football team did.
Zero Hedge has bad news about Barack Obama’s Recovery in Name Only:
If you believe that ignorance is bliss, you might not want to read this article. I am going to dispel the notion that there has been any sort of “economic recovery”, and I am going to show that we are much worse off than we were just prior to the last economic crisis. …
For each of the charts that I am about to share with you, I want you to focus on the last shaded gray bar on each chart which represents the last recession. As you will see, our economic problems are significantly worse than they were just before the financial crisis of 2008. …
#1 The National Debt
Just prior to the last recession, the U.S. national debt was a bit above 9 trillion dollars. Since that time, it has nearly doubled. So does that make us better off or worse off? The answer, of course, is obvious. And even though Barack Obama promises that “deficits are under control”, more than a trillion dollars was added to the national debt in fiscal year 2014. What we are doing to future generations by burdening them with so much debt is beyond criminal. And so what does Barack Obama want to do now? He wants to ramp up government spending and increase the debt even faster. …
#2 Total Debt
… Back in 1975, our total debt level was sitting at about 2.5 trillion dollars. Just prior to the last recession, it was sitting at about 50 trillion dollars, and today we are rapidly closing in on 60 trillion dollars.
#3 The Velocity Of Money
When an economy is healthy, money tends to change hands and circulate through the system quite rapidly. So it makes sense that the velocity of money fell dramatically during the last recession. But why has it kept going down since then?
#4 The Homeownership Rate
Were you aware that the rate of homeownership in the United States has fallen to a 20 year low? Traditionally, owning a home has been a sign that you belong to the middle class. And the last recession was really rough on the middle class, so it makes sense that the rate of homeownership declined during that time frame. But why has it continued to steadily decline ever since?
#5 The Employment Rate
… Just prior to the last recession, approximately 63 percent of the working age population of the United States was employed. During the recession, this ratio fell to below 59 percent and it stayed there for several years. Just recently it has peeked back above 59 percent, but we are still very, very far from where we used to be, and now the next economic downturn is rapidly approaching.
#6 The Labor Force Participation Rate
So how can Obama get away with saying that the unemployment rate has gone down dramatically? Well, each month the government takes thousands upon thousands of long-term unemployed workers and decides that they have been unemployed for so long that they no longer qualify as “part of the labor force”. As a result, the “labor force participation rate” has fallen substantially since the end of the last recession…
#7 The Inactivity Rate For Men In Their Prime Working Years
If things are “getting better”, then why are so many men in their prime working years doing nothing at all? Just prior to the last recession, the inactivity rate for men in their prime working years was about 9 percent. Today it is just about 12 percent.
#8 Real Median Household Income
Not only is a smaller percentage of Americans employed today than compared to just prior to the last recession, the quality of our jobs has gone down as well. This is one of the factors which has resulted in a stunning decline of real median household income.
I have shared these next numbers before, but they bear repeating. In America today, most Americans do not make enough to support a middle class lifestyle on a single salary. The following figures come directly from the Social Security Administration…
-39 percent of American workers make less than $20,000 a year.
-52 percent of American workers make less than $30,000 a year.
-63 percent of American workers make less than $40,000 a year.
-72 percent of American workers make less than $50,000 a year.
We all know people that are working part-time jobs because that is all that they can find in this economy. As the quality of our jobs continues to deteriorate, the numbers above are going to become even more dismal.
#9 Inflation
Even as our incomes have stagnated, the cost of living just continues to rise steadily. For example, the cost of food and beverages has gone up nearly 50 percent just since the year 2000.
#10 Government Dependence
As the middle class shrinks and the number of Americans that cannot independently take care of themselves soars, dependence on the government is reaching unprecedented heights. For instance, the federal government is now spending about twice as much on food stamps as it was just prior to the last recession. How in the world can anyone dare to call this an “economic recovery”?
So you tell me – are things “getting better” or are they getting worse?
On Friday shortly after 8 a.m., I will be on Wisconsin Public Radio for the Joy Cardin Show Week in Review.
Wisconsin Public Radio’s Ideas Network can be heard on WHA (970 AM) in Madison, WLBL (930 AM) in Auburndale, WHID (88.1 FM) in Green Bay, WHWC (88.3 FM) in Menomonie, WRFW (88.7 FM) in River Falls, WEPS (88.9 FM) in Elgin, Ill., WHAA (89.1 FM) in Adams, WHBM (90.3 FM) in Park Falls, WHLA (90.3 FM) in La Crosse, WRST (90.3 FM) in Oshkosh, WHAD (90.7 FM) in Delafield, W215AQ (90.9 FM) in Middleton, KUWS (91.3 FM) in Superior, WHHI (91.3 FM) in Highland, WSHS (91.7 FM) in Sheboygan, WHDI (91.9 FM) in Sister Bay, WLBL (91.9 FM) in Wausau, W275AF (102.9 FM) in Ashland, W300BM (107.9 FM) in Madison, and of course online at www.wpr.org.
I suppose this is the result of having run out of basketball to announce.
The number one British single today in 1956 is an oxymoron, or describes an oxymoron:
Today in 1965, Rolling Stones Mick Jagger, Brian Jones and Bill Wyman were all shocked by a faulty microphone at a concert in Denmark. Wyman was knocked unconscious for several minutes.
For some reason, I am seeing a number of treatises on the management and leadership style of the original and best Star Trek captain, the original James T. Kirk.
Kirk, as visualized by Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry (as opposed to his portrayal in the two remakes), combined elements of C.S. Forester’s British Navy captain Horatio Hornblower and John Adams, the captain of the spaceship in the 1956 film “Forbidden Planet.”
On the other hand, does this description of Hornblower, from the always-accurate Wikipedia, sound like Kirk?
Described as “unhappy and lonely”, Hornblower is courageous, intelligent and a skilled seaman; but he is also burdened by his intense reserve, introspection and self-doubt. Despite numerous personal feats of extraordinary skill and cunning, he belittles his achievements by numerous rationalizations, remembering only his fears. He consistently ignores or is unaware of the admiration with which he is held by his fellow sailors. He regards himself as cowardly, dishonest, and, at times, disloyal—never crediting his ability to persevere, think rapidly, organize or cut to the heart of a matter. His sense of duty, hard work, and drive to succeed make these imagined negative characteristics undetectable by everyone but him, and being introspective, he obsesses over petty failures to reinforce his poor self-image. His introverted nature continually isolates him from the people around him, including his closest friend, William Bush, and his wives never fully understand him. He is guarded with nearly everyone, unless the matter is the business of discharging his duty as a King’s officer, in which case he is clear and decisive.
Hornblower possesses a hyper-developed sense of duty, though on occasion he is able to set it aside; for example, in Hornblower and the Hotspur, he contrives an escape for his personal steward, who would otherwise have to be hanged for striking a superior officer. He is philosophically opposed to flogging and capital punishment, and is pained when circumstances or the Articles of War force him to impose such sentences.
He suffers from chronic seasickness, especially at the start of his voyages. As a midshipman, he was once sick at the sheltered roadstead of Spithead. His embarrassment haunts him throughout his career. He is tone-deaf and finds music an incomprehensible irritant (in a scene in Hotspur he is unable to recognize the British national anthem).
A voracious reader, he can discourse on both contemporary and classical literature. His skill at mathematics makes him both an adept navigator and an extremely talented whist player. He uses his ability at whist to supplement his income during a period of inactivity in the naval service.
This doesn’t sound that much like the Hornblower Gregory Peck portrayed in the movie, nor does it sound that much like the British TV Hornblower. (Both were excellent.) I have not read the Hornblower novels (and I probably should), so I cannot speak to Wikipedia’s veracity here.
I can see Kirk doing something like this:
FIRST OFFICER BUSH: Captain doesn’t comprend English.
HORNBLOWER (after speaking to the captain in French and getting no response): He doesn’t seem to understand French either, Mr. Bush.
BUSH: Shall I flog it out of him, sir?
HORNBLOWER: No, I don’t consort brutality, Mr. Bush. Just take him up on deck, chop off his head, and give his body to the cook.
BUSH: Aye aye, sir.
CAPTAIN: No, no, capitan, no. I am only a poor man. I care not about Napoleon. I’ll tell you what you want to know.
HORNBLOWER: That’s better. Now that we’ve overcome the barrier of language …
Kirk sounds more like another British sea captain created four years later, Patrick O’Brian’s Jack Aubrey, at least to Occam’s Razor:
As you might expect both Hornblower and Aubrey were written as brilliantly strategic fighting captains who frequently won fearsome battles against superior forces. In temperament though, they could hardly be more different. Captain Horatio Hornblower was remote and insular, very much a “stiff upper lip” type. He was both deeply private and deeply conflicted. He carried around with him a lot of hidden baggage and rigorously masked his inferiority complex. As Forester depicts him, Hornblower was certainly respected by his men, although it is hard to understand why. A captain that shuts himself up in his cabin, does not confide in his officers and trusts only his own judgment is not usually successful officer material. Hornblower was anxious to be perceived as brave and wholly unperturbed even though inside he continually fought cowardice. I have to wonder if Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry modeled Spock after Hornblower, rather than Kirk. Kirk is more like Jack Aubrey.
Captain Jack Aubrey, on the other hand, was gregarious and popular with his men. His relationship with Steven Maturin was rewarding and helped him grow as a person. Unlike Hornblower, who could not allow his imperfections to be witnessed by his men, Aubrey knew when to let his guard down. When off the ship his behavior could be reckless. Unlike Hornblower, who was typically unlucky when it came to prize money, “Lucky Jack” kept his pockets and the pockets of his crew flush with their share of captured possessions, and could squander much of his fortune on land.
It is pure speculation of course, but I sometimes wonder if Hornblower and Aubrey were on opposite sides fighting each other, who would be the victor? My guess is that in the end Aubrey would win. He would win because he related to every member of his crew. They fought for him because they genuinely identified with him, and he earned their genuine respect and loyalty. Hornblower certainly had a soft side but he found it difficult to show it. Above all else he felt he had to project the image of an ideal captain, even at the cost of his own well being. If he lived today, Hornblower would need to spend many years with a good psychotherapist. At its root, his bravado was a mask, as he ashamedly admits to himself. He just did not know how to escape his own identity crisis. Instead he concentrated on adding to his own mystique. It is not even clear if he ever completely bared his soul to his great love and ultimate wife, the Lady Barbara Wellesley. Aubrey, on the other hand, was dopily devoted and emotionally expressive with his wife Sophie. Hornblower barely interacted with his children. If he did it was in a stiff and Puritan-like manner. Aubrey delighted in his children and was engaged in their lives when he was on shore.
There was one movie, “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the Ocean,” that was supposed to start an Aubrey series. It didn’t get past the first film, which is a great loss for fans of adventure.
I can certainly see Kirk doing this too:
AUBREY: Do you see those two weevils, Doctor?
MATURIN: I do.
AUBREY: Which would you choose?
MATURIN: Neither. There’s no difference between them. They’re the same species of curculio.
AUBREY: If you had to choose. If you were forced to make a choice. If there was no other…
MATURIN: Well then, if you’re going to push me … I would choose the right-hand weevil. It has significant advantage in both length and breadth.
AUBREY (pounds table): There, I have you! You’re completely dished. Do you not know that in the service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
(Rim shot.)
So what can we 21st-century humans learn from 23rd-century Kirk? Glad you asked!
“You know the greatest danger facing us is ourselves, an irrational fear of the unknown. But there’s no such thing as the unknown– only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.”
Captain Kirk may have a reputation as a suave ladies man, but don’t let that exterior cool fool you. Kirk’s reputation at the Academy was that of a “walking stack of books,” in the words of his former first officer, Gary Mitchell. And a passion for learning helped him through several missions. Perhaps the best demonstration of this is in the episode “Arena,” where Kirk is forced to fight a Gorn Captain in single combat by advanced beings. Using his own knowledge and materials at hand, Kirk is able to build a rudimentary shotgun, which he uses to defeat the Gorn.
If you think about it, there’s no need for a 23rd Century Starship Captain to know how to mix and prepare gunpowder if the occasion called for it. After all, Starfleet officers fight with phasers and photon torpedoes. To them, gunpowder is obsolete. But the same drive for knowledge that drove Kirk to the stars also caused him to learn that bit of information, and it paid off several years later.
In the same way, no matter what your organization does, it helps to never stop learning. The more knowledge you have, the more creative you can be. The more you’re able to do, the more solutions you have for problems at your disposal. …
2. Have Advisors With Different Worldviews
“One of the advantages of being a captain, Doctor, is being able to ask for advice without necessarily having to take it.”
Kirk’s closest two advisors are Commander Spock, a Vulcan committed to a philosophy of logic, and Dr. Leonard McCoy, a human driven by compassion and scientific curiosity. Both Spock and McCoy are frequently at odds with each other, recommended different courses of action and bringing very different types of arguments to bear in defense of those points of view. Kirk sometimes goes with one, or the other, or sometimes takes their advice as a springboard to developing an entirely different course of action.
However, the very fact that Kirk has advisors who have a different worldview not only from each other, but also from himself, is a clear demonstration of Kirk’s confidence in himself as a leader. Weak leaders surround themselves with yes men who are afraid to argue with them. That fosters an organizational culture that stifles creativity and innovation, and leaves members of the organization afraid to speak up. That can leave the organization unable to solve problems or change course. Historically, this has led to some serious disasters, such as Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. …
3. Be Part Of The Away Team
“Risk is our business. That’s what this starship is all about. That’s why we’re aboard her.”
Whenever an interesting or challenging mission came up, Kirk was always willing to put himself in harm’s way by joining the Away Team. With his boots on the ground, he was always able to make quick assessments of the situation, leading to superior results. At least, superior for everyone with a name and not wearing a red shirt. Kirk was very much a hands-on leader, leading the vanguard of his crew as they explored interesting and dangerous situations.
When you’re in a leadership role, it’s sometimes easy to let yourself get away from leading Away Team missions. After all, with leadership comes perks, right? You get the nice office on the higher floor. You finally get an assistant to help you with day to day activities, and your days are filled with meetings and decisions to be made, And many of these things are absolutely necessary. But it’s sometimes easy to trap yourself in the corner office and forget what life is like on the front lines. When you lose that perspective, it’s that much harder to understand what your team is doing, and the best way to get out of the problem. What’s more, when you’re not involved with your team, it’s easy to lose their trust and have them gripe about how they don’t understand what the job is like.
This is a lesson that was actually imprinted on me in one of my first jobs, making pizzas for a franchise that doesn’t exist anymore. Our general manager spent a lot of time in his office, focused on the paperwork and making sure that we could stay afloat on the razor-thin margins we were running. But one thing he made sure to do, every day, was to come out during peak times and help make pizza. He didn’t have to do that, but he did. The fact that he did so made me like him a lot more. It also meant that I trusted his decisions a lot more. In much the same way, I’m sure, as Kirk’s crew trusted his decisions, because he knew the risks of command personally.
4. Play Poker, Not Chess
“Not chess, Mr. Spock. Poker. Do you know the game?”
In one of my all-time favorite Star Trek episodes, Kirk and his crew face down an unknown vessel from a group calling themselves the “First Federation.” Threats from the vessel escalate until it seems that the destruction of the Enterprise is imminent. Kirk asks Spock for options, who replies that the Enterprise has been playing a game of chess, and now there are no winning moves left. Kirk counters that they shouldn’t play chess – they should play poker. He then bluffs the ship by telling them that the Enterprise has a substance in its hull called “corbomite” which will reflect the energy of any weapon back against an attacker. This begins a series of actions that enables the Enterprise crew to establish peaceful relations with the First Federation.
I love chess as much as the next geek, but chess is often taken too seriously as a metaphor for leadership strategy. For all of its intricacies, chess is a game of defined rules that can be mathematically determined. It’s ultimately a game of boxes and limitations. A far better analogy to strategy is poker, not chess. Life is a game of probabilities, not defined rules. And often understanding your opponents is a much greater advantage than the cards you have in your hand. It was knowledge of his opponent that allowed Kirk to defeat Khan in Star Trek II by exploiting Khan’s two-dimensional thinking. Bluffs, tells, and bets are all a big part of real-life strategy. Playing that strategy with an eye to the psychology of our competitors, not just the rules and circumstances of the game can often lead to better outcomes than following the rigid lines of chess.
5. Blow up the Enterprise
“‘All I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by.’ You could feel the wind at your back in those days. The sounds of the sea beneath you, and even if you take away the wind and the water it’s still the same. The ship is yours. You can feel her. And the stars are still there, Bones.”
One recurring theme in the original Star Trek series is that Kirk’s first love is the Enterprise. That love kept him from succumbing to the mind-controlling spores in “This Side of Paradise,” and it’s hinted that his love for the ship kept him from forming any real relationships or starting a family. Despite that love, though, there came a point in Star Trek III: The Search For Spock, where Captain Kirk made a decision that must have pained him enormously – in order to defeat the Klingons attacking him and save his crew, James Kirk destroyed the Enterprise. The occasion, in the film, was treated with the solemnity of a funeral, which no doubt matched Kirk’s mood. The film ends with the crew returning to Vulcan on a stolen Klingon vessel, rather than the Enterprise. But they returned victorious.
We are often, in our roles as leaders, driven by a passion. It might be a product or service, it might be a way of doing things. But no matter how much that passion burns within us, the reality is that times change. Different products are created. Different ways of doing things are developed. And there will come times in your life when that passion isn’t viable anymore. A time when it no longer makes sense to pursue your passion. When that happens, no matter how painful it is, you need to blow up the Enterprise. That is, change what isn’t working and embark on a new path, even if that means having to live in a Klingon ship for awhile.
Kit Eaton provides Kirk quotes (and we all would always do and say the right thing if we had scriptwriters, right?):
Be a Leader
“The man on top walks a lonely street; the ‘chain’ of command is often a noose.” -Capt. James Tiberius Kirk
“One of the advantages of being Captain is being able to ask for advice without necessarily having to take it.” -Kirk
Taunt Your Rival
“Khan. Khan, you’ve got Genesis. But you don’t have me! You’re going to kill me Khan, you’re going to have to come down here. You’re going to have to come down here.” -Kirk
Allow Subordinates to Speak Freely
“If I may be so bold, it was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first, best, destiny. Anything else is a waste of material.” -Spock, to Kirk
Set Realistic Goals “Not one hundred percent efficient, of course…but nothing ever is.” -Kirk
“Genius doesn’t work on an assembly line basis. You can’t simply say, ‘Today I will be brilliant.’” -Kirk
Meetings
“A meeting is an event where minutes are taken and hours wasted.” -Kirk
Intuition
“Intuition, however illogical, is recognized as a command prerogative.” -Kirk
Creativity
“Without freedom of choice there is no creativity” -Kirk
As Kirk says in ‘Whom Gods Destroy,’ “If it happens to me, it happens to you.”Every day we face situations that seem hopeless. But then again, think original and think fresh, and victory will be yours as Captain Kirk turns a no-win situation into a win in the Kobayashi Maru scenario becoming the only cadet to do so.
2. Never fear. You can always outwit fear.
Encountering hundreds of different obstacles aboard the USS Enterprise, Captain Kirk never falls prey to fear. Instead apprehension is taken over by admiration of the difficult situation by Kirk. Admire, assess and decide on the outcome seems to be the mantra that helps the captain throughout his career.
3. Never say never to confrontation!
Value a difference of opinion. But, never let it come in the way of demeaning your own opinion especially when others try to bully you into accepting their views. As Kirk says in ‘Star Trek: The Original Series’ – “There are certain things, men must do to remain men”.
4. Take the lead.
Waiting for things to fall into place will never take you anywhere. Anticipate difficulties, but never stay behind believing that you can’t succeed. Course-correction en route to achieving your goal is always possible. No wonder that Captain Kirk manages to jump into action first and then wriggles out of even the most difficult situations. “Intuition, however illogical, is recognized as a command prerogative,” to quote Kirk.
5. Listen to others, but you are the boss.
While Captain Kirk doesn’t mind taking advice from Spock and McCoy, he always takes the final call. As Kirk puts it – “One of the advantages of being a captain is being able to ask for advice without necessarily having to take it”. There are ways to find better solutions by yourself than the advice doled out to you. You are the boss. Don’t feel guilty of ignoring advice! You are the boss. Don’t feel guilty of ignoring advice!
Before “Whom Gods Destroy,” there was “A Taste of Armageddon,” where Kirk forces two warring planets to end their war by invoking General Order 24:
KIRK: Scotty, General Order Twenty Four. Two hours! In two hours!
ANAN: Enterprise, this is Anan Seven, First Councilman of the High Council of Eminiar. We hold your Captain, his party, your Ambassador and his party prisoners. Unless you immediately start transportation of all personnel aboard your ship to the surface, the hostages will be killed. You have thirty minutes. I mean it, Captain.
KIRK: All that it means is that I won’t be around for the destruction. You heard me give General Order Twenty Four. That means in two hours the Enterprise will destroy Eminiar Seven.
ANAN: Planetary defence System, open fire on the Enterprise!
SECURITY: I’m sorry, Councilman. The target has moved out of range.
ANAN: You wouldn’t do this. Hundreds of millions of people.
KIRK: I didn’t start it, Councilman, but I’m liable to finish it.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 