A personal trail of synchronicity

Success, At What Cost: Part 3.2

Would it have been unethical and uninspiring for Kearns to take Ford’s $30 million settlement offer, for the sake of his family’s emotional and mental health? (Heck, even financial wellness—he had six kids and both spouses were teachers!) Absolutely not. I think his family and community would have empathized. Was his wife and children too selfish to understand? Not at all. As you watch the film, you’ll notice he seemed to have more of a desire for individual greatness, than even familial legacy. There was room for both, but his Success Scale was uneven. (Hit the 100 limit again!)

Speaking of balance, would communicating to his family that his work-life distribution would be dramatically skewed have made a difference? Most definitely. It would have opened the floor to proactive dialogue, versus reactionary complaints of him being just an engineer and not a husband nor father. Interestingly enough, he involved his entirely family in the invention process, from prototype to patent. Those scenes were warm with love. His passion for engineering brought his family together, but it also drove them away (at least for 12 years). I think it was because his passion morphed into something a bit more self-centered than family-oriented. I believe when you become a spouse and parent, the priorities change (says the bachelor who is trying to sum up complex issues in 100 words). Nothing is wrong with the relentless grind. But when that grind starts to negatively impact the ones you love (not the naysayers or those insecure relatives who jealously doubt you, but those you are actually in your corner and would die with you for your cause)—once your grind alienates you from your core support, it’s time to reevaluate what’s actually going on. Isolation from everyone as a husband, wife, father, mother is not impossible—but you better be very sure that this is what should be happening. And such isolation for the relentless grind is probably just adapted to your new lifestyle as a mate and guardian. But then again, what about those enlisted in the marines, army, navy, air force, etc.? Hm..


Success, At What Cost: Part 3.1

In the biopic Flash of Genius, inventor Robert Kearns fights against Ford Motors to protect his intermittent wipers invention and, more importantly, his name. If it were going to keep his family together, would it have been unethical and uninspiring for Kearns to take Ford’s $30 million settlement offer, but never hear them officially say they were wrong? Was his wife and children too selfish to understand the gravity and influence of his legal endeavor? Was it just a matter of work-life balance and his failure to communicate that the “work” side of the scale would be heavily weighted for the next decade?

*I’ve reached the 100-word limit. I’ll try and answer these questions tomorrow. Maybe between now and then, I can come up with deeper inquiries that will encourage a deeper level of critical thinking. Sheesh, this is harder than I thought!

Success, At What Cost: Part 2

How far do you go to fulfill individual success, when you’re married with children? I’m not talking about becoming an entrepreneur when you only have 6 months savings in the bank or no emergency cash at all, as you rely solely on your spouse’s income (which may be stressful enough). I mean you deciding to be a stockbroker, subsequently making your family homeless (The Pursuit of Happyness). Or spending 12 years fighting a corporate automotive giant and estranging yourself from your family (Flash of Genius). I’ll be using these biopic movies to explore this idea of the relentless grind.

Success, At What Cost?

Pursue your dreams, no matter the cost. I used to think this was relevant for every individual on the face of the earth. But what about those who are married? Do you still pursue personal endeavors at the risk of breaking up your family? Are spouses who decide to walk out on their visionary half too weak and incapable of seeing the bigger picture of success? Are their ambitious counterparts who are willing to risk their marriages too selfish to see the bigger picture of self-sacrifice for the sake of unity? Is there personal grind self-sacrificial? More soon.

Oscars So White: Part 2

There are about 6,000 Academy voting members. 97% of the voting power belong to white males in their 60s. While this may seem like a microcosm of our U.S. voting population, I think nominations are more than a racial issue. We rightfully vilify the uneven voting population, but what about who influences the votes? Radheyan Simonpillai reveals five compelling criteria for winning an Oscars:

  • Star power (likability)
  • Campaigning (money)
  • Preliminary Awards (credibility)
  • Screeners (reinforcement)
  • Timing (awareness)

Sounds more like sales and marketing than anything. Does this mean whites are just more likable, rich, influential, assertive and punctual? Rhetorical…not rhetorical.

*Parenthetical word summaries (likability, etc.) added by me. But seriously, are they just better marketers? And who’s to say their marketers aren’t more racially diverse than the voting population they target? What if they just know how to connect with the white population more effectively. Minorities didn’t get President Obama into office—whites did. The majority of the U.S. voting population is still white, just like the Academy. However, Obama’s campaign used more efffective marketing (i.e., social media) than his other white counterparts. Presidential elections is about money. Seems like that money is surrounded by sales and marketing. Just like the Oscars.

Oscars So White: Part 1

Probably to be discussed in detail in the future. I suppose if money wins presidential elections, our greenbacks can also secure entertainment nominations and awards.

Money Wins Elections

I’m not a political science nerd, but I enjoyed watching The West Wing, The Practice, even Boston Legal. Perry Mason could get it too. *Aaron Sorkin (West Wing writer) did for the White House ecosystem what Shondra Rhines did for the hospital MD culture—enlightened the simple-minded and made us emotionally invested in a complex environment. I have no idea what’s specifically happening in our political climate right now, but for some reason it feels like the Republican Party doesn’t either. Choose somebody already. Battle Hillary. And may the most money win. After all, money wins elections. Google it.

*Sorkin and Rhimes also bailed out on their darling shows, which significantly impacted how that complex world of law, medicine and relationships were intricately portrayed. Why do they do this to us? We not only fall in love with the show, but inevitably the writers of them. I suppose it’s the same when someone gets elected into office and falls through on their campaign promises or when your primary care doctor sends in their aide to handle the “light work.” Is our government one giant screenplay? If so, I wonder who’s writing the script now. Hm.