Author Archives: Jer Clifton

About Jer Clifton

Unknown's avatar
Look up, friend. The world is too beautiful for my eyes alone.

Ron Paul & Republican Reluctance

It looks like Ron Paul is running for President again.  Why not?  There is no way he can actually get elected, so round #2 is another campaign of ideas hoping to repeat and strengthen the success of round #1.

But if your goal is actually to get elected, and you happen to be a Republican, 2012 might be a bad year for presidential campaigning.  Ron Paul notes this point, and it is one I have been thinking about for a while: where are the Republicans?  This time last election cycle we had several major names who had already thrown their hats in.  I think Republicans are wary because even if they get the nomination, I think it is highly unlikely that anyone beats Obama in 2012.  Here’s my 2 main reasons:

1) The economy is doing better.  This point cannot be overstated.  If the economy does better, Tea Partiers are less excited; there are fewer angry people with time on their hands (not that Tea Partiers are all just a bunch of angry people with time on their hands [but not entirely unlike that either]).  If we are on the upswing, people won’t want to mess with that.

2) Obama’s polls don’t reflect his electability.  I would say that there are a good 20% of Democrats, probably more like 30%, that are disgusted with Obama.  They might “disapprove” in polls, but when it comes around time to vote they sure aren’t going to vote for anyone further right.  The truth is that Obama remains a centrist in many ways, and continues to have broad appeal.

Also, keep an eye on Texas this election cycle.  It has always been solidly red, but it’s getting less.  If a Democrat can win Texas while hanging onto California, the two electoral juggernauts, there’s no way they lose.  Why am I talking about this?  Texas picked up 4 electoral votes in the last census, and 89% of the population increase was minority growth, mostly in the hispanic community, which voted 63 to 35 for Obama in 2008.  Now, Mccain won the state by 11 percentage points in 2008, so there is still a long way to go.  Also, there is the question of getting them out to vote.  However, if it becomes competitive, if a Republican presidential nominee has to spend time campaigning there, that will be interesting.  More interesting: if Republicans nominate a northern, business-savy, slick-haired Mormon, or someone else equally un-Texan, we could have a Democratic realignment.

BTW, I’m giving up on Ayn Rand having become thoroughly disenchanted after about 7 hours of listening to her life and ideas.  More to come on that later.

BTW, I got a temp job at Habitat for Humanity until the end of June.  Woohoo!   But that might mean less blogging.


A Stutterer’s Take on the King’s Speech

Many of my friends have asked me, as a stutterer, what I think of the King’s Speech.  I watched it tonight with Alicia, and I have a couple of thoughts worth sharing and a few that are not (I apologize for the length).  However, I feel strongly that, because of the great multitude and degree of stuttering problems, different stutterers will respond to the film differently.  So I do not pretend to speak for all stutterers.

A bit about my situation: my own speech impediment used to be much more severe and, after all, just last week I gave a few reasonably coherent on-air interviews.  However, for those who watched those interviews, you may not have noticed that nearly every word is a struggle.  I am constantly flipping through a thesaurus in my brain, trying to say words and phrases in different ways.  I play rhythm games, and I’ll tap my thigh, my chest, etc.  I’ll rap four words in a row and change up the rhythms as to avoid notice.  My pauses are often forced errors in the middle of phrases, and I’ll finish the thought on the upbeat of the next rhythm I can create (in the 4 minute F&F interview for instance, I did this maybe 6 times, most noticeably between “each” and “other” two times in a row towards the end).  I’ll hold onto vowel sounds for longer than normal.  Fun aside: by just spending too much time with me, a few folks, maybe 15 over the course of my life, have found themselves exhibiting some of my speech patterns.

Almost everyday there is some blooper related to my speech.  Today, for instance, I was talking to two people, and they thought I was making a joke when I stuttered on the word “planning,” and they laughed nervously.  About a month ago I failed to get a job because I could not read a simple prompt.  In fact, for years now, I have broken down and cried irrationally about once a month through sheer pent up frustration, usually in response to one of these awkward incidents.  Alicia and I call it my PMS.

I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad for me.  We all have issues.  My point is that even if my stuttering does not come across as that bad, even if I am usually able to speak coherently with minimal problems, I am still thoroughly a stutterer, and to not see that, and my frustration with it, is to not understand me as a person.  It has done much to form who I am.

As the film shows quite well, stuttering is extremely frustrating.  It’s imprisoning.  (I thank God that I have the outlet of writing.  It is the one place where I can express myself in such a way that I truly forget that I have any sort of communicative impediment.)  The frustration definitely affects our behavior and our inner personalities. Therefore, I think stutterers are actually really bad film critics for this movie, because we want to feel understood first and foremost.  You can’t be a good critic if you are also seeing the art as a form of therapy and concurrently worried about its accuracy.  But on to the film:

  1. What helped Bertie’s speech impediment seemed odd to me.  My speech is the most fluent when I am not being judged on my speech as much as the quality of my ideas.  This is why I find myself good at speeches and bad at speech class.  Bertie, on the other hand, seemed to improve by divorcing himself from the ideas he was trying to say and focusing exclusively on the sounds themselves.
  2. I can relate heartily with how Bertie resisted attempts by those that he loved to fix him.  My mom for years tried to get me to try this and that, and many doctors promised what they didn’t deliver.  It becomes frustrating.  One nice thing (probably the only one) about other disabilities, like a missing arm or something, is that people aren’t assuming that if you talk about your deep fears and earliest memories your arm will grow back.  Stuttering’s quasi-fixability is exasperating.  As for me, I’ve mostly given up on fixing it.  However, I can give speeches with my stutter and function pretty well, so I can afford the luxury of defeat.
  3. I related to how embarrassed people feel for you, averting their eyes when you are stuttering.  This makes us not want to talk at all.  If I hate it, and you hate it, then I’ll do us all a favor and keep my ideas to myself.  However, in a strange way,
    my stuttering sometimes helps me in speeches.  People think I have something important to say if I am willing to risk looking like an idiot.  Also, in the same way that you cannot be bored when someone is crying on stage or making a fool of himself, when I am on stage it is hard not to pay attention to the high wire act I put myself through.  Also, my speech is often just bad enough to be a noticeable disability, but not so bad that it is overly inconvenient.  People, me included, like to be nice to people with disabilities if it’s not too much hassle.  In fact, I’ve observed at times that people will walk away from conversations with me feeling good about themselves for being a patient, caring person.  It’s a strange dynamic.
  4. “Keeping it real” and informal is one of the most helpful things I can do to decrease my likelihood of stuttering (the FUCK-FUCK-FUCK method is one I’m excited to try).  I am a very informal person, and it’s not just because I don’t like the arbitrary irrationality of pomp.  I can see how, as a king, keeping things chill-lax would be very hard to do, and that would make your speech much worse.
  5. I was appalled at how badly people in his family treated him.  “Just say it” is one of the stupidest things you can say.  Runners-up include “just relax” and of course people finishing your sentence for you.
  6. The king’s stutter was not at all like mine, and seemed fake to me, but I do not have a lot of exposure to stutterers.  In fact, when I come across other stutterers, their stutters often seem fake.  I can see how people who do not stutter at all look at a stutterer and wonder what in the world they are doing and that they must be doing it on purpose.
  7. I am glad the film raised awareness of the issue.  I am amazed at how many people remain ignorant about it, including service people.  However, virtually nobody has made fun of me for my speech knowing that I genuinely had a stuttering problem.  For me, meanness is usually just ignorance.  In fact, after someone laughs or makes a joke about my stuttering, I usually cringe for their sake, because now I have to tell them, and they are going to feel like a jerk.
  8. Stuttering is deeply associated with stupidity and/or mental frailty of some sort.  I got annoyed that Bertie did not break the stereotype with his brilliance.  He is portrayed as a normal person with average intelligence, I guess, but I was wanting him to turn out to be brilliant.  But again, this is also my own issue.
  9. As a lover of history, I actually became more interested in the content of his final speech instead of his experience speaking it.  Ultimately, a stutter is a boring thing and not that difficult of a difficulty.  Europe was descending into war for a second time.  I found myself just listening to what the king was saying and thinking about how alone the British were (America would not enter the war for a while of course).  They must have been thinking, “Is this really happening to us again?  Seriously?”

Ultimately, I am a lover of content, of ideas.  I don’t really care about stuttering, accents, grammar, punctuation, or capitalization.  I want to understand the speaker’s thoughts, and I want others to return the favor by stretching past my own interminable disfluency and seeing my ideas more polished and more brilliant than my presentation could ever make them.  I imagine that though my words and I might be frustrated, or even imprisoned, by a speech impediment (or melodrama), my ideas are not.

Clearly, I am not the guy you want as a film critic for this one.  It all was a little too personal and uncomfortable.  And they did not even show the worst parts: when he is stuttering heavily in front of people, this happened maybe 3 or 4 times, they just ended the scene instead of showing it.  But the worst part is when you completely give up and step down.  I’ve done that in the middle of stories and jokes with my friends and in class a couple times.  It gets real quiet.  Nobody knows what to do.  I suppose it makes for bad television.

I am impressed that Hollywood pulled off a successful movie about a stutterer in the first place.  However, in order to make this a good movie, his stutter had to never get in the way of what the film-watching audience wanted to hear or needed to hear in order to advance the story.  For example, at the beginning, the film-watching audience does not care what he is trying to say to the crowd.  They are only sympathizing with how badly he is struggling in saying it.  But of course, in reality, stuttering is very inconvenient, and the real audience often desperately wants to, and even needs to, understand what is being said.  But that, of course, would make for an awful movie.

So, I don’t think I’m going to watch it again, but I’m happy people are seeing it and it is raising awareness.  If you have not seen it, you should.


Venetian Money Stuff

Today, money is super easy to use in part because the money itself has no value.  It’s just paper and copper or nickel.  For most of human history, including Venetian history, money had intrinsic value and this made transactions very annoying.  Merchants had to be experts in weighing and measuring gold and silver, they had to understand alloys, and they had to carry around apparatus for doing these tests, and they had to perform them at every transaction.  In fact, assessing the value and worth of money was such an art that a whole industry cropped around this area of expertise: they were the moneychangers.  They would take a look at what you got and let you know what you could get with it.  They could also change what you had into something that might be locally more acceptable.  In Venice, many merchants were also moneychangers as a side business.

Most cities had moneychangers, but the Venetians took it further.  They started to leave their money with the moneychanger and only come back and get some when they needed it, thus inventing deposit banking (they beat Florence to it).  The Venetians did not know it at the time, but deposit banking, when you do not need returned the exact same gold and silver you put in, is very important, and continues being important, for economic progress as it keeps capital working in the economy.  Instead of thousands of dollars sitting under your mattress doing nothing, it is funding an expedition or something.

Then the Venetians found it much more convenient to settle transactions by what I am calling the mediaeval debit card, that is simply walking up the moneychanger with your business associate and say, “take 94 duckets out of my account and give it to him.”  In fact, since many of them knew each other so well, they started just to write out their agreements on slips of paper and giving them to each other (checks).  In these two ways they invented moneyless transactions where nothing changed hands.  Instead, a moneychanger scribbled something in his ledger and that was that.  By the way, the main bench on which the Venice’s moneychangers sat was called the “Banka,” which of course gave us the word “bank.”

Being part of the mediaeval Catholic world, Venetians were not allowed to charge each other interest on loans.  This is a problem for merchants, as they need large loans with which to start buying low.  Therefore, merchants would look for investors who would front the money.  In other parts of the world, investors expected 20% interest on their loans regardless of profit.  In Venice, investors expected a large portion of profits only, usually 75%.  Of course, it’s not smart to put all your money into one basket, so these investors started diversifying by putting some money in a bunch of different trading expeditions.  In other words, they bought and sold shares.  Stocks and the stock market started with Venetian merchant shipping.  One wealthy merchant died in the 15th century with shares in 132 different voyages.

The Venetians made many other important advancements in finance, including how to regulate banks by requiring them to keep a certain percentage of their money in reserve.  They also invented double entry bookkeeping, wherein they record all expenditures and revenue, requiring books to be constantly balanced.   You can see how this would make business more fraud resistant.  Without this type of bookkeeping, modern finance would be impossible.  Complex businesses would not work.  Double entry bookkeeping also works best with arabic numerals, and the Venetians were one of the first Europeans to import them.   Finally, they started selling liability insurance for merchants, a first since ancient times.

I was very much suprised to find Venice’s ongoing legacy in the world of finance.  The history of the city has been fascinating to study.  But I’m moving on now.  I am currently reading a book about Ayn Rand called Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne C. Heller.  Heller’s approach is very even, both praising and criticizing.  I tried to read Atlas Shrugged a few months ago and found it yawn inducing.  This is better.  It’s history, biography, and I get all the ideas without having to wade through her fiction (or non-fiction for that matter).


Weird Republicanism

In 1229, there was a fierce rivalry between two powerful Venetian families, both of whom were vying for the office of the Doge, the chief officer in the Venetian state.  The 40-man committee that was supposed to elect the Doge was split down the middle.  This factionalism caused problems, and a big fear was that one family would monopolize the Dogeship.  As Italian cities like Florence, Pisa, etc., turned to monarchy, the Venetians were worried that they might be next.  To ensure that didn’t happen, they made this system:

  1. The Great Council, with several hundred members, would cast lots that would choose 30 men from among them.
  2. Those 30 would be reduced by casting lots to 9.
  3. Those 9, as a unanimous group, would name 40 men.
  4. Those 40 would be reduced by lot to 12 men.
  5. Those 12 would name another 25 men.
  6. Those 25 would be reduced to 9 men.
  7. Those 9 would name 45 men.
  8. Those 45 would be reduced by lot to 11.
  9. Those 11 would choose 41 men.
  10. Then, those 41 would elect the next head of state.

This was not some strange system that some eccentric political scientist devised.  That in itself would be fascinating.  This was the way that the biggest Republic in the world at that time, and the longest lived, chose their head of state for centuries.

I wonder what would happen if we used this system today in electing our president.  I wonder if it would improve the quality of our leaders and the character our national dialogue.

History is fascinating.


The Unique City

I thought David Rakoff’s book, Don’t Get Too Comfortable: The Indignities of Coach Class, the Torments of Low Thread Count, the Never-Ending Quest for Artisanal live Oil, and Other First World Problems, was going to make fun of these sorts of problems and provide insight.  Instead, he was serious about these meaningless difficulties.  It was a major disappointment for such a sweet title.

So, for entertainment and diversion, in the midst of this crazy adrenaline-filled week, I turned to a 14-lecture course on the History of Venice by Dr. Thomas Madden at Saint Louis University.  I enjoyed it greatly.  Kagan’s History of Ancient Greece is much better (you can find it on itunesU), but I think it is only because Venetian history is just so absurdly long, over 1,000 years.  It’s hard to create the magic of narrative when the story is so long and has so many players.

Venice is a unique city.  It did not exist during Roman times.  Nobody lived out on these tiny little low-lying sandy and marshy islands at the very northern tip of the Adriatic.  People started fleeing to them for safety as mainland Italy became less and less stable and it became a collection point for refugees from the Roman Empire.  As such, it kept a very close relationship to the Byzantines for hundreds of years, and it always associated itself, and rightly so, with the Roman legacy.

Venice’s location also set it apart from the mainland (more than literally).  While Europe adopted the land-based feudal system, Venice’s income was entirely based on the sea trade.  Ok.  They did make salt, and a few other things, but they were traders and not farmers.  In fact, their merchant-based economy did much to pave the way for modern finance (maybe I’ll discuss that in a different post).  Like Athens of ancient times, they enjoyed a unique combination of dominance at sea and relative weakness on land (if only Athens had enjoyed Venice’s supremely defensible marine location maybe the Pellopenesian War would have gone differently).

Unlike the other mostly monarchical governments of Europe, Venice’s government was originally a democracy in which the people voluntarily gave up their claims to a group of wise old men who in turn created an oligarchical republic.  Newly wealthy families could join the oligarchy, and this flexibility made it unlikely that the newly rich would agitate the populous in an attempt to gain political power.  The result was an incredibly stable republic in which everyone was subject to the rule of law, and this was good for business.

For centuries Venice enjoyed great privilege in trading with the Byzantines, and their seafaring abilities–they all grew up on the water–made them exceptional sailors for business and war.  However, with the opening up of the Atlantic passes to India by going around Africa and the discovery of America, Venetian trade became less important.  They were also slow to put cannons on ships, lose their rowers, and they never really got the hang of it.  They were incredible ship-builders during the Middle Ages.  In fact, they were the ones to really invent the assembly line, the factory (their “Arsenal” it was called), and interchangeable parts.  They would float hulls of boats down the docks to different stations.  At times, one third of the city worked at the boatyard and they could pump out a ship a day.  In 1450 they had about 3,000 ships on the water.  But eventually they couldn’t keep up with the French, English, or Germans.

Ironically, Napoleon, the product of the French Revolution, who thought himself the great liberator of Europe, the spreader of liberal ideas like equality under the law and republicanism, was actually the one to destroy the oldest republic in Europe, one which had always prosecuted those high-born and low-born.  In a sad series of events, Venice tried to placate Napoleon, but ultimately, Napoleon just wanted Venice.  He arrayed his cannons along the shore and was about to bombard the city.  Finally, technology had made obsolete Venice’s defense: the sea.  So, in an emotional meeting of the Great Council on May 12, 1797, after 1100 years of fairly even-handed and non-partisan self-rule, the last holdouts of the Roman Empire voted to voluntarily give up their republic and hand themselves over to French rule.

History makes me cry.


Fox&Friends

Seriously, who is making these decisions to allow stutterers on the air? : )


If you had 5 minutes in front of 2 million people, what would you say?

Since Thursday, it looked like life was getting back to normal and things were calming down.  Life lied.  This afternoon I was contacted by a producer at Fox&Friends, and I am scheduled to be on their show Tuesday morning 6:30ish (they should give me details tomorrow).

Fox & Friends is the highest rated morning news show in the nation with almost 2 million viewers a day.  As a firm believer in the transformative power of ideas, this is an incredible opportunity, and it gets me thinking: If you had five minutes in front of 2 million people, what would you say?  Your thoughts and advice is welcome.

Who knows what will happen?  Maybe I’ll stutter on my name the entire time.  But I am leaning away from any personal plugs like finding work, a publisher, etc.  Clearly, I will talk about the event itself, but I hope to get through that fairly quickly.  What I really want to talk about is the broader meaning for this entire category of events–what these sorts of stories say about each other, what they say about our national dialogue, how they point to a common love and compassion which undergirds our society and entreats us to hold each other in high regard, to respect each other, even our enemies.

Ok, maybe I won’t change the world with this interview, but maybe maybe I might help one person esteem their spouse more.  If so, I win.


The Pope’s Book

I am no great fan of Catholicism.  I think Paul would LOL at the idea of papal infallibility.  I think apostolic succession is proven silly by a quick game of Telephone.  I think that the doctrine of transubstantiation is unnecessary and weird.  However, Catholicism is still a powerful force for good in the world, I know many wonderful Catholics, and I love their Orders, their love for education and the arts; I also love the informed thoughtfulness of Pope Benedict the XVI.  Last week, I had said that I started reading Jesus of Nazareth by the Pope.  Actually, that’s what I was listening to when I heard the screams when Wes fell in.  Alicia and I tried to read it together about a year ago and petered off about 3 chapters in.  This time, I didn’t get much further.

It’s not because it’s a bad book.  It’s good.  It’s thoughtful, maybe too thoughtful.  Once the novelty of reading the Pope wears off, it gets a little boring, especially when you are having a tough time concentrating anyway.  The voice they got for the audiobook sounds like a deep and grandfatherly God the Father, and it makes me sleepy.

In the intro, he does a great job at providing a synthesis for two ideas in tension.  In fact, it’s a tension the Clifton family has been feeling as I have become more theologically liberal in some ways.  The first idea is that we should be concerned with nothing but the facts of history and should use any means, especially the historical method, to find them.  In the second idea, we recognize that the Bible was written by a single author for all time, including ours.  I tend to find myself gravitating to the first idea, which the Pope agrees is very important.

“The historical-critical method–specifically because of the intrinsic nature of theology and faith–is and remains an indispensable dimension of exegetical work.  For it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events.  It [the Bible] does not tell stories symbolizing suprahistorical truths, but is based on history, history that took place here on this earth.  The factum historicum (historical fact) is not an interchangeable symbolic cipher for biblical faith, but the foundation on which it stands:  Et incarnatus est–when we say these words we acknowledge God’s actual entry into real history.”

I resonate with this.  In concert with what he says, I have observed that my faith itself is what motivates my skepticism for such a notion as timeless, perfect, words.  But he wants to thoughtfully incorporate both ideas, and I find that laudable.  He seemed to succeed in the first few chapters.  I am so happy that the Catholics have such an intelligent person as their leader.

I think my favorite quote comes at the end of the intro, “I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.”  I should start all my books with that quote.

In the meantime, I need something a bit more entertaining.  I think I’ll start listening to Don’t Get Too Comfortable: The Indignities of Coach Class, the Torments of Low Thread Count, the Never-Ending Quest for Artisanal Olive Oil, and Other First World Problems by David Rakoff.


Really Real America

One Republican assertion I consistently hear is a distinction between “real America” and what I guess is less real America.  “Real America” has small towns, it’s more rural, and moves at a slower pace than our cities.  Democrats get upset over this, and some of them who I have tons of respect for, including Jon Stewart and Dan Black : ).  While it bothers me too, I have come to think that Republicans have a little bit of a point here, even if it is often crudely made and upsettingly exclusionary.

The fact is that an important part of our national identity, of any nation’s identity, is a connection to the land.  Those that are more part and parcel with this land will feel, for better or ill, more “purely” American, especially when those less connected to the land seem to disagree with them on a number of important political and religious issues.  For example, you cannot easily separate the Swiss national identity from their mountains.  What is Japan, without the sea and fish?  What is Australia, without their enormous tracts of dry land populated with Kangaroos and dingos?   Likewise, what is America without the rockies, great plains, or the rolling hills of Appalachia?

Our political divide is not between blue states and red states.  Maps of county results for the last several presidential elections shows, with exceptions of course, solid blue cities surrounded by seas of red.  In 2008 for example, plenty of red counties are seen in places like rural New York and California.  Cities like Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Atlanta, Cinicinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, and tons more, (look at the Florida cities) are surrounded by red.  Look at the isolation of Lincoln, Nebraska, Kansas City and Wichita.  Look at Virginia, which went for Obama in 2008.  It’s so red!

Republicans have a right to think, in a small way, that their connection to the land entitles them to being automatically an important part of our national identity.  However, America is much much more than our land.  Our collective identity is and should be found more in principles like equality and opportunity, and should depend on all citizens, regardless of where they live.  Those who divide the country between real and fake America are the ones acting un-American as they prove they do not understand the hierarchy of American values.  But I suppose I contradict myself.  I am willing to assert that others are unAmerican, based on what I think is important.  So I guess my point is this:  If you are going to call people un-American, please do so thoughtfully.


It’s a Secret

Instead of people simply seeing this story on TV and saying, “Oh it’s nice that someone out there is brave,” I wish they would say, “it’s nice to see a reminder that we are a brave and caring people.”  We are.  You are.  That’s the message that I wish the news coverage would talk about more.  Stories of ordinary people being brave broadcasts that secret.  I am the same philosophizing-goofball I was when I was waiting anxiously for the train.  My ensuing actions say something about all of us, about average people.  We rise to occasions.  It would be absurd to think, for example, that the folks on flight 93, which crashed in PA on 9/11, who acted way braver than me, were by some fluke of travel planning in the top 1% of brave people in the country, or even the top 10% or 30%.  Nah.  They were most likely a swath of regular folks.  This tells me that the average Joe can be counted on to be brave and is most likely capable of incredible human kindnesses.  So what do we do with that?  I think we should treat each other with the respect that brave people deserve and take some comfort from the fundamental decency that pervades our society–though too often in secret.

Some disagree.  They say I have to look no further than the people in the video just standing around and not helping.  There were hundreds of people there just watching, they say.  What about the guy who filmed it?  What decent human being chooses to film instead of help?

But what should they have done?  What is helpful in that situation?  Even in retrospect, in the calm of my living room, I have a hard time thinking up things they should have been doing.  In the chaos of the moment, how can we expect people to have any clue what to do or even to know what is going on.  People are always morally bound to do what they think is right, but if you have no idea what is right, you have no decision to make.  Those of you who have read my manuscript know that if there is no decision to be made, then nothing can be revealed about a person’s character.  If there is nothing you think you should do, it isn’t even possible to reveal how brave or cowardly you might be.

Ok.  So why was I doing something:

1) Most people who watched the event unfold came later.  Right when it happened, there were only a few people near where he fell in.  Of those people, I was the first to react, but there were reasons for that.

2) I am physically fit.  Maybe other people did not think they were capable of pulling someone up.  I certainly wouldn’t want my wife jumping down there.  The risk to herself would not be worth the small amount of help she could offer in grabbing him.  (FYI, my wife laughed at this; she thinks it’s true.)

3) I ran up thinking that all it would take was jumping down and picking him up before the next train came.  So, I became involved in the situation before I understood how dangerous it was.

4) Of the people there when he fell, I was likely one of the most trained people there and possibly the most experienced in life or death situations.  I was a lifeguard in high school.  On separate occasions, two kids who jumped in the pool not knowing how to swim.  On one of my first days as Head Lifeguard, one girl fell off the high dive onto the concrete and was convulsing terribly.  I remember running around like a chicken with my head cut off not really knowing what to do.  I responded in ways I wish I didn’t, but I certainly learned from the situation.  During high school I myself had several concussions.  I also broke my arm in spectacular leaping fashion when I failed to see a big sewer drain opening up before me as I ran through woods at night.  As I was being carried to the ambulance surrounded by friends, somebody on each side offered to hold my hand.  I was so in shock that I apologized several times, saying how sorry I was that I could not hold the one person’s hand because when I did my arm hurt.  Once my buddy stepped on some thick wire that speared his foot, and I had to pull it out for him.  Twice I was attacked by a swarm of bees.  Once my dad, another buddy, and I were almost killed when we were snorkeling and did not see the weather change and a storm pick up.  In college, I was a volunteer firefighter for two years.  I also took a 3 week course and became a Wilderness First Responder, kinda like an EMT for the woods.  We did dozens of practice scenarios when somebody was hurt, and we had to respond appropriately.  During college, I also checked a thief into some arcade machines as he was running away from police.  In Buffalo, I almost drowned in the Niagara River, and I lived in an area where I could occasionally hear gunfire and hooliganism.  In Atlanta, in the process of getting ACE certified, I took CPR training for the 4th time.  And these are just the highlights.  Maybe somebody on the platform from the start had more pressure situation experience and training than me.  Maybe not.  But I know that that background is what allowed me to stay calm and talk the guy through it.  I know it’s what made me realize that he probably did not even know where he was and probably could not deduce it in his present state with the cacophony of noise around him, or at least that had been my experience when I was in shock.  (Still it is entirely possible that what I did was INCREDIBLY stupid.  I think in firefighter training I was told not to grab people who were being shocked.  Oops.)

When somebody freezes in a pressure situation.  It does not mean they are not brave.  It means that they have no idea what to do.  They still really want to help, and they think they should be helping, but they have no idea what to do.  I only knew what to do, or had an opinion about what I should do, because of my experience.

Ultimately, I think it is likely that not a single person at the incident knew exactly what they should do and yet failed to act out of fear and cowardice.  If so, nobody there was cowardly at all, and the man who caught it on video did do some real good: the video-footage is proof for all of us that we are a brave and caring people.

That video now has almost 60,000 views!  Crazy.  And my friend Andie just told me the front page of Yahoo News had it up for a while.  The most accurate coverage though I think was done by CBS.