The PORTLAND Daily Sun, Wednesday, August 7, 2013— Page 5
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– OPINION ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Rodriguez’s preoccupation was not with team, it was with self BROOKS from page 4
Boras turned him into a corporate entity. In her book “A-Rod,” Selena Roberts reported that, in the middle of his first contract negotiations, Boras had Rodriguez read a statement accusing the Mariners of being “low class.” In other words, he was told to attack his first organization in order to squeeze a few dollars out of them. From the beginning, Rodriguez’s preoccupation was not with team, it was with self. Rodriguez then retained a guru named Jim Fannin, who further isolated him from his teammates and who molded him according to a selfconscious, prefab self-help formula. By the time Rodriguez became a free agent, he was the marketing facade of A-Rod Inc. When negotiating with the Mets, Rodriguez’s handlers asked for the use of a private jet, a special hotel suite when on the road and a personal marketing staff. By the time he reached the Texas Rangers, according to Roberts, a clubhouse attendant was required to put a dab of toothpaste on his toothbrush after every game. Of course, this sort of egomaniacal behavior
alienated him from his teammates, isolating him in the zone of his own self-concern. He was always the most talented player on the field but never a leader. He developed a reputation for caring more about personal stats than team wins. Even when he tried to be a good teammate, that was little naturalness or spontaneity. Self-preoccupied people hit the right notes, but often so hard that they sound tinny. Self-preoccupation creates an ego that is at once overinflated, insatiable and overly sensitive. Self-preoccupation also seems to make it hard for supremely talented people like A-Rod to deal with their own talents. One of the mysteries around Rodriguez is why the most supremely talented baseball player on the planet would risk his career to allegedly take performance-enhancing drugs? My theory would be that self-preoccupied people have trouble seeing that their natural abilities come from outside themselves and can only be developed when directed toward something else outside themselves. Enclosed in self, they come to believe that their talents come from self, are the self. They have no outside criteria that tells them what their talents are for or when they
One of the mysteries around Rodriguez is why the most supremely talented baseball player on the planet would risk his career to allegedly take performance-enhancing drugs? are sufficient. Locked in a cycle of insecurity and attempted self-validation, their talents are never enough, and they end up devouring what they have been given. As Rodriguez’s former manager, Joe Torre, once wrote, the really good hitter has to “concern himself with getting the job done, instead of how it looks. ... There’s a certain free-fall you have to go through when you commit yourself without a guarantee that it’s always gong to be good. ... Allow yourself to be embarrassed. Allow yourself to be vulnerable.” At every step along the way, Rodriguez chased self-maximization, which ended up leading to his self-destruction.
Many great lessons are learned here from both sides of the table LADD from page 4
onions on the cheese plate. With their most recent Living Social deal, they graciously allowed people to buy up to three $10 vouchers (and three more as “gifts”) for $20 worth of food and drink to be used at brunch. The fine print states brunch is served from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, and “reservations are required and subject to approval.” I found that last bit of information to be a compelling and convincing reason to purchase the allotted three vouchers as LFK serves communal-style at long tables in close and cozy quarters. Having waited for seating at LFK on more than one occasion, the thought of doing so while semi-hung over and ravenous for breakfasty-food (think Bintliff’s in the late ‘90s) is unappealing for sure. The pickle of which I speak? Upon calling the restaurant I was told reservations are not accepted and the printed requirement was in fact a misprinted
error on the part of Living Social. However, Living Social maintains all information on deals and vouchers is signed-off on by each establishment, and I know for a fact their contracts would give any second-year law student a migraine. Ninty-nine percent of the time I find good reason to side with restaurant policies but in this case, not so much. LFK needs to suck it up, make a precise, sectioned seating chart and give everyone who bought their voucher a designated hour-and-fifteen minute window of delicious brunch time opportunity.
names not by addressing controversial I don’t know who the president will — or issues, but by raising large sums of money. should — choose to replace Ben Bernanke They are judged by the number of buildas Fed chair. The president himself has ings they leave behind, not by the hard identified three possible successors: Janet issues they tackle. Tenured professors are, Yellen, the current Fed vice chairwoman; and I say this as one, inclined to be divas. Donald Kohn, a former Fed vice chair; and Strong presidents who make waves are Lawrence Summers, former Treasury secrarely appreciated by their faculties. retary and president of Harvard UniverSummers raised plenty of money, but at sity. Harvard, that’s almost easy. He also genI don’t know Yellen or Kohn. erated controversy, most notably with his I do know Summers. I’ve known him unscripted comments asking whether the since the 1980s. And while I don’t pretend ––––– stubborn under-representation of women to be an expert on monetary policy, I do Creators at the top in science might actually be know that Summers does not deserve the Syndicate rooted in nature and not nurture, a funcvicious battering he has taken in the press. tion of real differences and not persistent Summers isn’t being bashed — and discrimination. there really is no other word to describe Many leading women in science were enraged. it — because of his economic views. He isn’t being They argued that he had the science wrong and bashed because he lacks experience; that, in light of that universities, Harvard included, need to do more his record during the Bill Clinton years and his role to examine their own tendencies toward “unconas one of candidate Barack Obama’s chief economic scious” discrimination. As I recall, I said as much at advisers in 2008, would be laughable. the time. He is being bashed because of his allegedly antiBut Summers is hardly the only smart person to woman record as president of Harvard. This is hold such views. And by articulating them, by daring something I do know about. I used to be a professor to be politically incorrect, he stimulated a critically at Harvard. I’ve spent the past 30 years fighting for important debate. women’s rights. I’ve never been shy about naming Depending on whom you ask, the debate cost him names when it comes to men, or women, who do not the presidency of Harvard. It wasn’t the only thing, support equality. Larry Summers is not one of them. but it was a biggie — and it’s what has continued to These days, most college presidents make their
haunt him. In my view, Summers was wrong about women in science. But those who would damn him for it, those who would hold it up as a reason for why he is not qualified to lead — whether it’s Harvard or the Fed — are guilty of an even more serious wrong. For all the pious talk you hear from professors about academic freedom, academia is not a very “free” place. I hate racism and sexism, but the answer is debate, not denunciations; the answer is to prove your case, not punish those who disagree for daring to speak out. If Summers loses out on the Fed chairmanship because he dared to raise a very troubling question (he raised it; he did not purport, even then, to answer it), his critics should understand that they are doing women a grave disservice. I will spend the rest of my life fighting for equality for women. It is a battle I once thought would be over by now. But it will never be over if men who dare to disagree with me and my feminist colleagues are punished for it, if presidents and professors and students are penalized forever for speaking out. Larry Summers is a brilliant economist. Like most of us, he isn’t right about everything. But the nation should not lose out on his talents because he was wrong about a politically sensitive point. We will not achieve equality by chilling debate and punishing those who disagree with us. Quite the contrary.
complication of “family” and it becomes both the personal and professional bane of her existence. So, until my colleagues and industry friends are ready to share their grievances, I’ll continue to do it for them right here. But take note! Our crazy business isn’t all doom and gloom, complaints and criticisms. Many great lessons are learned here from both sides of the table. Perhaps it will be an easier pitch to scrounge guests columnists if all are also encouraged to share the good. Yes, there’s the fun, the unique and the “magic” that is the light to the dark of what we in the restaurant business do, and just as much in how we do it. The Down Low: The nice people at LKF are in a bit of a pickle and I’m not talking the delicious
(Natalie Ladd is a columnist for the Portland Daily Sun. She has over 30 continuous years of corporate and fine-dining experience in all front-of-the-house management, hourly and under-the-table positions. She can be reached at natalie@portlanddailysun. me.)
In defense of Larry Summers
Susan Estrich