Ariana Huffington on the Colbert Report
Ok, I'm not a regular blogger, but after watching the April 18th episode of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report", and not finding a lot of commentary on the interview between Mr. Colbert and Ms. Huffington, (aside from a series of glowing reactions on the H. Post itself), and after being in a bit of a huff after watching Colbert's possible drubbing, I felt compelled to launch a few comments into the swirling vortex of the internet. In summary: I was perplexed as to why Ariana was so vicious to Mr. Colbert on his show. Her body language, complete with rolling eyes, shaking head, pursed lips, and head-in-hand, and her tone of voice, made the interview difficult to watch, not to mention the 9 poignant and rather pointed personal attacks on Colbert, about half of which consisted of simply lording the Pulitzer over Colbert. An analogy might be, kicking someone while they're down (or maybe a smidge lower), spiking the ball in the end zone, etc. Of course, the final analysis is Colbert's to make. Will Ariana make his "On Notice" board? Well, I recommend you simply judge for yourself.
(http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-april-18-2012-arianna-huffington)
Below is a summary of my post to the Huffington Post.
Hm.. I actually had a somewhat different take on the Colbert Report exchange with Ariana. I found Ariana rude and condescending to Mr. Colbert. If you watch the complete interview on comedy central, probably 60 - 70% of the exchange consisted of Ariana personally attacking Mr. Colbert in a rather agressive and haughty manner. I rewatched the clip and have 9 quotations from Ariana that exemplify this:
1. I have a feeling you’re bitter and jealous
2. You just won a mere Peabody.
3. Deep in your subconscious you wish you won a Peabody.
4. I just think you need a little therapy
5. Who needs a Peabody when you have a Pulitzer?
6. I’m glad I’m here because you need to stop aggregating the H. Post.
7. Who’s writing your questions, Joe the Plumber?
8. You’re just so behind the curve.
9. I highly recommend you read before you aggregate.
The final analysis: while Colbert was playful, Ms. Huffington came across as arrogant, bitter, and entitled. You won a great award Ms. Huffington, Mr. Colbert is giving you the opportunity to publicize yourself - the least you could be is a gracious guest. If you want to beat someone up, do it on Fox or any number of conservative radio shows. Don't beat people up who are on your side.
Finally, if you watch the last 2 seconds of the Report, where Colbert waves goodbye, you can catch a glimpse of a rather sour expression in the last moment as Colbert turns away. I don't believe he was happy with the exchange either.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A quick post in support of Israel
With regard to the recent actions taken by Israel to safeguard its shores from invaders: Israel’s actions are entirely justified and the response of the media is sorrowfully reflexive.
A quick recap: “activists” (i.e. “provocateurs” ) were illegally trying to enter Israel, they didn't stop after repeated warnings, and then they attacked the military when their boat was peacefully boarded. With those kind of provocative actions, the provocateurs should and most likely did expect their life to be in danger. There is no moral qualm here. The IDF acted in self defense just like police officers anywhere in the world do when threatened. Yes, the incident occurred in international waters, but the boat’s intentions were clear; it wasn’t on a Mediterranean pleasure cruise.
Might there have been a way of disabling the boat without a direct confrontation? Perhaps. One imagines robotic submarines attaching extremely heavy anchors to the bottom of the boats' hulls, essentially crippling their engines...
A quick recap: “activists” (i.e. “provocateurs” ) were illegally trying to enter Israel, they didn't stop after repeated warnings, and then they attacked the military when their boat was peacefully boarded. With those kind of provocative actions, the provocateurs should and most likely did expect their life to be in danger. There is no moral qualm here. The IDF acted in self defense just like police officers anywhere in the world do when threatened. Yes, the incident occurred in international waters, but the boat’s intentions were clear; it wasn’t on a Mediterranean pleasure cruise.
Might there have been a way of disabling the boat without a direct confrontation? Perhaps. One imagines robotic submarines attaching extremely heavy anchors to the bottom of the boats' hulls, essentially crippling their engines...
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Republican Obscructionism: The Real Story No One is Talking About
I suppose that was a decent headline, because without having to write anything else, I've effectively conveyed the crux of my thoughts. However, by way of embellishment let us consider the following facts:
As of the time of this publication, 01/28/2010, the Democrats control the House and the Senate, (we'll exclude the Executive branch from this topic) and they control these bodies by historical margins. The Senate (58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and two Independents), The House of Representatives (256 Democrats, 178 Republicans and one vacancy) [1]. Of course, knowledge of this historic majority is currently well-known and not necessarily news-worthy at the moment.
What I would like to suggest is that, as citizens concerned with the forward progress of our nation, we should concern ourselves not merely with the apparent ineptitude of the majority party, but also with the causes of that ineptitude. Thus far, the bulk of national media discussion seems to have focused on the symptoms of this country's political illness (which one might describe as "partisan extremism" or "Extremely selfish partisan-itis") at the exclusion of the cause of the illness.
To transition analogies from the medical field to operations management, Toyota company, highly regarded for its strict adherence to quality and efficiency in its manufacturing process (not-withstanding the current recall), abides by a methodology in which if there is a quality issue, the question "Why" is asked repeatedly (sometimes up to 5 or more times [2]) until the fundamental, indivisible root cause of the quality issue is discovered. On most issues regarding ..well, practically anything, the media, and Americans in general, it seems, rarely ask "Why" even 1 time. There's no point in getting mad at the employee who didn't show up for work if the shift manager entered the wrong date into the schedule. And there's no point in getting mad at the shift manager if he entered the wrong date because a computer system malfunction reset the scheduling computer's internal clock. And so on...
By analogy, should progressives be angry at apparently ineffectual Democrats in Congress if the reason fo their ineffectiveness is a group-think-mentality Republican minority which is abusing the one legislative power it does have: the filibuster?
Let me repeat and simplify that: The Republicans are abusing their minority power by means of the filibuster. That should be the headline in the papers or blogs, because that story is nearer to the truth of the operational disfunctionality of the Legislative branch of government. But of course, citizens and the media should ask "Why" at least 4 more times before we can be confident that the root cause of our country's ungovernability is uncovered. Let's try it here out of empirical curiosity.
Problem: The Democratic majority of historic proportions is unable to move ostensibly progressive legislation forward.
1) Why can't Democrats get anything done? : A group-think-sheep-mentality Conservative opposition is threatening to filibuster every piece of legislation.
2) Why are the conservatives threatening to filibuster everything? : Because Republicans know Democrats won't call their bluff and actually MAKE them filibuster everything. (another answer might be "because appearing to oppose everything the other party does looks good for short term political expediency)
3) Going with the first answer: Why won't the democrats call the Republican bluff and MAKE them filibuster everything? : Because Democrats think voting on something they know will fail will make them look weak in the eyes of the voters (I assume that legislation can continuously be brought to a vote by party leaders).
4) Why are Democrats afraid of looking weak if their bill is voted down by a childishly recalcitrant and extremist Republican party which is weaker than it's ever been in recent memory? : Because Democratic leaders don't understand that failing to stand up to extremism is weakness.
5) Why do Democratic leaders in Congress not understand that failure to stand up to extremism is weakness? : because ... because ... perhaps they fail to see that the Republicans ARE extremists in Congress.
So, there you have it. The most effective headline the media could convey to the public is "Democratic Leadership fails to see that the Republicans ARE extremists in Congress."
Therefore, the most effective change of perspective Congressional Democrats could enact is to ACT under the assumption that Republicans in Congress are extremists and implacable foes disinterested in compromise and focused solely on short term political gain in order to satisfy a twisted often hypocritical moral view, an over-riding lust for power manifest through abuse of power whenever possible, and a desire to see their political foes crushed, subservient, and all-together dissolved so that the country could return to a mythical all-white, monolithic, male dominated, Christian fundamentalist empire, which it never was [breath]. (now, of course, not all Republicans think like this, but the voice of the party seems to).
That's the sad truth that the Democratic leadership refuses to acknowledge because like an entity which is pure good, they can not conceive of an entity intentionally committing acts of evil. but I should divulge myself of unsupported, qualitative moralisms, no matter how near the truth they may strike.
I leave this article with two thoughts of paramount importance:
1) The Democrats must learn or rediscover the basic rules of negotiation. Most Negotiation text books describe five primary negotiating styles: Accommodating, Avoiding, Collaborating, Competing, and Compromising. To maximize one's gain in a negotiation, one must match one's style with that of their counterpart (not necessarily opponent).
Mr. Obama's style is clearly Compromise. (this is great if both parties are of equal strength and influence ... which given the ratios in Congress they are not! The Democrats have so far been Accommodating to Republicans, they have attempted to Collaborate and they have Compromised (most notably on Health Reform). Now, all of these styles have merits and an appropriate time and place for usage, but not when the other side is ONLY COMPETING. I'm bolding and capping everything because, well, emphasis is quite appropriate at this point. Perhaps the most striking lesson I learned in my brief negotiations class was: "if the other side is competing, you must also compete, or you will always lose the negotiation." You can't compromise with someone if their actual intention is to maximize their gain and your loss. The Republicans are competing in lock-step and unison. If the Democrats don't use only the tactic of competition, then their agenda will always lose and they'll have no idea why.
2) The democrats must make the case that the true story is Republican obstructionism, not Democratic impotence. And then they must back that up, by putting every legislation up for a vote, thereby changing the the story in the media from "Democrats need One More Vote" to "Republicans Filibuster Again and Block Progress".
Sources:
1: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/elections/tp/2010_congressional_election.htm
2: http://www.shmula.com/382/ask-why-five-times-about-every-matter
As of the time of this publication, 01/28/2010, the Democrats control the House and the Senate, (we'll exclude the Executive branch from this topic) and they control these bodies by historical margins. The Senate (58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and two Independents), The House of Representatives (256 Democrats, 178 Republicans and one vacancy) [1]. Of course, knowledge of this historic majority is currently well-known and not necessarily news-worthy at the moment.
What I would like to suggest is that, as citizens concerned with the forward progress of our nation, we should concern ourselves not merely with the apparent ineptitude of the majority party, but also with the causes of that ineptitude. Thus far, the bulk of national media discussion seems to have focused on the symptoms of this country's political illness (which one might describe as "partisan extremism" or "Extremely selfish partisan-itis") at the exclusion of the cause of the illness.
To transition analogies from the medical field to operations management, Toyota company, highly regarded for its strict adherence to quality and efficiency in its manufacturing process (not-withstanding the current recall), abides by a methodology in which if there is a quality issue, the question "Why" is asked repeatedly (sometimes up to 5 or more times [2]) until the fundamental, indivisible root cause of the quality issue is discovered. On most issues regarding ..well, practically anything, the media, and Americans in general, it seems, rarely ask "Why" even 1 time. There's no point in getting mad at the employee who didn't show up for work if the shift manager entered the wrong date into the schedule. And there's no point in getting mad at the shift manager if he entered the wrong date because a computer system malfunction reset the scheduling computer's internal clock. And so on...
By analogy, should progressives be angry at apparently ineffectual Democrats in Congress if the reason fo their ineffectiveness is a group-think-mentality Republican minority which is abusing the one legislative power it does have: the filibuster?
Let me repeat and simplify that: The Republicans are abusing their minority power by means of the filibuster. That should be the headline in the papers or blogs, because that story is nearer to the truth of the operational disfunctionality of the Legislative branch of government. But of course, citizens and the media should ask "Why" at least 4 more times before we can be confident that the root cause of our country's ungovernability is uncovered. Let's try it here out of empirical curiosity.
Problem: The Democratic majority of historic proportions is unable to move ostensibly progressive legislation forward.
1) Why can't Democrats get anything done? : A group-think-sheep-mentality Conservative opposition is threatening to filibuster every piece of legislation.
2) Why are the conservatives threatening to filibuster everything? : Because Republicans know Democrats won't call their bluff and actually MAKE them filibuster everything. (another answer might be "because appearing to oppose everything the other party does looks good for short term political expediency)
3) Going with the first answer: Why won't the democrats call the Republican bluff and MAKE them filibuster everything? : Because Democrats think voting on something they know will fail will make them look weak in the eyes of the voters (I assume that legislation can continuously be brought to a vote by party leaders).
4) Why are Democrats afraid of looking weak if their bill is voted down by a childishly recalcitrant and extremist Republican party which is weaker than it's ever been in recent memory? : Because Democratic leaders don't understand that failing to stand up to extremism is weakness.
5) Why do Democratic leaders in Congress not understand that failure to stand up to extremism is weakness? : because ... because ... perhaps they fail to see that the Republicans ARE extremists in Congress.
So, there you have it. The most effective headline the media could convey to the public is "Democratic Leadership fails to see that the Republicans ARE extremists in Congress."
Therefore, the most effective change of perspective Congressional Democrats could enact is to ACT under the assumption that Republicans in Congress are extremists and implacable foes disinterested in compromise and focused solely on short term political gain in order to satisfy a twisted often hypocritical moral view, an over-riding lust for power manifest through abuse of power whenever possible, and a desire to see their political foes crushed, subservient, and all-together dissolved so that the country could return to a mythical all-white, monolithic, male dominated, Christian fundamentalist empire, which it never was [breath]. (now, of course, not all Republicans think like this, but the voice of the party seems to).
That's the sad truth that the Democratic leadership refuses to acknowledge because like an entity which is pure good, they can not conceive of an entity intentionally committing acts of evil. but I should divulge myself of unsupported, qualitative moralisms, no matter how near the truth they may strike.
I leave this article with two thoughts of paramount importance:
1) The Democrats must learn or rediscover the basic rules of negotiation. Most Negotiation text books describe five primary negotiating styles: Accommodating, Avoiding, Collaborating, Competing, and Compromising. To maximize one's gain in a negotiation, one must match one's style with that of their counterpart (not necessarily opponent).
Mr. Obama's style is clearly Compromise. (this is great if both parties are of equal strength and influence ... which given the ratios in Congress they are not! The Democrats have so far been Accommodating to Republicans, they have attempted to Collaborate and they have Compromised (most notably on Health Reform). Now, all of these styles have merits and an appropriate time and place for usage, but not when the other side is ONLY COMPETING. I'm bolding and capping everything because, well, emphasis is quite appropriate at this point. Perhaps the most striking lesson I learned in my brief negotiations class was: "if the other side is competing, you must also compete, or you will always lose the negotiation." You can't compromise with someone if their actual intention is to maximize their gain and your loss. The Republicans are competing in lock-step and unison. If the Democrats don't use only the tactic of competition, then their agenda will always lose and they'll have no idea why.
2) The democrats must make the case that the true story is Republican obstructionism, not Democratic impotence. And then they must back that up, by putting every legislation up for a vote, thereby changing the the story in the media from "Democrats need One More Vote" to "Republicans Filibuster Again and Block Progress".
Sources:
1: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/elections/tp/2010_congressional_election.htm
2: http://www.shmula.com/382/ask-why-five-times-about-every-matter
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Outraged at the Outrage
OUTRAGE
I’m outraged! No, not at AIG for following through on its contractual obligation to pay retention fees to its employees. No. I’m outraged at the ribald public sentiment. I’m furious at the cavalcade of vituperative admonishment, issued en mass by the American populous, and directed at an injured company for its attempts to motivate valued employees whose obligation it is to fix a system which had suffered a structural failure.
Well, perhaps my diction is spiced with a bit of hyperbole. Indeed, there are valid reasons to be upset ($165 million sounds a bit excessive, and the timing for such a payout is exceedingly poor with regards to public sentiment) but there are also valid reasons, NOT to be upset. After all, is the real value of the bonus actually considered “large” by financial industry standards? Or is it relatively modest or average? Recall that actors and professional athletes earn comparable sums. However, most importantly, $165 million is a infinitesimal sum when compared to the $182 BILLION which the government has issued as a bailout.
Let’s see… plugging that into Excel yields…that’s 165,000,000 divided by 182,000,000,000 equals 0.0009 or 0.09%. Less than zero point one percent. But let’s make these numbers more tangible.
WOULD YOU BE OUTRAGED IF…
1) You bought a new Dell laptop for $500 (after tax, etc.) and the final charged ended up being 500 dollars and 45 cents!
2) You bought a new Honda Civic for $15,505 (after tax, etc.) and a ten dollar surcharge was added to the final bill. $10!
3) The U.S. government said that a war in Iraq would cost $60 billion and it ended up costing $50,000 more. Wait, wait, wait…. The actual cost of the war (by the Pentagon’s own estimate in 2008 was $600 billion. That’s not 0.09% more, that’s 1000% more! And according to the Congressional Budget Office and other analysts cited in the same article, the final cost could be closer to $2 Trillion! That’s 3.3 MILLION PERCENT MORE! Now that's something to be a little irritated over. (sorry for all the caps).
REAL OUTRAGE
So, via point #3 above, if Americans are so outraged over 0.09% of a budget being poorly allocated, shouldn’t we be at least ten thousand times more outraged over the miss-estimation of funds allocated to the Iraq conflict? (that's 1000/0.09)
A final disjointed note: lexicographers will note that the word “bonus” has likely contributed to as much contention as any other aspect of this event. If the word “retention fee” had been used instead, we would likely all be less outraged, and more able to focus on what we really should be beside ourselves about.
A final, final note: the retention fee really is poorly timed and perhaps points to deeper systemic iniquities in the financial industry as a whole.
references:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html?ref=world
I’m outraged! No, not at AIG for following through on its contractual obligation to pay retention fees to its employees. No. I’m outraged at the ribald public sentiment. I’m furious at the cavalcade of vituperative admonishment, issued en mass by the American populous, and directed at an injured company for its attempts to motivate valued employees whose obligation it is to fix a system which had suffered a structural failure.
Well, perhaps my diction is spiced with a bit of hyperbole. Indeed, there are valid reasons to be upset ($165 million sounds a bit excessive, and the timing for such a payout is exceedingly poor with regards to public sentiment) but there are also valid reasons, NOT to be upset. After all, is the real value of the bonus actually considered “large” by financial industry standards? Or is it relatively modest or average? Recall that actors and professional athletes earn comparable sums. However, most importantly, $165 million is a infinitesimal sum when compared to the $182 BILLION which the government has issued as a bailout.
Let’s see… plugging that into Excel yields…that’s 165,000,000 divided by 182,000,000,000 equals 0.0009 or 0.09%. Less than zero point one percent. But let’s make these numbers more tangible.
WOULD YOU BE OUTRAGED IF…
1) You bought a new Dell laptop for $500 (after tax, etc.) and the final charged ended up being 500 dollars and 45 cents!
2) You bought a new Honda Civic for $15,505 (after tax, etc.) and a ten dollar surcharge was added to the final bill. $10!
3) The U.S. government said that a war in Iraq would cost $60 billion and it ended up costing $50,000 more. Wait, wait, wait…. The actual cost of the war (by the Pentagon’s own estimate in 2008 was $600 billion. That’s not 0.09% more, that’s 1000% more! And according to the Congressional Budget Office and other analysts cited in the same article, the final cost could be closer to $2 Trillion! That’s 3.3 MILLION PERCENT MORE! Now that's something to be a little irritated over. (sorry for all the caps).
REAL OUTRAGE
So, via point #3 above, if Americans are so outraged over 0.09% of a budget being poorly allocated, shouldn’t we be at least ten thousand times more outraged over the miss-estimation of funds allocated to the Iraq conflict? (that's 1000/0.09)
A final disjointed note: lexicographers will note that the word “bonus” has likely contributed to as much contention as any other aspect of this event. If the word “retention fee” had been used instead, we would likely all be less outraged, and more able to focus on what we really should be beside ourselves about.
A final, final note: the retention fee really is poorly timed and perhaps points to deeper systemic iniquities in the financial industry as a whole.
references:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html?ref=world
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Problem with Boehner and Why Republicans Need a New Tone.
John Boehner,current GOP House Minority Leader as of February, 2009, is problematic both for Barak Obama and for the United States. Through second-hand observations (news reports and radio interviews) I have concluded that the specific nature of our collective dilemma with regard to this individual is that he is essentially hostile, insidiously acrimonious; that is to say, subtly caustic, and all-together in essential opposition to the central driving premise underlying Barak Obama's (and by extension, OUR (the collective United States')) success: change.
Indeed, the most fundamental and practical nature of the change President Obama has sought is with the top-down governance of the United States, and in particular, with the tone, character, and spirit of the actors in the upper echelons of government.
In essence, what I am asserting in this preamble, is that John Boehner of the GOP is an unyielding partisan, incapable of compromise for the sake of the country, and retains the bitter residue of divisiveness and hypocrisy which drove the country and the Republicans into the ground.
Take, for example, this quote from NPR:
Asked whether the president is correct in saying that the long-running debating over big vs. small government is over, Boehner told NPR's Steve Inskeep, "I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly what he was trying to say... Clearly, in our society, there is a role for government. And by and large, liberals tend to believe that government's the answer for almost anything," Boehner said.
[end quote]
Boehner has also said on various news radio interviews (NPR and PBS's "The News Hour") that [paraphrasing] The Republicans have to show the country that we're the party of "better" ideas. BETTER ideas??? **BETTER** ideas??
It would be interesting if George Lakoff could examine each member of Congress and profile them based on the language and syntax they employ. (Hmm... that's a good idea... with the exception that much of the language a federal politician uses may be primarily rote talking points). In any event, I offer this brief analysis:
Boehner used the term "liberals". This is a term used to broadly categorize and lump together a large group of people and is often assumed by those who use it in this manner to have a negative connotation. This is a form of PREJUDICE. (see definitions below)
Then he engages in hyperbole by saying "that [they believe] government's the answer for almost anything." Really? So, if you're liberal of thought, then that means you're necessarily a bureaucratic extremist. One type of Conservative mind-set suggests that extremism can only be countered with extremism ("eye for an eye", and Bush's "War of Terror" are two examples of this). Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that Boehner used hyperbole in order to justify the republicans and GOP taking a tactic of extreme opposition to the Democrats.
Third, Boehner's assertion that the Republic party should present "better" ideas. This statement is praiseworthy only from the perspective of one person trying to beat another in a contest. If Boehner was running for office against an opponent, and that was his slogan, then I would praise the offensive stance. However, Boehner is not running for office, he is leading an opposition party of government whose objective it must be to find avenues of compromise. The objective is not for the party to win, but for the country to win. By employing the word "better", Boehner's tone is confrontational and exclusive. That has been the tone of the Republican party as a whole, for over a decade. Win at all costs. Pass all of President Bush's bills and stand by all of his policies **just to win**. Boehner should have said "The Republicans will present different ideas which will be important for crafting legislation which is representative of all of America. I look forward to working with my esteemed Democratic colleagues to achieve this." Using the neutral adjective "different" rather than the biased adjective "better", would signify an intention to work together, rather than apart.
A final note: when Boehner said "I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly what he was trying to say..." with regard to President Obama's suggestion of finding a way to make government work, he was being divisive and confrontational yet again. So, no one in the United States or around the world can understand that sentence?
Perhaps it is a measure of Boehner's hypocrisy that he did not realize that President Obama was borrowing a theme from Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address on January 20th, 1981.
Reagan said: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work..." http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres61.html
Obama said: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/20/president-obamas-inaugural-address/
But, perhaps there is no hypocrisy. Perhaps Boehner didn't understand what Reagan meant either.
In essence, Boehner's tone is prejudiced, extremist,confrontational, and mildly hypocritical.
Until Boehner's tone changes, he will be like Suraman at the end of "Lord of the Rings", a broken man with brankrupt ideas, but malevolent none-the-less, and capable of turning the weak-minded to malevolent thoughts. The Republicans who share this mind-set are beaten for now, but they remain a dark and looming cloud in the depths of Mirkwood, biding their time till they can strike again.
Instead, we should remember and hearken to the mantra of President Obama: unity through compromise, good-will, and mutual respect. If we dare to forge a new country, then Republicans should dare to forge a new tone.
prej⋅u⋅dice: –noun: 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Indeed, the most fundamental and practical nature of the change President Obama has sought is with the top-down governance of the United States, and in particular, with the tone, character, and spirit of the actors in the upper echelons of government.
In essence, what I am asserting in this preamble, is that John Boehner of the GOP is an unyielding partisan, incapable of compromise for the sake of the country, and retains the bitter residue of divisiveness and hypocrisy which drove the country and the Republicans into the ground.
Take, for example, this quote from NPR:
Asked whether the president is correct in saying that the long-running debating over big vs. small government is over, Boehner told NPR's Steve Inskeep, "I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly what he was trying to say... Clearly, in our society, there is a role for government. And by and large, liberals tend to believe that government's the answer for almost anything," Boehner said.
[end quote]
Boehner has also said on various news radio interviews (NPR and PBS's "The News Hour") that [paraphrasing] The Republicans have to show the country that we're the party of "better" ideas. BETTER ideas??? **BETTER** ideas??
It would be interesting if George Lakoff could examine each member of Congress and profile them based on the language and syntax they employ. (Hmm... that's a good idea... with the exception that much of the language a federal politician uses may be primarily rote talking points). In any event, I offer this brief analysis:
Boehner used the term "liberals". This is a term used to broadly categorize and lump together a large group of people and is often assumed by those who use it in this manner to have a negative connotation. This is a form of PREJUDICE. (see definitions below)
Then he engages in hyperbole by saying "that [they believe] government's the answer for almost anything." Really? So, if you're liberal of thought, then that means you're necessarily a bureaucratic extremist. One type of Conservative mind-set suggests that extremism can only be countered with extremism ("eye for an eye", and Bush's "War of Terror" are two examples of this). Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that Boehner used hyperbole in order to justify the republicans and GOP taking a tactic of extreme opposition to the Democrats.
Third, Boehner's assertion that the Republic party should present "better" ideas. This statement is praiseworthy only from the perspective of one person trying to beat another in a contest. If Boehner was running for office against an opponent, and that was his slogan, then I would praise the offensive stance. However, Boehner is not running for office, he is leading an opposition party of government whose objective it must be to find avenues of compromise. The objective is not for the party to win, but for the country to win. By employing the word "better", Boehner's tone is confrontational and exclusive. That has been the tone of the Republican party as a whole, for over a decade. Win at all costs. Pass all of President Bush's bills and stand by all of his policies **just to win**. Boehner should have said "The Republicans will present different ideas which will be important for crafting legislation which is representative of all of America. I look forward to working with my esteemed Democratic colleagues to achieve this." Using the neutral adjective "different" rather than the biased adjective "better", would signify an intention to work together, rather than apart.
A final note: when Boehner said "I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly what he was trying to say..." with regard to President Obama's suggestion of finding a way to make government work, he was being divisive and confrontational yet again. So, no one in the United States or around the world can understand that sentence?
Perhaps it is a measure of Boehner's hypocrisy that he did not realize that President Obama was borrowing a theme from Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address on January 20th, 1981.
Reagan said: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work..." http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres61.html
Obama said: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/20/president-obamas-inaugural-address/
But, perhaps there is no hypocrisy. Perhaps Boehner didn't understand what Reagan meant either.
In essence, Boehner's tone is prejudiced, extremist,confrontational, and mildly hypocritical.
Until Boehner's tone changes, he will be like Suraman at the end of "Lord of the Rings", a broken man with brankrupt ideas, but malevolent none-the-less, and capable of turning the weak-minded to malevolent thoughts. The Republicans who share this mind-set are beaten for now, but they remain a dark and looming cloud in the depths of Mirkwood, biding their time till they can strike again.
Instead, we should remember and hearken to the mantra of President Obama: unity through compromise, good-will, and mutual respect. If we dare to forge a new country, then Republicans should dare to forge a new tone.
prej⋅u⋅dice: –noun: 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Creative Transformation of GM
This was a short essay I wrote for a creativity class over a month ago (October 15th) well before the present foray with the American auto companies. I think the last two sentences of this post are perhaps the most potentially useful to GM. In addition, though I did not mention it in the essay, GM *could* collaborate with Tesla motors, among others to create a reasonably priced, reasonably powerful electric car. Who knows?
* * *
Though General Motors was for many years one of the largest and most profitable automotive companies in the world, it has been on a steady decline in the latter half of the 20th century and into the beginning of the 21st. Although there are many factors which constitute and contribute to a company’s overall performance, from a customer’s perspective, it appears that a lack of creativity has stifled the automotive giant. In particular, with regard to changing demographics, environmental attitudes, and the comparatively adroit adaptation of the Japanese and European competitors, General Motors appears to be in need of a creative transformation. The creative changes listed below are in no particular order, but should be taken in concert.
Ignore the naysayers: While General Motors has been in competition with Chrysler and Ford it has also been in collusion. This is particularly true in its response to government regulation or externally imposed change. When Congress has mandated safety features or compliance with fuel efficiency standards, GM has felt it in their best interest to fortify its position with its U.S. competitors in order to oppose change and regulation. The result was, while GM stagnated and did not innovate, Honda and Toyota, assuming U.S. fuel efficiency standards would be imposed and mandated, did innovate and are now at least a decade ahead in technology and brand image. GM should ignore its traditional allies in this respect – even perhaps ignore members of its executive staff or board, and start moving of its own accord.
Nonlinear thinking: Once GM has freed itself to respond in a more dynamic fashion, non-traditional or non-linear thinking can more easily become part of its identity. GM could adopt just-in-time manufacturing methods as employed successfully by Dell computers. They could adopt more creative work practices which further encourage innovation and operational efficiency.
Go beyond traditional media: In order to refashion its brand image and build awareness for the new GM culture of innovation, non-traditional promotional methods may be useful. Ideas in this respect could include: more ads in theaters, perhaps a GM car featured in a James Bond movie, a GM amusement park ride, and perhaps a musical compilation of songs inspired by GM concept cars.
Be brave: In tandem with ignoring naysayers, GM should demonstrate a degree of corporate bravery by striving to be a leader of transportation technology. I believe the decline of the company may be attributed to a key cultural attribute: following rather than leading. It appears from a customer perspective that GM has been content to sit on its laurels and let other companies take risks and reap the rewards for the risks. GM must reenergize itself and not allow itself to be content with following industry trends. Rather, it should be the trend-maker. Bravery may also be a factor of a willingness to fail. Innovation and creativity may result in more frequent or more pronounced failures, but it is better to fail quickly and learn from one’s mistakes then to fail slowly without realizing one has made a mistake until it is too late.
Increase collaboration: GM could re-invent itself and increase its prospects for success by increasing its level of collaboration with other companies and with the customers. It is possible that GM could do something unique in car industry history by creating a new car which is the collaborative effort of one or more competitor car companies. Pooling knowledge, techniques, and resources could create something a step ahead of other competitors. Finally, GM should enlist the creativity of potential customers by involving them in the car design process. New car models could become “open-source” by allowing designs to be rendered by potential customers on the internet. The features of the car could be further customized online including colors, dash options, and financing.
* * *
Though General Motors was for many years one of the largest and most profitable automotive companies in the world, it has been on a steady decline in the latter half of the 20th century and into the beginning of the 21st. Although there are many factors which constitute and contribute to a company’s overall performance, from a customer’s perspective, it appears that a lack of creativity has stifled the automotive giant. In particular, with regard to changing demographics, environmental attitudes, and the comparatively adroit adaptation of the Japanese and European competitors, General Motors appears to be in need of a creative transformation. The creative changes listed below are in no particular order, but should be taken in concert.
Ignore the naysayers: While General Motors has been in competition with Chrysler and Ford it has also been in collusion. This is particularly true in its response to government regulation or externally imposed change. When Congress has mandated safety features or compliance with fuel efficiency standards, GM has felt it in their best interest to fortify its position with its U.S. competitors in order to oppose change and regulation. The result was, while GM stagnated and did not innovate, Honda and Toyota, assuming U.S. fuel efficiency standards would be imposed and mandated, did innovate and are now at least a decade ahead in technology and brand image. GM should ignore its traditional allies in this respect – even perhaps ignore members of its executive staff or board, and start moving of its own accord.
Nonlinear thinking: Once GM has freed itself to respond in a more dynamic fashion, non-traditional or non-linear thinking can more easily become part of its identity. GM could adopt just-in-time manufacturing methods as employed successfully by Dell computers. They could adopt more creative work practices which further encourage innovation and operational efficiency.
Go beyond traditional media: In order to refashion its brand image and build awareness for the new GM culture of innovation, non-traditional promotional methods may be useful. Ideas in this respect could include: more ads in theaters, perhaps a GM car featured in a James Bond movie, a GM amusement park ride, and perhaps a musical compilation of songs inspired by GM concept cars.
Be brave: In tandem with ignoring naysayers, GM should demonstrate a degree of corporate bravery by striving to be a leader of transportation technology. I believe the decline of the company may be attributed to a key cultural attribute: following rather than leading. It appears from a customer perspective that GM has been content to sit on its laurels and let other companies take risks and reap the rewards for the risks. GM must reenergize itself and not allow itself to be content with following industry trends. Rather, it should be the trend-maker. Bravery may also be a factor of a willingness to fail. Innovation and creativity may result in more frequent or more pronounced failures, but it is better to fail quickly and learn from one’s mistakes then to fail slowly without realizing one has made a mistake until it is too late.
Increase collaboration: GM could re-invent itself and increase its prospects for success by increasing its level of collaboration with other companies and with the customers. It is possible that GM could do something unique in car industry history by creating a new car which is the collaborative effort of one or more competitor car companies. Pooling knowledge, techniques, and resources could create something a step ahead of other competitors. Finally, GM should enlist the creativity of potential customers by involving them in the car design process. New car models could become “open-source” by allowing designs to be rendered by potential customers on the internet. The features of the car could be further customized online including colors, dash options, and financing.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Debunking the debunked
Though not strictly political in nature, global climate change is of immense interest to me. Understanding its fundamental components and encouraging dialogue (or polylogue?) with regard to its implications is an important step in accurately addressing the challenge it represents to human civilization and indeed life on Earth. The following is a brief comment I wrote with regard to an article posted on Yahoo news. The article suggested that planting trees in non-tropical latitudes could have a counter-intuitively negative effect on mitigating climate change. I disagreed, suggesting that that analysis was overly simplistic.
The concern cited in the article about trees actually raising temperatures near the earth's surface, is misleading and overly simplistic. 1) Global warming is an effect associated with heat not being able to radiate back into space (because it's trapped in the atmosphere). While a dark forest canopy will indeed raise surface temperatures, the carbon sequestered in the trees will reduce the over-all carbon content of the atmosphere, thus reducing the green house effect. 2) climate change is more than just about temperature. Species, plants, and animals will be greatly affected, particularly because they don't have air conditioners, and sunscreen to protect them from the changing ecosystem. Planting trees and forests is a very, very good thing because it improves the soil and air quality, it filters toxins in the environment and water supply, it provides shelter for many plant and animal species, some of which humans may depend on for our survival. Making our environment more robust is essential in preparing for the harsh effects of global warming and global climate change (a more accurate term). It would be nice if your articles in the future could address these complexities.
The concern cited in the article about trees actually raising temperatures near the earth's surface, is misleading and overly simplistic. 1) Global warming is an effect associated with heat not being able to radiate back into space (because it's trapped in the atmosphere). While a dark forest canopy will indeed raise surface temperatures, the carbon sequestered in the trees will reduce the over-all carbon content of the atmosphere, thus reducing the green house effect. 2) climate change is more than just about temperature. Species, plants, and animals will be greatly affected, particularly because they don't have air conditioners, and sunscreen to protect them from the changing ecosystem. Planting trees and forests is a very, very good thing because it improves the soil and air quality, it filters toxins in the environment and water supply, it provides shelter for many plant and animal species, some of which humans may depend on for our survival. Making our environment more robust is essential in preparing for the harsh effects of global warming and global climate change (a more accurate term). It would be nice if your articles in the future could address these complexities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
