Isn't freedom great?
Most of the time anyway.
The price of freedom has been described as eternal vigilance.
But, where is that vigilance when you need it?
Where is the vigilance in constantly and carefully overseeing the operation of critical financial institutions?
Where is it in anticipating serious problems before they arise, or at least shortly afterward?
And, where is it in providing accountability for protecting the public -all of the public- not just the privileged few?
I'm disappointed in Congress, again.
They just don't seem to get it that the reason they are in DC is to pay attention on behalf of this country's greater interest.
That adherence to party politics or personal agendas or belief systems aren't their primary function?
These are folks that have been used to finger pointing instead of the hard work of finding common ground.
They seem to think that someone else will take care of business, or maybe that business doesn't need taking care of in a 'free' market.
How did these people get elected?
Don't tell me, I know.
They got elected just like Council members do, and Mayors and such.
Only at levels that include more people and require more funding.
Kinda reminds you of a political Ponzi scheme, doesn't it?
There is certainly a place for populism, because at its essence it does reflect the wishes of the public.
But, are the public's expectations to be considered instantaneously, or as long-term needs?
Our founding Fathers set up our democracy as a representative one, not a direct one where everyone got a vote.
That's been changed over time, most notably to allow women, slaves and non-landowners to vote.
Those have been improvements that were needed, but which also have introduced some other dynamics.
As our country has grown and the issues have become more complex, our legislative process hasn't seemed able to keep pace.
Too often, we continue to revert back to simplistic formulas and ways of thinking that were more effective in simpler times.
Rather than trying to understand complex issues enough to allow serious contemplation of alternatives, our elected legislators are just as guilty of taking their direction from political allies, shock radio hosts and personal whims as we all are at times.
But, shouldn't we expect more of those we elect to represent us?
I'd like to think so.
I'd like these folks to start paying more attention to the serious programs, policies and problems they are to supposed to be responsible for, and less time in politicking to stay in office, or taking junkets paid for by lobbyists, or habitually working short weeks for whatever reason.
The recent 'bail-out' fiasco we've been treated to watch unfold is just the latest example of what concerns me.
Maybe our congress isn't yet convinced that the financial crisis is really a crisis?
If not, what would convince them?
Or, maybe congress would prefer more certainty that any given solution would actually work?
Maybe some members are so used to whining with impunity that they don't realize this situation is the real deal where no one gets to sit on the sideline and play the blame game.
And, maybe some are just seeking a way to become a hero so that can be parlayed into a higher office or some other advantage?
It's time to grow up children!
Get your butts back to DC and make some measurable progress that has a chance of helping solve this latest problem.
Cut out the whining and finger pointing long enough to pay attention to what is happening here and world-wide in our intertwined financial system.
You've provided enough entertainment to last us a while, now get back to work and don't come out until the job is done.
The public deserves nothing less!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Not so fast Mr Bush!
Eight years of looking the other way as greedy cronies got rich by gaming our system has now led to what had to be a predictable predicament.
To fix this mess, our fearless leader now wants unprecedented approval of authority to use Federal funds whenever he -or his Treasury Secretary- decides it to be necessary!
Amazing!
But not particularly surprising, given he did a similar thing with the 'Patriot Act' rush job and the Congressional authorization to print money to finance a made-up war in Iraq!
Those hurry up proposals haven't turned out so well, have they?
And, its remarkable how similar the price tags are -only $700 Billion in each case!
Mr Bush seems to feel the US Govt can just keep on printing money for whatever purpose he chooses.
And, he wants it now, within any diddling around by Congress, because it is another emergency!
Now, as members of Congress are asking questions, the administration appears to be trying to raise the stakes even higher.
They want to extend Federal buy-out authority to ANY troubled business that they -in their sole discretion- deem necessary!
Does that sound like a dangerous proposal or not?
If Bush wanted to create fear in the public mind without using the threat of terrorism, he couldn't have picked a better method than claiming the entire economy is about to fail if he doesn't get his way!
To pressure Congress to do his bidding, he says 'the World is watching'.
No kidding!
Just like the World has been watching his incompetent foolishness during the past 8 years!
There is no question that a serious problem now exists in our financial sector.
I only need to watch the daily hits my retirement funds are taking to figure that out.
The question is what is the best course of action to take, which will insure no further harm while actually addressing the difficult situation that has been let to happen.
Now, does that assignment sound like the sort of thing that can be reasoned out and implemented in a few days?
Under pressure?
In the midst of a Presidential campaign?
Before Congress adjourns?
I think that is too big an order to reasonably expect to be accomplished under these extreme conditions, particularly with the administration's very questionable credibility.
At a minimum, and since this probably is an emergency, something along these lines might work:
• Determine carefully what conditions might work, without gifting public funds or unduly restricting their use.
• Spell out clearly what Govt ownership is expected, including management of turnaround, ongoing operations and eventual sale to recoup federal funds used.
• Will only domestic companies be included? What about foreign subsidiaries or components?
• Will companies in which members of the administration, Congress have substantial interests be included? How would conflicts of interest be determined and handled?
• Clearly define what types of financial assistance will be offered if approval is granted.
• Let Congress determine which specific companies qualify for federal bail-out, by separately considering proposals from the administration.
• Make these initial terms & conditions provisional and subject to future modification by future administrations, with Congressional approval.
• Set up an oversight body to monitor results versus expectations and periodically report these findings to the administration, Congress and the general public.
No one likely has all the answers to this Gordian Knot of a problem, least of all those who watched it happen on their watch!
It took time for the true dimensions of the problem to develop and reveal themselves, as it will take time to come up with a satisfactory resolution.
It serves no good citizen's interest to adopt yet another Ready, Fire Aim approach!
Think about this when voting!
To fix this mess, our fearless leader now wants unprecedented approval of authority to use Federal funds whenever he -or his Treasury Secretary- decides it to be necessary!
Amazing!
But not particularly surprising, given he did a similar thing with the 'Patriot Act' rush job and the Congressional authorization to print money to finance a made-up war in Iraq!
Those hurry up proposals haven't turned out so well, have they?
And, its remarkable how similar the price tags are -only $700 Billion in each case!
Mr Bush seems to feel the US Govt can just keep on printing money for whatever purpose he chooses.
And, he wants it now, within any diddling around by Congress, because it is another emergency!
Now, as members of Congress are asking questions, the administration appears to be trying to raise the stakes even higher.
They want to extend Federal buy-out authority to ANY troubled business that they -in their sole discretion- deem necessary!
Does that sound like a dangerous proposal or not?
If Bush wanted to create fear in the public mind without using the threat of terrorism, he couldn't have picked a better method than claiming the entire economy is about to fail if he doesn't get his way!
To pressure Congress to do his bidding, he says 'the World is watching'.
No kidding!
Just like the World has been watching his incompetent foolishness during the past 8 years!
There is no question that a serious problem now exists in our financial sector.
I only need to watch the daily hits my retirement funds are taking to figure that out.
The question is what is the best course of action to take, which will insure no further harm while actually addressing the difficult situation that has been let to happen.
Now, does that assignment sound like the sort of thing that can be reasoned out and implemented in a few days?
Under pressure?
In the midst of a Presidential campaign?
Before Congress adjourns?
I think that is too big an order to reasonably expect to be accomplished under these extreme conditions, particularly with the administration's very questionable credibility.
At a minimum, and since this probably is an emergency, something along these lines might work:
• Determine carefully what conditions might work, without gifting public funds or unduly restricting their use.
• Spell out clearly what Govt ownership is expected, including management of turnaround, ongoing operations and eventual sale to recoup federal funds used.
• Will only domestic companies be included? What about foreign subsidiaries or components?
• Will companies in which members of the administration, Congress have substantial interests be included? How would conflicts of interest be determined and handled?
• Clearly define what types of financial assistance will be offered if approval is granted.
• Let Congress determine which specific companies qualify for federal bail-out, by separately considering proposals from the administration.
• Make these initial terms & conditions provisional and subject to future modification by future administrations, with Congressional approval.
• Set up an oversight body to monitor results versus expectations and periodically report these findings to the administration, Congress and the general public.
No one likely has all the answers to this Gordian Knot of a problem, least of all those who watched it happen on their watch!
It took time for the true dimensions of the problem to develop and reveal themselves, as it will take time to come up with a satisfactory resolution.
It serves no good citizen's interest to adopt yet another Ready, Fire Aim approach!
Think about this when voting!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Crying Wolf
Remember the story of Pinnochio the puppet?
Every time he told a fib, his nose grew a little longer.
Until it got so long that people noticed.
Think that may have happened in this country?
It's a wonder that 30% of people in this country don't get it, isn't it?
Carrying the long nose theme a little further, here's an animal with nose so long that it's called a trunk.
Ironic that the noble elephant became a symbol of the political party that has made lying an art form!
'Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed' is the moral of the fable of the boy who cried 'wolf'..
----------------
A Cabinet of Cronies?
Iraq? $700 Million our kids will pay for!
How to pay for Iraq?
Patriot Act excesses?
Katrina & FEMA's failure?
Why haven't we found Bin Laden?
Big Oil?
No Energy Policy even with $100/Barrel Oil?
No Environmental Policy?
Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG?
Another $700 Million our kids will pay for!
Who pays for this lack of financial oversight? We do!
No Healthcare reform?
Fiscal Deficits at all-time highs?
US Dollar at an all-time low?
Housing crisis?
Escalating trade deficits?
Growing scarcity of living wage jobs ?
Unresolved immigration problems?
Recession already a certainty for most of us?
Low International esteem?
Politics above Principles?
Since when do real Americans settle for such ideological incompetence?
Since when have we become consumers instead of citizens?
Since when do we settle for propaganda, myths, and lies instead of truth?
Since when would we rather gamble on wishes instead of working to make good things happen?
Since when would we rather watch a football game than a serious political debate?
Or, tolerate a bunch of meaningless sound bytes than value carefully considered arguments?
This election should not be close!
That polls show it to be close should be a matter of concern for every citizen.
Why would any of the 70% who disprove of the current White House occupant, actually vote for another R?
Especially one with an anger management problem, who can't remember how many houses or cars he owns?
How can such a person even understand the problems of real people, much less act in the greater public interest?
But, the R's are 'crying wolf' again that they aren't responsible for the mess we're in.
Anyone give credence to those sorry howls?
Please, let us not fall for that antic again!
Immeasurable harm to our country has already been done.
It's time for some healing, mending and trying to make tomorrow a better time for all of us, not just the favored few.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Fall Hiking at Mt Baker: Chain Lakes Loop
Joan & I did this hike yesterday. What a treat!
Here's a few photos:
Looking back at Mt Shuksan
Mt Baker from Herman Saddle
Iceberg Lake and Table Mountain
Mt Shuksan from Ptarmigan Ridge
Ptarmigan Ridge Trail
Mt Shuksan from Artists Point
Bagley Lakes from Wild Goose Trail
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Maverick is His Name: Gambling is His Game
Sing along now (from that old James Garner show):
"Natchez to New Orleans,
living on jacks and queens,
Maverick is the legend of the West.''
And, remember, Maverick was his name, gambling was his game,
and: "Luck is the lady that he loves the best.''
-----------------
Have we become a nation of gamblers?
Sometimes, I wonder if the sheer gravity and complexity of the issues and problems we deal with haven't become too much for people to contemplate.
Maybe, worrying about all that stuff isn't what we want to do anymore?
Does just letting things happen, or voting with reckless abandon, make any difference?
If one believes in predestination, or that Divine Providence will always rescue us, then maybe paying attention really doesn't matter that much.
But, after all these years of practicing free will and trying to discern right from wrong, I have to strongly discredit that recklessness as a way to achieve anything but chaos, suffering and a return to barbarism!
That's why John McCain's judgement is looking pretty cynical to me right now.
He seems to have forgotten that knowledge, hard work and continuing the noble path to freedom envisioned by our founding fathers require more than laziness and wishful thinking!
Instead of a book entitled 'The Audacity of Hope', he seems to favor one titled 'The Hope of Audacity'.
One could call that 'maverick' thinking, but I call it stupidity of the worst kind!
I doubt it is something he learned at the Naval Academy, or from his father, the Admiral, or his Grandfather, the Admiral either.
One doesn't earn the rank of Admiral by acting stupidly!
Is it that he wants to equal or surpass his father so badly that he will do anything to achieve that?
After all, that's kinda like what our current sorry excuse for a President did, and in so doing probably prevented his much more competent brother Jeb from having a chance at that job.
I wonder if McCain had a brother named McAble?
-----------------------
Largely quoting from an Internet source, found by Googling this blog's title, the following is offered:
Apparently, history has not been kind to old Gus Maverick, who was probably the original maverick, who died in September of 1870.
Conservative author William Safire wrote a book called “The New Language of American Politics”.
In it, Old man Maverick, Texas cattleman of the 1840s, refused to brand his cattle, because it was cruelty to animals.
His neighbors said he was a hypocrite, liar and thief because Maverick’s policy allowed him to claim all unbranded cattle on the range.
Lawsuits were followed by bloody battles and brought a new word to our language.”
Had he been an ordinary citizen, other ranchers would have taken his unbranded cattle grazing on the open range and marked them with their own brands.
But because Maverick was so influential, and owned 385,000 acres, he claimed any unbranded calf as his own, and got away with it.
Soon the name “maverick” was derisively applied by cowboys to all unbranded cattle.
John McCain and Sarah Palin may claim to be modern-day mavericks with the hope it lands them in the White House, but the label fits the legend in other respects.
In their personal and public lives, they do what they want to do regardless of how it may impact others, just because they can get away with it.
That’s nothing different than what we’ve had in the White House for the past eight years.
------------
Maverick Is Who's Name?
Past Democratic Party leaders tell the story that John McCain negotiated for two months with them to abandon the Republican Party at around the same time that Jim Jeffords crossed the aisle.
Apparently, one of McCain's top aides came to them in 2001 to initiate these discussions, which were later strenuously denied.
At times, McCain has done his best to look like a Democrat, or at least espouse their views.
Recall too, the flirtation from John Kerry and the Democrats in 2004 about McCain serving as his running mate?
Instead, McCain scotched the rumors, ran himself, then when that failed, campaigned for George Bush and other Republican candidates in the 2004 election, despite being treated very poorly by Bush, especially in South Carolina.
Had any defection to the D's occurred it would have effectively ended any McCain presidential bid, which is the prize he covets, because he already had trust issues with Republicans, particularly the extreme right wing and the rabid evangelicals.
Even now, in his friendship with Joe Lieberman, McCain is trying to have it both ways - all the while knowing that he absolutely has to please his fellow R's
So, with his political history in mind, was his choice of a VP running mate really the move of a 'maverick'?
I think not.
McCain's new ad proclaims: "We're worse off than we were four years ago.''
How about 8 years ago?
That would also include the Iraq debacle that he has so consistently supported.
--------------
But McCain likes the "maverick'' label, since the Washington Post first called him that in the early 1990s, as he sponsored a reform-minded agenda in the Senate.
When McCain defeated Bush in his party's presidential primary in New Hampshire in 2000, he declared on his way South: "We have sent a powerful message to Washington that change is coming.''
Didn't happen, at least change that was necessary or justified.
Now with Democrat Barack Obama running on a promise of "change,'' and connecting McCain with Bush, as being "in the pocket'' of Big Oil, McCain is coming back with more promises that he'll "reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil'' and "make America prosper again.''
Fat chance.
The difference between being a Senator and President is like a Picador compared to a Matador.
They both face the bull, but one is on a horse, prodding it with a long spear, while the other stands before the bull with only a cape and sword.
Now, he's recruited a partner who sits on that horse side-saddle and does his prodding for him, verbally!
Can't beat that for a spectacle, can you?
But, would you buy a ticket to see it?
John McCain should know that "Washington's broken,'' because he's been a part of it, maverick label or not.
---------------------
I think the maverick McCain is gone, if he ever really existed.
He seems to have been either rustled and branded like other cattle, or stampeded into the wilderness where he probably belongs!
How can a man who supports Bush 90 percent of the time, from the economy to energy to the Iraq War, be a maverick?
Compounding that, he has picked a woman who aims to out-Bush Bush on that remaining ten percent.
Do real mavericks run nasty, dishonest campaigns like W ran against him in 2000?
What happened to the 'Straight Talk Express'?
Who will tell McCain that his maverick image is wearing no clothes?
Instead, he comes dressed as a political conformist who bows to the slightest whim of his handlers!
And, hides behind a petticoat!
---------------
It seems to me that 'Re-Branding'' was something that appealed to the Republican Party not long ago.
But, how does that square with 'mavericks'? Aren't they 'unbranded' cattle?
A few definitions rom Wikipedia:
Livestock branding, the marking of animals to indicate ownership
Human branding, as body modification or punishment
Brand, a name, logo, slogan, and/or design scheme associated with a product or service
Brand management, the application of marketing techniques to a specific product, product line, or brand
Nation branding, the application of marketing techniques for the advancement of a country
Personal branding, people and their careers marketed as brands
Co-Branding, associates a single product or service with more than one brand name
Branding agency, a type of marketing agency which specialises in creating brands
------------
The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines a brand as a "name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers.
Therefore it makes sense to understand that branding is not about getting your target market to choose you over the competition, but it is about getting your prospects to see you as the only one that provides a solution to their problem.
The objectives that a good brand will achieve include:
Delivers the message clearly
Confirms your credibility
Connects your target prospects emotionally
Motivates the buyer
Concretes User Loyalty
To succeed in branding you must understand the needs and wants of your customers and prospects. You do this by integrating your brand strategies through your company at every point of public contact.
Your brand resides within the hearts and minds of customers, clients, and prospects. It is the sum total of their experiences and perceptions, some of which you can influence, and some that you cannot.
A strong brand is invaluable as the battle for customers intensifies day by day. It's important to spend time investing in researching, defining, and building your brand. After all your brand is the source of a promise to your consumer. It's a foundational piece in your marketing communication and one you do not want to be without.
Have the R's achieved these goals?
Does the image of a thin-skinned, lying, fat elephant with glasses and a hair-do adequately describe what the R's stand for these days?
These folks can sure dish it out, but they can't take it!
We can do so much better!
--------------------
"Liberals by nature look for information and conservatives look for ammunition"
"Natchez to New Orleans,
living on jacks and queens,
Maverick is the legend of the West.''
And, remember, Maverick was his name, gambling was his game,
and: "Luck is the lady that he loves the best.''
-----------------
Have we become a nation of gamblers?
Sometimes, I wonder if the sheer gravity and complexity of the issues and problems we deal with haven't become too much for people to contemplate.
Maybe, worrying about all that stuff isn't what we want to do anymore?
Does just letting things happen, or voting with reckless abandon, make any difference?
If one believes in predestination, or that Divine Providence will always rescue us, then maybe paying attention really doesn't matter that much.
But, after all these years of practicing free will and trying to discern right from wrong, I have to strongly discredit that recklessness as a way to achieve anything but chaos, suffering and a return to barbarism!
That's why John McCain's judgement is looking pretty cynical to me right now.
He seems to have forgotten that knowledge, hard work and continuing the noble path to freedom envisioned by our founding fathers require more than laziness and wishful thinking!
Instead of a book entitled 'The Audacity of Hope', he seems to favor one titled 'The Hope of Audacity'.
One could call that 'maverick' thinking, but I call it stupidity of the worst kind!
I doubt it is something he learned at the Naval Academy, or from his father, the Admiral, or his Grandfather, the Admiral either.
One doesn't earn the rank of Admiral by acting stupidly!
Is it that he wants to equal or surpass his father so badly that he will do anything to achieve that?
After all, that's kinda like what our current sorry excuse for a President did, and in so doing probably prevented his much more competent brother Jeb from having a chance at that job.
I wonder if McCain had a brother named McAble?
-----------------------
Largely quoting from an Internet source, found by Googling this blog's title, the following is offered:
Apparently, history has not been kind to old Gus Maverick, who was probably the original maverick, who died in September of 1870.
Conservative author William Safire wrote a book called “The New Language of American Politics”.
In it, Old man Maverick, Texas cattleman of the 1840s, refused to brand his cattle, because it was cruelty to animals.
His neighbors said he was a hypocrite, liar and thief because Maverick’s policy allowed him to claim all unbranded cattle on the range.
Lawsuits were followed by bloody battles and brought a new word to our language.”
Had he been an ordinary citizen, other ranchers would have taken his unbranded cattle grazing on the open range and marked them with their own brands.
But because Maverick was so influential, and owned 385,000 acres, he claimed any unbranded calf as his own, and got away with it.
Soon the name “maverick” was derisively applied by cowboys to all unbranded cattle.
John McCain and Sarah Palin may claim to be modern-day mavericks with the hope it lands them in the White House, but the label fits the legend in other respects.
In their personal and public lives, they do what they want to do regardless of how it may impact others, just because they can get away with it.
That’s nothing different than what we’ve had in the White House for the past eight years.
------------
Maverick Is Who's Name?
Past Democratic Party leaders tell the story that John McCain negotiated for two months with them to abandon the Republican Party at around the same time that Jim Jeffords crossed the aisle.
Apparently, one of McCain's top aides came to them in 2001 to initiate these discussions, which were later strenuously denied.
At times, McCain has done his best to look like a Democrat, or at least espouse their views.
Recall too, the flirtation from John Kerry and the Democrats in 2004 about McCain serving as his running mate?
Instead, McCain scotched the rumors, ran himself, then when that failed, campaigned for George Bush and other Republican candidates in the 2004 election, despite being treated very poorly by Bush, especially in South Carolina.
Had any defection to the D's occurred it would have effectively ended any McCain presidential bid, which is the prize he covets, because he already had trust issues with Republicans, particularly the extreme right wing and the rabid evangelicals.
Even now, in his friendship with Joe Lieberman, McCain is trying to have it both ways - all the while knowing that he absolutely has to please his fellow R's
So, with his political history in mind, was his choice of a VP running mate really the move of a 'maverick'?
I think not.
McCain's new ad proclaims: "We're worse off than we were four years ago.''
How about 8 years ago?
That would also include the Iraq debacle that he has so consistently supported.
--------------
But McCain likes the "maverick'' label, since the Washington Post first called him that in the early 1990s, as he sponsored a reform-minded agenda in the Senate.
When McCain defeated Bush in his party's presidential primary in New Hampshire in 2000, he declared on his way South: "We have sent a powerful message to Washington that change is coming.''
Didn't happen, at least change that was necessary or justified.
Now with Democrat Barack Obama running on a promise of "change,'' and connecting McCain with Bush, as being "in the pocket'' of Big Oil, McCain is coming back with more promises that he'll "reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil'' and "make America prosper again.''
Fat chance.
The difference between being a Senator and President is like a Picador compared to a Matador.
They both face the bull, but one is on a horse, prodding it with a long spear, while the other stands before the bull with only a cape and sword.
Now, he's recruited a partner who sits on that horse side-saddle and does his prodding for him, verbally!
Can't beat that for a spectacle, can you?
But, would you buy a ticket to see it?
John McCain should know that "Washington's broken,'' because he's been a part of it, maverick label or not.
---------------------
I think the maverick McCain is gone, if he ever really existed.
He seems to have been either rustled and branded like other cattle, or stampeded into the wilderness where he probably belongs!
How can a man who supports Bush 90 percent of the time, from the economy to energy to the Iraq War, be a maverick?
Compounding that, he has picked a woman who aims to out-Bush Bush on that remaining ten percent.
Do real mavericks run nasty, dishonest campaigns like W ran against him in 2000?
What happened to the 'Straight Talk Express'?
Who will tell McCain that his maverick image is wearing no clothes?
Instead, he comes dressed as a political conformist who bows to the slightest whim of his handlers!
And, hides behind a petticoat!
---------------
It seems to me that 'Re-Branding'' was something that appealed to the Republican Party not long ago.
But, how does that square with 'mavericks'? Aren't they 'unbranded' cattle?
A few definitions rom Wikipedia:
Livestock branding, the marking of animals to indicate ownership
Human branding, as body modification or punishment
Brand, a name, logo, slogan, and/or design scheme associated with a product or service
Brand management, the application of marketing techniques to a specific product, product line, or brand
Nation branding, the application of marketing techniques for the advancement of a country
Personal branding, people and their careers marketed as brands
Co-Branding, associates a single product or service with more than one brand name
Branding agency, a type of marketing agency which specialises in creating brands
------------
The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines a brand as a "name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers.
Therefore it makes sense to understand that branding is not about getting your target market to choose you over the competition, but it is about getting your prospects to see you as the only one that provides a solution to their problem.
The objectives that a good brand will achieve include:
Delivers the message clearly
Confirms your credibility
Connects your target prospects emotionally
Motivates the buyer
Concretes User Loyalty
To succeed in branding you must understand the needs and wants of your customers and prospects. You do this by integrating your brand strategies through your company at every point of public contact.
Your brand resides within the hearts and minds of customers, clients, and prospects. It is the sum total of their experiences and perceptions, some of which you can influence, and some that you cannot.
A strong brand is invaluable as the battle for customers intensifies day by day. It's important to spend time investing in researching, defining, and building your brand. After all your brand is the source of a promise to your consumer. It's a foundational piece in your marketing communication and one you do not want to be without.
Have the R's achieved these goals?
Does the image of a thin-skinned, lying, fat elephant with glasses and a hair-do adequately describe what the R's stand for these days?
These folks can sure dish it out, but they can't take it!
We can do so much better!
--------------------
"Liberals by nature look for information and conservatives look for ammunition"
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Lipstick: Asset or Distraction?
'You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig' is a quote credited to Dick Cheney, as I found out somewhat to my chagrin after using it during a City Council meeting last year.
At the time, I thought it fit perfectly the thought I was trying to convey; that just talking about a few 'feel-good' cosmetics to justify a position on an issue doesn't come close to seriously addressing its real import and potential ramifications.
Last I checked, real 'issues' are mostly gender neutral.
So, what's this made-up fuss about?
Issues were being discussed and debated long before anyone ever heard of Sarah Palin [some are calling her the 'Caribou Barbie' or a female George Bush], or John McCain for that matter.
The talk about 'lipstick' issues is nothing but a pure distraction from talking about things that are -or should be- of real concern to people.
You know, little things like like war & peace, prosperity or poverty, healthcare versus no healthcare, education or ignorance, lawfulness vs outlaw behavior, honesty & dishonesty, reality versus perceptions.
Just little things like that.
In earlier times, the use of lipstick-like coloring materials was what men used, and sometimes it came to be called warpaint or fearsome tattoos.
Ruling class folks of past centuries thought it was quite fashionable.
More recently, the cosmetics industry has burgeoned, largely due to demand from women who prefer less natural looks.
I suspect the combination of increased affluence and the long overdue freedoms of expression and choice that have accrued to women in most progressive countries have given rise to the widespread use of cosmetics, including lipstick.
But, actors, clowns, soldiers, burglars, rabid sports fans and vain men also are consumers and users of cosmetics of all kinds.
Others, including the poor, shy, allergic, natural-look preferring or religiously restricted, don't use them.
But, again, people do have the choice of using cosmetics or not.
[Isn't it ironic to be talking about something so simple as the right of choice when a woman's right to choose whether a childbirth might be harmful is again being challenged?]
Personally, I think some people do look better in a little lipstick than without it, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make.
Lipstick is an artificial substance which masks a more natural appearance, just as McCain's current rhetoric on the subject is an attempt to avoid addressing real issues.
It seems obvious to me that McCain is using his VP 'choice' for her lipstick appeal, as well as her pit bull aggressiveness.
Also, it doesn't hurt to have her petticoat to hide behind either!
-----------------
An interesting thought came to me today while visiting the Legion of Honor in San Francisco to view an exhibit on Women Impressionists. The work of four artists was displayed accompanied by fascinating written & audio descriptions; Berthe Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Eva Gonzales & Marie Bracquemond.
Although the term 'impressionist' has multiple and diverse meanings, it definitely does not equate to the so-called 'Conservative' School of thought which prevailed in France during the 19th Century.
The Conservative School sought to dictate what was to be considered art by rigid formulas, not by the inspiration of the individual artist.
So, the Impressionists as a group were at a severe disadvantage when their works were evaluated during that time.
At even more of a disadvantage were the women artists who painted what were considered 'Impressionist' works.
In those days, well-bred women of important families were not even allowed out in public without a chaperone!
[Does that remind you of anyone? Like maybe Sarah Palin, whom the R's won't let appear in any forum without tutors!]
Imagine how that restriction must have impacted their ability to learn techniques under recognized Masters, choose subjects for their works, or even physically visit places that were considered off-limits to them.
One of these four women artists was actually commissioned to paint a mural for display at a World's Fair during the early 20th Century.
Although this mural has been lost or destroyed, the recollection that it was not well-received remains.
At the very time I viewed that display, a women behind me exclaimed that the main figure 'looked more like a man'!
It seems that woman artist is still experiencing some kind of disadvantage.
-----------------
Women' suffrage and liberation has been a long time coming, but thank goodness it is here to the extent it is in this country!
Although vestiges of former ancient fears, customs, divisions of responsibility, prejudices and jealousies remain to be overcome, women's equality has made great strides forward.
As the the old Virginia Slims ad proclaimed, 'You've come a long way, baby'. But, there is so much more to be done before true equality between the sexes is achieved!
That is why it won't do to have women exploited so crassly as the Republicans are trying to do with Sarah Palin, who either willingly or unwittingly has allowed that behavior.
There are many people -women and men- who are much better qualified for VP -and potentially the President- of the US!
Hillary Clinton is certainly at the top of that list, but there are many other women -and men- on it.
You know, women do out-number men in this country, so if they got together they could really make a difference!
Who would most women that you know vote for?
I doubt it would be Sarah Palin.
But, as they say in politics, 'it's not the cream of the crop, it's the pick of the lot'.
I hope this election doesn't become about who can posture about phony 'lipstick' or 'petticoat' issues, but who is better qualified to lead this country forward in a respectful, enlightened and consistent manner.
It will be a big job to even dig us out of the tremendous debt that has been created by the current administration, much less repair our economy and our world standing.
That is a huge deficit and challenge that I don't believe John McCain is equipped to handle, either philosophically or otherwise.
If the 'lipstick card' is to be played, let it be for the good of our country and not some silly, temporary campaign advantage.
The way things are going, lipstick will be more of a distraction than an asset to those of us who hope for the very best from these elections!
So, what will it be?
The Conservative School with all its narrow, rigid restrictions and formulas?
Or, the Impressionists, who represent a fresh, more open -unchaperoned- approach to things that are really important?
Time will tell, but I'm voting for the latter.
Barack Obama is the President we need to have elected now.
Our future is at stake!
------------
At the time, I thought it fit perfectly the thought I was trying to convey; that just talking about a few 'feel-good' cosmetics to justify a position on an issue doesn't come close to seriously addressing its real import and potential ramifications.
Last I checked, real 'issues' are mostly gender neutral.
So, what's this made-up fuss about?
Issues were being discussed and debated long before anyone ever heard of Sarah Palin [some are calling her the 'Caribou Barbie' or a female George Bush], or John McCain for that matter.
The talk about 'lipstick' issues is nothing but a pure distraction from talking about things that are -or should be- of real concern to people.
You know, little things like like war & peace, prosperity or poverty, healthcare versus no healthcare, education or ignorance, lawfulness vs outlaw behavior, honesty & dishonesty, reality versus perceptions.
Just little things like that.
In earlier times, the use of lipstick-like coloring materials was what men used, and sometimes it came to be called warpaint or fearsome tattoos.
Ruling class folks of past centuries thought it was quite fashionable.
More recently, the cosmetics industry has burgeoned, largely due to demand from women who prefer less natural looks.
I suspect the combination of increased affluence and the long overdue freedoms of expression and choice that have accrued to women in most progressive countries have given rise to the widespread use of cosmetics, including lipstick.
But, actors, clowns, soldiers, burglars, rabid sports fans and vain men also are consumers and users of cosmetics of all kinds.
Others, including the poor, shy, allergic, natural-look preferring or religiously restricted, don't use them.
But, again, people do have the choice of using cosmetics or not.
[Isn't it ironic to be talking about something so simple as the right of choice when a woman's right to choose whether a childbirth might be harmful is again being challenged?]
Personally, I think some people do look better in a little lipstick than without it, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make.
Lipstick is an artificial substance which masks a more natural appearance, just as McCain's current rhetoric on the subject is an attempt to avoid addressing real issues.
It seems obvious to me that McCain is using his VP 'choice' for her lipstick appeal, as well as her pit bull aggressiveness.
Also, it doesn't hurt to have her petticoat to hide behind either!
-----------------
An interesting thought came to me today while visiting the Legion of Honor in San Francisco to view an exhibit on Women Impressionists. The work of four artists was displayed accompanied by fascinating written & audio descriptions; Berthe Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Eva Gonzales & Marie Bracquemond.
Although the term 'impressionist' has multiple and diverse meanings, it definitely does not equate to the so-called 'Conservative' School of thought which prevailed in France during the 19th Century.
The Conservative School sought to dictate what was to be considered art by rigid formulas, not by the inspiration of the individual artist.
So, the Impressionists as a group were at a severe disadvantage when their works were evaluated during that time.
At even more of a disadvantage were the women artists who painted what were considered 'Impressionist' works.
In those days, well-bred women of important families were not even allowed out in public without a chaperone!
[Does that remind you of anyone? Like maybe Sarah Palin, whom the R's won't let appear in any forum without tutors!]
Imagine how that restriction must have impacted their ability to learn techniques under recognized Masters, choose subjects for their works, or even physically visit places that were considered off-limits to them.
One of these four women artists was actually commissioned to paint a mural for display at a World's Fair during the early 20th Century.
Although this mural has been lost or destroyed, the recollection that it was not well-received remains.
At the very time I viewed that display, a women behind me exclaimed that the main figure 'looked more like a man'!
It seems that woman artist is still experiencing some kind of disadvantage.
-----------------
Women' suffrage and liberation has been a long time coming, but thank goodness it is here to the extent it is in this country!
Although vestiges of former ancient fears, customs, divisions of responsibility, prejudices and jealousies remain to be overcome, women's equality has made great strides forward.
As the the old Virginia Slims ad proclaimed, 'You've come a long way, baby'. But, there is so much more to be done before true equality between the sexes is achieved!
That is why it won't do to have women exploited so crassly as the Republicans are trying to do with Sarah Palin, who either willingly or unwittingly has allowed that behavior.
There are many people -women and men- who are much better qualified for VP -and potentially the President- of the US!
Hillary Clinton is certainly at the top of that list, but there are many other women -and men- on it.
You know, women do out-number men in this country, so if they got together they could really make a difference!
Who would most women that you know vote for?
I doubt it would be Sarah Palin.
But, as they say in politics, 'it's not the cream of the crop, it's the pick of the lot'.
I hope this election doesn't become about who can posture about phony 'lipstick' or 'petticoat' issues, but who is better qualified to lead this country forward in a respectful, enlightened and consistent manner.
It will be a big job to even dig us out of the tremendous debt that has been created by the current administration, much less repair our economy and our world standing.
That is a huge deficit and challenge that I don't believe John McCain is equipped to handle, either philosophically or otherwise.
If the 'lipstick card' is to be played, let it be for the good of our country and not some silly, temporary campaign advantage.
The way things are going, lipstick will be more of a distraction than an asset to those of us who hope for the very best from these elections!
So, what will it be?
The Conservative School with all its narrow, rigid restrictions and formulas?
Or, the Impressionists, who represent a fresh, more open -unchaperoned- approach to things that are really important?
Time will tell, but I'm voting for the latter.
Barack Obama is the President we need to have elected now.
Our future is at stake!
------------
Monday, September 8, 2008
She Whose Name Should Not Be Spoken Would Ban These Books
A friend of mine who is a retired Librarian sent me the following information.
Since it may be instructive to potential voters, I'm passing it on without comment, except for a few obvious questions;
How many of these books do you imagine she has actually read?
If she has read them all, why prevent others from the same opportunity?
If she hasn't read them all, who gave her the rest of the list?
How many have you read, or seen in a movie or play?
How about your kids?
Which would you ban?
Do you really think this person would be a good potential US President & Leader of the Free World - one heartbeat removed?
--------------------------
The following is the list of books that Sarah Palin tried to have removed from the Wasilla Library when she was mayor of Wasilla. This information is taken from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board. When the librarian refused Palin tried to get her fired, an attempt that failed due to the residents who rallied in defense of their library.
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine
Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel
Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of
Pleasure) by J ohn Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophane s
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster
Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween
Symbols by Edna Barth
Since it may be instructive to potential voters, I'm passing it on without comment, except for a few obvious questions;
How many of these books do you imagine she has actually read?
If she has read them all, why prevent others from the same opportunity?
If she hasn't read them all, who gave her the rest of the list?
How many have you read, or seen in a movie or play?
How about your kids?
Which would you ban?
Do you really think this person would be a good potential US President & Leader of the Free World - one heartbeat removed?
--------------------------
The following is the list of books that Sarah Palin tried to have removed from the Wasilla Library when she was mayor of Wasilla. This information is taken from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board. When the librarian refused Palin tried to get her fired, an attempt that failed due to the residents who rallied in defense of their library.
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine
Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel
Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of
Pleasure) by J ohn Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophane s
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster
Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween
Symbols by Edna Barth
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Politics & Entropy: What's in a Name?
“ Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension. ”
--Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids (1873)
----------------------------------
The current elections spectacle has evolved into a mishmash of strange contradictions, misapplied rhetoric and pure BS, which may be all that certain elements of our political system could have reasonably expected.
Where did issues and honesty get replaced by ideology and spin?
Did that begin with the Supreme decision that campaigns don't necessarily have to be truthful?
Or, maybe with the 1987 decision against the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' for networks using the public airways?
Or, when 'journalism' got redefined as undisguised advocacy?
Or, when powerful people got caught doing wrong, then got rich and famous about writing about it?
Or, when so-called 'patriotism' and 'morality' slogans began being the band-aid that covered up the painful blister?
Or, when serious, obvious problems are consistently ignored in favor of palliatives and placebos?
And, how did a a national election become a discussion about a relative unknown VP candidate, and not about the person who impetuously picked that person?
This whole thing seems to be a deception of monumental proportions that is only aided and abetted by the media -either the so-called 'mainstream' or the blatantly partisan!
Under the current flood of misinformation, how long can our democracy really expect to survive and thrive?
As a free country the US has only about 234 years of history, far less than the Roman Empire and several Chinese Dynasties, none of which was considered a democracy capable of providing stability, prosperity, peace, freedom and good prospects for the pursuit of happiness for every citizen.
All those things seem to be taken for granted these days, without the thought that any effort is needed to actually sustain them.
OK, so much for this mini-rant.
On to stuff that tries to address change, the need for it and the rate at which a society can readily absorb it.
----------------------------------
Over 40 years ago, I was required to write a college term paper on a topic germane to one or more of several books of required reading.
The topic that came to me one evening was so compelling that I spent most of that same night drafting the essay.
The title I selected was 'The Second Law of Secularization', which attempted to compare the rate of acceptable social change to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a rather arcane scientific and engineering concept that introduces the subject of ENTROPY.
I turned that paper in 6 weeks before it was due, a feat I never approached before or after.
Entropy is a concept that can't be directly be encountered. Instead, it is a way of understanding what happens when work, requiring the use of energy, is undertaken. All work, useful or otherwise, requires some energy to be expended. Efficient work work requires less energy use than inefficient work. That's about it, which should be adequate for the purposes of this blog.
Point is, we don't want to use too much energy at one time -like an explosion, or a chaos causing event. And, we want to be careful to use energy wisely by doing work that is essential or necessary as our first priority. Inefficient or wasteful use of energy too often carries penalties that are uncomfortable, either to us or our offspring. But work itself is useful, desirable and necessary. The trick is to find that balance which satisfies our current needs without sacrificing our future needs. Finding that balance takes a measure of wisdom, born of experience.
So, now visualize applying this concept to our society and its evolving needs. Do we want to ignore the fact that social needs exist and must be addressed? Or, do we want to recognize that new needs are being created that need addressing? Think about it. Nothing ever stays the same, does it?
Our method of bringing about the changes that are needed to address current problems and concerns is through our political system. That is what we have to work with, right, wrong or indifferent. Who gets to decide when changes are needed? Who gets to decide how much change is enough, or can be afforded? Who gets to decide who pays for changes our society adopts?
The answer to all these questions is the same; we do. How we do it depends upon whom we elect and what measures we support. That's what elections are about. That's also why it is important to find a way to talk about issues honestly, then take action decisively. There will always be debate about what is necessary, when it is necessary and who pays. But, there should be no debate about whether periodic changes are necessary, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Our leaders are the ones we select to lead us through any change process determined to be necessary.
We need to care of who we assign to these duties.
No one party has all the answers, and no one branch of government has supreme power over the others -although the Executive seems to be enjoying an increasing major advantage these days, which is a concern.
----------------------
There has been a growing divide between factions calling themselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'.
That is largely an artificial distinction which does a disservice to both our major political parties and to our language itself!
Look at these brief definitions of these terms:
Conservative:
-resistant to change
-having social or political views favoring conservatism
-cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
-button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
-a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
-bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
-a member of a Conservative Party
Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". ...
-----------
Liberal:
-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.
-----------
It seems to me that both definitions contain concepts we all support and value.
As with the concept of ENTROPY, the trick is to find the balance which allows some necessary change at a rate that can address a problem, be tolerated and afforded.
I'm tired of listening to people throw these words around as if they were mutually exclusive!
But, I do understand there are some who do see the world in such black and white terms that it prevents meaningful dialogue from finding ANY balance.
That's called stalemate, and it does no good for anyone, except those intent upon never reaching a compromise and thereby perpetuates impasses.
Clever slogans like 'Pro Life' & 'Pro Choice' seem to fall into this category, don't they?
Is there anyone who doesn't believe in both? Think about it.
Everyone wants some change! Some want it all in their direction, others don't want to pay for it, and some don't seem to recognize it is happening anyway and must be accommodated!
The one change I wish for is more honesty, period.
We may not like to always practice it, but it is a standard upon which we can build a truly lasting democracy!
That ought to be one thing we can all agree on and decide to leave our children, and their children....
----------------------
“ My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it ‘information’, but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it ‘uncertainty’. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, ‘You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage. ”
--Conversation between Claude Shannon and John von Neumann regarding what name to give to the “measure of uncertainty” or attenuation in phone-line signals (1949)
--Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids (1873)
----------------------------------
The current elections spectacle has evolved into a mishmash of strange contradictions, misapplied rhetoric and pure BS, which may be all that certain elements of our political system could have reasonably expected.
Where did issues and honesty get replaced by ideology and spin?
Did that begin with the Supreme decision that campaigns don't necessarily have to be truthful?
Or, maybe with the 1987 decision against the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' for networks using the public airways?
Or, when 'journalism' got redefined as undisguised advocacy?
Or, when powerful people got caught doing wrong, then got rich and famous about writing about it?
Or, when so-called 'patriotism' and 'morality' slogans began being the band-aid that covered up the painful blister?
Or, when serious, obvious problems are consistently ignored in favor of palliatives and placebos?
And, how did a a national election become a discussion about a relative unknown VP candidate, and not about the person who impetuously picked that person?
This whole thing seems to be a deception of monumental proportions that is only aided and abetted by the media -either the so-called 'mainstream' or the blatantly partisan!
Under the current flood of misinformation, how long can our democracy really expect to survive and thrive?
As a free country the US has only about 234 years of history, far less than the Roman Empire and several Chinese Dynasties, none of which was considered a democracy capable of providing stability, prosperity, peace, freedom and good prospects for the pursuit of happiness for every citizen.
All those things seem to be taken for granted these days, without the thought that any effort is needed to actually sustain them.
OK, so much for this mini-rant.
On to stuff that tries to address change, the need for it and the rate at which a society can readily absorb it.
----------------------------------
Over 40 years ago, I was required to write a college term paper on a topic germane to one or more of several books of required reading.
The topic that came to me one evening was so compelling that I spent most of that same night drafting the essay.
The title I selected was 'The Second Law of Secularization', which attempted to compare the rate of acceptable social change to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a rather arcane scientific and engineering concept that introduces the subject of ENTROPY.
I turned that paper in 6 weeks before it was due, a feat I never approached before or after.
Entropy is a concept that can't be directly be encountered. Instead, it is a way of understanding what happens when work, requiring the use of energy, is undertaken. All work, useful or otherwise, requires some energy to be expended. Efficient work work requires less energy use than inefficient work. That's about it, which should be adequate for the purposes of this blog.
Point is, we don't want to use too much energy at one time -like an explosion, or a chaos causing event. And, we want to be careful to use energy wisely by doing work that is essential or necessary as our first priority. Inefficient or wasteful use of energy too often carries penalties that are uncomfortable, either to us or our offspring. But work itself is useful, desirable and necessary. The trick is to find that balance which satisfies our current needs without sacrificing our future needs. Finding that balance takes a measure of wisdom, born of experience.
So, now visualize applying this concept to our society and its evolving needs. Do we want to ignore the fact that social needs exist and must be addressed? Or, do we want to recognize that new needs are being created that need addressing? Think about it. Nothing ever stays the same, does it?
Our method of bringing about the changes that are needed to address current problems and concerns is through our political system. That is what we have to work with, right, wrong or indifferent. Who gets to decide when changes are needed? Who gets to decide how much change is enough, or can be afforded? Who gets to decide who pays for changes our society adopts?
The answer to all these questions is the same; we do. How we do it depends upon whom we elect and what measures we support. That's what elections are about. That's also why it is important to find a way to talk about issues honestly, then take action decisively. There will always be debate about what is necessary, when it is necessary and who pays. But, there should be no debate about whether periodic changes are necessary, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Our leaders are the ones we select to lead us through any change process determined to be necessary.
We need to care of who we assign to these duties.
No one party has all the answers, and no one branch of government has supreme power over the others -although the Executive seems to be enjoying an increasing major advantage these days, which is a concern.
----------------------
There has been a growing divide between factions calling themselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'.
That is largely an artificial distinction which does a disservice to both our major political parties and to our language itself!
Look at these brief definitions of these terms:
Conservative:
-resistant to change
-having social or political views favoring conservatism
-cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
-button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
-a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
-bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
-a member of a Conservative Party
Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". ...
-----------
Liberal:
-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.
-----------
It seems to me that both definitions contain concepts we all support and value.
As with the concept of ENTROPY, the trick is to find the balance which allows some necessary change at a rate that can address a problem, be tolerated and afforded.
I'm tired of listening to people throw these words around as if they were mutually exclusive!
But, I do understand there are some who do see the world in such black and white terms that it prevents meaningful dialogue from finding ANY balance.
That's called stalemate, and it does no good for anyone, except those intent upon never reaching a compromise and thereby perpetuates impasses.
Clever slogans like 'Pro Life' & 'Pro Choice' seem to fall into this category, don't they?
Is there anyone who doesn't believe in both? Think about it.
Everyone wants some change! Some want it all in their direction, others don't want to pay for it, and some don't seem to recognize it is happening anyway and must be accommodated!
The one change I wish for is more honesty, period.
We may not like to always practice it, but it is a standard upon which we can build a truly lasting democracy!
That ought to be one thing we can all agree on and decide to leave our children, and their children....
----------------------
“ My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it ‘information’, but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it ‘uncertainty’. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, ‘You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage. ”
--Conversation between Claude Shannon and John von Neumann regarding what name to give to the “measure of uncertainty” or attenuation in phone-line signals (1949)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
