Read This First
Read the news today and you will see a lot of negativity, particularly directed towards the
"haves", the big-time companies and their employees. Message boards are littered with vitriol against the so-called "1%", with much "well, I don't see them giving back their huge bonuses" and "you should be ashamed of yourself".
Let's all take a minute to calm down and look at this from the other side.
As you can see in the article I linked, not everyone in the finance business is eating babies and deliberately plundering your life savings. Do those people exist? Yes. (Well, except for the baby eating, I don't think there is much of that going on even on Wall Street.) But the industry is also full of people doing their best to help their customers. The conflict is between the desire to help your customers and a desire to make a profit.
Nowadays, "profit" has become a bad word. It seems to conjure up an image of some greasy fat-cat with a cigar. We have decided as a society that since some people are making a lot more money than other people, that anyone who makes money is bad. Look around online, or ask around at the local pub, and I think you will find that a lot of people, particularly of the "blue collar" persuasion, think that "rich" people are generally bad. Everyone wants to make money, but people will go out of their way not to drive a car that makes them look pretentious or let people think they are "rich".
When did this happen? People talk about the "American Dream", the old mythical goal of "making it" and being set for life. Now, if you achieve it, you have to take pains not to look like it, otherwise people will hold you in contempt. Look at Mitt Romney for instance. One of his biggest liabilities in a party that is known for celebrating the accomplishments of the individual and generally support "trickle-down" economic theories is that he makes "too much money".
We all seem to want to be rich, but not have other people think of us as "rich people".
Greg Smith, who wrote the article above, was an executive director of Goldman Sachs, one of the firms viewed as a prime villain in the recent recession. As such, his compensation was probably in the millions of dollars per year. Most people look at numbers like that and say "Wow, what a ridiculous amount of money, I can't believe he gets paid that much." Take a moment, however, and read the article. He mentions that "my clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars". Let's pause here, as there is a demonstrated and documented inability of humans to grasp the amount of money that represents. He manages over $1,000,000,000,000 dollars. Even if he is paid $10 million yearly, that is 1/100,000 of the amount of money he manages. That is equivalent to someone making $40,000 per year being responsible for $4 BILLION. If I told you I would hire you for those kinds of numbers, you would probably laugh at me. So let's stop claiming he is overpaid. In fact, most people in finance are compensated similarly. They make a lot of money, but that is because they are responsible for ridiculously large amounts. Even your local bank branch has millions of dollars in its care at any time.
Instead of "these people make way too much money", let's focus on the more important point that Greg Smith raises here: "these people are far too callous with their customers". This is the important part. Reading the article, you can see a corporate culture that has changed to prioritize making money off of the customer rather than making money for the customer. This is a fundamental change. Goldman Sachs spent over 100 years as an extremely reputable firm. They built their success and reputation by making their customers a great deal of money. In the past decade or so they, along with many other financial institutions, seem to have transitioned to a point where they feel large enough that they don't need to worry about making money for their customers as much as making money for themselves. This attitude has led to a number of irresponsible and unethical policies, and seems to have contributed a great deal to the economic downturn.
I applaud Mr. Smith for his courage and principle in standing up, throwing back the curtain, and showing us the problems at the center of the system. Many people, even in the comments on his article, are lambasting him for not leaving sooner, or implying that he should give the money back. Let's not be ridiculous. It is difficult enough to throw away your colleagues, associates, and friends that you have gained through 12 years at a company. On top of that, he is giving up a very lucrative salary to blow the whistle. Whether you make $20,000 a year or $20 million, it is not an easy thing to give up on principle. Credit him for the integrity he has shown by coming forward, and demand more of the same from your banks and financial institutions.
Is the system a problem right now? Yes. Is it hopeless? No. There are still people with integrity in the business, let's support them. By vilifying the people who manage your money, you only give them more reasons to disregard your opinions. On top of that, you will force the people who value your opinion out, leaving only the dregs. Greg Smith did a very difficult thing, let's learn a lesson from it and try to improve the situation.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
Your Classwork for Today
The Russian Presidential elections have been held, and results coming in show Vladimir Putin leading with about 65% of the vote. If you pay any attention to the news, this should come as absolutely no surprise. There have been numerous accusations of unfair campaign practices, ballot stuffing, and other corrupt policies. Numerous international news sources, including Al-Jazeera, have published these claims. Putin has received congratulations from President al-Assad in Syria, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and Hu Jintao in China, all nations known for their extremely transparent democracies (yes, that is sarcasm, folks.) At first blush this seems like yet another perversion of the democratic process and a bad sign for Russia.
But let's stop and look at it.
Russia as a nation has always tended towards strong individual leadership. When the Mongols invaded the Rus in the 1200s, they awarded the title of Grand Duke to the Duchy that generated the most tax revenue. Moscow, as an up-and-coming river trade port, won this title consistently, establishing Moscow and its Grand Duke as the de facto ruler of Russia. These Grand Dukes eventually included such luminaries as Ivan III (The Great) and Ivan IV (The Terrible). These men built Russia to a great power, but mainly through a very strong central power and expansionist military policies.
This tendency towards expansionism is completely understandable. A people descended from Vikings, forged by Mongol rule, and living in one of the harsher climates in the world would have to develop an aggressive bent merely to avoid extinction. History is full of European powers who look East as an easy means to expand their empires, and the Far Eastern powers were often looking west. Any such militaristic group of people cannot help but to gravitate towards strong leaders, and this has shown itself throughout Russian history.
When the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar in 1917, it was arguably a matter of the people supporting another strong leader, Vladimir Lenin, over a then-weakened leader in Nicholas II. The reforms that Nicholas had been forced to accept in the aftermath of the Revolution of 1905 had weakened his position considerably and lost him the support of the people.
Despite the economic failures of the Soviet regime, Russia remained strong through the vast majority of the Cold War. Once Gorbachev came to power, he was able to open up the Soviet system, introduce some capitalism, and thaw the Cold War. Unfortunately, this once again painted him as a weak and unfocused leader, opening the way for an attempted coup in August 1991. Order was again restored by a strong and charismatic leader, Boris Yeltsin.
Yeltsin was unable to maintain a strong hold on the country, however, and the shock of a conversion to capitalism left the country mostly lawless, rampant with organized crime, and financially insolvent. The 1998 Russian Economic Crisis sounded the death knell for Yeltsin's government. At this point, a true Russian leader stepped in once again.
A former KGB Second Directorate (Counter-Intelligence) officer, Putin had grown up in communal apartments in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and worked his way up through the system, eventually becoming a close associate of Anatoly Sobchak, Mayor of Leningrad. Putin resigned from the KGB after the failed coup against Gorbachev, and eventually turned that hard-line credibility into a political career, working his way up to Yeltsin's right-hand-man. In this position, he put a halt to further efforts to limit federal power, and eventually rescinded many of the limitations upon becoming president.
What does this history lesson have to do with this story?
Everything. Upon ascending to the Presidency, Putin's strong leadership led to a revivification of the Russian economy. By focusing on developing Russia's incredibly valuable natural resources, Putin dramatically improved the economy and stamped out a large amount of the lawlessness common in the 1990s. Measures to maintain stability have been draconian at times, particularly in Chechnya, but many Russians seem to prefer stability under the threat of oppression.
We have a tendency in America to view democracy and fair elections as the most important thing in the world. This is a dangerous view when applied to Russia. Since Putin has come to power, Russian GDP has surged, more than doubling during his first term. In addition, unemployment has been roughly halved. Despite a growing wealth disparity, Putin has led Russia to prosperity unseen since the end of the Cold War.
Beyond the domestic successes, Putin has brought Russia back onto the world stage. We see Russian policies as generally backward or dangerous, particularly in situation such as the Syrian conflict, where Russia is blocking UN intervention. It must be noted, however, that this ability to oppose action is mainly dependent on the stability of the Russian state. This stability is vital, as it provides another anchor internationally. When Russia was unstable, there were constant dangers of lost nuclear weapons and bio-war technology, often thought to be funneled towards rogue states and terrorist groups.
We cannot let our devotion to democratic principles blind us to the fact that a stable Russia is vital. Despite our differences in opinion, a strong Russian government is an entity that we can reasonably negotiate with. In the end, it is better to have the devil you know than the devil you don't
The Russian Presidential elections have been held, and results coming in show Vladimir Putin leading with about 65% of the vote. If you pay any attention to the news, this should come as absolutely no surprise. There have been numerous accusations of unfair campaign practices, ballot stuffing, and other corrupt policies. Numerous international news sources, including Al-Jazeera, have published these claims. Putin has received congratulations from President al-Assad in Syria, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and Hu Jintao in China, all nations known for their extremely transparent democracies (yes, that is sarcasm, folks.) At first blush this seems like yet another perversion of the democratic process and a bad sign for Russia.
But let's stop and look at it.
Russia as a nation has always tended towards strong individual leadership. When the Mongols invaded the Rus in the 1200s, they awarded the title of Grand Duke to the Duchy that generated the most tax revenue. Moscow, as an up-and-coming river trade port, won this title consistently, establishing Moscow and its Grand Duke as the de facto ruler of Russia. These Grand Dukes eventually included such luminaries as Ivan III (The Great) and Ivan IV (The Terrible). These men built Russia to a great power, but mainly through a very strong central power and expansionist military policies.
This tendency towards expansionism is completely understandable. A people descended from Vikings, forged by Mongol rule, and living in one of the harsher climates in the world would have to develop an aggressive bent merely to avoid extinction. History is full of European powers who look East as an easy means to expand their empires, and the Far Eastern powers were often looking west. Any such militaristic group of people cannot help but to gravitate towards strong leaders, and this has shown itself throughout Russian history.
When the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar in 1917, it was arguably a matter of the people supporting another strong leader, Vladimir Lenin, over a then-weakened leader in Nicholas II. The reforms that Nicholas had been forced to accept in the aftermath of the Revolution of 1905 had weakened his position considerably and lost him the support of the people.
Despite the economic failures of the Soviet regime, Russia remained strong through the vast majority of the Cold War. Once Gorbachev came to power, he was able to open up the Soviet system, introduce some capitalism, and thaw the Cold War. Unfortunately, this once again painted him as a weak and unfocused leader, opening the way for an attempted coup in August 1991. Order was again restored by a strong and charismatic leader, Boris Yeltsin.
Yeltsin was unable to maintain a strong hold on the country, however, and the shock of a conversion to capitalism left the country mostly lawless, rampant with organized crime, and financially insolvent. The 1998 Russian Economic Crisis sounded the death knell for Yeltsin's government. At this point, a true Russian leader stepped in once again.
A former KGB Second Directorate (Counter-Intelligence) officer, Putin had grown up in communal apartments in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and worked his way up through the system, eventually becoming a close associate of Anatoly Sobchak, Mayor of Leningrad. Putin resigned from the KGB after the failed coup against Gorbachev, and eventually turned that hard-line credibility into a political career, working his way up to Yeltsin's right-hand-man. In this position, he put a halt to further efforts to limit federal power, and eventually rescinded many of the limitations upon becoming president.
What does this history lesson have to do with this story?
Everything. Upon ascending to the Presidency, Putin's strong leadership led to a revivification of the Russian economy. By focusing on developing Russia's incredibly valuable natural resources, Putin dramatically improved the economy and stamped out a large amount of the lawlessness common in the 1990s. Measures to maintain stability have been draconian at times, particularly in Chechnya, but many Russians seem to prefer stability under the threat of oppression.
We have a tendency in America to view democracy and fair elections as the most important thing in the world. This is a dangerous view when applied to Russia. Since Putin has come to power, Russian GDP has surged, more than doubling during his first term. In addition, unemployment has been roughly halved. Despite a growing wealth disparity, Putin has led Russia to prosperity unseen since the end of the Cold War.
Beyond the domestic successes, Putin has brought Russia back onto the world stage. We see Russian policies as generally backward or dangerous, particularly in situation such as the Syrian conflict, where Russia is blocking UN intervention. It must be noted, however, that this ability to oppose action is mainly dependent on the stability of the Russian state. This stability is vital, as it provides another anchor internationally. When Russia was unstable, there were constant dangers of lost nuclear weapons and bio-war technology, often thought to be funneled towards rogue states and terrorist groups.
We cannot let our devotion to democratic principles blind us to the fact that a stable Russia is vital. Despite our differences in opinion, a strong Russian government is an entity that we can reasonably negotiate with. In the end, it is better to have the devil you know than the devil you don't
Monday, February 27, 2012
. . . On A Lighter Note
The Story Today
So I decided to take some time away from my normal topics today. I realized that all I was ever writing about were the things that made me angry. Don't worry though, I will be back to outraged disbelief before we know it.
This story comes from one of the more innovative sites of the last few years. Bill Simmons' Grantland (www.grantland.com) is a delightful mash-up of sports, pop culture, and general "hanging-out-with-the-guys" discussion. With the big business that sports coverage has become in the last decade, even such tongue-in-cheek organizations as ESPN have become insufferably serious. Grantland breaks out of this, offering an uncensored take on the sports world, complete with the off-the-wall conversations you might have at the local sports bar.
Among the discussions of Bill Simmons' childhood sports memories and Katie Baker's ruthless wedding pages coverage, you will come across some gems such as the article I have linked to. If you happen to listen to sports radio, particularly ESPN radio (like I do), you will hear story after story of "[Player X] used [Substance Y] and it is the worst thing in the history of EVER!" Charles P. Pierce seems to have a knack at stripping the self-importance out of the story.
The insistence that performance-enhancing drug (PED) use is "ruining" sports is rampant throughout the broadcast landscape. Whether it is Lance Armstrong, cycling, and blood doping or Barry Bonds, asterisks, and steroids, we attach far too much importance to the drugs.
Pierce makes a fantastic point in the article, speaking of the two reasons for getting upset about performance-enhancing drugs. The first, player health, is far and away the best reason to support these policies. It is also the weaker of the two arguments. It has been established that steroids are harmful, especially for young children and teenagers. However, javelins are dangerous too, which is why you cannot have javelin as a high school event in many states. This does not, however, mean that it is outlawed. It is merely restricted to levels where enough caution and oversight is involved to make it relatively safe. If javelin were treated like steroids, it would be universally illegal because young children might see someone throwing a javelin on TV and suddenly decide to do it themselves.
Other PEDs have been shown to have far fewer negative effects. In fact, things like blood doping are entirely natural, often using the athlete's own blood cells. Many other PEDs, such as Human Growth Hormone (HGH) are already common treatments for a number of illnesses. Are there possible side effects? Yes, absolutely. But there are also documented toxic side effects of taking excessive amounts of Vitamin C. If these treatments and methods were taken out of the locker rooms and trainer's offices and allowed to be properly administered by physicians, the vast majority of these issues would be negated.
This brings us to the second, and far more nebulous, argument against PEDs. Morality, ethics, and fair play. "Fairness" is a word that has come to have near-holy connotations in America. We are obsessed with "fair." I fail to see how there can be any unfairness involved at the Major League Baseball level. Even the poorest of teams can afford to spend millions on fringe players and luxuries in the clubhouse. There is absolutely nothing preventing them from providing these PEDs to their players. As far as on-the-field, there is once again little validity. These PEDs are no more game-changing than the scientifically balanced and exactingly prepared training diets, exercise routines, and hundred-thousand dollar personal trainers that are used today. Add to that the space-age supplements and various "legal" medicines that are used every day, and I fail to see the distinction. It is well known that many athletes, particularly in football, regularly receive cortisone injections to treat significant injuries such as sprains, pulls, and even shoulder separations. I believe I could reasonably argue that any shot (which by the way happens to be a steroid) that allows you to continue playing at a high level despite injuries which would require hospital attention in civilians qualifies as a Performance Enhancing Drug.
Pierce's piece brings these elements out front masterfully. When will we stop and look at the War on Sports Drugs and realize it has all the same failings as the War on (Real) Drugs. It has been a sink of multiple millions of dollars, and hasn't accomplished a whole heck of a lot. All that happens is that the drugs people are using get fancier and harder to spot. On top of that, the witch-hunt culture that has sprung up around these Anti-PED/Anti-Drug campaigns has gotten out of hand. Much like the potheads who are busted for possession and end up with longer sentences than rapists, you have Ryan Braun being threatened with a 50-game suspension for a first-offense PED violation. In contrast, Cincinnati Reds pitcher Johnny Cueto received a 7-game suspension. The difference between the two is that Cueto didn't do something as heinous as use artificial testosterone. All he did was repeatedly kick at an opponent's face with his baseball spikes. Thank goodness Braun was going to be punished seven times as much, we can allow good-natured face-kicking, but god forbid someone tries to improve their on-field performance!
To make matters worse, Braun's suspension was overturned by an arbitrator. "How can that be a bad thing?" you are probably asking. It's bad for a number of reasons. To begin with, it was overturned not because evidence showed that Braun did not take a banned substance, but rather because of improper procedure in the handling of his urine sample. On top of that, Major League Baseball took umbrage with the ruling and is threatening to appeal in court. Mind you, this is part of a collective bargaining agreement that MLB agreed to, and the would absolutely be chewing on the walls if a player had the temerity to challenge the arbitrator's ruling. Finally, despite the suspension being overturned, Braun is now face with a huge number of fans who believe that he is guilty, and merely got away with it.
Did he do it? I don't know, I'm inclined to believe he did. But that doesn't matter. His suspension was overturned. More importantly, he was part of a fantastic story last year for the small-market Milwaukee Brewers, and his fantastic performance was a large part of a very entertaining season. Let's all back off of the rhetoric and enjoy the show. And once again, if you haven't checked out Grantland, you should, it's a great read.
So I decided to take some time away from my normal topics today. I realized that all I was ever writing about were the things that made me angry. Don't worry though, I will be back to outraged disbelief before we know it.
This story comes from one of the more innovative sites of the last few years. Bill Simmons' Grantland (www.grantland.com) is a delightful mash-up of sports, pop culture, and general "hanging-out-with-the-guys" discussion. With the big business that sports coverage has become in the last decade, even such tongue-in-cheek organizations as ESPN have become insufferably serious. Grantland breaks out of this, offering an uncensored take on the sports world, complete with the off-the-wall conversations you might have at the local sports bar.
Among the discussions of Bill Simmons' childhood sports memories and Katie Baker's ruthless wedding pages coverage, you will come across some gems such as the article I have linked to. If you happen to listen to sports radio, particularly ESPN radio (like I do), you will hear story after story of "[Player X] used [Substance Y] and it is the worst thing in the history of EVER!" Charles P. Pierce seems to have a knack at stripping the self-importance out of the story.
The insistence that performance-enhancing drug (PED) use is "ruining" sports is rampant throughout the broadcast landscape. Whether it is Lance Armstrong, cycling, and blood doping or Barry Bonds, asterisks, and steroids, we attach far too much importance to the drugs.
Pierce makes a fantastic point in the article, speaking of the two reasons for getting upset about performance-enhancing drugs. The first, player health, is far and away the best reason to support these policies. It is also the weaker of the two arguments. It has been established that steroids are harmful, especially for young children and teenagers. However, javelins are dangerous too, which is why you cannot have javelin as a high school event in many states. This does not, however, mean that it is outlawed. It is merely restricted to levels where enough caution and oversight is involved to make it relatively safe. If javelin were treated like steroids, it would be universally illegal because young children might see someone throwing a javelin on TV and suddenly decide to do it themselves.
Other PEDs have been shown to have far fewer negative effects. In fact, things like blood doping are entirely natural, often using the athlete's own blood cells. Many other PEDs, such as Human Growth Hormone (HGH) are already common treatments for a number of illnesses. Are there possible side effects? Yes, absolutely. But there are also documented toxic side effects of taking excessive amounts of Vitamin C. If these treatments and methods were taken out of the locker rooms and trainer's offices and allowed to be properly administered by physicians, the vast majority of these issues would be negated.
This brings us to the second, and far more nebulous, argument against PEDs. Morality, ethics, and fair play. "Fairness" is a word that has come to have near-holy connotations in America. We are obsessed with "fair." I fail to see how there can be any unfairness involved at the Major League Baseball level. Even the poorest of teams can afford to spend millions on fringe players and luxuries in the clubhouse. There is absolutely nothing preventing them from providing these PEDs to their players. As far as on-the-field, there is once again little validity. These PEDs are no more game-changing than the scientifically balanced and exactingly prepared training diets, exercise routines, and hundred-thousand dollar personal trainers that are used today. Add to that the space-age supplements and various "legal" medicines that are used every day, and I fail to see the distinction. It is well known that many athletes, particularly in football, regularly receive cortisone injections to treat significant injuries such as sprains, pulls, and even shoulder separations. I believe I could reasonably argue that any shot (which by the way happens to be a steroid) that allows you to continue playing at a high level despite injuries which would require hospital attention in civilians qualifies as a Performance Enhancing Drug.
Pierce's piece brings these elements out front masterfully. When will we stop and look at the War on Sports Drugs and realize it has all the same failings as the War on (Real) Drugs. It has been a sink of multiple millions of dollars, and hasn't accomplished a whole heck of a lot. All that happens is that the drugs people are using get fancier and harder to spot. On top of that, the witch-hunt culture that has sprung up around these Anti-PED/Anti-Drug campaigns has gotten out of hand. Much like the potheads who are busted for possession and end up with longer sentences than rapists, you have Ryan Braun being threatened with a 50-game suspension for a first-offense PED violation. In contrast, Cincinnati Reds pitcher Johnny Cueto received a 7-game suspension. The difference between the two is that Cueto didn't do something as heinous as use artificial testosterone. All he did was repeatedly kick at an opponent's face with his baseball spikes. Thank goodness Braun was going to be punished seven times as much, we can allow good-natured face-kicking, but god forbid someone tries to improve their on-field performance!
To make matters worse, Braun's suspension was overturned by an arbitrator. "How can that be a bad thing?" you are probably asking. It's bad for a number of reasons. To begin with, it was overturned not because evidence showed that Braun did not take a banned substance, but rather because of improper procedure in the handling of his urine sample. On top of that, Major League Baseball took umbrage with the ruling and is threatening to appeal in court. Mind you, this is part of a collective bargaining agreement that MLB agreed to, and the would absolutely be chewing on the walls if a player had the temerity to challenge the arbitrator's ruling. Finally, despite the suspension being overturned, Braun is now face with a huge number of fans who believe that he is guilty, and merely got away with it.
Did he do it? I don't know, I'm inclined to believe he did. But that doesn't matter. His suspension was overturned. More importantly, he was part of a fantastic story last year for the small-market Milwaukee Brewers, and his fantastic performance was a large part of a very entertaining season. Let's all back off of the rhetoric and enjoy the show. And once again, if you haven't checked out Grantland, you should, it's a great read.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Admitting We Were Wrong
Reading for Today
This article reminds me of one of my biggest pet peeves in the political world. We seem to have developed a phobia of admitting our mistakes, particularly in the public forum.
Throughout our formative years, we are always being told that if you make a mistake, you need to admit to it, learn from it, and correct it going forward. We praise people for being self-aware enough to admit when they are wrong and learn from it. And most of all, our culture is full of anecdotes and cautionary tales showing the horrible consequences of trying to cover up our mistake. Most people would probably agree that if Richard Nixon had merely come out and admitted that he screwed up at Watergate, it wouldn't have been the huge issue it turned into. Instead, it was the cover-up that did him in. Even in sports, we praise the people who come clean about steroid use and pillory the ones who try to deny it, even if we have no proof that they did it. We spend a great deal of time praising the person who can admit their mistake, quietly accept the consequences, and move on.
Then there is the political arena. It seems that there can be no more heinous an act than to change your position on an issue. It is apparently a mark of ideological impurity when you change your opinions, even over a scale of years. (Check out criticism of McCain in 2008) As you can see in the first article linked, people are maintaining positions even though they are incorrect merely to avoid "inconsistency".
This is ridiculous. When we point to the great political moments in United States History, many of them are built around the word "compromise". This is literally defined as "An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions." By changing their stances in order to ensure agreement, the Founding Fathers were able to come to a number of compromises that are vital to the existence of this nation (Great Compromise)
This article reminds me of one of my biggest pet peeves in the political world. We seem to have developed a phobia of admitting our mistakes, particularly in the public forum.
Throughout our formative years, we are always being told that if you make a mistake, you need to admit to it, learn from it, and correct it going forward. We praise people for being self-aware enough to admit when they are wrong and learn from it. And most of all, our culture is full of anecdotes and cautionary tales showing the horrible consequences of trying to cover up our mistake. Most people would probably agree that if Richard Nixon had merely come out and admitted that he screwed up at Watergate, it wouldn't have been the huge issue it turned into. Instead, it was the cover-up that did him in. Even in sports, we praise the people who come clean about steroid use and pillory the ones who try to deny it, even if we have no proof that they did it. We spend a great deal of time praising the person who can admit their mistake, quietly accept the consequences, and move on.
Then there is the political arena. It seems that there can be no more heinous an act than to change your position on an issue. It is apparently a mark of ideological impurity when you change your opinions, even over a scale of years. (Check out criticism of McCain in 2008) As you can see in the first article linked, people are maintaining positions even though they are incorrect merely to avoid "inconsistency".
This is ridiculous. When we point to the great political moments in United States History, many of them are built around the word "compromise". This is literally defined as "An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions." By changing their stances in order to ensure agreement, the Founding Fathers were able to come to a number of compromises that are vital to the existence of this nation (Great Compromise)
A look at our political leadership today will show you a great deal of "those guys over there aren't agreeing with us, it's their fault we can't get anything done!" (Here and Here) What you won't find is much in the way "OK, let's sit down and figure this out." The understandable American distaste for "politicking" has led to much of this. Ask around, and you will probably hear lots of people complaining about how "politicians will pander to anyone, they'd sell out their mothers to get what they want." I'm sorry, that's what they should be doing. With a two-party system, you will run into situations where a large percentage of people won't see eye-to-eye on an issue. Without people willing to make a deal, and give up a demand here to win a concession there, nothing gets done.
People with strongly held opinions are a great thing, they drive debate, and they can motivate causes. What they cannot do, however, is run a government. If you hold your views too strongly, you are unable to pick and choose which of them you can compromise on in order to achieve a larger goal. Looking back at the great politicians in history, we can point to their abilities to ascertain the big objective and then make the deals that are needed to get there. The only time someone who steadfastly clings to their positions can get anything done is when they are the sole decision maker. Since we have a long tradition of opposing tyranny in this country, this is a rather inappropriate form of government.
Now, this is about the point where you're all looking at the people across the spectrum from you and nodding, saying to yourself "yeah, those darned Republicans, if they would just calm down about the whole abortion thing, we could get everybody health care" or "those greasy Democrats, if they would just relax about the whole environment thing, we could get the economy going again."
Stop it.
No, really, we need to move politics away from the podium and back to the negotiating table. Until we learn to revere the deal-makers again, we will be stuck in this gridlock. If we look back at history, this was a nation founded on commerce, our leaders have generally come from the ranks of successful businessmen and their families. This isn't a coincidence. Businessmen and women are successful because they understand the value of compromise and the importance of making a deal work for all parties. The people who are successful are the ones who understand that it's not about winning every battle, it's about balancing your concessions so that you come out ahead in the long run.
Let's stop blasting our leaders for the very traits that make them effective. Bring compromise back to the table.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Starving in Deafening Silence
Thought-Ignition of the Day
I came across this on Twitter today. Being relatively new to the Tweetsphere, I like to poke around and see what's going on. The US trends have such glittering topics as #ShootMyTruck, #worstsuperhero, and #Crank Yankers. Not being particularly excited, I switched over to the World filter. Much of it remained at a similar level of quality, but I came across #KhaderIsAlive, trending strongly. Looking at the feed, I still couldn't get a feel for what's going on, so I googled Khader Adnan.
I must confess I am rather poorly informed about the low-level and case-by-case news in the Middle East. I do, however, try to keep an eye on the subject, and I had never heard of this man. Arrested by Israeli security forces and placed in "Administrative Detention" (look that up, it should make most Americans' skin crawl), Khader proclaimed a hunger strike over his imprisonment.
I do not have a dog in this fight, and being as poorly informed as I am, particularly about a situation seen completely differently from each side, I am not going to attempt to comment on whether the imprisonment is just or unjust. I don't like the concept of a four month uncharged imprisonment, but it is apparently part of Israel's justice system, so in those terms it appears to be legal. That being said, I want to know one thing.
Where is the coverage of this in the mainstream media?
Much of Western opposition to the Palestinian and other Muslim causes lies in the perception of a culture steeped in violence. Conflicts in the Middle East are generally presented as lawless, vile, and full of tribal violence. Mainly though, we see a story about Palestinian conflict and think "suicide bombers". I am aware that this is generally an inaccurate image. It is, however, much of the focus of media coverage.
When we spend so much time decrying the parties involved for their violent methods, how can we possibly not be covering a peaceful, non-violent and dignified protest like this? Like I said, he may very well be guilty, or may be representing a cause that is unjust, but we must at least acknowledge that he is bringing much attention to this cause in a modern and enlightened way.
I hear a lot of criticism of America from worldwide sources that we see the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East, with tunnel vision. I have to admit I am seeing some of this here. The only places I was able to find information on Khader were Al-Jazeera and some other foreign sites. Not a peep from CNN, Fox News, or even BBC.
Nobody will believe our efforts and motives are honest in the Middle East until we at least try to present both sides of the story. I understand that there is a very large pro-Israel lobby in the States, which of course will tend to skew coverage towards the Israeli side. We need to find a way not to make coverage "fair" (fair implies a balancing), but to make coverage "comprehensive". Report both sides, and let us take a look and debate it. We can't comment rationally until we've seen both sides.
You will see a consistent them of "let's look at both sides" here in my blog. I firmly believe that most of the inability to come to reasonable compromises springs from hardened ideological positions. If we insist on hearing both sides of an argument before we decide, we give ourselves the opportunity to make a rational choice, rather than an emotional one.
If anyone has any more information on this, please link it, I would like to hear both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, let's get the information out and into the light.
I came across this on Twitter today. Being relatively new to the Tweetsphere, I like to poke around and see what's going on. The US trends have such glittering topics as #ShootMyTruck, #worstsuperhero, and #Crank Yankers. Not being particularly excited, I switched over to the World filter. Much of it remained at a similar level of quality, but I came across #KhaderIsAlive, trending strongly. Looking at the feed, I still couldn't get a feel for what's going on, so I googled Khader Adnan.
I must confess I am rather poorly informed about the low-level and case-by-case news in the Middle East. I do, however, try to keep an eye on the subject, and I had never heard of this man. Arrested by Israeli security forces and placed in "Administrative Detention" (look that up, it should make most Americans' skin crawl), Khader proclaimed a hunger strike over his imprisonment.
I do not have a dog in this fight, and being as poorly informed as I am, particularly about a situation seen completely differently from each side, I am not going to attempt to comment on whether the imprisonment is just or unjust. I don't like the concept of a four month uncharged imprisonment, but it is apparently part of Israel's justice system, so in those terms it appears to be legal. That being said, I want to know one thing.
Where is the coverage of this in the mainstream media?
Much of Western opposition to the Palestinian and other Muslim causes lies in the perception of a culture steeped in violence. Conflicts in the Middle East are generally presented as lawless, vile, and full of tribal violence. Mainly though, we see a story about Palestinian conflict and think "suicide bombers". I am aware that this is generally an inaccurate image. It is, however, much of the focus of media coverage.
When we spend so much time decrying the parties involved for their violent methods, how can we possibly not be covering a peaceful, non-violent and dignified protest like this? Like I said, he may very well be guilty, or may be representing a cause that is unjust, but we must at least acknowledge that he is bringing much attention to this cause in a modern and enlightened way.
I hear a lot of criticism of America from worldwide sources that we see the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East, with tunnel vision. I have to admit I am seeing some of this here. The only places I was able to find information on Khader were Al-Jazeera and some other foreign sites. Not a peep from CNN, Fox News, or even BBC.
Nobody will believe our efforts and motives are honest in the Middle East until we at least try to present both sides of the story. I understand that there is a very large pro-Israel lobby in the States, which of course will tend to skew coverage towards the Israeli side. We need to find a way not to make coverage "fair" (fair implies a balancing), but to make coverage "comprehensive". Report both sides, and let us take a look and debate it. We can't comment rationally until we've seen both sides.
You will see a consistent them of "let's look at both sides" here in my blog. I firmly believe that most of the inability to come to reasonable compromises springs from hardened ideological positions. If we insist on hearing both sides of an argument before we decide, we give ourselves the opportunity to make a rational choice, rather than an emotional one.
If anyone has any more information on this, please link it, I would like to hear both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, let's get the information out and into the light.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Queer Eye for the Straight Century
Today's Assigned Reading
Reading the article today, I was struck by the state of Marriage Equality (or Same-Sex Marriage, or Abomination, depending on your viewpoint) in the U.S.
When Massachusetts passed it, it was easy to dismiss it as radical Massachusetts liberalism. When a few more states followed, it started to get serious. For me it became permanent when Iowa approved it. Iowa brought the movement out of the left-leaning enclaves of California and the Northeast and established Marriage Equality in the center of the country.
Since April of 2009, when Iowa approved Marriage Equality, many other states have joined in, with Washington as the latest, and New Jersey knocking on the door. Soon it will be a majority position, and most likely only a matter of time now that Proposition 8 has been struck down in California.
Many of you feel very strongly on this matter for a number of different reasons. I personally am all for it, mainly since I don't see any logical, legal argument against it. Feel free to comment with your own reactions, but I'm not so focused on the merit of the issue right now. What I found interesting this morning was the age-old question of "How the hell did we end up here so quickly?"
I really think it comes back to the show Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Debuting in 2003, it was a huge phenomenon. This is the first point where I can honestly recall gay culture being brought to the mainstream. Even more importantly, it wasn't walling gays off by themselves, it was visibly applying the standards of gay men to straight men, and reveling in the interaction. We can quite reasonably point to this show as the beginning of the "Metrosexual" movement that dominated much of the decade. Combined with the squeaky-clean boy-bands of the turn of the century, a radically different view of masculinity came into acceptance. The big change was that more traditional "manly" men were seen as just as valid as the "metrosexual", rather than being replaced. Before we new it, big-time rappers were sporting argyle sweater-vests and nerdy glasses.
With the popularity of Queer Eye, the resistance to Marriage Equality was doomed. As has been shown over and over in our history, the more exposure a subculture or idea has, no matter how radical, the quicker it becomes mainstreamed. Once everyday Americans were able to see gay culture (I understand LGBTQ(A?) and a host of other terms may be more vogue, but I will stick with gay culture for clarity) and enjoy it at its most outrageous, the middle began to be swayed.
There are many on the Conservative side who may never approve, but political reality in America has always been determined by the moderate center. Whichever pole can sway that central majority will have success. The rise of Queer Eye did something different, instead of influencing the center, it actually changed the reference point. Merely by accepting the show and all of the following ripples as normal, the whole country's view of center shifted to the left, making eventual approval of Marriage Equality practically a foregone conclusion.
So in the end, the tipping point for Marriage Equality was merely a matter of fine application of "zhoosh."
Reading the article today, I was struck by the state of Marriage Equality (or Same-Sex Marriage, or Abomination, depending on your viewpoint) in the U.S.
When Massachusetts passed it, it was easy to dismiss it as radical Massachusetts liberalism. When a few more states followed, it started to get serious. For me it became permanent when Iowa approved it. Iowa brought the movement out of the left-leaning enclaves of California and the Northeast and established Marriage Equality in the center of the country.
Since April of 2009, when Iowa approved Marriage Equality, many other states have joined in, with Washington as the latest, and New Jersey knocking on the door. Soon it will be a majority position, and most likely only a matter of time now that Proposition 8 has been struck down in California.
Many of you feel very strongly on this matter for a number of different reasons. I personally am all for it, mainly since I don't see any logical, legal argument against it. Feel free to comment with your own reactions, but I'm not so focused on the merit of the issue right now. What I found interesting this morning was the age-old question of "How the hell did we end up here so quickly?"
I really think it comes back to the show Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Debuting in 2003, it was a huge phenomenon. This is the first point where I can honestly recall gay culture being brought to the mainstream. Even more importantly, it wasn't walling gays off by themselves, it was visibly applying the standards of gay men to straight men, and reveling in the interaction. We can quite reasonably point to this show as the beginning of the "Metrosexual" movement that dominated much of the decade. Combined with the squeaky-clean boy-bands of the turn of the century, a radically different view of masculinity came into acceptance. The big change was that more traditional "manly" men were seen as just as valid as the "metrosexual", rather than being replaced. Before we new it, big-time rappers were sporting argyle sweater-vests and nerdy glasses.
With the popularity of Queer Eye, the resistance to Marriage Equality was doomed. As has been shown over and over in our history, the more exposure a subculture or idea has, no matter how radical, the quicker it becomes mainstreamed. Once everyday Americans were able to see gay culture (I understand LGBTQ(A?) and a host of other terms may be more vogue, but I will stick with gay culture for clarity) and enjoy it at its most outrageous, the middle began to be swayed.
There are many on the Conservative side who may never approve, but political reality in America has always been determined by the moderate center. Whichever pole can sway that central majority will have success. The rise of Queer Eye did something different, instead of influencing the center, it actually changed the reference point. Merely by accepting the show and all of the following ripples as normal, the whole country's view of center shifted to the left, making eventual approval of Marriage Equality practically a foregone conclusion.
So in the end, the tipping point for Marriage Equality was merely a matter of fine application of "zhoosh."
Monday, February 13, 2012
Modern Witch Hunt
Today's Topic for Discussion
Nobody can deny the harm that cigarettes have cause in the United States and worldwide. It is, and has been, quite literally an epidemic. Millions upon millions of people have died or undergone treatment as a result of the complications, and for decades Big Tobacco recklessly targeted Youth with their advertisements, "hooking them young." I personally have lost family members to lung cancer and smoking-related ailments.
These are all bad things.
The world has now changed. Nobody can reasonably claim that people are uninformed as to the dangers of smoking anymore. Awareness and education are at all-time highs, and the effort expended educating our youth as to the dangers of tobacco far outstrips the grand boondoggle that is the War on Drugs. Ask your friends that smoke (if you can find any, numbers have been strongly declining for over a decade - CDC Info) and most if not all will probably tell you something along the lines of "I know I shouldn't, but I like it/it calms me/I don't care." These people aren't uniformed, they are just making bad decisions. It's much like the issues with obesity, we know we shouldn't eat as much, or as badly, but we do anyways because it tastes good and we like it.
Are there issues with the old "coolness factor"? Absolutely. But even Hollywood has gotten on board, as characters smoking in movies has shown to actually decrease box office returns. (Source) We can no longer effectively point to the classic "lead actor cigarette" as a driving force. It has become far more controversial to show someone smoking cigarettes than marijuana or even harder drugs. (Weeds? Eastbound and Down?)
We have even progressed to the point where some classic pictures are having their cigarettes edited out for posterity. When someone like Winston Churchill is being portrayed without his trademark cigar for fear of offending the anti-smoking lobby (don't kid yourself, it's a huge business), you know that things have gotten out of hand.
Tobacco has become a modern-day whipping boy in the media. It has gotten to the point where no limits are enforced when we are denigrating the producers of cigarettes. All tobacco companies are apparently uniformly evil, conniving, and most likely criminals. We point to ads run twenty years ago as justification of attacks, yet ignore the companies marketing sweet, fatty, and nutritionally bereft items to our children.
Smokers themselves are being seen as second class citizens. Here in Massachusetts, you can no longer smoke in bars, pool halls, or as far as I can tell, whole towns. Outdoor smoking areas have been condensed, confined, and tucked back in corners by the dumpsters. There are even people talking about banning smoking inside people's private homes. Let's make this clear. You're allowed to have small amounts of marijuana for your personal use, but we might PROHIBIT YOU FROM SMOKING TOBACCO.
There is obviously a strong push for complete bans on tobacco, and this might seem like a great idea. But let me tell you a story. Once there was a strong reform movement in a country to end the sale of a horrible substance. This substance was highly addictive, had significant health risks, and caused many deaths. It had long been recognized as a bad substance, but people kept taking it even though they knew the risks. In order to save people from themselves, the government outlawed it across the board, completely prohibiting both production and consumption. Soon, people started making it themselves in their basements, and quickly whole gangs came to power based on the huge demand and potential for illicit profits due to inflated prices. These gangs led to a period of lawlessness, nearly shutting down whole cities. Eventually, based upon these disruptions and huge public clamor, the government reversed its decision, and the substance was legal once again.
That's right people, that substance was Alcohol. The other big Scourge of the Public. People realized that some humans are going to use the substance no matter what we say, and a blanket ban can only exacerbate some of the problems.
With the push to mandate graphic and disturbing visuals on cigarette packages, we are taking things a little too far. This has gone beyond the "cigarettes are harmful" stage to "cigarettes are icky." A number of people have decided that they are personally offended by the existence of tobacco, and have been giving a go-ahead to heap as much abuse as they feel upon the industry and the users of the product. It is perfectly acceptable to shun a smoker and force them stand out back next to the dumpster so they can engage in their "dirty little habit". If someone was a known heroin addict, they would get far more equitable and humane treatment from their fellow Americans.
Let's all take a deep breath, stand back, and look at this logically. We don't make Budweiser print labels showing the aftermath of drunk-driving accidents or McDonald's plaster posters of quadruple-bypass surgery on their signs. If we aren't willing to apply this across the board, we can't do it to Tobacco simply because people think they are Really Bad. Let's stop persecuting the people involved, keep educating people as to the dangers, and stop worrying quite so much about out neighbors' business.
Nobody can deny the harm that cigarettes have cause in the United States and worldwide. It is, and has been, quite literally an epidemic. Millions upon millions of people have died or undergone treatment as a result of the complications, and for decades Big Tobacco recklessly targeted Youth with their advertisements, "hooking them young." I personally have lost family members to lung cancer and smoking-related ailments.
These are all bad things.
The world has now changed. Nobody can reasonably claim that people are uninformed as to the dangers of smoking anymore. Awareness and education are at all-time highs, and the effort expended educating our youth as to the dangers of tobacco far outstrips the grand boondoggle that is the War on Drugs. Ask your friends that smoke (if you can find any, numbers have been strongly declining for over a decade - CDC Info) and most if not all will probably tell you something along the lines of "I know I shouldn't, but I like it/it calms me/I don't care." These people aren't uniformed, they are just making bad decisions. It's much like the issues with obesity, we know we shouldn't eat as much, or as badly, but we do anyways because it tastes good and we like it.
Are there issues with the old "coolness factor"? Absolutely. But even Hollywood has gotten on board, as characters smoking in movies has shown to actually decrease box office returns. (Source) We can no longer effectively point to the classic "lead actor cigarette" as a driving force. It has become far more controversial to show someone smoking cigarettes than marijuana or even harder drugs. (Weeds? Eastbound and Down?)
We have even progressed to the point where some classic pictures are having their cigarettes edited out for posterity. When someone like Winston Churchill is being portrayed without his trademark cigar for fear of offending the anti-smoking lobby (don't kid yourself, it's a huge business), you know that things have gotten out of hand.
Tobacco has become a modern-day whipping boy in the media. It has gotten to the point where no limits are enforced when we are denigrating the producers of cigarettes. All tobacco companies are apparently uniformly evil, conniving, and most likely criminals. We point to ads run twenty years ago as justification of attacks, yet ignore the companies marketing sweet, fatty, and nutritionally bereft items to our children.
Smokers themselves are being seen as second class citizens. Here in Massachusetts, you can no longer smoke in bars, pool halls, or as far as I can tell, whole towns. Outdoor smoking areas have been condensed, confined, and tucked back in corners by the dumpsters. There are even people talking about banning smoking inside people's private homes. Let's make this clear. You're allowed to have small amounts of marijuana for your personal use, but we might PROHIBIT YOU FROM SMOKING TOBACCO.
There is obviously a strong push for complete bans on tobacco, and this might seem like a great idea. But let me tell you a story. Once there was a strong reform movement in a country to end the sale of a horrible substance. This substance was highly addictive, had significant health risks, and caused many deaths. It had long been recognized as a bad substance, but people kept taking it even though they knew the risks. In order to save people from themselves, the government outlawed it across the board, completely prohibiting both production and consumption. Soon, people started making it themselves in their basements, and quickly whole gangs came to power based on the huge demand and potential for illicit profits due to inflated prices. These gangs led to a period of lawlessness, nearly shutting down whole cities. Eventually, based upon these disruptions and huge public clamor, the government reversed its decision, and the substance was legal once again.
That's right people, that substance was Alcohol. The other big Scourge of the Public. People realized that some humans are going to use the substance no matter what we say, and a blanket ban can only exacerbate some of the problems.
With the push to mandate graphic and disturbing visuals on cigarette packages, we are taking things a little too far. This has gone beyond the "cigarettes are harmful" stage to "cigarettes are icky." A number of people have decided that they are personally offended by the existence of tobacco, and have been giving a go-ahead to heap as much abuse as they feel upon the industry and the users of the product. It is perfectly acceptable to shun a smoker and force them stand out back next to the dumpster so they can engage in their "dirty little habit". If someone was a known heroin addict, they would get far more equitable and humane treatment from their fellow Americans.
Let's all take a deep breath, stand back, and look at this logically. We don't make Budweiser print labels showing the aftermath of drunk-driving accidents or McDonald's plaster posters of quadruple-bypass surgery on their signs. If we aren't willing to apply this across the board, we can't do it to Tobacco simply because people think they are Really Bad. Let's stop persecuting the people involved, keep educating people as to the dangers, and stop worrying quite so much about out neighbors' business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)