Enlightened Conflict

iroquois and democracy (and the American constitution)

March 1st, 2013

Well.

The American Constitution is one of my favorite well written documents … so when I read in a book the idea that much of it was ‘borrowed’ from the Iroquois Indians … in fact that “we the people” was borrowed … that lit a fire under my ass to do some research.

I knew it had borrowed significantly from the ‘best of the best’ European & Greek/Roman democratic principals but I had not heard about the Iroquois.

In initial research I actually discovered a physical symbol first.

The 13 arrows <for the 13 colonies> bound together in the eagle talons.

- Iroquois constitution Article 57:

Five arrows shall be bound together very strong and each arrow shall represent one nation. As the five arrows are strongly bound this shall symbolize the complete union of the nations. Thus are the Five Nations united completely and enfolded together, united into one head, one body and one mind. Therefore they shall labor, legislate and council together for the interest of future generations.

The Iroquois used the arrows bound together. And they refer to ‘nations’ as we would ‘states.’

Well.

Further research showed that the committee tasked with developing the constitution struggled with how to formalize so many items being discussed into one document that would satisfy one and all. Samuel Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years.

While there were many desirable models <and aspects within> from ancient and modern histories in Western & Eastern Europe and the Middle East it seemed that the Iroquois had a system which provided a basic national/state construct to meet most of the demands espoused by the many parties to the debates.

Now.

I never did find “we the people” backed up in what writings there are concerning the ancient Iroquois.

But.

I DID find enough evidence to convince me that the Iroquois certainly influenced the drafting of the American Constitution … and we present-day Americans owe these Native Americans big thanks.

Some background on the Iroquois and their Constitution.

In about 1715, the Tuscarora Nation, once part of the Iroquois peoples in a much earlier period of their history, moved up from North Carolina to avoid warfare with the invading white settlers, and were adopted into the Confederacy. At this point in time, the Iroquois controlled many parts of our now eastern states from their homelands in what is now New York state. The original Five Nations were:

Mohawk: People Possessors of the Flint

Onondaga: People on the Hills

Seneca: Great Hill People

Oneida: Granite People

Cayuga: People at the Mucky Land

Tuscarora: Shirt Wearing People <became the Sixth Nation>.

I am including the most relevant aspects of their original Constitution <as best it can be reconstructed from legend and spoken history> which is titled: The Constitution of the Five Nations – or – The Iroquois Book of the Great Law.

Well.

It is pretty amazing. You can find close parallels to our Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches of government as originally described in our U. S. Constitution as well as many of the ‘freedoms’ and some verbiage. In addition if you assume their Nations as our current States the parallels increase significantly. I have not included the entire thing but just some relevant portions that make for good reading.

Oh.

I included the first section hoping that maybe someone in our current government would read this. It is a good reminder for what should be expected of elected officials <one could only hope they would actually follow some of the thinking … sigh …. Article 27, in particular, should be posted everywhere in Washington DC>.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IROQUOIS NATIONS

24. The Lords of the Confederacy of the Five Nations shall be mentors of the people for all time. The thickness of their skin shall be seven spans — which is to say that they shall be proof against anger, offensive actions and criticism. Their hearts shall be full of peace and good will and their minds filled with a yearning for the welfare of the people of the Confederacy. With endless patience they shall carry out their duty and their firmness shall be tempered with a tenderness for their people. Neither anger nor fury shall find lodgement in their minds and all their words and actions shall be marked by calm deliberation.

25. If a Lord of the Confederacy should seek to establish any authority independent of the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of the Great Peace, which is the Five Nations, he shall be warned three times in open council, first by the women relatives, second by the men relatives and finally by the Lords of the Confederacy of the Nation to which he belongs. If the offending Lord is still obdurate he shall be dismissed by the War Chief of his nation for refusing to conform to the laws of the Great Peace. His nation shall then install the candidate nominated by the female name holders of his family.

26. It shall be the duty of all of the Five Nations Confederate Lords, from time to time as occasion demands, to act as mentors and spiritual guides of their people and remind them of their Creator’s will and words.

Every Confederate Lord shall speak words to promote peace.

27. All Lords of the Five Nations Confederacy must be honest in all things. They must not idle or gossip, but be men possessing those honorable qualities that make true royaneh. It shall be a serious wrong for anyone to lead a Lord into trivial affairs, for the people must ever hold their Lords high in estimation out of respect to their honorable positions.

- Freedom of Religion

99. The rites and festivals of each nation shall remain undisturbed and shall continue as before because they were given by the people of old times as useful and necessary for the good of men.

- Rights of the People

93. Whenever a specially important matter or a great emergency is presented before the Confederate Council and the nature of the matter affects the entire body of the Five Nations, threatening their utter ruin, then the Lords of the Confederacy must submit the matter to the decision of their people and the decision of the people shall affect the decision of the Confederate Council. This decision shall be a confirmation of the voice of the people.

- Rights of states <Nations>

Before the real people united their nations, each nation had its council fires. Before the Great Peace their councils were held. The five Council Fires shall continue to burn as before and they are not quenched. The Lords of each nation in future shall settle their nation’s affairs at this council fire governed always by the laws and rules of the council of the Confederacy and by the Great Peace.

- Commander in chief: Rights and Powers of War

79. Skanawatih shall be vested with a double office, duty and with double authority. One-half of his being shall hold the Lordship title and the other half shall hold the title of War Chief. In the event of war he shall notify the five War Chiefs of the Confederacy and command them to prepare for war and have their men ready at the appointed time and place for engagement with the enemy of the Great Peace.

——–

Well.

This is good stuff. Research well worth the time I invested <the entire Constitution is fascinating in it’s detail>.

Native Americans <or Indians> not only were the original settlers in America but helped provide some of the original founding father thinking. And, frankly, some good thinking for us today if we actually were to pay attention to it.

This is continuing proof that I still have a lot to learn.

middle east thought for the day

November 18th, 2012

I read so much hate from people … mostly directed toward Israel, who do not even live in the Middle East, with regard to what is happening between Israel and Palestine.

How we have reached a point where we seem to be on the brink of a conventional on-the-ground war has been decades in the making.

One of which I have written about several times but suffice it to say Israel is on a geographic island surrounded by an ocean of people who would prefer Jews not have a country there <for some reasonable reasons … Muslim holy land … and some unreasonable reasons … Judaism is not a viable faith>.

I truly struggle with what I would do if I were in a decision making role with regard to going to ground war.

That is until I came across a visual posted by a teenager who I sense was also struggling with perspective.

The teen gave me perspective.

When I saw this graph I immediately starting thinking that for all those comments I have read about Israel being aggressive and ‘killers’ I wanted to jump online find the Israel haters and say “is it possible they are the most patient resilient country in the world?”

If anybody believes your own country wouldn’t have brought the wrath of Khan down on the missile shooters <on the ground, in the air and by water if they could find any> after looking at the chart I want whatever it is you are smoking.

It would have all been over by now if it were any of us.

news’s secret weapon

November 3rd, 2012

So.

I had to watch a boatload of news, in fact, significantly more news than any one person should ever be exposed to, to make sure I got this one right. I even bypassed my beloved ESPN several times to endure the background research. I watched Foxnews, MSNBC and CNN.

Why? In case you haven’t been paying attention … news on television has a new secret weapon – CNN. Yeah. I know CNN has been around for a while but they really have picked up their game lately.

And while I was fairly certain, mostly because I am a centrist, that CNN doesn’t skew republican/democrat/liberal/conservative I did do some personal research.

CNN has truly become the news network who’s vision is ‘enlightening people.’

In a world where TV ratings seem to be defined by one of two things, disaster <or negative> news coverage and telling people what they should think <to people who already want to think those things> CNN is truly differentiating themselves by … well … just making people think.

In Bruce words they day in and day out seem to focus on fighting ignorance with well-rounded information … their objective? Don’t tell people what to think just tell them what to think about. I love it.

MSNBC <which has so low ratings I am fairly sure liberals do not really watch TV> is definitely skewed liberal/democrat.

Fox is shamelessly skewed republican/conservative.

Both stations stock their newscasts with blabbing talking heads who speak directly to the viewership saying exactly what they either want to hear or what they should think <and felt that they should have been thinking just that anyway>.

CNN? Not only are they brutally bi-partisan/non-partisan showcasing an equal amount of biased talking heads <and brutally disagreeing with them on air> but they also have some really nice panels of people who are obviously skewed in their perspective but also fair with how they communicate and share ideas.

And when they don’t? The newscasters/news moderators shut them down.

Unfortunately <hence the reason I called this the news secret weapon> most tv viewers seemingly don’t want to think … they want someone else to think, and provide an opinion, for them.

I guess they want to only watch someone who pursues sharing information skewed to how they already think.

Tell ‘em what they want to hear seems to be the strategy.

Maybe that’s why CNN ratings aren’t as high.

Instead they, CNN, tell ‘em what they need to hear as a strategy.

I imagine I have always known this and that is why when I decide to watch the news I switch over to CNN <if I cannot get BBC>.

It is sad.

Because CNN’s ratings have hit record lows. The company is still making money thanks to an international presence, but U.S. viewers seem to rather watch the more opinionated competitors at MSNBC and Fox News.

And it is really sad because they really have dialed up their “open minded/open view” editorial attitude during this election period.

Maybe it is because we are in a political season where opinions are so skewed it gets scary, they seem to have sat down in an editorial meeting several months ago and decided to really dial up the non-partisanship delivery. And I mean REALLY dial it up.

Piers Morgan, while being respectful, has been bringing a dialed up British common sense bullshit meter rhetoric to his interviews.

Soledad O’Brien has been shutting down guest onscreen interviews when they simply are not answering the question and trying to deliver their ‘party line.’ And she isn’t just shutting them down subtly she is saying “if you won’t answer the question then, thanks, goodbye.” <by the way … I believe she may be one of the most underrated newscasters out there today>

They have probably the two best open minded partisan correspondent/experts onscreen …

This young guy named Will Cain who is clearly conservative but if all conservatives would actually be as articulate and pointed with regard to his thoughts as he is … well .. maybe we would understand what the heck politicians actually say. But … he is a prime example of a CNN correspondent relentlessly pursuing truth. He is young. Smart. Articulate. A great communicator … and listener.

<note: I don’t care your particular views … you should check him out … he is excellent>

On CNN’s “Starting Point” Will Cain confronted Debbie Wasserman Schultz about Congress’s refusal to tackle some of the tough fiscal issues until after the election.

- “I think that’s an interesting quote you put up also recognizing the amount of work that you guys have to do over the next six months,” Cain said, addressing the Congresswoman. “You have what is equivalent of all of the Bush tax cuts expiring, you have the budget resolution, you have to come together on those forced cuts. I think the total package is over $4 trillion. Larger than any stimulus passed and any tax cut that’s ever passed. Why aren’t you working on it yet? Why are you waiting until supposedly after the November election to address these issues?”

“You guys?” Schultz asked.

“I’m not in Congress,” countered Cain.

“But Speaker Boehner is the leader of Congress and controls the agenda with Eric Cantor…” said Schultz.

“I’m not in Congress,” reiterated Cain. “I’m asking you because you are a member of Congress.”

“I’m a member of Congress in the minority, unfortunately, which I plan to help change in November,” Schultz shot back. “But the people who control the agenda right now in the House of Representatives are the Republicans. Ask them why they haven’t brought a single jobs bill to the floor since they took over the majority. Ask them why they are getting ready to allow the student loan interest rates to double.”

“So put out a package right now to extend the Bush tax cuts, you would be on board with that is what you’re saying?” Cain asked.

“No, I’d be opposed to that,” affirmed Schultz.

“Then you would be obstructing that,” observed Cain.

“The Bush tax cuts adds $700 billion to the deficit. Why would we extend them?” argued Schultz. “We need to continue to focus on President Obama’s agenda, giving tax breaks to the middle class and 18 different tax breaks he’s given to small businesses –”

Cain cut off the DNC chief in mid-sentence to point out Wasserman Schultz didn’t want to address the issues at hand.

“It’s clear all of the things coming up before the end of the year, you’re not interested in working on those right now,” said Cain.

and the second one at CNN is Fareed Zakaria, who I sense may be slightly liberal, but almost always errs on the side of common sense from a global perspective. His show, GPS, is a breath of fresh air providing broader longer view perspective amid all the senseless finger pointing which seems to occur over individual events. In general, foreign policy gwonks can just bludgeon you with a relentless array of boring factoids but Fareed has an incredibly common sense no bullshit way of articulating some fairly complex issues. In a landscape of partial truths he steps in and clearly states the situation and possible solutions. And he has absolutely no hesitation calling out politicians who abuse the facts.

And every once in a while CNN has a delightful guest named Ana Navarro, who is certainly a Republican pundit … who unabashedly says she is not a Romney fan.

They actually have a nice array of no-bullshit correspondents. The economic experts take the job reports, tear apart the ‘spin doctors’ rhetoric, tell you the truth behind the numbers and tell you what you should know <in a nice common sense way>. I have even seen one of the newscasters, I think maybe Erin Burnett, say on air, during an interview after hearing another politician spout forth the tried & true <and trite> same ole same ole sentences … “I will be glad when this is over and I will never have to hear those words again.” Nice honesty.

Awesome.

I wish more people would watch CNN.

I may be in a minority but I think it helps to hear some information, and views, that make you a little uncomfortable. I like the onscreen sparring of views. I think CNN has the best bullshit-ometer on television today … on any and all issues.

I like to see CNN for hard news. I like the intelligent commentators. I like their obvious non-bias toward any view other than a straightforward non-bullshit view.

They may not be as warm & fuzzy as the local news stations.

And they certainly aren’t as biased as other news networks.

But if you really want to understand the issues happening in the news, and you don’t have hours to research issues on your own online, CNN is a good home for your news viewing.

I do not begrudge biased viewing. It is always nice to hear someone articulate the complex nebulous thoughts you have in your own head well … in words you can repeat when asked your own opinion on things.

The difference is CNN makes you think. They may not give you your desired “sound bite to sound smart” they just make you think for yourself. It is harder work, harder viewing, but I find it hones my thoughts better than any station out there.

We could use more CNN-like vehicles today.

3 thoughts for the day

October 18th, 2012

This will be my American debate post <although there are some Life lesson thoughts buried within>. And, as before, I will permit the paid media to dissect what seems to be every syllable, not just individual words, performing a surgery to uncover intent versus what was actually said. I would tell all those media surgeons one thing … 50% of the people watching the debates say <in polls> they would not vote for either candidate.

Okay. Without tearing apart anything here are three thoughts with regard to what I saw <without any massive overthinking but simply using a note or two I jotted down during the actual debates>.

Thought 1: subtle acts of graciousness

The last President debate. In an otherwise 90 minute workmanlike display of negativity and attacks there was a subtle moment of graciousness.

Extremely subtle and will be continuously overlooked because of the importance of the moment <so thank god I am here to point it out, huh?>.

This was during the now infamous Libya/Benghazi embassy discussion <did he actually say acts of terror or not and despite the fact he actually said it did he mean it … all of which is crazy …>.

The president had just finished his ‘Hollywood moment’ <”that is not the way we do it”> and Governor Romney went on the attack because he was sure he had caught the President in a lie.

We need to remember this is a highly emotional moment for the president. Politics aside he was also actually delivering a state of the union sound bite on “don’t fuck with America”.

The Governor turned directly to the president and said “so … in the Rose Garden you actually said acts of terror?”

The president knew exactly where the governor was going. The president knew the intent and the inevitable next phase. In a debate this is where you can actually see the jaws of the trap closing.

Let’s be clear. You don’t always get these moments and nor do you give them away.

The president’s initial response … “move along governor.”

In an incredibly subtle act of graciousness the president, in a highly emotionally charged moment, held the trap open for a moment and was giving the Governor the opportunity to think for a second … and even avoid the trap if he decided to. He suggested to his competitor that this was not a path he should pursue.

- Note: I envision in that moment, no matter how brief it actually was, someone in the Democratic debate team backroom was screaming at the President “what the f#@% are you doing !!??!!”

People can tear this apart but there is only one way to view this. Instead of pouncing on an opportunity he instead offered to give the opportunity away.

That, no matter how you elect to define it, is a gracious act on an incredibly important stage.

Now.

In the heat of the moment the Governor missed his opportunity <although I believe he sincerely thought he had caught the President in a ‘puffery’ moment and I am also willing to bet some aide who either had not shared the transcript or had convinced everyone that ‘the president wasn’t being literal’ – which is dancing on the head of a pin type reasoning – got a well-deserved smack on the head afterwards> and got trapped.

I will admit that I extremely disliked the President’s “could you repeat that” comment after the trap had closed as unnecessary gloating.

However, in the end, I made note of the subtle act of graciousness.

I believe it is often the moments within the moments, the subtle things, which show you the true measure of the man (or woman).

Does this mean he now gets my vote? Nope . Just means I respect him for the subtle act of graciousness he offered a competitor in a heated moment.

Thought 2: invested spectating

The heck with the debaters … watch the invested spectators <and it is difficult on a number of levels>.

Michelle Obama, who has been through this gauntlet before, is a stoic rock. Absorbing whatever she sees and hears <although I envision many of Dolly Madison’s finest china has met their demise against a white house wall on occasion as she vents some frustration afterwards>. Ann Romney, who hasn’t been through this gauntlet, looks like she has swallowed an entire glass of milk … that has gone bad. Tagg Romney <one of Mitt’s sons>, in one of the most delightfully honest moments of candor, stated he wanted to go up on stage and take a swing at the president <noting he doubted the secret service would permit him the opportunity>.

Michelle Obama has equated watching her husband in a debate like watching her child doing a balance beam routine. With all due respect to Mrs. Obama <who I do admire> she is selling the challenge to her and Mrs. Romney, and all the truly invested spectators <family> short. There is an intellectual aspect in which integrity, honesty & character is combined with the concern for the physical aspect <the mental agility> necessary to be successful on the stage in this event. This is not just like watching a physical event where there is some failure to perform aspect but there is an emotional aspect that tears at the bond you have with someone you love.

A retort between candidates means that someone you love, are married to, been brought up by, etc. is having their character questioned <and let us be very very clear on this … both of these men are good men with strong character & passion for what they believe is right for America>. But I really do believe it is worse for the invested spectators than it is for the debaters themselves.

I say that because I do not see two men who dislike each other. I see two men who sincerely believe they have the right ideas and who are passionate about their ideas and are, well, competitive to some extent. Within the game itself athletes who are good friends will rip each other’s heads off and yet have beers together that night. Do I believe they are that close? Nope. But, frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised, if re-elected, if the President would ask Governor Romney to be part of his cabinet.

All that said … I do not believe any of what I said about the athletes in the actual game itself makes it any easier on the invested spectators. Especially because it appears from the outside looking in that both wives seem to have special relationships with their husbands <which I wish more people would take note of … because it is also a measure of the man we are voting for> and uniquely have what is, frankly … an enviable bond.

I like the fact that Ann Romney, who has adult children, seems to try and have them around as often as possible. I envision it is a natural support group during some extremely difficult personally challenging moments as her husband is being challenged <note: I am not suggesting she is not a strong woman but rather I don’t care how strong you are this is a tough situation>. I think this says a lot about her as a mother and wife.

I like the fact Mrs. Obama doesn’t involve her younger daughters at debates <and, frankly, I hope she doesn’t let them watch them> but she seems to have her brother there with her … which says a lot about her as a mother, wife & the importance of family. I imagine it is one way to help her get through what she has to endure during a debate.

I guess I am writing this thought for two reasons.

First is that I admire Michelle and Ann for a variety of reasons but also to mention to people that the debate is not just about two candidates but extends out. What they say, heck, what we say, during and afterwards has impact deeper than I believe we can ever imagine <so maybe more of us should think about what we actually say about these candidates personally>. I cannot envision ever putting my own family through something like this.

Second is that while I love a good debate, and discussion, I couldn’t do what they are currently doing. I am no smarter than either of these two men and I know that if my wife started discussing how what the other person said attacked my character … I would immediately begin thinking about what I may have said that would have suggested a lack of integrity or honesty to them. And the possible discussion that is taking place in their living room. I couldn’t do it.

Negativity is a cruel sword to wield.

It demeans and diminishes. And not just the person you are attacking but those who have invested in that person.

Thought 3: math

This is about managing a deficit … or budgeting … or however you want to phrase this … and politician math <which is nothing like the stuff you learn in 3^rd grade … it is sketchier … closer to say theoretical physics>.

You would think that doing the math with a revenue and expense ledger would be simple <what comes in equals what goes out>.

But. Here is a truth, a fact as it were, neither of the American candidates <or any politician in any country for that matter> will ever honestly tell you – the numbers do not add up on any national plan.

Yup.

Read those words and weep.

Because there is a wacky variable called ‘the economy’ that impacts both. The better the economy the more revenue <taxes> and less expenses <government assistance>.

That said … neither the Romney plan <whatever it actually is> nor the Obama plan <whatever that is> mathematically works <there is a headline for you>.

Ah. Until you tell us how much you are assuming the economy will grow. There’s the rub.

Mitt is optimistic.

Barack is cautious.

To make the Romney math work <because he seems adamant about not increasing revenue> there needs to be a significant uptick in jobs, and the economy overall, oh, and quickly by the way.

To make the Obama math work <because he is adamant about attacking the deficit and is assuming the economy stays relatively slow> there can be modest economic growth.

There are other significant things I could use a comparison between the two but as a thought for the day I was just tired of the whole math thing.

I won’t tell anyone which path to like and subscribe to … but I would suggest everyone read a Wall Street Journal editorial column <Putting Fiscal Policies Under the Microscope” by David Wessel : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444657804578048433223646530.html> as they think about it. Basically this guy suggests politicians are always more optimistic with regard to the affect they can have on an economy than actually occurs.

Ok. Gotta get back to having more thoughts. Enjoy.

living below the line

October 17th, 2012

“Long ago it was said that ‘one half of the world does not know how the other half lives.’ That was true then. It did not know because it did not care. The half that was on top cared little for the struggles and less for the fate of those who were underneath.” - Jacob A. Riis <How the Other Half Lives – 1890>

This is about the have-nots … “the other half” … this is about poverty and this is about perspective.

I decided to write this after a disturbing conversation among friends about “hand outs” and how low income people need to assume some personal responsibility <the implication being that most are lazy, not ambitious or not working hard to change their situation>.

At the core of the discussion was about how people believe other people were using, and abusing, government support systems.

Of course I heard the infamous “they checked out at the super market with porterhouse steaks using food stamps” example.

The real point was that a bunch of people think that another bunch of people are getting support <hand outs> from the government while they are working their own asses off.

So.

I tried. And after maybe making up some ground by suggesting that the majority of people getting government assistance really did need it <and there would always be a minority who will abuse anything> the next suggestion hit the conversation … someone said “I know people need help but there should be limits.” <i.e., at some point we need to stop>

Limits? <hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm>

Ok. Enough with that discussion. Because inevitably we are discussing a lack of understanding for ‘the other half.’

It is a fact that the world is becoming more unequal with wider disparity between haves and have nots than ever before (in measured history). This disparity is very real <in terms of income> and it is even more real when thinking in terms of perceptions.

Me? I personally care less about equality of income (or the gap as it were) but more on equality of opportunity. Therefore I see the inequality as an outcome of an opportunity, or lack thereof, issue.

And therein lies the issue to me.

Too many people want to see it as an economic issue when it is actually an opportunity issue. This issue is created around a belief that people are lazy and actually are happy living off these hand outs. I believe the issue is that most of these people not only cannot tangibly get out of the hole they cannot even see the opportunities to get out of the hole. That is a double whammy of reality + lack of hope.

Which gets me back to poverty and living below the line because most of us don’t understand the reality <of life in poverty> and cannot grasp the lack of hope <because we believe we live in the land of opportunity … if someone works hard enough>.

Why do we struggle with understanding? Because most of us who have it ‘tougher than we had it before’ are NOT living in poverty.

Sure … a tough global economy has impacted everyone forcing some fiscal decisions. And many middle class people consider this hardship. And they combine that attitude with “if you work hard you can gain opportunity.”

Well. I hate to break the news. In today’s world working hard doesn’t guarantee anything and those of us in the middle class have no concept of the really difficult decisions many of the people who the government is helping have to make … every day.

Someone at the table said “I see these people making irresponsible choices, I make responsible choices so should they.”

Well.

I would argue that those of us who have not lived in their shoes cannot really judge fairly. Our ‘responsible choices’ are not the same as their ‘responsible choices.’

Let me try this out on you.

I equate a head of household in an income challenged household in the same decision-making grouping as a small business owner or even someone like a president of a country – day in and day out every choice and decision is important. Every one.

The difference is that they do it without the luxury of a comfortable bed, some bottled water (or a beer) in the ‘frig and a car to get away from it all.

Try this on for size. They are a small business owner who never gets a vacation. Never.

I understand, or I imagine, the question everyone seems to be wrestling with is how much should a government assist.

And that gets driven by “geez, I am paddling as hard as I can why should they get a handout.”

Well.

Here is why.

Because they need it and you don’t <reality>.

Oh. And because we have not offered them a way out <opportunity>.

I admit. I don’t know how to offer a way out. In my table conversation I even sickened myself when I said something like “maybe our efforts should be focused on the next generation of kids … be sure they have an opportunity … be sure they have a chance at a good education <which is the research proven leveler between economic inequality>.”

Sickened? Yeah. My flippant thought implies you are giving up on a group of adults who never had the opportunity to get out and be all they could be.

Regardless. Solving poverty is a huge issue that is not going to be solved in this post.

But I can bend your ear on government assistance to low income households.

Here is the hard part to tell my readers <maybe the part we just don’t want to hear>.

We may be struggling, we may not have it as easy as we have had it before as we look at our stack of bills, and we absolutely are probably more worried about paying bills … but most of us definitely do not understand sheer poverty and the life you lead when you are within poverty.

I do know that here in America the election seems to bring out the worst in us … entitlements, handouts, food stamps for those who don’t need it, etc. … all these simplistic frustrated comments avoid the fact that America has, and has had, a large number of people in extreme poverty and the world has significantly more.

But our simplistic frustrated comments avoid the fact that recent global studies suggest that “opportunity” <the ability to change social/economic status from lower to higher> is not a truth in today’s America. People born in poverty and/or low income households are more likely to remain a poverty/low income household in America than in most European countries <although we do beat Mexico … but not Canada>.

In fighting extreme poverty it’s sometimes easy to lose sight of just how extreme the conditions that we associate with poverty is … even within our own countries.

Approximately 1.2 billion in extreme poverty globally.

That’s those who live on $1.25 a day. That is about 17.6% of global population.

This does not count “the vulnerable.” Vulnerability measures those who are “sometimes poor” while poverty measures those who are “always poor.” Between one year and the next, many people move into or out of poverty. Thus measures of who is poor now are imperfect guides to who will be poor next year, yet it is the latter that is relevant for public policies that aim to reduce poverty. The solution is to identify those who are vulnerable to poverty—that is, who have a significant probability of being poor next year. People are highly vulnerable if they have more than an even chance of being poor in the next period, and moderately vulnerable if they are more likely than the typical person to be poor next year. <worldbank poverty data>

All this thinking got me thinking about living below the line.

Thinking about how I could put myself in their shoes if but for one week and doing a reality check.

And what made me truly decide to take the step on living below the line <this ‘line’ of $1.25 a day from a global poverty perspective> was not this table discussion among friends but rather when I heard a story about a 3^rd grade daughter asking her mother for a pair of $1,500 <yup … those are thousand 0’s … I did not forget a decimal point> shoes for getting straight A’s.

I must be getting altruistic in my old age because, to me, this is lesson time for the daughter.

To be fair, if the story had been $150, I am not sure I would have got so wound up on this topic <not sure what that says about me> but the combination of $1,500 and SHOES kind of put me over the top. My hope is that I would have been a strong enough parent to have stepped back and taught a lesson. But that is for my parent readers to figure out.

Me?

I am not going to preach.

I thought I would do something to see if I knew what the hell I was talking about.

So let me take a second and talk about the “living below the line” thought.

Yes. That is living on $1.25 a day. Yup. 125 pennies or 25 nickels if you don’t like pennies.

The World Bank defines “extreme poverty” as living on the US dollar equivalent of $1.25 a day, or less.

Regular everyday poverty is actually $2.50 a day just to put ‘extreme’ into perspective for you.

That said, nearly 1.2 billion people around the world currently live in extreme poverty, surviving on $1.25 a day. That is their <dangerous> reality.

I don’t even have to type the choices one would have to make living on $1.25 a day because I would imagine it is so far out of most of my reader’s realm of possibility that it isn’t feasible.

Therefore I found a game developed by the Global Poverty Initiative that actually allows you to put yourselves in those shoes <even if it is just a game>.

Survive125 is an interactive game that puts players in the shoes of Divya Patel, an Indian woman with four children, trying to survive on $1.25 a day:

Players will be faced with many of the impossible choices that those living in extreme poverty have to make every day. It is not only an educational game, it’s a painful experience. By placing themselves in the shoes of someone living in extreme poverty, players are able to struggle with hard decisions and ultimately choose their future.

I have played it several times.

Why several? Well. The first time was simply so unimaginable to me that it ended up being slightly surreal <if not irrelevant>. So I went back. And played around with it. The first time you play through it you will find yourself going “this is not my life.”

By the 3^rd time you are saying “shit, could I make these choices?”

I am honest with myself.

I couldn’t.

From my altruistic ‘children’s education’ pulpit I began as a high & mighty futurist and eventually I ended up as a more realistic survivalist.

Enlightening? You bet.

Realistic survivalist. That phrase will now enter my ongoing lexicon in discussions.

Think you can live on a $1.25? Play and see if you can Survive125.

Okay.

Then I took the next step.

A real reality check. I said maybe I could do this for a week. Actually live on $1.25 a day for food & beverage & entertainment.

Keep the car & gas, home & electricity and I will even give you the cellphone .

A confession.

When I started this personal challenge I didn’t think it was going to be that difficult for just one week. I am a single guy for gods sake. I figured I could easily drink tap water, eliminate the diet coke <and, grudgingly, the coffee> and gather the ingredients I needed to throw a bunch of stuff into a crockpot that I could live on for a week or so.

I mean, c’mon, for one week how difficult could living on $1.25 ($8.75 for the week) a day actually be?

I learned very quickly that it is pretty fucking hard.

For all of the whining that I may have done throughout my life about having to budget or scrape money together to pay bills … I have <apparently> never come close to experiencing anything even near to poverty. Nor <apparently> have I experienced the lack of choice, monotony, and plain hard work that is all part of having to live on such a dismally small amount of money.

My reward for all of this effort?

A truly terrible and relatively tasteless soup/stew <because you cannot afford to buy salt or spices> that I had to ration out so it lasted the week. And more water drinking then I have done in possibly my entire lifetime.

The point is that for all of my effort I received no reward. None. There was no money or energy left for a reward. In fact my only reward was I existed for another week.

This reminded me of a couple of things:

- A life lived in poverty is met with little reward and is unfair … relentlessly unfair … so unfair that reality is grinding.

- A life lived in poverty with no possible reward of ‘opportunity’ seems a pretty dismal space to reside in within life because that means the grinding just puts you further and further into the hole.

The unfairness wasn’t the stew <although it does make you really really think about what someone in poverty feels when they see someone drive by in a nice car or watch commercials with some succulent meal sitting on the table> but it was from the understanding that all choices are eliminated. The food I bought was dictated by my financial means, where I bought it was dictated by my financial means, and my entire life was dictated by financial means. Any extraneous choices were taken away.

In the context of a real lived extreme poverty these choices would become far more serious.

Healthcare or no healthcare?

Do I feed my child a decent meal?

Clothing? Housing?

The list is … well … relentless.

Relentlessly in your face day to day. There is no relief.

As I stated upfront … this was as tiring as running a business … but with absolutely no reward or breaks.

None.

Okay … moving on <because I imagine many of my readers will think $1.25 is just not realistic>.

Don’t want the 1.25 test because you say ‘no way’?

For my middle class friends I will throw you a couple options because when I have talked about world poverty people say “but that is there … you could never live here on that.”

First …

Yes, folks, some do.

Second.

Okay. Try this on for size then.

I have readers all around the world. Find your country’s poverty level <for example … Rodrigo in Brazil would see $29.45/day is Brazil’s poverty level>.

In America poverty <not extreme poverty> is about $24,000 annual for a family of 4. Say it is actually close to Brazil’s for a single person so you also get about $10,720 annually if you are single.

That is $462 a week <$66 a day> if you are in a family.

- Now halve it <assume it is being used for home> and you have $231 for the week <$33 a day> for food & beverage & entertainment.

Single? This is $206 a week <$29.45 a day> if you are single.

- Now halve it … a single person gets $103 for the week <$14.71 a day>.

Disregard mortgage/rent/cell/utilities/gas and do it.

Watch how difficult it is. Then imagine you actually had to pay utilities, rent, gas, etc. within it.

I offer no solution today.

Today I simply ask you take a minute and walk in their shoes.

It may make you feel differently about “hand outs” as well as why “work hard” just may not be enough advise to give someone in this situation.

the campaign ad and website I want

October 16th, 2012

The pettiness of the American presidential campaign has brought me to a place where I am now going to give them both, candidates, candidates’ teams and parties, some unsolicited advice.

Here is the campaign ad that should be on air from now until the election:

Just one commercial <and hopefully we can stop wasting gobs of money running petty negative messages>.

Obama and Romney side by side (you could film it at the debate) and Obama says “I endorse this message” and Romney says “I endorse this message.”

<note: I am not a copywriter but someone could certainly script this for a voice over>

“We are tired of the petty back and forth in the campaign and all the wasted ad dollars and believe you deserve better. We believe you need to make a choice … and we are each offering a distinct choice. Therefore we are from this point forward simply sending people to www.obamaromneythechoice.org where we have outlined a side by side comparison of the choice you get to make. Please remember to vote.”

Here is the ‘obamaromneythechoice’ website:

Some background.

For years I have been in a business where we have had to figure out how to clearly define what we offer for new business purposes (sometimes failing but we have lots of experience) so that someone, who is seeing multiple providers basically saying the same things, can clearly compare the provider options … and make an informed choice.

That said I will suggest a simple format that they can both follow so everyone can have a side by side comparison.

- Challenge to be solved.

- Solution/plan to be provided.

- Expected results.

That’s the basic framework. It’s a simple case study/problem-solution format. Smarter people then I can ensure we have the proper nuances within each ‘challenge to be solved’ so there are some clear comparison points and enough of the “American issues” are listed to address the big stuff.

Oh.

And I want a short term result <within 3 years> and a long term result <what infrastructure this is setting up for a future America.>

And.

I will give them a vision page. And not some lofty “better America” <because for gods sake if they don’t have that then maybe they should move to Russia> but rather a “here is what I believe our issue is today” and “here is what I believe a healthy America looks like.”

I know. I know. That last one is tricky but here is the deal … each party & each candidate has a very clear vision for America … and you may not have noticed but they are very different. One has a milk formula and one has a vodka formula. I don’t know why they dance around them but somehow someway they just need to belly up to the bar and not play politics and simply state what they believe.

That’s my unsolicited advice.

What that means?

No more meaningless debates <for the media to slice & dice and each party to feel even stronger about the same things they have believed since day one>.

No more big advertising campaigns <so maybe we can give some teachers raises>.

Oh.

The only other piece of advice?

Add a “none of the above” box on the ballot. Not a write in box … just a “I do not want any of these candidates” box.

I guarantee the highest voter turn out ever seen in America.

And maybe politicians will learn something bigger than the electoral process and the belief “one of the two parties has to be voted in” after it is all said and done.

Because I will tell them a truth that they may not want to hear … if politicians believe they can put off making fiscal policy decisions <which is their job by the way> until someone gets elected then they should begin believing that the public may actually decide they didn’t offer us the best choice and we will put off selecting one of them.

let the bout begin

October 5th, 2012

Alright, time for me to write about the first American presidential debate.

Of course, me being me, I am going to look at the first American presidential debate very differently than all the talking heads on tv are looking at it.

I will let everyone else debate on who won the debate and the excruciating dismantling of each word. Mostly because it was such a mosh pit of he said/she said partial/selective truths which was incredibly annoying and in the end I believe the everyday person had no clue if either told the truth.

Anyway.

What fascinates me is watching what I perceive as two significantly different debate strategies … not ideologies <although they are lurking their within their debate strategies>. And what may make my point of view different than others is:

- I don’t know diddly about politics or debate strategy so I have an unfiltered business <or sports> point of view on what I saw., and

- I truly believe that despite what we all feel about politics and politicians there are some very very smart people thinking about everything that is being done and said and that there is very rarely anything done without a purpose. Anything. Even a perceived disinterested participant.

That said.

Here is what I believe.

Both campaign teams know this is a 3 round boxing bout (with an under card bout). And I think both campaign/bout handlers know exactly what they are doing and the candidates are delivering on a 3 round strategy <no matter how the talking heads want to tear apart one as if it is the end all be all>.

Let me take on the biggest elephant in the room … for example, while we may not have seen the presidents ‘A game’ I do believe he did exactly what he was asked to do by his Angelo Dundee.

Anyway, that is what I believe and here is what I saw.

To me I saw the Raging Bull (or ‘strong like bull’ if you prefer) strategy versus the Muhammad Ali strategy.

Attack, deflect and create doubt (with an eye to knockout) versus absorb, counterpunch and show unshakeable confidence (with an eye to knockout) strategy.

The Romney debate strategy is former and president is latter.

Both extremely viable strategies.

Both really smart strategic plans of action for the appropriate candidate.

Let me begin with the Romney Raging Bull strategy because it was executed flawlessly in the debate.

First.

Attack.

Relentlessly attack.

The Republican trainer told him before he went into the ring “you need to win this round on punches” and “don’t come back to the corner with any punches or energy left. Leave it all out there.”

Now. Here is what truly made this strategy effective in the first debate. The trainer had Romney commit to a brilliant opening psychologically driven tactic.

Intellectually we all know it is an open debate of ideas.

However, psychologically, when the president is involved, there is an additional dynamic. Psychologically we expect our president to be treated with respect so no matter how you prepare yourself for it the first attack, the ‘he was wrong’ or ‘he wasn’t smart’ or ‘he didn’t prioritize correctly’, we bristle. We don’t like it and maybe even get a little angry at the attacker (unless you are Rush Limbaugh of course).

Now. We get over it in a debate, but the first punch hurts.

The republican trainer had Romney rip the band aid off fast and quick and early (opening). He punched the president right in the nose as soon as he stepped in the ring. Painful? You bet. But he got it out of the way and paved the way for a full 40 minutes or so of attack. Well thought out. Well done.

After that it was all about landing punches … didn’t have to be good solid punches but be relentless, don’t give him any space, just keep punching … because something will land and even if they don’t it doesn’t give him any openings to attack.

And attacking played to his strength. Romney is an excellent debater and excellent when the subject is one he has prepared for. His weakness is the unforeseen. He sometimes struggles <and gets flustered> when things aren’t going as planned. Therefore the Romney team avoided the semi-impossible task of guessing every question or possible punch and created the platform for him to win – attack. Just get out there and say what you want to say and what has been scripted.

Oh. They also told him … ‘on anything else? Do. Not. Say. It. <and don’t even think about saying it>.’

Next.

Deflect.

His trainer told him “I do not want you to absorb one punch. Not one.”

Romney was brilliant on this strategic objective. And I mean frickin’ brilliant. It didn’t matter whether the president counter punched with a real truth, a half truth, a partial truth or no truth because whatever the president said the response was “that’s not true” <or ‘you are wrong’>.

He deflected.

And when he actually decided to go on the attack again by counterpunching he simply selected whatever one aspect he had a script memorized on. He slid the punch and counterpunched on his terms. Slightly aggravating to the viewers because that meant he didn’t actually answer the questions but, to the Romney team, it was about punches. And after a while the president simply stopped punching because even he recognized he gained nothing as no matter what he said all people would remember is “that’s not true” every time he said something.

The other brilliant aspect was that it kept the dialogue on parts and not the sum of the parts <brilliant>.

Parts:

Would he increase deficit? Of course not. Never.

Would he cut taxes for the rich? No.

Would he cut back on America’s future investment strategies? Silly, of course not.

Would he raise taxes on the middle class? No.

Would he roll back regulation? No <if it is smart>

Would he cut education? Never <they are our future>.

Sum?

<p.s. – they cannot all be true and add up. It really is arithmetic>

Brilliant. Well played.

Now.

As a truth person I hated the strategy. As a strategy-to-win person I thought it was brilliant.

Lastly.

The trainer told Romney, after he told him he needs to win the round, remember, whatever happens in the fight itself when in doubt you counterpunch with the objective to create doubt in the president – his words, his actions, his knowledge of facts – so that people just aren’t sure about the overall current plan and leader (of course the ultimate hope is the president may even show a crack of doubt or regret at some point for some past decision when I assume Romney would have pounced – rightfully so).

Stay on mission. Whatever you do stay on script and create doubt on whatever he says.

I am not sure that last objective was achieved but that’s not the point. It was the strategic vision. And I think whoever (the Romney Raging Bull trainer) designed the strategy deserves a cocktail.

The risk?

The risk is partially energy (like a real boxing match) but the debates are so spread out (although it does mandate a high level of energy every round) so I believe it is really about rhythm. You only have so many punches. The risk is he slips into some rhythm that can be read before the punch comes or he slightly revises the punch <going slightly off the practiced script> and leaves a big opening. Or he simply runs out of punches and the champ is still standing and has some whoopass punches left. But Romney has a lot more punches he can throw than the president can. Any challenger in a tough economy does. In addition he has the benefit of selective hindsight … punching past actions without having to defend his own actions. And when an economy is doing poorly the challenger has a simplified attack stance as he punches … no need to explain the case of what is wrong … everyone knows <but it is an easy punch to throw if you are suddenly backpedaling>. All Romney has to say is: “I can do this job better than that.” Look. It is always easier to look back and say “stupid, why did you do that?” when no one knows what you would have done in that time and place. But that’s how the bout is fought. Raging bull won a lot of matches. He can win.

- The proof that my theory may be right?

Romney is a bottom line business guy through and through. I would probably love him running a troubled business. I do not doubt for one minute he is a compassionate man but all business leaders have a switch. A switch where it ain’t personal … it is business. And you have to do that sometimes <as a business person>. I imagine he is ruthlessly effective at dissecting past actions of others, revise and improve moving forward. And I tend to believe his business credentials show that this strategy is a mirror reflection of what takes place in a boardroom. What makes him appealing is that when cornered he really doesn’t know how to play politics … he is a business guy. He knows people are involved, and he cares about them, but ultimately he is about making the right business decision and believes the happiness of people will follow. This strategy is perfect for him.

Moving on to the president.

The Muhammad Ali strategy. To me this was the most interesting.

Because while I believe the raging bull strategy was very easy for Romney to implement I believe the Muhammad Ali strategy is a little more difficult for the president to implement.

I believe the democrat Angelo Dundee told the president “remember champ, this is a 3 round bout, not one, and you are the champ, he cannot knock you out in this round, so this round you absorb every punch he’s got. Let him give you the best he has. You will probably lose this round. That said … I only want you to come back at him if, and only if, you think you can put him down on the mat. Other than that, suck it up, absorb what he’s got and just give enough counterpunches to see what else he’s got.”

Well. The president did what he was asked.

Flawlessly if not painfully. He was pushed on the ropes and took a battering.

He used counterpunches to show he was unshakeable in his beliefs on his plan. He used counterpunches to show aspects of his vision. And, yes, there were some openings (albeit not many because frankly the relentless attack was pretty relentless). But if the criteria were “only if you can put him down” then he did what his trainer told him to do.

Let me give a hypothetical, but realistic, example.

The Democrat team is in the bout strategy room and someone says “okay champ, when you get an opening you swing from the hips with the 47% punch and rock him.”

Everyone says ‘hell yeah.’

The republican Angelo Dundee, sitting in the corner with a twisted sweaty towel, clears his throat and growls … “do we know his counter punch if he slips it? … think about this … the other guy says ‘I am glad you brought that up Mr. president because I owe America an apology … especially the 47% but 100% of America. I was wrong to say that and I apologize. I am for 100% of America, have been, and always will be. Please accept my apology’ … all said looking directly at the camera and 67 million people” <plus youtube & media the next day> … Angelo takes a deep breath and then says … “Champ, you can’t ask him if he was flip flopping or changing his mind or even lying … he just apologized to 67 million watchers and 250 million Americans. That punch misses.”

Silence in the room as they think.

(He lets the room ponder that for maybe 30 seconds as he sips some water … clears his throat and turns directly to the president)

“Champ, you can throw that punch if you want, but you need to get your hands up quick to protect your jaw because you know for sure that immediately after he has looked directly at the camera and apologized he is going to turn to you and look directly at you, in front of 67 million people, and ask you ‘is there anything you would like to apologize to America for?’”

He doesn’t even let that one sit in the room but immediately reminds the entire room “in round one the champ only attacks with a punch that will put him on the mat. Let’s move on.”

Someone give the republican Angelo a raise.

Now.

I do not think this was easy for the president. And while some viewers thought he was disinterested or making notes I actually think he was writing something like “remember to take Angelo out to the woodshed, if Michelle doesn’t, and kick his ass for making me do this.” Because while I believe this is a great strategy for a champ it is not an easy one for someone who wants to fight.

Which is why I believe the president was at his best in the closing comments.

He basically got to finally come off the ropes after being battered for 40 minutes and say “I took the best he has, I am bloodied but still standing here, I am unshaken and confident that my plan is the best for America and its people.”

He got to say to Romney “if that is the best you got you, you didn’t hurt me <and you are screwed and should be worried because I am not going away>.”

I am not sure the president can do this strategy, for personal pride reasons, for one more round and wait for the third to finally come out swinging. Well he could, and maybe should, because strategically it is quite possible <although he does need to find some openings in round two to score some solid points> but I think personally this strategy is very difficult for him to take. But if his Angelo Dundee could convince him … I would. Muhammad Ali was one of the best strategist and counter punchers of all time. He waited. And waited. And watched. And waited more. And by taking the best shots and still be standing he gained confidence, he gained some respect, and then he used all he learned and won.

Now.

I think the Democrat Angelo Dundee is going to give a different strategy to Biden … I think he is gonna tell him “go out and kick the young whipper snapper’s ass and feel free and be a jerk about it. Win us the old white folk.” But that is a different post.

Anyway.

The risk here? You can’t deliver the knockout punch in the last round. It’s all or nothin’ in the 3rd round and by this time all of America that will ever even think about voting is watching.

67 million will look like frickin’ peanuts by this debate.

And he has to win by TKO or KO. You are too far behind in points to simply win on points. You need to put him on the mat a couple of times or out for good. It puts a lot of pressure on the champ. But those are the moments champions are defined. Mohammed Ali won a lot of bouts this way. But he did lose some matches. The president can lose.

- The proof my theory may be right? Well. The democrat strategy was exactly the same during the republican primaries. People were jumping up and down saying “why aren’t the democrats defending themselves?!?” as the republicans used the president and the administration’s plan of action as a punching bag. The administration just absorbed the punches and unshakabley kept on keeping on. And then they came out swinging. Time in and time out by biding their time they got the ammunition they have needed for the counterpunch uppercuts. They have used this strategy before.

In addition … the media is actually throwing the punches for him as he rests in the corner for the next round. All the talking bobbleheads are sitting around talking about all the things he could have punched Romney with. Gosh. Romney won the round on punches but the announcers are all talking about the quality of the punches and punches the President could have taken. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm … kinda smart that the president didn’t have to bring them up.

Someone knows their shit in the democrat camp.

Okay.

If I am right, I actually believe these strategies are a reflection of the choice America has and they were outlined pretty clearly in the debate:

- Romney. Aggressively attack the short term issues and deflect the long term (not ignore it but the priority is “create jobs now”).

Private, private, private <with some delegation to states>. Now. I don’t really believe he believes this but this is the message. But he is certainly a believer in unfettered <or minimally fettered> capitalism. Let me use healthcare as an example because it is such a lightning rod.

When people hear him talk the people are confusing state rights and his business acumen. In his heart he wants 50 small businesses managing America. It is irrelevant they are called ‘states’ he just believes that businesses generate effective bottom line and effective cost-efficient solutions. That may be an extreme generalization but that is the core of his belief.

- Obama. Absorb the best punches (issues) we are given and create an unshakable future (this doesn’t suggest ignoring immediate job creation but the priority is a solid foundation for the future).

Balance, balance, balance. People don’t like to hear it. Romney message is a lot easier to grasp. The president pounds away at selective governmental assistance and encouragement of private sector innovation. It ain’t sexy and it ain’t just talking about jobs. The president, using business acumen as an example with regard to healthcare, suggests Massachusetts was a new product test market which can now be rolled out nationally. From a business perspective the president philosophically is actually pretty close to a national franchise business model.

Please note that both are viable approaches with pluses and minuses on each. But do not be fooled into believing one system is better than the other. They are simply systems. It is always the people who manage the systems over the long term (not just a year or 4) that make or break either of those business models.

That’s my thinking.

Oh. And who really wins if I am right? The media and whoever covers the third debate. Viewership will continue to increase as the Obama strategy is to guide everyone to the last round of the bout. Especially if the second round goes the way I think it will <a purposeful draw>.

And, actually, I imagine the candidates do also. In a very close race the last debate becomes the make or break moment.

I am sure a lot of people do not want to agree with what I just wrote but, remember, a lot of these yahoos have Harvard and Princeton and a whole bunch of high falutin’ degrees. They may not be in touch with what happens around the average American kitchen table but that doesn’t make them dumb. They know their shit.

And rarely is something happening that they haven’t planned … they just don’t tell you their plan <that is the Bill Belechik acumen I believe>.

I look forward to rounds two and three … and the undercard also.

Euripides, economists & economy

October 3rd, 2012

“Circumstances rule men and not men rule circumstances.” – Euripides

Let me be clear upfront.

- I am not old enough to have met Euripides,

- I am not an economist (albeit I did get a fake undergraduate economics degree – fake in that it was an essay theoretical driven degree and I have always known how to write and be theoretical …in a good grade drivel way),

- I am not afraid of numbers (and in fact find comfort in them sometimes),

- and, lastly, I am perfectly unclear on what is best to fix the american economy (although I am fairly sure which president we have is irrelevant to fixing).

Now.

I used to think I knew.

At least in broader strokes.

Now? I am simply confused. Ok. Not confused but rather unclear why I can’t choose some items off the Romney menu and why I can’t choose some other things off the Obama menu. And I am also unclear why they wouldn’t want to do the same.

Why do I say this? Well. I read the Wall Street Journal (an unabashed republican skewed paper) and when going into detail … some of what “the Romney plan” suggests is good stuff. Not all (because for some reason they want to make it all about dollars and cents) but a lot. .

And then I watch MSNBC (an unabashed democrat skewed information provider) and some of what “the Obama plan” suggests (and has implemented) is good stuff. Not all (because for some reason they want to make it all about fairness) but a lot.

Then I watch CNN and get really confused because they actually try and be fair by representing all views <which apparently viewers do not like because their ratings are lower despite having the best, by far, news product available today>

— separate note (just in case CNN is reading this): they should hire me … I could change that —

Anyway.

I want to pick and choose ideas.

Now, whenever I get confused <on this stuff> I typically try and get some perspective by reading letters to the editor in The Economist after they have written a British point of view on the topic I may be having some confusion over. I find the letter writers, when critiquing the article, do a nice short portrayal of ‘what really is’ (and regardless of however the Economist may skew an article the letters kind of nail down truth …or as close to truth as one can get) and get to a nice clear point.

I did this … and I am still confused.

The only thing I am not confused about? After watching night after night of negative TV ads from both sides I am perfectly clear that both candidates lie, are stupid, their plans suck and, in general, Wile E Coyote would have a better plan than either of them.

Anyway.

Personally? I want to pick and choose from both menus.

I don’t believe you can go 100percent to invisible hand top down economics. Too slow, not sure I trust business leaders in key segments to look beyond dollars and cents to reinvest in people and some segments just need to be infrastructurally ‘force changed.”

I don’t believe you can go “government dominated” overall. That’s not what free market is all about and, frankly, it’s not America. We have always been about self-made and “selves” have to have an opportunity to “make.”

At crossroads moments like this … the one we are in … it seems to me we need some of both. Government to be heavy-handed where large infrastructures long term changes need to occur (healthcare was one of those in my eyes … secondary education would be another).

Government has to have a softer touch in the involvement of businesses but somehow has to identify regulatory standards to insure some type of moral code (so profit doesn’t trump “what is in the best interest of the people”).

Maybe, in the end, all of what I typed is the reason I don’t get involved in Romney-Obama bashing … it is all complex and quite complicated and each has valuable ideas & thoughts.

The economy situation is one where short term decisions may have minimal short term results with massive long term implications … and at the same time we need long term decisions which maximize some short term results (without massive long term negative impact).

It is a fine tuned dance of which simplicity seems nowhere within any of the plans.

And what makes it more complex? People. Citizens. Us. You & me.

Similar to the business world if we don’t immediately see positive results everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off looking for someone to blame or suggest something is wrong.

I do not envy either candidate … for a variety of reasons <some just listed>.

However … despite the fact I do not envy them I will watch the debate tonight.

Yeah. I know. No one ever wins an election from a debate and, in fact, no matter what happens in the debate afterwards Democrats will wave their hands in the air while chuckling over some Romney miscue and Republicans will pound their fists on tables everywhere saying “see, Obama is a spineless jelly fish” and Libertarians will smoke some pot and mumble something about Ron Paul.

By the way … I predict the media will claim Romney a winner <regardless of what he actually says … unless he drops some verbal bomb pissing off over half, or 47%, of the country or drools or wets his pants or something>. My prediction is based on the fact there is too much Obama positiveness currently going on and they will want to keep the story alive for as long as possible <boy … that was cynical, wasn’t it?>.

In the end … I will watch for 2 reasons:

candidates explaining the economy

- Presenters. Debate format aside … this is really about a string of mini-speeches. What I mean by that is, as a presenter, there are some things that you really, really want to say. Therefore you are always seeking the opportunity to say it. Now, that can lead to trouble. It means you are partially not really listening but simply looking for the verbal cue from which to leverage. It also can get you to create some incredibly absurd links to get to what you want to say. Part of being a great debater/presenter is what you are willing to “leave in the bag.” That is the fun art of watching this.

Plus. Because the economy is so topical I love to watch both of them get twisted in knots trying to explain the math <see chart to left> in a way that doesn’t make anyone think they will have to sacrifice anything.

- Soul. I began with Euripides and will end with him:

“The company of just and righteous men is better than wealth and a rich estate.” – Euripides, Aegeus

Now. I am not foolish enough to believe we will really see the ‘real, authentic’ man but debates have a habit of creating situations where you can get backed into the corner. And to quote that infamous movie Dirty Dancing it can become a “”nobody puts baby in the corner” moment. It is within those fleeting moments you can get a glimpse of what’s inside the person. And how he/she handles the moment. I seek a glimpse of the just & righteous.

Plus. No matter what anyone tries to tell me … a presidential election is not about the economy. Both candidates have a viable plan of action <in some form or fashion>. What I want is one who will pick & choose off the menu to lead America and … well … someone even remotely inspirational … let’s call that someone a dealer in some pragmatic Hope.

israel and crazy horse

September 26th, 2012

This may be a crazy perspective but I am going to talk about Israel … and Crazy Horse. Not just so I can type something because I am bored but I actually have a point for my readers to think about.

I have been thinking about Israel and with everything happening in the Middle East and the fact Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon I know there has been a lot of discussion about Israel … and their aggressiveness to proactively <sometimes> protect themselves.

Now.

I believe it is difficult for Americans to grasp the Israel situation because our country is isolated by miles of water on two sides with cheap labor on another side and the world’s nicest people <and some Moose> on the other.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be surrounded by people, on all borders, who, at minimum, would prefer you not being there and, at maximum, would like to eliminate you from the earth.

Oh. And many of them with guns & rockets.

What I do know is that I am not Jewish so I could never understand the cultural core within Judaism and the spiritual tie to the region.

What I do know is the Jewish people have forged something strong enough to withstand consistent attempts at genocide for thousands of years. And I do know it is stronger than simple borders of a country. And yet … the country … and its holy sites are also stronger than simply symbols.

I also know as I thought about Israel somewhere in my pea-like brain I began thinking about the American Indians.

It probably began when I saw this quote in National Geographic:

“They tried extermination, they tried assimilation, they broke every treaty they had with us, they took away our horses, they outlawed our language, they made our ceremonies forbidden. And yet our ceremonies survived, our language survived.” – Alex White Plume (Oglala Lakota/Sioux)

And, no, I am not an American Indian (native American, Sioux, Iroquois, whatever) and therefore could never presume to understand the true essence of their cultural being.

Yet.

I thought of both as I read a National Geographic article and had a long complex discussion with a friend about Israel and Palestine and the Middle East in general.

Rather than blather on in my own words let me just place a number of quotations from a variety of people and let you think about it a little as you read:

“We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. There will be no place they are safe … intend to murder jews wherever they are, they will be safe no place.” “ Hossein Safiadeen told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.

“The whites were always trying to make the Indians give up their life and live like the white men – go to farming, work hard and do as they did – and the Indians did not know how to do that, and did not want to anyway….If the Indians had tried to make the whites live like them, the whites would have resisted, and it was the same with many Indians.” – Wamditanka (Big Eagle) of the Santee Sioux

Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran’s chief of state, also known as the supreme leader - “The fake Zionist government is a cancerous tumor and the cause of different diseases and political, economic calamity in the region … it is a cancerous tumor that must be removed … Israel is ‘an infidel that should be warred against.’ ”

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson said: ”And … if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi … in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them”.

“We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon — no alternative.” -Golda Meir, Israeli politician, prime minister

“Whole Indian Nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man’s advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers. They have passed the mountains, and have settled upon Tsalagi (Cherokee) land. They wish to have that usurpation sanctioned by treaty. When that is gained, the same encroaching spirit will lead them upon other land of the Cherokees. New cessions will be asked. Finally the whole country, which the Cherokees and their fathers have so long occupied, will be demanded, and the remnant of the Ani Yvwiya, The Real People, once so great and formidable, will be compelled to seek refuge in some distant wilderness. There they will be permitted to stay only a short while, until they again behold the advancing banners of the same greedy host. Not being able to point out any further retreat for the Cherokees, the extinction of the whole race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than to submit to further loss of our country? Such treaties may be alright for men who are too old to hunt or fight. As for me, I have my young warriors about me. We will hold our land.” -Dragging Canoe, Chickamauga Tsalagi

“It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.” – Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League

“We preferred hunting to a life of idleness on the reservation where we were driven against our will. We preferred our own way of living … all we wanted was peace and to be left alone.” – Crazy Horse

“The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.” – Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister

(testifying to the commission in 1891 after Wounded Knee – 12/29/1890 event)

“There was a woman with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce … of course it would have been alright if only the men were killed … we would almost feel grateful for it. But the fact of killing of women, and more especially the killing of the young boys and girls who are going to make up the future strength of the Indian people, is the saddest part of the whole affair and we feel it very sorely.” – Oglala leader American Horse

Lastly.

In 1980 the US Supreme Court awarded $106million to the Sioux as reparations for the Black Hills. The Sioux rejected it. They insist the Black Hills will never be for sale. The Sioux asked everyone to think of this insult. Mt. Rushmore is in the Black Hills. “The leaders who broke every promise and every treaty with my people have their faces carved in our most holy place.”

My point in including this last quote was to say that a holy place has no price, in terms of dollars, I would assume it can only be measured in blood if it can not be bought but only taken.

So.

I imagine I have offended a number of people with this post as well as probably shown some naiveté in some form or fashion. I apologize. But I don’t apologize for making anyone think. Maybe open their mind up to different perspectives.

Every day I look around the world, and before I open my pie hole, I try and put myself in their shoes. I know it isn’t really possible but there has to be some value in the attempt.

Anyway.

Israel.

But, in the end, after all the religious & holy & statesmanship words … I believe Crazy Horse summed up why I thought about Israel and the Indians when he said … “We preferred our own way of living … all we wanted was peace and to be left alone.” – Crazy Horse

Isn’t that all Israel is asking?

piers and ahmadinejad

September 26th, 2012

I am not a huge Piers Morgan fan <CNN> but when I saw he was going to interview Iran president Ahmadinejad I had to tune in. Heck. My site is called enlightened conflict. How could I ignore the opportunity to hear from a source of conflict and possibly gain some perspective?

Reminder 1: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the main political leader of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, a coalition of conservative political groups in the country.

Reminder 2: Some things Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in the past:

- “Iranians defend and present their Islamic and Iranian identity to other people worldwide.”

- “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.”

- “For this reason, the expansion of relations with all countries is on the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I mean balanced relationships, based on mutual respect and observation of each other’s rights.”

- “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

- “Israel has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain.”

- “We’ve never been anti-Semitic.”

Reminder 3: Let me note a president is a president. I know that may sound obvious, if not silly, but it is a reminder that no matter what perception you may have from sound bites and news flashes a leader of a country is charismatic, articulate, crafty-savvy and smart. He was all of these.

Reminder 4: He fully recognized CNN represented a global communications platform. Some of his answers were not answers and almost all of his words were measured but within the entire interview you certainly gained some perspective.

That said.

Some things he said:

Ahmadinejad: We condemn ‘extremism’

Ahmadinejad: Homosexuality ‘ugly’

Ahmadinejad: Iran has right to defend itself

Ahmadinejad: ‘Very close’ with Iran Jews

Here are some of my thoughts.

- Americans should watch this interview. Your point of view may not change but taking a moment to look at how our actions can be seen thru another’s eyes is always worth a moment or two.

I will paraphrase this thought but as he noted the American 9/11 event as a tragedy where 3000 died he immediately qualified it by asking if it justified the reaction in which Muslims dying in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded 900,000 and almost 1.7 million injured <combatants & civilians>.

Not saying I agree it is just perspective/point of view. Just pointing out if we wonder on occasion why the Middle East may have a chip on their shoulder.

- He reminded me of something Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his new book: “america needs to remember that its foreign policy is inextricably linked to domestic actions.”

Ahmadinejad said something like “the Arab spring was a reflection of the fact the middle east is in need of reform … in my eyes the entire world should be seeking to reform.” Ah. Reading between the lines …”doesn’t America need to reform?” … leading to “how dare America tell me what I can or cannot do when they can’t even keep their own house in order.” Beyond that … the implied was “would you quit talking to me about what I need to do to reform because I am not the only one who needs to.”

- Governing within a religious construct suggests freedom with some pretty tight rules.

Some of the things he talked about (homosexuality in particular) sounded eerily like what a Christian fundamentalist would say. His answer with regard to his thoughts on homosexuality could have come straight out of the mouth of a Christian fundamentalist. I never begrudge anyone their religious beliefs and whether I agree or not with how they allow it to guide their lives I believe it is their choice. Oh. That is called ‘freedom of choice.’ Extreme religious leadership imposes limitations on freedom of choice. My point? Individuals certainly can be guided in such a way n their own lives but an entire country creates issues <assuming 100% of the people will not agree all the time>.

- With regard to that stupid amateur film disparaging the prophet he nailed the issue: “freedom of speech is not the same as abuse of speech.”

His words:

“Fundamentally, first of all, any action that is provocative, offends the religious thoughts and feelings of any people, we condemn, likewise, we condemn any type of extremism. Of course, what took place was ugly. Offending the Holy Prophet is quite ugly. This has very little or nothing to do with freedom and freedom of speech. This is the weakness of and the abuse of freedom, and in many places it is a crime. It shouldn’t take place, and I do hope the day will come in which politicians will not seek to offend those whom others hold holy.”

Personally I couldn’t agree with him any more on that one particular issue <not having much to do with freedom of speech>. I have written this before … freedom of speech is a responsibility. And it is also not freedom to be provocatively stupid, moronic & offensive to others’ beliefs.

Beyond that. He did not condone the violence. He walked a fine line on this topic – but I noted as I listened that I had to think hard about this. He governs within a religious construct – Iran is basically a religious state. We in America, and many nations for that matter, have elected to not govern that way. His response <in words and thoughts> is going to be different than most of ours. We see the film as a moronic example of freedom of speech. He sees the film as a religious affront. He doesn’t try to justify the reaction he simply gets aggravated we don’t understand the depths of the affront.

- Whew. The Israel-Palestine discussion.

As a Muslim, and a Muslim leader, his perspective of self-determination skews his view to “don’t Palestinians have a right to determine their future.”

His words:

“If a group comes and occupies the United States of America, destroys homes while women and children are in those homes, incarcerate the youth of America, impose five different wars on many neighbors, and always threaten others, what would you do? What would you say? Would you help it? … Or would you help the people of the United States?”

Ahmadinejad asked in response to whether Israel should be “wiped off” the face of the map, as he once said.

“So when we say ‘to be wiped,’ we say for occupation to be wiped off from this world. For war-seeking to (be) wiped off and eradicated, the killing of women and children to be eradicated. And we propose the way. We propose the path. The path is to recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-governance.”

He is relentless with imposing ‘self-determination.’

Oh. He surprised me when asked how he would feel if his daughter fell in love with a Jew when he said “I would have to see who that Jewish man or woman would be. I see love amongst people as completely acceptable. There are many Jews living in Iran with whom we are very close. There are … some Muslims that marry into Jewish families or marry Christians.”

“I — we have no such problems,” he added.

Well. I cannot even come close to fathoming how he thinks on this. It is so far out of my dna I can’t grasp it.

Now. I honestly don’t believe it is quite as simple as that in Iran but given how measured he was on other touchy topics it was enlightening to hear him go on record with that <and I share my perspective on this in my conclusion>.

- When asked whether he believes in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ahmadinejad declined to comment.

“I cannot express an opinion. That is their prerogative but the people of Palestine must be allowed by everyone, and helped by everyone, to allow them, to give them the right to choose for themselves.”

- The Holocaust.

I won’t even touch the holocaust discussion. He will not admit there was ever a Holocaust or directly answer a question about whether $6million jewish people lost their lives in WW2. Suffice it to say he didn’t answer the question (did he believe the holocaust occurred) and there was certainly a point where it looked like if he had a holy scimitar handy he would have sliced Piers head off right then and there.

Bottom line on the interview?

1. Perspective.

I believe any time we can see our own actions thru others eyes it cannot hurt. Did I agree with at all? Absolutely not. Did it make me think a little? Absolutely yes.

Foreign policy is complex. It is not just “make a strong stance” <or drawing some colored line in the sand like kids getting ready to challenge each other>. He also reminded me of another thing Brzezinski said on TV the other day … “if we <America> act unwisely the region could erupt.” Because whether I agree with Ahmadinejad or not he said something like “some of US actions have prompted extremism.” The point? Taking actions in anyone’s backyard generates some response particularly if it is perceived as a religious affront. Do I believe if the West did nothing that there would be no activity? Surely not. Do I believe countries around the world believe USA is ‘soft’ or isn’t as dangerous as it ‘used to be’? Absolutely not. America has the strongest, most far reaching, capable military in the world. The struggle is actually America itself … the bulk of America talks tough about foreign policy but doesn’t really have the stomach <nor should they> for doing some of the things that would need to be done to step in.

Beyond that … Ahmadinejad clearly points toward the best path is one in which the Middle East resolves their own issues if it can be done that way. We Americans tend to like to think that everything is about us … but here is a truth about the Middle East situation – it is really a war between moderate Muslim and radical Muslim. At its heart & soul it is a religious war. The best person to manage Iran is a relative sharing the religion … not a distant neighbor who does not.

2. Frankly, Ahmadinejad concerned me for a number of reasons.

(a) He is smart, crafty smart.

He portrays himself as an enlightened, reasonable person who thinks everyone should just be left alone to do whatever they want in their own country. He complains about a world where Israel can threaten Iran over suspected nuclear ambitions and in the next breath refuses to recognize Israel as a state and has said that he wants the current Israeli political regime to cease to exist. Iran also funds and supports militants & terrorists on Israel’s border who have thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli population centers. The concept that Iran just wants to live in peace and security with its neighbors is a fiction … well … as long as Israel is one of its neighbors that is.

(b) He is intolerant within a religious construct.

This has nothing to do with Sharia law but everything to do with whether you believe the Koran <or Bible for that matter> is a metaphorical guide for actions or an actual guide for actions. Just as he wields ‘self-determination’ like a bludgeon <see c.> he wields the Koran as his unswerving constitutional guide … not just for moral direction but also for leadership action.

Think of it as almost exactly opposite of say Turkey.

This creates internal country issues but let’s imagine any country can elect to govern as they wish. However, it also creates massive external repercussions globally in dealing with other governmental constructs. And, more importantly, within the Middle East in which while he may chafe with his more moderate brethren he happens to have a neighbor, on the same street mind you, that has a country founded upon a completely different religious construct. With such a rigid, values based <which makes it a ‘divine’ construct> construct I cannot envision the tolerance and flexibility needed for realistic compromise that takes place in any diplomacy.

(c) He invokes “self-determination” nonstop (which invariably stokes resentment anytime anyone from the west decides to be involved in the region’s business).

This circles back to the crafty smart comment. Self-determination is an American foreign policy lynchpin established by Woodrow Wilson post WW1. It is stated beliefs that the established population has a right to self determine their future as a state/country.

Well, in a wildly imagination-driven world even I addressed this <in my ‘remapping the middle east’ post: http://brucemctague.com/a-new-map-of-the-middle-east) but there is always a relationship to the ‘bigger picture’ regardless of whether it simply be regional <Middle East> or globally <the globe>. Most self-determination type discussions involve domestic <what is right for me at home> and internationally <what impact will this have economically and exchange of trade/ideas/etc.>. he is only showing us one side of the coin.

He is also crafty with regard to self-determination and Israel.

This next thought may get me in trouble but here goes … Ahmadinejad may not be anti-Jewish but rather simply anti-Israel <he continues to refuse to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state>. But, heck, he may not even give a flip about Israel … if it was say maybe located near Paraguay or Luxembourg.

The crux of this thought/concern? I do believe he would guide his country to take any steps possible to eliminate Israel from the Middle East but I believe his whole self-determination argument suggests that he believes the REGION would self-determine that Israel just didn’t belong there. It is a frightening argument. And one that takes you down an inevitable path where Israel is not going to simply move near Paraguay/Luxembourg therefore the leader of Iran is suggesting if they don’t move we will move them. Ultimately that is why this man, and this situation, is dangerous.

I am glad I watched.

It reminded me of something I wrote last week … it is becoming more and more difficult to discern the good guys from the bad guys. When reasonable is so intertwined with unreasonable it becomes easy to think ‘that makes sense’ and … well … just move on. What I have found is that the unreasonable are excellent at wielding the ‘reasonable’ thoughts like a surgeon … cutting into doubt just enough that you hesitate from saying what you know in your heart of hearts is the right thing.

Watch it.

It never hurts to listen.