Enlightened Conflict

the web as the problem? (and children’s education)

April 17th, 2013

Well.

My project global generation may never go anywhere … but it certainly puts me within some of the most interesting conversations with regard to educating the youth.

Let me share the part of the conversations that is a head scratcher <at least to me>.

But it is a consistent head scratcher part.

Like in the over 90% of the time consistent.

My conversations begin with ‘it is a web based global children’s education’ and always <and I mean always> veers very quickly to someone stating unequivocally … “how the world wide web has made things more difficult-worse-insert some negative comment here.”

The web is destroying reading skills.

The web is destroying cognitive skills.

The web is spreading criminal (lower value-ethic) attitudes to a broad audience.

The web facilitates laziness.

The web is diminishing attention spans.

The web is giving voice to thoughts that are encouraging the destruction of character.

All, some, most and more.

The majority of older people want to go back to the “way it was before” because it was better (definition of better would be “we weren’t lazy, had broader attention spans, stronger character, less people thought criminal like thoughts, we read more … ).

The majority of older people seem to think of the past as ‘simpler.’

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?” – R.A. Salvatore

Well. after scratching my head … In the beginning I used to just chuckle and try the “it is what it is today … we cannot ‘undo’ the web so why waste energy looking backwards?”

Well.

Experience has taught me that (a) that is not the A response (b) that response got me nowhere very fast (c) there are a shitload of people – people with leadership roles, smarts and influence – who are dedicating a shitload of energy into trying to reintroduce past plans of action <albeit at least focusing on those which can often be associated with some success thank god>.

So.

I have regrouped. While my path of least resistance would seem to be to find those who don’t want to go backwards but instead embrace what is and move forward , alas, I can’t.

Maybe I am too stubborn <yes>.

Or maybe in some semi smart way I have realized there is a significant group damming up the flow of progress. And this ‘stubborn against change’ group are creating a double fold issue:

(1) – They are increasing creating an ever increasing gap between age generations.

While there is always friction between age generations as innovations occur something like the web (just as the printing press and maybe the automobile did) is a lightning rod of paradigm shifting attitudes and behaviors. Generations have never been further apart.

(2) – They are increasing the problem gap.

Issues are being exacerbated as they balk at moving forward. No solution behavior translates into issues being permitted to gain momentum (which I feel obligated to point out from a physics perspective that a faster moving object is more difficult to slow down, stop or change direction than one moving at a slower pace).

Anyway.

Let’s try some of this thinking out.

- 1. Kids read more today than ever before.

Oh. And reading is reading.

Yeah.

Reading is reading (with regard to cognitive skills). I was part of an online TED forum on this subject and I was getting the shit kicked out of me (by people who were arguing the web/texting/twitter was destroying cognitive skills in children) until this gentleman stepped in (or ‘up to the plate’ or ‘to stand by my side’ or whatever phrase indicative of a sigh of relief on my part) and said this:

“but … I don’t even know where to begin with this one. I have a PhD in reading. Not that this necessarily means I’m smart, it’s just that I’ve studied and continue to study reading. So here goes…it doesn’t matter what a person reads, in what form, by which author, on which device. Reading is reading.
My first “Crayola secret” for you is that we all read on 4 different levels: instructional, informational, recreational , and frustrational. Not any one is better than the other. Just read. The definition of comprehension? It’s still being worked on. No one, not even the experts and researchers, can seem to agree.” - Marti Dryk, PhD

Amen.

Reading is reading. And between tweets, social media, web searches, e-books … and good ole fashioned paper literature … kids are absorbing more words and thoughts than ever before.

- 2. Young people have always had short attention spans.

<note: and I could argue changes in parenting style have affected children’s attitudes and behaviors – including attention span – more than the web>.

Regardless.

A teen brain has always been a teen brain. As I have written before in that stage of development it simply gets overloaded (with stimulus) and it is wired for short bursts of stimulus. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be teaching the value of “make haste slowly” but on the other hand we do not have any research proof suggesting teaching USING how their brain works (of which the web provides that opportunity where an adult teacher is not readily capable (their brains are built differently) is not effective. If you search for data you will find it is mostly negatively anecdotal (obviously from adults). All I am suggesting is that sometimes a classroom is less effective because we are teaching one way and the recipients natural way of absorbing is another way. That misalignment creates inefficiencies. Why not use a tool and educate in a way that is aligned.

- 3. The web is not encouraging laziness <or lazy thinking>

First.

When we were young we were exactly the same type of ‘lazy thinker’ we older folk claim the web is creating. In our youth we wanted to get to the solution <or whatever would get us the good grade> as quickly as we possibly could. The web is a double edged sword. Quick solutions or answers are easily at your fingertips. Now. They may not be the right solutions or answers but they are right there. On the other hand … multiple solutions or answers are at your fingertips. Some right and some wrong. I have to be honest … I see as many adults today seeking the ‘shortcut’ to answer as I do the youth.

Second.

I actually believe the web is creating a more vigorous thinker … albeit a different type of thinking than we old folk were. The web makes such a myriad of factoids <and semi-factoids> available so quickly that the young are becoming more discernible analyzers, evaluators and thinkers earlier than any generation before.

Who gets the credit? The web <note … with some good guidance from teachers>.

Ok.

Moving on.

I always hesitate to say this <as a nonparent> but I am not sure it is any more difficult to bring up children today than it was in the past.

Different? Absolutely … more difficult? I think not.

Kids are kids.

And they have always been kids.

They are adults in training.

As adults we want what we want. Kids are the same. The web has simply given them a new tool to do what kids do and have always done. The web has probably made it more difficult for a parent to be lazy thinkers (as parents) and at the same time make it more difficult to be “opinion selective” when sharing thoughts.

I think of it as a balance sheet. The web has increased both assets and expenses. But it is still a balance sheet.

I just tend to believe that the value of the overall balance sheet has increased with the advent of the web.

Anyway.

I cannot remember who wrote this <it was an author> … “the web … it is just a matter of time before some kid from North Dakota decides to blow past the popular kids … just blow them out of the water … with something spectacular.”

Maybe the greatest aspect of the web is the fact it is an equalizer. It can level the playing field so that all kids … whether they are popular or not … whether they live in upper income New York or rural North Dakota … whether … well … whatever … can do something spectacular.

And, geez, who the heck wouldn’t want that for our kids?

pew, religion & the muslim world

February 28th, 2013

“And the dawn came to the trusted ones and He who had cast them out returned and it was then that the light was shown.” – Muhammad in the Koran.

As part of the newer PewResearch studies they took a look at the Muslim world and Islam religion <note: most of this post is a direct pull from the Pew report>. The survey, which involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in over 80 languages, covered 39 Muslim countries and territories.

Let me begin with something that I believe will make you want to read on <because I imagine it does not align with many of the perceptions most people have>.

“Most Muslims Want Democracy, Personal Freedoms, and Islam in Political Life” – July 2012 Pew

I often believe we in the western world have a skewed perception of Muslims and the religion of Islam therefore there are some things I would like to share from a Pew Research study.

Before I do … consider this.

Fundamentalists are … well … fundamentalists <and often extremists>. Sounds obvious but needs to be stated upfront. I will not call them wackjobs but I will suggest that (1) they are in the minority <in all religious beliefs> and (2) their voices and actions are significantly louder than their sheer numbers and (3) regardless of the religion we may decide to discuss their actions will always be at the fringe of what is acceptable to the mainstream.

I think it is crazy for a Christian based group to base their perceptions on a small fundamentalist <albeit sometimes radical> Muslim group … just as I believe it would be crazy for a Muslim moderate majority to base their perceptions on a small fundamentalist <albeit sometimes radical> Christian group.

Regardless.

Just think and try and keep an open mind … and read some of what a non-biased research study states.

The study.

We are many months past what we called the Arab Spring. And the news continues to review the struggles of new government and new social construct. Yet, there continues to be a strong desire for democracy in Arab and other predominantly Muslim nations.

Solid majorities in Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan believe democracy is the best form of government, as do a plurality of Pakistanis.

Yes.

Even Pakistan.

A quick side note … we in the united states should never confuse a desire for democracy to be a desire to be friends with the United States. America does not own democracy nor does America have the “how to” guide that other countries can follow <unless you want to skip to chapters called ‘revolution’ and government unrest>.

Anyway.

These countries not only support the general notion of democracy but they also embrace specific features of a democratic system, such as competitive elections and free speech.

However.

They do not want a separation of ‘church & state.’ They would like religion to play a significant role in their country and government.

A substantial number in key Muslim countries want a large role for Islam in political life. But we should note that there are significant differences over the degree to which the legal system should be based on Islam.

This all means that while democratic rights and institutions are popular, they are clearly not the only priorities in the Muslim majority nations surveyed. In particular, the economy is a top concern. And if they had to choose, most Jordanians, Tunisians and Pakistanis would rather have a strong economy than a good democracy. Turks and Lebanese, on the other hand, would prefer democracy. Egyptians are divided.

- the challenge religious beliefs create

There is a strong desire for Islam to play a major role in the public life of these nations and most want Islam to have at least some influence on their country’s laws.

Majorities in Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt believe laws should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran, while most Tunisians and a 44%-plurality of Turks want laws to be influenced by the values and principles of Islam, but not strictly follow the Quran.

The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are united in their belief in God and the Prophet Muhammad and are bound together by such religious practices as fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and almsgiving to assist people in need. But they have widely differing views about many other aspects of their faith, including how important religion is to their lives, who counts as a Muslim and what practices are acceptable in Islam, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The survey finds that in addition to the widespread conviction that there is only one God and that Muhammad is His Prophet, large percentages of Muslims around the world share other articles of faith, including belief in angels, heaven, hell and fate (or predestination). While there is broad agreement on the core tenets of Islam, however, the Muslims surveyed differ significantly in their levels of religious commitment, openness to multiple interpretations of their faith and acceptance of various sects and movements.

Generational differences are also apparent. Across the Middle East and North Africa, for example, Muslims 35 and older tend to place greater emphasis on religion and to exhibit higher levels of religious commitment than do Muslims between the ages of 18 and 34. In all seven countries surveyed in the region, older Muslims are more likely to report that they attend mosque, read the Quran (also spelled Koran) on a daily basis and pray multiple times each day. Outside of the Middle East and North Africa, the generational differences are not as sharp. And the survey finds that in one country – Russia – the general pattern is reversed and younger Muslims are significantly more observant than their elders.

- a bruce thought.

This is being posted at the same time as my observations on the Religion in America Pew study … and I found it interesting that when you put on some harsh ‘truth goggles’ you begin to see some key generational similarities when discussing religion.

I believe all religions have a challenge with the younger generations.

By the way … this is not a ‘new issue’ in that the world has faced it before. Without going into excruciating detail from the 4^th Turning and how religious belief ebbs & flows from generation to generation suffice it to say that the religious challenges today are not solely driven by technology or the ‘flattening of world’ but also by how generations interact with each other.

A couple of thoughts.

First.

We should never be surprised by what we perceive is happening in our little corner of the world is actually happening in many little corners of the world. Call it the 100 Monkey Theory or just call it being human … but it happens.

Second.

Religious leaders, of all religions, shouldn’t be freaking out. And they shouldn’t be wringing their hands worried over the demise of religion. It is simply a demise of the religion as they know it. the construct and core can remain steadfast but out f the general chaos and ‘destruction’ can be built a newer stronger belief system. Out of that being broken something new and stronger can be built.

<call me religious leaders … I would be happy to help>

- both Democracy and Economy Are Priorities

Majorities in five of the six nations polled (and a plurality of Pakistanis) believe democracy is the best form of government. Moreover, there is a strong desire in these nations for specific democratic rights and institutions, such as competitive multi-party elections and freedom of speech.

Other goals are also clearly important. Many say political stability is a crucial priority, and even more prioritize economic prosperity. When respondents are asked which is more important, a good democracy or a strong economy, Turkey and Lebanon are the only countries where more than half choose democracy. Egyptians are divided, while most Tunisians, Pakistanis and Jordanians prioritize the economy.

Overall, views about the economic situation in these countries are grim, although Turkey is a notable exception.

- a Bruce note

Well. this certainly sounds relevant doesn’t it? money, or prosperity, is important to the happiness of people. Actually balance is important to people. The happiest people tend to be economically sound <not necessarily wealthy> and ‘valuely’ sound <some religious foundation>. They are happiest because they are well grounded in head, heart & wallet. That my friends … is called balance. It always seems crazy to me when all the talking heads expound on one aspect over the other … well … because it is crazy. One aspect can certainly be more important and can dominate within an individual but the happiest has aspects of all. Balance. What a crazy thought.

- limited support for extremist Groups

Ok. This is an important one.

Across the survey and the key six Muslim nations, less than 20% have a positive opinion about al Qaeda or the Taliban. In Turkey and Lebanon, support for these groups is in the single digits. However, fully 19% of Egyptians rate these extremist organizations favorably.

Extremist groups are largely rejected in predominantly Muslim nations, although significant numbers do express support for radical groups in several countries. For instance, while there is no country in which a majority holds a favorable opinion of the Palestinian organization Hamas, it receives considerable support in Tunisia, Jordan and Egypt.

The militant Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah receives its highest overall ratings in Tunisia, where nearly half express a positive opinion. Sizable minorities in both Jordan and Egypt also have a favorable view, but Hezbollah’s image has been declining in both countries in recent years.

It is extremely rare that extremists have complete support … and they tend to do have more support within economically challenged groups <because in some odd way they represent ‘hope’ … a powerful attribute>.

- a bruce note

Extremists are … well … extreme. And most people reject the extreme … in anything. However, religious extremists, within any and all religions, are difficult to completely reject because at their foundation, their soul as it were, they have an undying belief in something true. Allah, or God, is not a bad thing to believe in. they struggle to understand that most people believe that the path to salvation is not paved with stones of the extreme. Rather they are paved with some basic beliefs and most of us do not believe we have to, or should have to, walk a gauntlet of pain & suffering in order to be accepted by whatever Higher Being we believe in. We get this. Extremists do not get this. And before ‘we’ start casting stones at the Muslim world we should take a good look around us and at our own brand of extremists hovering around our own world.

It may also be helpful for us to take a look at extremists and terrorism and note that Muslim extremists kill more Muslims <and Christian extremists kill more Christians> as we think about this.

Ok. My point? Religion per se is not the issue. Extremism is the issue.

We should not confuse the issue.

That’s it.

It was good information and I wanted to share all under the enlightened thinking heading.

Studies like this are at the foundation of Enlightened Conflict.

Pew, religion and us common folk

February 28th, 2013

“There are two bibles … well … only one originally but now split in two. Half is in the book written on paper and the other half is inside of people. You are born with it but it’s up to you to find out. You gotta learn to see it for yourself … that’s the only way.” – from the book ‘City of the Dead’

Well.

PewResearch just completed another study measuring religion in America and the number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace.

In fact … one-fifth of the U.S. <a third of adults under 30> are religiously unaffiliated today. This is the highest percentages ever seen in Pew Research.

- Before I begin let me share a thought will consistent bring to bear in this post … religion, to me, is not what is written, or said, but what someone believes. It is the ‘half the book’ inside you … whatever that book <Koran, Bible, Torah, etc.> is. That said … the books and teachings provide a construct, or framework, for what someone believes. As I have noted in a past post, I do not believe you can create something from nothing … and religious belief is exactly the same.

Anyway.

Pew states that in the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. This number includes more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).

This large and growing group of Americans is less religious than the public at large on many conventional measures, including frequency of attendance at religious services and the degree of importance they attach to religion in their lives.

You can view, and download, the entire report here if you would like: http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

Let me begin with why I believe this is happening … and conclude with what it doesn’t mean.

- Why these study results are happening.

Intolerance and “the devil is in the details.”

<note: I believe these are significantly more impactful than trust or any – human – flaws organized religion may have exhibited in the past>

It is the extremes in religions that produce intolerance and extreme opinions and threaten a tolerant well balanced society and not the rejection of religion that is creating the results.

I will avoid same sex marriage and abortion and pick a more benign example to showcase absurd intolerance … and how it ripples out in its effect.

For example <and I include the link to this article below> … Mix It Up at Lunch Day in the United States is one of those programs that seems like the right thing to do.

The idea is that on one day of the school year, kids are invited to have lunch with the kind of kids they don’t usually hang out with: the jocks mix with the nerds, lunch tables are racially integrated, et cetera. Sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center as part of their Teaching Tolerance division, it arose out of a broad effort to tackle the problems of bullying in the schools and bigotry in society – and it appears to have been effective in breaking down stereotypes and reducing prejudice. Over 2,000 schools nationwide now participate in the program.

And, yet, a religious group has challenged the Day in court and threatens this initiative … and initiative that, frankly, you really have to dig deep to find something wrong.

Here is the article:

“I don’t believe for a moment that this hysterical voice that screeches in America’s political sphere is the authentic voice of religion in America. Most religious Americans want to mix it up at lunch! They want to make friends across party lines, and they want to help people who are less fortunate. A survey by the Public Religious Research Institute, released on 24 October, reveals that 60% of Catholics believe the Church should place a greater emphasis on social justice issues and their obligation to the poor, even if that means focusing less on culture war issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.” – author of linked article, Katherine Stewart

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/26/religious-fundamentalism-toxic-partisanship-us-politics

While I am still slightly dumbfounded that someone would be against an initiative like this I use it to make a point that rigidity creates the conflict & tension where organized religion doesn’t win.

The net impression is that organized religion is about … well … organized religion … and not for the overall good of the people.

The struggle that organized religion has is that I would imagine, given an opportunity, it would not want to be affiliated with this smaller group’s actions <or any of the smaller extremist groups out there>.

Organized religion is being damned by a minority <pun intended>.

Regardless … it all feeds into a cynicism for organized religion and increases the belief that all that really matters is ‘individual belief.’

Ok.

The pun I used … “the devil is in the details.”

I apologize to my religious friends if they believe I am suggesting the devil is involved anywhere in this discussion. He is not. The details are the laundry list of “rules of the road” organized religion demands to be a true believer in God.

This is a tricky issue.

I have published articles that state my belief that religions need these details, eliminate some ‘on-the-ground’ ambiguity so that people don’t get stuck in the gray.

However … it is within some of these details that organized religion finds themselves trapped in some relatively absurd boxes.

Look.

The percentage of Americans who say the Bible should be taken literally has fallen in Gallup polls from an average of about 38% of the public in the late 1970s and early 1980s to an average of 31% since.

But.

I would like to note that I believe there is a corresponding whiplash affect <going back to my initial “extremes” creating the discomfort with organized religion from an overall perspective>.

What I mean is that as the percentage of ‘literal interpretation of the bible’ people has declined I believe the percentage remaining, who believe ‘literal interpretation’, has become increasingly threatened and therefore have even stronger inclination to literalness.

In other words … that percentage is a minority <and shrinking> but more rigid and uncompromising.

By the way … that is a natural human response.

Regardless.

- What this study does not mean.

God is loved no less than before.

And moral underpinnings are not diminished.

You cannot equate the fact that one in five Americans having no religious affiliation with a diminished importance of the moral underpinnings. Suggesting such a thing is extremely unfair, and untrue, to those who may display a distaste for organized religion but who do not doubt the existence of a God.

In addition, even if you take into consideration a rejection of aspects of the “literal interpretation of the written word” <recorded thousands of years ago> doesn’t diminish the moral standards that exist in our minds.

One can still have the same ethics and morals as proclaimed by any of the religions without belonging to a church/mosque/temple.

Me?

In general I believe Americans have lost faith in religion … not in God.

<note: I do not believe Americans are alone in this … I just do not have the research on hand to pony up and show it beyond my opinion>

My issue/thoughts?

I do believe religion, or organized faith, not only has a role in society but I also believe it has an opportunity.

I said at one point earlier … “feeds into a cynicism for organized religion and increases the belief that all that really matters is ‘individual belief’ …”

I do believe construct matters. Guardrails matter. And sometimes individuals are not good at building guardrails … and I know for sure if I were to gather 100 people and have each build guardrails they would not all be the same.

In addition, humankind, in general, seems to be showing more and more flaws.

In addition, it seems we humans, in general, are becoming less and less centrist <in everything> and more extreme in our overall opinions.

This means more divisive.

In addition, leader/heroes are becoming more difficult to find.

What this means to me?

We need God.

We need a belief in a God.

And whether we like, or dislike, organized religion the role it plays is to organize people around God. They facilitate (and shouldn’t act like the end all).

I imagine I am suggesting that people are disillusioned with institutions in general.

But I don’t believe we are actually disillusioned with God.

And <God forbid> if we are?

I tend to believe it shows a lack of understanding.

And religious organizations can help people understand.

Couple of thoughts to end this research overview.

First.

The organized opportunity.

We are better drivers when there are lines on the road. We know what lanes to stay in and even use blinkers <most of the time> when we want to shift lanes.

Rules of the road are good.

It permits us to not only judge our own actions but the actions of others.

Is this a bad analogy? Maybe. But you get the point.

I do not agree with people who say “we know the right thing to do without anyone telling us.” We all can always use someone telling us the right thing to do. I call it stimulus-response. Maybe that is organized religion’s sole responsibility to society and culture … to provide a “right” stimulus and we can ‘respond’ as we see fit <accept, adapt, reject>.

I don’t actually believe that but if that is true I can think of worse things.

I actually believe that if organized religion <of all religions> get their shit together they will be in the stimulus-response business. In other words … stimulate ‘good’ responses.

That is called ‘encouraging desired behavior’ in the business world.

Crazy talk on my part? Maybe. But it can be done … and it works.

Second.

Faith & hope.

I do not have proof of this but I have studied human behavior for years.

I get concerned that as organized religion decreases individualism <or “it is all about me” attitude> increases. In other words we lose sight of the bigger picture ‘hope’ and larger view of ‘faith in groups, culture, civilization, etc.”

I am not suggesting organized religion is necessary to keep us out of some self-satisfying individual driven society but I do believe it plays a significant role.

It helps balance.

It helps provide those societal guard rails.

Does this show that I don’t have faith in people to do the right thing all by their lonesome?

Whew.

Maybe.

Individuals respond to the culture they exist in. If they perceive that those at the top are ‘in it for themselves’ and driven by self/individual wants/needs/desires than they will start to emulate that behavior <at least some aspects>.

It becomes a “Me” driven society.

Organized religion, for all its warts, is a constant reminder that salvation is not just through God but also society. You may not follow all their rules and regulations but you do keep a North Star view on the betterment of all versus I.

Religion is in the faith & hope business.

And, frankly, we all could use a good dose of that on occasion.

Sorry.

I wrote less about the Pew Research than I did my own thoughts. But I did include a link to the research and it is interesting stuff.

In the end I believe people tend to look at this research and wring their hands in dismay and start thinking about the “crumbling of civilization as we know it” rather than recognize it is simply reflecting change.

And change represents opportunity.

And I think we could all take an opportunity to do some soul searching <pun intended>.

urging Catholics to come home

January 16th, 2013

“… get back in the game.” – Lou Holtz for Catholic Come Home campaign

Oh my.

I was getting my fill of football action on TV and … ‘holy mackerel!’ … a mush mouthed Lou Holtz starts telling me I should go back to church <or better said … in his words … ‘get back in the game’>.

Catholic Come Home Lou Holtz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcMGJmB5D84

The campaign is called “Catholic come Home” and in my world <consumer attitudes & behavior> this is a ‘lapsed customer’ strategy as in ‘I used to attend church but now I am a lazy ass and play tennis instead.’

Oh.

And they have tried it before:

Catholic Come Home 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvA29P1U7OU

Anyway.

I am not going to take the Catholics to task for doing this because … in fact … in 2009 I actually wrote something that suggested they needed to do something like this <in combination with some internal organizational actions>.

<http://brucemctague.com/why-islam-appears-to-be-kicking-christianitys-ass>

However.

I am going to suggest they can do a shitload better than this.

And I will even define ‘better’ because the execution is horrendously trite and how the message is communicated <the words themselves> will only appeal to those who are already parking their happy asses on the pew.

But where I begin is with my main gripe.

Why is it that something as important as this doesn’t get some good expert advice and work?

With that gripe I will begin by skewering the attempt.

This Lou Holtz fake locker room pep talk is the newest “evangomercial” from Catholics Come Home.

It intended to “inspire, educate and evangelize inactive Catholics and others, and invite them to live a deeper faith in Jesus Christ.”

Now.

I love that message. I love the direction. I love they actually incorporated a strong call to action <stronger than simply ‘inviting’>.

I love that someone actually decided to try this.

But. How the message is communicated? This fake locker room pep talk?

One word.

Yikes.

Lou says:

“for victory in life we’ve got to keep focused on the goal, and the goal is heaven.”

And.

“And when we fumble due to sin — and it’s gonna happen — confession puts us back on the field.”

And.

“So if you haven’t been going to mass weekly, get back in the game … we’re saving your seat on the starting bench this Sunday.”

Holy cow.

You cannot make this stuff up. This is the kind of garbage I would see an unskilled aspiring advertising young person put in their journal as a first draft. And then scratch out as a first draft garbage attempt. Or this is some person who is sitting at home saying “hey, I can do that advertising stuff as well as any of those guys getting paid the big bucks!” <as they scratch their millionth lottery scratch card thinking ‘why shouldn’t I be a millionaire too?’>.

C’mon.

That script. Who the hell talks like that? <very few … maybe an evangelist … maybe a church attending believer … uh oh … but none of the ‘lapsed customers’>

Next.

The execution.

Who the hell would actually think this was a good use of Lou Holtz?

I would never use Lou as a spokesperson anyway <because he slurs instead of states> but say I actually did have the opportunity to use such a famous <and semi respected> spokesperson. Well. I certainly would seek to maximize his speaking skills <which would minimize long dialogue> and I would certainly seek to maximize respect & trust quotient <translation … I wouldn’t put him in a fake scenario and ask him to do a fake speech>.

For god’s sake <pun intended> … let the man speak from his heart. He used to be a coach but is no longer one. And everyone <who matters> knows that. But … he is, and has always been, a catholic & Christian. I don’t need any borrowed interest here. In fact borrowed interest makes it trite & almost silly.

<note: this topic is not silly>

Ok.

What happened? <and I don’t even have to guess this time>

Note: Here is where I go directly to hell <without passing Go>.

Catholics Come Home President Tom Peterson said … “The Holy Spirit inspired me to write this script more than a year ago … by God’s grace I ran into coach Holtz last July in the Los Angeles Airport, inviting him to star in this evangomercial. So you can understand why I’m confident that God is watching over us and has a wonderful plan in store!”

Well.

God is omnipotent and omniscient … therefore … he is aware of all the good and bad advertising out there … and I do not believe this advertising was the plan He had in store for the Catholics.

Please.

Tell me that God isn’t an advertising hack.

Look.

I absolutely believe this is something the Catholic Church <or Christianity in general> should be doing. It’s important for the church to think like a consumer business in order to evangelize <gain/regain customers> and defend itself <retain customers>.

I agree with what the organization says on their own website … “So many ask: Where are the Catholics? With so many fallen-away Catholics, why don’t we use the mass media to help our fellow Catholics return to Jesus and his church?” <and I could quote numerous numbers from recent PewResearch to support the depth of the challenge but this post is long enough>

Here is what I said in a ‘wayback post’.

Currently Christianity is mush and its extremists are uncoordinated and verbally inept in the PR department. Islamic moderates are silent and Islam extremists are vocal (coordinated as a group, clear in its communications and beliefs – regardless of how wacky they may be — and they have the PR game down).

Success will be dictated by coordination & focus … and tell it to us straight.

If I could sit Tom down … or any Christian leader for that matter … I would suggest that they remember the strategic decision they made.

First and foremost they said “return.”

This is a lapsed customer. Most likely this customer is not extremely dissatisfied <as in they hate the product> … they still love the product <God in this case> … they just have doubts <about the manufacturer>.

My guess is that despite the fact many church going Catholics are embarrassed by this commercial … most of those same people hang on every word and say “amen” <that is ‘right on’ in non-Catholic street language> to the words themselves.

And you know what? If they were the target maybe this would be an okay commercial.

But they ain’t the target … and I bet I get 100 emails from some grumpy Catholics and I promise you I will send a short message saying exactly that.

Good words for a current church going customer.

Bad words for a lapsed <one we would like to ‘come home’> customer.

What would be good words?

Remind people how they feel when they ‘come home.’

Don’t tell them they will go to hell if they don’t go home <because … I hate to tell Tom and everyone else who worked on this ad … but by telling everyone that the path to heaven is the Catholic home then the obvious conclusion is that I am going to hell if I don’t go home>.

Tell them about Hope.

Tell them about comfort.

Tell them about grace <in life>.

I have said this before, will say it again … and will say it all to any Christian willing to listen:

Three thoughts in taking steps to getting Christianity <and Catholicism as a subset> back on track:

1. Get Organized. Remember. It is called organized religion not organization religion. Get organized but don’t let organizations get in the way.

Organized idea 1: Get the different Christian perspectives together and gain alignment. Be organized and focused on the core aspects. This includes picking the objectives, the people target tied to each objective and the message and stay focused and go do it.
Organized idea 2: Ralph Nader just published an interesting book “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”highlighting a thought that the way to create change was to have the most successful business leaders gather together and lead the change America needs. Why can’t Christian/Catholic non-church tied business leaders do the same?

2. Create construct. Cut contradictions. Focus on the core aspects and create a construct for people to simplify, focus and understand. I understand religion has “dimensions” but on core aspects there should be no contradictions within Christian belief. If there are “rules of the road” then set them up. Be clear. For example, “You can do this but you cannot do this.” You know what I mean. If the “organized group” cannot agree on this construct then how the heck do you think the general public will be able to agree with anything?

Now.

This doesn’t mean this should all be communicated in advertising & commercials. Because this type of information is what is called ‘features.’ People don’t buy features … people buy benefits. Yes. Going to heaven is a benefit … but even better … so is Hope. So is Grace.

Regardless. Home is our personal cocoon from Life. It is where we re energize to go out and battle day after day outside those four walls. I am not a Christian but I gotta tell ya … I could think of worse homes than a church for people to re energize within.

And I cannot think of a better aspect to simplify & focus on than that.

3. Organizational Discipline. Christian leaders (upper, middle and lower management) all need to follow the rules. Those they lead maybe make “human” mistakes and earn forgiveness but leaders are role models and cannot be permitted to make ‘core aspect’ mistakes and be forgiven. The leadership team is judged on how disciplined it is in following the master design/construct.

And while I initially wrote this for actual human behavior … this is also relevant to the ‘business side’ of Christianity <or let’s assume you think like a business without treating it like a business>.

All that said … if Catholics decide to actually do advertising they have clearly made a business decision. Marketing & advertising is a business.

Suffice it to say … in Life & in Business … there will always be things you want to do but then there are the things you SHOULD do. Tom <and Catholics come Home> wanted to say the words they used in the commercial … and they were right/true words … but they SHOULD have done something different and said different words to get the group they were targeting to listen.

That’s it.

That is what was on my mind. You can certainly debate individual points. But don’t let that stop you from thinking about the overall perspective because something needs to be done. “Staying the course” is not an option. And maybe what I wrote can be a spark for someone else defining “what is right” if this isn’t.

I am not Cathloic nor am I a Christian <although a good friend has suggested to me that “there is a good Christian lurking within you Bruce” one day after a good philosophical/theological discussion>. Regardless of what I am personally … there is good advertising & communicating and there is bad advertising & communicating.

This catholic come home effort is bad.

And that is too bad … because I cannot think of many things more important than communicating this message effectively.

Ok.

Lastly. A quick explanation about me <because I do not really want to go to Hell>.

Maybe this may help me out by having everyone understand Bruce McTague is probably considered a non-believer by Christians and Muslims. But he does believe in God. He would lean toward the Christian version of God but mostly believes that people should have the right to choose and make an educated choice with regard to religion and their path to God. He is in general a supporter of organized religion and its directed thinking of God. Despite not having a specific religion nor attends church he finds that in times of desperation and depression it is comforting to think that God maybe looking over his particular little corner of the world. And maybe he feels passionate about this topic because in the end he believes that God represents Hope. And everyone everywhere deserves to have hope.

—

Last note: this effort is something I would assist on in a second … for free. Call me and I will make it happen.

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.

the right to an education

October 15th, 2012

“I have the right of education,” Malala said in a 2011 interview

I was tempted to call this ‘someone has to be the first’ <and will explain later>.

Probably because I can’t watch news 24/7 I missed the original interview but since its being replayed I can finally give it its due.

Here is the true shame.

I didn’t become aware of it until something <really> bad happened. This is about the 14 year old Pakistani girl, Malala Yousufzai, who was shot when a Taliban gunman walked up to a school bus, yes, a bus full of children going home from school, and shot her in the head and neck. Another girl and a teacher were also injured in this attack.

Why was she shot?

Because Malala Yousufzai threatened the Taliban existence.

How could a 14 year old girl threaten the Taliban?

By advocating overcoming ignorance through education to empower more enlightened individual choices (now everyone knows why I am writing about this).

Yes. This implies the existence of the Taliban depends on ignorance.

Okay.

Before I get to the point of what I want to say you should see the interview if you have not.

Malala Yousufzai is a young girl. A daughter I believe we all would be quite proud to call our own <wherever you live>. She is wise beyond her years as she tells us about hope and dreams. In a way, and in words, any of us can grasp.

Malala has made a stand in Pakistan <and that area of the world> for education, progress and the advancement of all children of all ages. Her interview is worth watching even if you don’t care about what I want to say.

CNN interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hHgPFBDeh0

Now.

Women’s human rights advocates will come out of the woodwork saying she is a martyr for women’s/girl’s rights (by the way … just to be clear … I am a supporter of women’s rights). But I wish they would take a step back and prioritize. This young lady is first and foremost a martyr in the fight against ignorance.

She is not anti taliban (per se) she is pro informed choice.

That said … it is sad we need a martyr at all with regard to this issue. Yet, sometimes we do, not only to fully embrace the seriousness of an issue … but it is proof that someone has to go first.

I am not implying in any way that the majority of people who know what is right are sheep but rather it is a fact that not everyone has the DNA to go first. I like leaders. I advocate leadership. But I tell young kids in school that just because they don’t lead, or go first, doesn’t mean they are weak or a failure or even a coward.

I tell them they can only be judged by their ultimate actions. The when and the where of the actions are less important than the fact you may actually have taken action.

But, in the end, on the really big issues, the tough ones, someone has to go first.

Many influential people will now step out into the spotlight and try to nudge the cause forward. I am glad they are doing so (albeit I would love all of them be aligned behind education as a human right). But Malala will be truly measured by the actions of her peers … the true measure of action is the actions of the youth.

A generation hungry for knowledge.

A generation focused on enlightened decision making.

We adults should never lose sight of the fact that under any indifference we may perceive within today’s youth, there is a fire.

If we attempt to extinguish that fire I can guarantee you they will act. In fact I believe we will see this as this story and message spreads.

This young lady is certainly become a focal point on the right to get an education in that part of the globe. But, we in the west should not be putting the boundaries of this issue just geographically there. This young lady is a reminder to all of us that EVERY child everywhere deserves an education. And while in her case the point of education would be so someone could make an informed choice with regard to the Taliban. It is also a point that we want all of our children to make informed choices on all important issues – religious choices, political choices, economic choices and life choices and … well … joining any organization called the Taliban or not.

A well educated population may become more centrist (a balance of choices) but you would have to assume it moderates divisiveness in some aspects. Extremism, of any kind and situation, is typically a reflection of some choice full ignorance. I abhor all extremism because of this self-imposed ignorance aspect.

And I cannot think of anything more effective in combating that then education at a young age.

A side note <albeit an important one>.

I would like to point out <just in case anyone may be misguided on this issue> Islam is not the one in disgrace in this situation. It is the Taliban. And they are not the same.

Islam is a traditional religion of peace and an extreme minority, the Taliban, has committed this act by twisting and, ultimately tainting, the essence of Islam.

I would hope that the true Islamic people will step forward and deal with this issue.

Anyway.

Malala. The fact that she is articulate, has a wonderful courage of her convictions, and outlines a concise vision of equal rights, education and opportunity clearly drives the point home for all of us to think about.

And … because someone has to go first … and she did.

It reminded me of something that the great Russian writer Lermentov wrote in one of his novels:

“We can no longer make great sacrifices for the good of mankind or even for our own happiness, because we know it is unattainable; and as our ancestors plunged on from illusion to illusion, so we drift indifferently from doubt to doubt. Only unlike them we have no hope, nor even that indefinable but real sense of pleasure that is felt in any struggle, be it with man or with destiny.”

Lermontov wrote this because he rejected this idea … and in the novel he had his hero, Pechorin, reject this passivity and, in fact, Malala rejected this idea.

As do I.

And I do not believe I am in the minority in this belief.

My point?

We should not seek to drift indifferently from doubt to doubt.

twittering amongst the big birds

October 9th, 2012

This is from a recent WSJ article:

“When General Electric Co. Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt tweeted for the first time this month, his “Hello Twitter” was greeted with some snarky replies, including this one: “@JeffImmelt how come my grandfather got on twitter before you?”

In the same article:

A leadership expert thinks a CEO is shortsighted if they aren’t tweeting. That is former Medtronic Inc. CEO Bill George, a management professor at Harvard Business School <and avid tweeter>.

“Most CEOs should accept that social media is part of their job description.”

“People want CEOs who are real. They want to know what you think … can you think of a more cost-effective way of getting to your customers and employees?”

With all due respect to a Harvard professor … what is he smoking?

<that should generate some twittering>.

“Social media is part of their job.” ?!? <that was me in a thought bubble> I think that is nuts.

Unless my business leader wants to be involved with twitter, personally, I am telling her/him <me included as a business leader type> ‘don’t waste your time.’

I found the article fascinating because I know for a fact that today CEOs, heck, all company leaders, are constantly being hounded by their own people to join Twitter. Why? Well, because they aren’t:

Seven in 10 Fortune 500 CEOs have no presence on major social media networks such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Pinterest and Google+ (source: CEO.com and analytics company Domo).

Among those who do, 4% have known Twitter accounts and 8% use Facebook under their own names, according to the study.

Now. As a counterpoint … 34% of all Americans are on Twitter and 50% use Facebook (same source).

My conclusion? I still say ‘don’t waste your time.’ <unless you & your friends are already on twitter>

There are a hundred different ways a leader can be accessible or ‘real’ or “authentic” or ‘human’ or whatever characteristic you have in your pea like brain that a leader should be. And ‘cost efficient communications’ is … well … silly. Just because it is cheap doesn’t mean it is the best quality decision. But that may be an entirely different post.

Anyway. I struggle to think 140 characters is what is going to make people think someone is more real, authentic or human.

In addition … I think people confuse the issues by using words like ‘human’ or ‘authentic’

In addition … I continuously believe we confuse “social” and “business” .

Social is social <crazy me … but isn’t that the reason it is called ‘social media’?>. Business is business . What employees, and the business world, desires are not social words but rather business words that explain “why the fuck are they making that decision and don’t they know how it affects me!?!” <and not “hey … the party I am at has escargot <snails to the peons in the mailroom>.

We want leaders to (a) make the hard, difficult decisions and (d) <because that first is actually a, b and c.> show that you are in touch with ‘me’ <the little guy> on occasion.

… Yes … please note that I wrote “on occasion.”

No employee seriously believes a leader has time to be with the troops every day let alone typing out 140 characters <ongoing … because twitter is a dialogue not a megaphone> to share the serious stuff.

And the non-serious stuff?

Heck. I really, honestly, don’t want to hear about their social life. It does not make them any more real to me as I hear about their relaxing in some Monte Carlo casino or Marlin fishing on some yacht in the middle of the Caribbean or how they went to their ‘weekend cottage’ or even the ‘blue collar’ … “I weeded my beet garden this morning.”

I want to know they are doing their business shit … and doing it well.

I learned this a really really long time ago … great leaders are not always liked by everyone <the corollary to that is … well … no one is always liked by everyone>. That doesn’t mean they go out of their way to be disliked by everyone. They simply realize that most people will ‘kind of’ like you <and not really care about your human side as much>:

- if the employees feel like they are being fairly compensated

- the employees are being fairly involved in the success of the company <assuming there is some success>

- the employees feel like the company is secure <the leader is making the difficult decisions well>

- the employees feel like they are listened to if they have something <important> to say

<note: a leader can, and should, do all of that and not via twitter>

Anyway.

Here is where Twitter really doesn’t work <99.9% of the time> for leaders … the difficult decisions can absolutely be summarized in 140 characters <we did “x” and it is good for you> but it cannot EXPLAIN the difficult decisions.

Heck. It cannot explain the semi-difficult decisions. And if you cannot explain clearly you get questions. And questions foster rumors. And rumors foster people not working and instead gabbing and tweeting amongst themselves and, in general, a lot of non-productivity.

Look.

I am all for twitter and I think it is a neat social tool for in the moment quick give & take but I also know that even I do not have time to use twitter properly for myself <given everything else going on> and absolutely would not have time to use it properly in managing any organization that is , say, maybe over 50 employees.

Yes. There will be exceptions.

I would argue that the exceptions are driven not by the individual but rather by the company, i.e, what they do to make the organization run all day long <it is different for an online sales business than a factory production line business> & what is its overall culture.

Most leaders <not just Fortune 500 comapanies> just say they are too busy running a company to spend time posting 140-character messages to Twitter and/or retweeting posts <amen to that>. The GE leader could have <thank god he didn’t> tweeted back … “is your grandfather running a billion dollar company or was he tweeting from the golf course this morning?” <note: this is an example of why it is good I don’t tweet>

Sure. There may come a generation of leaders where the involvement of twitter is so integral to their every day DNA that when they actually become a leader it will be … well … not a tool or a tactic nor something they do that makes them more ‘real’ or authentic but rather simply a part of who they are. But <yeah … there is a but>.

Here is my bet.

How you think about things is different between before you get there and when you get there. I believe the next generation of leaders will find they don’t have the time, or there will be more effective means of communicating what they want to communicate, once they actually reach the Fortune 500 CEO <or leaders> slots.

In the end I believe we confuse socially connecting and business connecting. And planning how to make someone sound authentic kind of sounds to me like sending someone to a Sincerity Class.

Now. To be clear.

I firmly believe that today’s leaders have lost a sense of how important organization culture and organizational behavior ‘feelings’ are as they solely focus on the balance sheet. And I firmly believe more of today’s leaders don’t have to be more human, or real, but instead simply recognize they have real humans working for them.

I just do not believe tweeting is the answer to either of those things.

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.