“That’s one of the great things about music.
You can sing a
song to 85,000 people and they’ll sing it back for 85,000 different reasons.
—Dave Grohl <Foo Fighters>
Well.
I’m not sure I have ever seen a better explanation on why we love music.
“No one and nothing is worth shrinking for.” – Indigo Williams
Well.
I’m a pretty pragmatic guy.
But.
Sometimes you have to push back a little … push back against reality.
Or maybe what everyone else sees as reality.
Now.
This isn’t about hope. And, shit, not even dreams and dreaming.
This is simply about … well … not shrinking. Or maybe not getting the life sucked out of you. Life is tough enough as it is … and Life does a pretty nice job of trying to erode you <wear you down> … that is its version of shrinking you.
Wearing you down.
It’s tough enough just keeping an eye out to insure Life doesn’t shrink you.
But other people?
Well.
They ain’t as big and important as Life.
Notice Life begins with a capital L and people begins with a small p.
That should make my point.
There are a lot of people out there who walk around as if they are a capital P type person … and maybe they have some title … and they even maybe have earned some respect … and absolutely you should listen to some people more closely than others … but no one is worth shrinking for.
I have seen many people … and often some very senior experienced people … fawn over little p people with big p titles … and if you look closely you can see them visibly shrink before your very eyes.
Its sad.
And slightly frightening to watch.
Me?
That’s proof enough that I will not permit that to happen.
Some people are more important than others … but no people is worth shrinking for.
Lastly.
How people use Life in a sneaky way to encourage you to shrink.
“People will kill you over time, and how they’ll kill you is with tiny, harmless phrases, like ‘be realistic’.” —Dylan Moran
Sneaky.
These people <who have likely accepted self shrinkage> are doing and saying things so that you become like them … shrinkers.
They will be relentless. And you need to say “stop.”
Yes … yes … yes. There is a pragmatic side.
Absolutely.
You have to keep your eyes open and your mind clear and judge what is happening around you … but even a realistic decision shouldn’t diminish … shouldn’t shrink you … it <at its worst> should just put you on hold. A momentary situation until you can grow some more.
Shrink? Never.
Just watch out … because people <small p and big p minded people> can be sneaky in their attempt to encourage shrinkage.
In the end?
No one or nothing is worth shrinking for.
Simple as that.
Well.
I forgot I had this in my draft folder <hence the reason it is slightly dated> but thought there was still time to harpoon some advertising.
Now that Christmas is over and I can get out of the Christmas joy & spirit and all that stuff … I am gonna bring my best Grinch to the fashion industry & its advertising.
Ok.
I have thought the fashion industry needed to be taken out to the woodshed for quite some time with regard to marketing & advertising.
And then I saw a gift television advertisement for Giorgio Armani cologne <a cologne one reviewer suggested “terrible cheap scent … it smells like a salad with cucumber”>.
Regardless.
Instead of bringing the fashion industry advertising folk out to the woodshed for a good beat down I simply decided to bring the woodshed to them.
Here is that ad <without the gift call to action … which I couldn’t find … which is unfortunate because it was the ‘buy a gift for him’ that was the final straw in terms of WTF-type thinking>
Giorgio Armani “Acqua di Gio Essenza” – Personal Jesus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K_MFWcA280
Whew.
The ad is horrible on a number of levels <all of which I will outline in detail> but frankly … this advertisement has plenty of horrible company within fashion marketing.
99% of the marketing and advertising in the fashion industry is so misguided and so misdirected and so naïve with regard to the attitudes and relevance to what I suppose is their target audience customer … that is just painful to watch and look at.
In most cases … I have to believe if the actual product itself wasn’t as good as it was … they wouldn’t be selling shit. In fact. If I have ever seen another industry where I believe the advertising and marketing is actually DECREASING possible sales … I don’t know that I can think of one.
The main problem <I imagine> in the advertising creative development is that fashion business people believe they are in the creative business already … so therefore what could a non fashion marketing person ever know, or do, that they couldn’t do all on their own.
Oh my.
This is like a corporate brand manager saying ‘hey, I wrote an awarding winning paper in high school … so why can’t I write the copy for the ads?”.
<they cannot … and should not … and yet they still want to>
But in every other industry outside of fashion businesses have sucked it up and hired professionals to help them craft messages that actually enhance the likeability & desirability of their products and services <oh … and sales>.
Here is an unfortunate truth for them.
A fashion photographer can shoot beautiful photos … but most likely cannot create beautiful <relevant> advertising.
A fashion designer can design beautiful cool clothes … but most likely cannot create beautiful cool <relevant> advertising.
There is a difference between being noticed … and saying something that is noticed <meaningful>.
Advertising is often about ‘controlling impressions’ <what people think> more than anything else. A simple ‘that is cool’ ain’t enough these days. Frankly … no one has enough money to simply spend it creating some intangible ethereal image … dollars need to be maximized. Maximized by managing the image and impression being created.
Ok.
The ad.
It is a single metro-sexual hunk walking out of the surf <in kind of sepia tone film look & feel> to the old Depeche Mode song “personal jesus” … and the Christmas execution I saw closed with ‘buy him a gift this Christmas’ … oh … and I saw it two days straight on the morning edition of ESPN Sportscenter.
Yikes.
I could teach an entire class using this one advertisement to show what the fashion is doing wrong <and how they are thinking wrong> as well as what they should be seeking to do very soon in their marketing to appeal to today’s fashion product buyers … some would call them ‘consumers’ <which I hate to burst the current fashion marketer’s bubble … doesn’t look anything like what they thought it looked like in the past>.
I probably could go second by second and have a field day with this ad … but instead I will focus on the 4 horsemen of this ad’s apocalypse:
– The song.
– The imagery.
– The placement of the ad.
– The call to action.
The song.
WTF.
While I love Depeche Mode’s music … I will begin with the song’s age. The song is really old <80’s ??>. Why does this matter?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Isn’t fashion supposed to be hip & cool & trendsetting? <rhetorical question>
Cutting edge?
Look.
I am pretty sure even I could have found a dark moody techno song … done in the past year or two … instead of dipping back into the 80’s.
Particularly given the target I believe they are trying to reach with this advertisement.
Oh.
And dear fashion industry … your target shouldn’t be defined by age <which may have possibly tempted you to use an 80’s song> but rather by lifestyle or attitude <which should have untempted you to use an 80’s song>.
Then the lyrics.
Please understand that when you creatively develop a concept using a song in a commercial … you are very cognizant of lyrics and how you may, or may not, use them in combination with visuals and images as they appear onscreen. In fact … we are almost assholishly anal with regard to the attention to this detail.
That said.
Personal Jesus?
Well. I have one word. Jesus. As in jesusfrickinchrist.
So the man who wears this is Jesus?
Or symbolically <if you are a woman> … he is my jesus?
How frickin’ pretentious is this? <another rhetorical question>
I buy the fact that there are gobs of pretentious holier than thou ‘I love to look at myself in the mirror’ pricks hanging out at the martini bars in every city who may possibly buy this crap <the message or the cologne .. pick the proper noun for the adjective> … but c’mon.
This is a perfect example of decreasing potential sales.
The pricks, and prick lovers, will buy this cologne.
Just as a reminder … there are more non-pricks and non-prick lovers in the world than the opposite.
I think even Jesus cried when he saw this ad.
Nuff said.
imagery.
Good god almighty <which seems an appropriate exclamation after listening to Personal Jesus>.
I am all for aspirational imagery.
And I fully understand that this isn’t about real ‘I see my man as this guy’ but rather ‘I want him to know that I think of him this way’ type messaging … but this level of narcissism is … well … unappealing.
Ok.
It is unrelatable.
This imagery is a reflection of the fact that the fashion industry has lost touch with what is relevant to today’s world.
This may have been a good use of imagery in the 1980’s <and then they could have used the song> but in today’s world … well … this idea should never have left the conference room.
Aspirational doesn’t mean you have to completely de-link yourself from the believable or realatble. There is a line you do not have to cross.
Effective use of imagery in communications is truly a learned skill.
It is often in the nuance.
And this imagery bludgeons you.
While it is horrible imagery it is a beautiful example of why fashion people should do fashion communications.
Well.
Unless you like to get bludgeoned with unrelatable images that decrease sales potential.
Next.
placement.
<insert image of me scratching my head with a quizzical look on my face … and looking nothing like the guy walking out of the surf in the commercial>
On ESPN.
Because … well … yeah … so many of the women who watch the morning version of ESPN sportscenter run to Macy’s for cologne for their ‘personal jesus’ boyfriends.
Look.
I will give Armani that women watch ESPN and sportcenter <although I am not so sure they do so as much in the morning>.
But.
Spending money on marketing is about return on investment.
Let me guess what happened.
Someone probably said something like “we should be where the competition isn’t … we will stand out!”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ….
You bet you will stand out.
You will stand out like a pimple on the morning of a big meeting.
I would suggest that I would rather be where my competition is … and beat them by actually doing a good commercial.
I am all for doing something different than the competition.
But not because it is the only way to stand out.
From my perspective … unless I had money to burn … this seems like a crazy thing to do.
Even crazier with this ad … but … I am not a fashion marketing person I guess <but I do watch morning Sportscenter>.
Next.
Call to action.
It was “Buy a gift for him.”
This is nitpicky … but … I imagine if I sat down with a designer they would say that each stitch matters. Detail often creates the final nuance in the impression.
It’s on ESPN.
It’s mostly guys.
Maybe some are gay.
But that’s not the point.
I am a guy watching. I just watched a highlight where some linebacker crushed a quarterback. For some reason I have actually figured out how to stay in front of the tv to watch some pretentious prick stride out of the surf in a commercial.
And then the commercial ends with “buy a gift for him.”
Huh?
I’m supposed to buy a gift for the guys I hand out with?
Over wings & beer I say “hey … I bought you a Christmas gift … here’s some cologne”?
Or.
Maybe I look in the mirror and say “you deserve a gift … I’m gonna buy you some cologne.”
<sales increase exponentially in this situation if it includes me, myself & i>
Look.
I am not sure I would have spent the money putting the commercial on ESPN … but let’s say I did. If I did I would want to make damn sure the details maximized the investment. Details. Each stitch matters.
Done with this.
So.
Now that I have skewered them … and by the way … you could steal any of these thoughts and apply them to most of what you see from fashion brands … I am going to tell them the marketing they should be doing.
Bottom line.
It should be smarter.
There is no such thing anymore as a brand built solely on ‘image’ … there has to be some substance.
Why can’t someone just focus on image?
People want more.
They want some depth.
Shit. They EXPECT more.
And this pertains even more so to the younger generations … the ones who are questioning everything … the ones where counterculture is next to impossible because as soon as something becomes cool it is uncool. And it is replaced by something new.
For example. While in the past graphics and design may have dominated t-shirts … now it’s messages. Young people may not verbalize their thoughts and messages … but they wear them. And they wear lots of different messages so that people know they are thinking about lots of things and they may be more complex than some ‘vapid good looking trying to be cool’ kid.
I am kidding to make a Point
What does that all mean?
Smarter.
And if the fashion industry doesn’t get onboard … well … they are gonna be left behind as someone does get it.
The future? fashionably smart
Geeky is the new cool.
Beauty is about imperfections.
Vapid has given way to thoughtful.
The communications, and industry itself, doesn’t have to be involved behaviorwise <doing smart and imperfect things> … but you do have to be in sync thinkingwise in the new generation.
To this generation … smart has value. It is not about feelings & image <solely> but rather expression and ‘mind.’ Mind as in “what’s on my mind.”
To this generation … imperfection has value. “Perfection is shit” may be this generation’s mantra.
Look.
I am not suggesting that the people in the marketing and actual advertising have to be geeky … nor does smart have to look non trendy or conservative or even expected. It just have to have some substance … some depth with regard to its final impression made in people’s minds. 
It cannot simply be a veneer of vapidness <the worst end of the spectrum> or simply opinionless <at it’s simplest worst>.
Clothes and fashion say so much about the person who actually has deemed it worthy to not only spend hard earned money on … but be seen or smelled in it.
Maybe the fashion industry doesn’t understand that people don’t simply say “wow … that looks good” … they also attach some attitudes & perceptions. Their consumer is not just buying looks but attitudes & perceptions too.
Regardless.
This ad which started my whole rant was embarrassing. Embarrassing not just to Armani … but to me … me as a marketing guy.
Well.
No surprise to anyone but I am not a big Oscars fan. Or any red carpet-like event for that matter.
I guess I paid attention to the Oscar nominations this time because of a song I liked <which was on the initial long list … but didn’t make the short list> and a song which made the list for what I would consider ‘bigger political picture’ reasons <and made it to the short list>.
I will start with the latter.
Bono & Mandela.
Shit.
U2 could have played a C-flat over & over again <possibly mixing in a C for texture> and I would have put money the song would have been not only on the long list of those considered but also in the final list.
Yup.
I woulda won that bet.
The song isn’t horrible but it is … well … ordinary.
U2 Ordinary Love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC3ahd6Di3M
I’m not really into this song.
I had high hopes for this song.
Unfortunately my hopes were dashed in its ordinariness. The lyrics are nice & the message is good but it isn’t even close to being as emotive or powerful as a number of other songs.
I am fairy confident in suggesting that if this wasn’t in a movie about Nelson Mandela I don’t really think it wouldn’t be reaching the heights of acclaim that it is.
The other song being touted?
Atlas by Coldplay from Hunger Games 2.
Well.
If you could give an award of a song with the movie … not as a stand alone song … this may be it.
The song? It’s okay.
The song with the movie? Spectacular.
Atlas <Coldplay>: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh3TokLzzmw
By the way.
What I mean is that I seriously doubt you will put this on a heavy rotation playlist on your mp3 player. It’s power is when heard with the movie … stand alone? Not so much powerful.
And I am not an Oscar judge but I believe the award is for best original song … not best original song only when watching the movie.
Kinda seems like it needs to work in the movie and on the radio <or headphones>.
But, hey, that’s me.
Anyway.
Here’s the deal with Hunger Games: Catching Fire soundtrack.
Atlas may not <note: is not> be the best song on it.
Ellie Goulding’s song Mirror is a fabulous song in its own right. And perfectly matched for the movie. I am fairly sure it couldn’t be nominated as an original song for a movie but as for a song in a movie … well … you don’t get much better than this as for a song use.
And there is Weeknd’s song ‘Devil May Cry.’ Fabulous.
Of Monsters and Men have a wonderful song.
Silhouettes <excellent homemade video with it>: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG9320M0w3k
Lorde’s voice is used perfectly on a song called ‘Everyone Wants to Rule the World.’
Ok.
Some other Oscar considered songs.
‘Let it Go’ from Frozen.
Unfortunately I don’t really get what everyone loved about ‘Let it Go.’
Nice. Sappy. Helped by Demi Lovato’s voice. But for that type of movie it is kind of pedestrian. Compare it to some songs from Jungle Book or Little Mermaid or any other great animated movie and … well … it just doesn’t compare well.
Let it Go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk
Demi Lavato <who I am not a huge fan of> sings it … and her voice helps me out a little. Her voice is more resonant and deeper. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHue-HaXXzg
Now.
As for a song that works well away from the movie … and a song that shifts from a kids movie <Despicable Me 2> to mainstream radio … Pharrell kicks ass with Happy.
‘happiness is the truth.’ – Pharrell
Happy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM
Not only is it a fun … well … happy … song but it is good listening and the youtube video ‘happy every hour’ campaign is awesome.
This song is well worthy of Osacr consideration.
And as soon as I typed that I begin to truly recognize the difficulties of judging movie songs.
A song from Mandela versus a song from Despicable Me.
Each song embodying the tone & character of the film genre?
Yikes.
“Hey mom … I was an Oscar judge this year … and I voted for Despicable Me instead of Mandela.”
<insert uncomfortable silence here>
All that said.
I end by returning to the ‘former’ aspect of my opening thoughts.
A song I liked that didn’t make it to the final cut.
While in the initial Oscar considerations … Lana Del Rey’s ‘Young & Beautiful’ <from the Great Gatsby> wasn’t selected as an Oscar song nominee.
What a shame.
The movie was horrible <but that shouldn’t impact judging of a song>.
The song is anything but horrible.
And perfectly set to the movie.
Young & Beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_1aF54DO60
Ok.
Lastly.
Because I am discussing movies.
A note on a couple of movies … Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Hobbit: Smaug.
Two excellent viewing movies.
Fun & entertaining and while both are maybe 20 minutes of editing <cutting> away from spectacular … I am nitpicking.
Even with some parts that drag … these two movies are sensory spectacles.
And.
For the record.
I loved both books.
But I am going to make a point about the movie industry.
Hunger Games was a trilogy directed to teens. A delightful if not slightly disturbing set of books with a pretty good message overall. Well written. Simple. Quick reads.
Hobbit is one book. A dense complex read with a dizzying array of characters which enter and leave in a matter of pages.
Both pieces of literature are receiving a 4 movie treatment.
Seems kind of crazy to me.
Yeah yeah yeah. I know. It’s about the money.
But at some point I imagine we would like to remember the ‘art’ portion.
I have now seen both Hunger Games movies and both Hobbit movies.
Enjoyed them all.
But.
I could have done Hunger Games <trilogy of books> in 3 movies … possibly even 2. And they would have been unrelentlessly amazing.
I could have done Hobbit in 3 movies … possibly even 2 <although I am not sure about that>. More difficult than Hunger Games to do but they would have been unrelentlessly amazing.
<by the way … just what I wrote reminds us of the difference level of literature and writing between Hunger Games and Hobbit>
I sometimes believe the movie industry <and all of us I imagine> forget that while editing is often like choosing amongst your children … it is a necessary evil that actually leads to a greater good.
Anyway.
Good movies.
Go watch them.
Hunger Games you don’t have to read the books to enjoy.
Hobbit helps if you have read the book.
Oh.
And don’t forget to listen to the music .. in particular while watching Hunger Games.
Well.
On occasion I get asked to write opinion papers for published editorialists seeking outside thoughts to shape their own writing.
I typically get asked to wait to share those thoughts until they have been published. I say this because what I am going to share doesn’t seem timely at all … but … what the heck.
Thinking is thinking.
Ideas are ideas.
And discussing affairs and issues around the world never goes out of style.
That said.
You get to see thoughts I have shared that have appeared in some form or fashion in a variety of well-respected publications.
The authors are smarter than I … tend to be better writers than I … are kind enough to let me share thoughts in my own style and manner … and humble me by actually using some of the tripe I dish out.
These tend to be less polished and more disjointed because … well … they are. I typically allot myself a maximum of 2 hours to crank out a relatively well formed opinion <albeit I tend to invest some more time> and then get it out and off my computer.
Here is what you are going to get:
– American foreign policy Syria and stuff:
https://brucemctague.com/american-foreign-policy-syria-and-stuff
– Ukraine and foreign policy:
https://brucemctague.com/ukraine-and-foreign-policy
– Healthcare.gov and project management:
https://brucemctague.com/healthcare-gov-and-project-management
Enjoy.
<preface explanation for article:
https://brucemctague.com/opinion-editorial-thoughts-shared-posts-are-behind-this-preface
>
Well.
In my mind the United States involvement with Syria is a combination of true foreign policy and moral reflection.
The main challenge seems to be that U.S. policy regarding chemical weapons overall … not just with Syria … has been inconsistent and politicized historically which puts the United States is in a difficult position to take leadership in response to any use of such weaponry by Syria.
While I don’t agree with all the following quotes I will share the attitude behind them established the issue USA faces fairly well:
“Even though the US thinks they are in charge of humanity the reality is they are not. In their imaginary world the toothless media supports their spit ball shooting president. They actually think their words are supreme and final. Kerry and McCain keep dancing in a parade trying to influence a congress which is neither conservative nor moral but nevertheless war weary. – The Pravda
“Syria was not witnessing a battle for democracy but ‘an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multi-religious country’, Putin said, in a New York Times comment piece repeating assertions that rebels rather than the government might have used chemical weapons, “to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons”, and may be planning further attacks, even against Israel.
[An American attack] could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilise the Middle East and north Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.” – Putin
Regardless.
United States involvement with Syria <and anywhere in the middle east I imagine> is fraught with peril and unknowns.
But here is an unfortunate truth with regard to any action associated with foreign policy on any issue.
It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
The key word?
Could.
99.9% of all foreign policy decisions revolve around that one word.
Experts are simply speculators.
I say that because the situation in Syria is both horrifying and complicated.
Frankly.
Any situation in foreign policy is complicated <and often horrifying>… well … that is unless you ignore anything foreign and focus solely on domestic <let’s call that being an isolationist>.
While it useful to discuss different views on what the US could do and its impact it seems like we should be investing more discussion around what we SHOULD do.
Putin’s thoughts withstanding … and with the utmost respect for someone who can actually lead … he is right … and wrong.
Right?
The United States is NOT in charge of humanity.
Wrong?
The United States has a responsibility to humanity.
So back to ‘should.’
What should America do?
Chemical warfare tips the balance in intervention’s favor.
Intervention?
Yup.
You either decide to walk across the street and stop the bully from bullying or you keep walking like nothing is going on.
This isn’t about choosing sides.
This is about making sure the bully knows what he can or cannot do.
And this whole discussion is not about Americans are no longer interested in policing human rights but solely on what we ‘should’ do rather than what we could do <note that ‘size of military’ seems to be a political play on the ‘what we could do’ balance>.
Should.
Why America?
Well.
Why not us?
Either do what is right or don’t.
Draw some lines.
Don’t pick sides … pick moral issues.
The US should intervene for humanitarian reasons not just when threatened directly.
I get concerned when trying to persuade a nation reluctant to take action we discuss things like chemical warfare and suffering and death in Syria, including that of children, and we have a lack of enthusiasm because those who are suffering and dying are Syrian <children> and not American <children>.
To be clear.
Arguments that action against Syria is not required by our immediate national interest is valid.
Strikes on Syria may be dangerous and could produce unintended negative consequences is valid.
Yet.
I refer back to ‘could’ versus ‘should.’
If I could <or any real foreign policy expert> predict any outcome I would be pleased to do so.
But.
‘We don’t always know how it ends.’
That’s pretty much true regarding almost any action proposed. About the only thing we know in the Syria situation is how it ends for the most vulnerable if the situation continues to escalate.
Worse <from a moral standpoint>?
A refusal to intervene at this point amounts, objectively, to ratifying the use of chemicals.
We talk about lines.
And lines in tangible ways … and yet this is a moral line.
A moral line avoids the discussion of whether we, or any of our allies, are directly engaged.
A moral line is whether our morals have been engaged.
In a moral issue we truly only answer to ourselves.
Our moral compass is not defined by another country or ideology.
Ah.
Morality seems so intangible <albeit I could argue that being consistent with regard to moral issues over a period of time establishes something tangible> so I will share a thought on something tangible <if not a moral ‘should do’>.
I agree that all wars or military conflicts need a final goal or end game.
Here the endgame is to stop further chemical weapons attacks.
Everyone has made it clear, as they should, that the Syrians will have to resolve the issues on their own. Any United States mission would need to be driven by a moral perspective.
And, yes, intervention has potential risks of its own.
But a ‘do nothing’ position runs an even bigger potential risk … a risk in that we could do something right … and we elect to not do something right.
This suggests we are morally implicated by the consequences of our actions, but are absolved of the consequences of inaction — that there are only sins of commission and not of omission.
I’m afraid that’s not the world we live in, or should want to.
In addition a “do nothing” position suggests that in the absence of intervention, things stay essentially as they are … that there are not equal or worse consequences that flow from non-intervention.
Should.
As in what should we do interventionwise.
The intervention that I would do is to send in a small force of highly qualified military personnel and destroy the chemicals. I am quite familiar with Marines and the military and if anyone truly believes we don’t know where weapons are and that we couldn’t get to them wherever they are being silly.
Simplistically … tell our best of the best to go do what they need to do and get out of their way.
That said.
Should.
Foreign policy is always challenging.
And I believe it was a British diplomat who suggested that diplomacy isn’t challenging because of the opposite side of the table … it’s the same side of the table on which you sit:
“it is not the other side you need to worry about, but your own.”
For a ‘just do it’ nation we seem to be doing nothing when we not only could but should be doing something.
And, yes … I am fully aware that sometimes it is indeed best for ‘good men’ to do nothing.
Sometimes you just have to let people get on with resolving their own issues <even if it includes death>.
In the end.
United States can lend a hand morally and tangibly … but they have to get there themselves.
And we certainly should recognize that some never will.
And some don’t even want to.
You cannot impose change on people <regardless of the issue>.
But we can impose some moral boundaries.
Please note that I am not suggesting we impose our morals … simply some boundaries on behavior.
Why?
Because we can.
Not everyone can stop a bully.
We can.
Doing what is right is never <or rarely> easy.
And we can dither about and debate and wring our hands on whether we should be involved or not … but I do not believe anyone would ever say that using chemicals is acceptable.
Therefore we step in to make sure everyone knows it is unacceptable.
Because we should.
<preface explanation for article:
https://brucemctague.com/opinion-editorial-thoughts-shared-posts-are-behind-this-preface
>
Ok.
Let me get this straight.
Ukraine is experiencing the largest street protests since their ‘Orange Revolution’ <which supposedly marked the first real democracy breakthrough after the dissolving of the soviet union>, police are beating the crap out of protesters/demonstrators on the street and one of the largest new democracies in the world is being torn in two by a well reported corrupt government trying to figure out where to go in the future between tying itself to Russia or the EU.
And.
The top headline in world news in the USAToday?
Uruguay OKs first national marketplace for marijuana
So.
While a truly democratic government teeters … hundreds of thousands take to streets in protest at decision to back away from EU integration … no one appears to be caring <at least in the USof A>.
Simplistically … Ukraine is not only being challenged internally … but externally as they get pulled in half by Russia and the EU.
Now.
It would be easy <too much so> to simply suggest that the protests demonstrated once again how divided Ukraine is, with the southern and eastern regions largely supporting closer relations with Russia, while the west and most of the center focus on European integration.
Here is a truth.
Ukraine has always been complex.
This year is the 1,025th anniversary of the formation of Kievan Rus <the assemblage of east Slavic tribes under Christianity> and a strong reminder that many Slavs still see Kiev as Russia’s mother city <way before Moscow or even St. Petersburg assumed that role>.
And the eastern part was under the Russian tsars.
And the split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism created further divisions.
And Galicia <western Ukraine> was part of the Austria-Hungary empire up to WW1.
And Crimea is a very important military asset for Russia <and remembers a long struggle to attain>.
It is a very big <geographically, population & economically> country … things are mixed <but, frankly, homogenous nation states are not really the norm globally>.
Anyway … demographics and history aside … here is the complexity <as I see it>.
Twenty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Ukraine’s independence the reality is that the country’s economy is almost equally linked to Russia and the EU.
– Its trade turnover with the EU is exactly the same as its turnover with Russia.
– It’s trade deficit, exporting less than it imports, is exactly the same with the EU as with Russia.
To me it seems logical that Ukraine should be allowed to co-operate with both sides. Yet … Ukraine is constantly being asked <demanded> to choose.
The EU has consistently told Ukraine that even to sign an association agreement with the EU <full membership is not being offered> would not be compatible with being part of the Eurasian Union <let’s just call that Russia>.
Anyway.
I was there in 2004 during the Orange Revolution and it was exhilarating and scary at exactly the same time: < https://brucemctague.com/the-anniversary-of-ukraines-orange-revolution >
In one way I am extremely pleased that the country seems extremely determined to gain a true identity. The EU issue is simply an emotional <and economic> excuse to bring the issue to the forefront.
In another way I am extremely disappointed because even after 20 years it is a ‘democratic country’ where hundreds of millions of dollars are routinely stolen and where corruption faces everyone everywhere.
Unfortunately deep corruption and governing issues abound in Ukraine … as with most ex-Soviet states.
As Ukraine staggers down the road I uncovered an outstanding editorial about the Ukraine situation:
The Great Ukrainian Knife Fight: Walter Russell Mead
The knife fight over Ukraine continues; the west is still waving baguettes and making hollow speeches about democracy and the rule of law. The Russians understand that the odds are against them in Ukraine; a brittle state resting on a crumbling economy and facing long term demographic decline doesn’t have a lot of advantages in foreign policy disputes. But Russia cares much, much more about Ukraine than either Brussels or Washington, and it is both much more focused and much less scrupulous as it looks for ways to make its victory stick.
This is one of three great geopolitical stories unfolding in Eurasia at the end of 2013. One is the Iranian march to regional domination as the Shi’ites gain the upper hand in the Syrian war and the United States relaxes sanctions on triumphant Tehran. Another is the latest step in China’s “cabbage strategy” of building out new layers of military and legal insulation over disputed territory near its maritime frontiers. And the third is the fight over whether Ukraine will tilt decisively toward either Moscow or the EU.
For the Kremlin, this is do or die. If Ukraine heads west, Putin is a flop and his national strategy for Russia to recover its great power status is toast. Russia will have failed decisively as a major world power and will inexorably join the other ex-imperial powers like Britain and France in the second division of the world power league.
If the Central Powers (China, Russia, Iran) win all three of these contests, the worldwide balance of power will change. The United States and its allies will be seen as having lost their nerve and their edge; from the Balkans to Southeast Asia, from the Arctic Ocean to the Bay of Bengal, smaller powers will begin to recalibrate their foreign policies. Many will tilt away from the perceived losers in the great game and align themselves with what to many will now look like the rising powers.
In every case, the economic and military forces favor the United States and its allies. In every case, western strategic cluelessness handed enormous advantages to weaker adversaries. Nowhere is this more true than in Ukraine, where western fecklessness has handed Putin the opportunity of a lifetime. He is fighting against the odds here, but Putin is fighting for his life, or at least for the heart of both his foreign and domestic political program. One interesting point now to observe: will China throw Yanukovych (and Russia) a financial lifeline in the form of some loans that quiet the bond markets. The weakest point in the loose alliance of revisionist powers is their lack of cohesion. China’s response to Yanukovych will tell us something about how united the revisionists really are.
Meanwhile, the world should not underestimate Putin’s will to win, and he is using every lever he can find, and taking advantage of every error his opponents make as he goes all out to preserve Russia’s hopes of returning to the top of the world power league.
A lot of news stories that flare up in the headlines are much ado about nothing. This one is the real deal: Ukraine is making history in 2013.
Now.
While we focus on EU versus Russia … the main issue to the people is all about changing the way that the country is managed <or mismanaged>.
People are going to the streets of Ukrainian cities mainly because they want to take a stand against the existing practices of Ukrainian power … which does not in any form or fashion show respect to Ukrainian people and democracy.
From my perspective what is happening in Ukraine is not really about money but rather a battle for the right to work in normal business environment, to have freedom of information and right to express views.
In other words.
This is a true battle for democracy <in its growth stages>.
Many people presume those are things EU offers and Russia does not.
Sometimes it is as simple as that.
Sometimes it is really simple.
– This is about government and democracy.
Ukrainians do have problems with governance. But remember, that it is a young state with only 22 years being on its own.
– This is about investment and money.
Ukraine is a huge country, with plenty of resources <both physical and human> which would have strong competitive advantage regarding cheaper than European but equally skilled labor and unfulfilled capital markets. Think about it. What other country as close to European borders as Ukraine … with 45million potential consumer market and a good educated population offering labor sometimes cheaper than Chinese is a better investment opportunity?
– This is about maximizing potential <resources>.
In fact Ukraine is a rich country. But unfortunately internal corruption is not taking advantage of it. The country is being stifled and stagnating. There are a few people who not only own the big businesses but also extremely politically influential. It appears on the surface that the EU association would be a good attempt to break out of this situation and maximize the country’s potential.
Yes.
Sometimes it is that simple.
It does seem simple when looking at the situation on why the EU versus Russia.
Joining the EU implies some standards regarding corruption, independence of justice, absence <or lessening> government intervention into industries and at least some regulation on existing oligarchs. I seriously doubt that Ukrainians expect the EU to be perfect. I assume they just hope it will be better than that under the guidance <I use that term loosely> of Russia.
However.
I will go back to one of my original points.
Why make Ukraine choose?
The choice will split them.
Why not let Ukraine work within both stuctures?
Am I being naïve?
Well.
Probably.
But we seem to decide things in black & white and good vs. evil when sometimes there are truly situations in which someone should be permitted to choose a gray option. Kind of a mixed menu approach.
That scares people because it hasn’t been done before.
I would note that being scared is not an excuse for not trying to do what is right.
Regardless <part 1>.
I sometimes believe we in the US have been brainwashed into thinking Russia as some sort of backward nation. They are not.
They simply have a different ideology on growth, government, economics and certain freedoms. They do represent a viable choice for countries to align with.
Regardless <part 2>.
We need to remember.
Ukraine is actually something similar to Russia.
They were one of the core countries of the soviet power.
I say that because current Ukrainian society is more and more displeased about the ruling elite in Ukraine … it doesn’t matter if it’s about Yuschenko or Yanukovich … they are losing faith in their government. The population feels little control over its future and is unhappy with in its present state. This makes them look to the past all the time.
And the past includes Russia.
By the way … that’s a common belief system in post-imperial countries.
I say all that because … if we <America … the poster child of rebellion for self government & democracy> don’t show them why they should look to the future … who will?
Regardless <part 3>.
Sometimes I just don’t understand our priorities when it comes to what we pay attention to, what we care about … and how we think when it comes to things outside of America. Heck. Sometimes I wonder that about things inside of America.
In the end I imagine this is about American Foreign policy.
Most Americans are not thinking about Syria or Ukraine or China <specifically … they just have a general bad feeling> at all.
Most Americans are simply stuck in their own personal daily grind.
And while many Americans bitch & moan the lack of leadership globally … it appears the numbers show most people do not want US to actually take the actions to be a leader:
– Over half of the U.S. citizens believe that the United States should not interfere in the affairs of other countries <source: Pew Research: America’s place in the world>. Over the nearly 50-year history of the poll on this subject … this number of people has never taken this adamant position.
– 52% of the respondents agreed that the U.S. should deal with its own problems and not interfere in the affairs of other countries. 38% have the opposite view. 10% of the respondents were unable to answer this question.
– Only 17% answered yes to the question whether the United States became more influential and powerful in the last ten years. 53% answered this question in the negative.
– 70% of the Americans said that the United States was not as respected as before. These sentiments have been around for a long time. The current number is only 1% lower than in May of 2008 <Bush not Obama>.
It is unfortunate.
We should care about Ukraine … just as we care about Syria <or the middle east> … just as we care about China.
Anyway.
Go to Ukraine. Visit Kiev. Maybe you will care then.
<preface explanation:
https://brucemctague.com/opinion-editorial-thoughts-shared-posts-are-behind-this-preface
>
I will begin with the following thought:
Damned if you.
Damned if you don’t.
I began with that because the healthcare.gov <for America’s affordable healthcare act online sign up> is one of the oddest discussions I have ever experienced.
Damned if you do.
I could begin by pointing out how cumbersome rules for procurement, hiring, and management are inside the government.
Several business people in the private sector have pointed out that their work was, in many ways, easier than Healthcare.gov’s.
They could start from scratch, did not have to coordinate with as many outside entities, and could hire anyone they wanted, and work in any way they liked. Everything about the way the government builds large technical projects contrasts unfavorably, from specification to procurement, to hiring, to management.
By the way.
We, the people, put the restrictions on how a government job can be procured. We often demand they cannot sole source. We demand that they must have a certain percentage of minority, small businesses, female owned business and a variety of their mandatories depending upon the size and the scope of an assignment.
This <most often> drives up total cost of a project particularly if you begin to have 10+ contractors/suppliers/partners.
This doesn’t mean that they cannot do it … just that we make it difficult for them to do it.
This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do projects like this <because they should>.
This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have some restrictions <because they should>.
This means that we should recognize they are doing what we told them to do.
Damned if you do.
The public scrutiny.
Sure.
Initially the website issues appears to be a management issue … not a technology failure.
One person should always be in charge.
But.
Other than maybe a general in the midst of a military campaign … I cannot think of another situation, in business, in which there is this much scrutiny on a major project on a daily, if not hourly <or minute-by-minute>, basis.
Most business leaders have their proverbial shit together and even in the midst of major problems … a leader stays out of the way and let people do their jobs to fix it.
In the midst of an issue is not when you want spotlights and discussions and scrutiny <with major finger pointing and blaming>.
In other words – let the frickin’ program unfold.
I struggle to think of any major business project that looked pretty and worked pretty from day one. And if someone judged me on day one of a project I imagine I would have been fired so many times I would look like swiss cheese.
A government program never has the luxury a private company has with regard to letting things just ‘happen’ and adapting … and then reporting.
A business truth.
What happens on day one … let alone week two … is not often an indicator of success or failure. I don’t know how to explain it other than that.
In a government program they are asked to explain it other than that.
I would fail if I were demanded to do so.
Damned if you do.
Public demands <with political scrutiny>.
It is pretty much a general rule in business that you should start small and build from there.
Like maybe get one state up and running first and then go from there <albeit I could argue Massachusetts was your one test market>.
Most robust technology systems are built by constant testing as you go and by teams who swap jobs frequently <hourly even>.
Well.
Could you imagine in a test program in this political environment?
It wouldn’t, and couldn’t, happen.
In this political environment you had to build it and launch it.
Let the chips fall as they may and deal with it.
Damned if you do.
Last minute changes are always bad. And they shouldn’t be allowed.
And we, in business, acknowledge this.
But you know what?
We do it all the time.
We do it all the time and jump through hoops and hope like hell it all works out.
And we do it on absurdly complex far reaching programs.
For example … let’s assume the Affordable Healthcare contract specifications were pretty clear … and communicated with … ‘more than 50 different companies, five government departments and 36 states were involved in building the website, which is designed to help millions of uninsured Americans find affordable coverage from private insurers’ … in addition … this project must have generated thousands <if not more> of change orders throughout the project.
Last minute changes?
Shit.
There were every minute changes.
And, yes, this happens in non government projects too.
Damned if you don’t.
Ah.
Results.
People are naturally hesitant to change. And change this big and confusing? They will naturally do something first … search for information <hence millions visited the site just to explore information and the site got overwhelmed>.
Millions did not purchase … and here is some news … they will not for quite some time.
In fact … they will not purchase until the deadlines dictate that they do so.
The overwhelming majority will not sign up until the last 45 days or so.
Bet on that <and I am surprised no one communicated that to anyone>.
Regardless.
Notice who is talking about this project and who isn’t.
Politicians are blabbing away nonstop.
Private sector business leaders, who have developed and implemented these types of initiatives, are silent.
There is not one business out there who looks at the scope and complexity of this type of project and is not laughing.
Laughing at all the people who are calling this a fumbled train wreck.
Because we in business have lived it … and still do.
All the time.
Just … well … Damned.
No good business person judges a project on its launch. They judge it on its final success or failure. Is month one an indicator? Sometimes.
Often not.
A government project is damned from the beginning not because of the project itself … the excruciating political scrutiny of minutiae.
This means I am suggesting that not only are any ‘government hearings’ on a healthcare website simply political theater <staged by people who could not run a business let alone a business project like this> but … well … unhealthy business practice.
Look.
I am not suggesting people shouldn’t be held accountable.
And that we shouldn’t expect better <or the best that can be done>.
But what is important is not who is to blame but rather fixing what needs to be fixed.
Personally I would throw the ‘train wreck analogy’ back at whoever uses it.
The train has already left the station.
You cannot bring it back.
Better figure out a way to get it on the tracks moving smoothly rather than run around trying to say ‘sorry … no more train.’
Ok.
Lastly.
Should someone should get fired?
I don’t know.
And I am a business guy who has painfully but necessarily fired people in the past.
Complexities of the project aside … it is what it is … and it always was … a complex project.
My gut tells me I would continue to let the team remain in place and follow improvements and follow results.
The truth is that most results will occur as the deadline nears. It is human nature for everyone to wait. Therefore we really cannot judge until then.
Healthcare website aside.
Health care, in the end, is about people.
Doctors and medical people around the world share a dedication and professionalism.
And in the end we will have millions of good and not-so-good stories no matter the system.
But I would like to note that even before the Affordable Healthcare Act figuring out what providers and procedures are in what plans, who is ‘in network’ and who isn’t, and the cost, and the guidelines, and … well …. It wasn’t simple.
You often received a doctor’s bill which you thought was covered under your plan … but Doh! … the doctor <procedure> is only in some plans … but not yours.
The American health care system with its complexity and lack of transparency has always set it apart from systems in other wealthy industrialized nations.
It didn’t need to be simply changed … it needed to be fixed.
It needed to be broken in order to be fixed.
And as we know … breaking things hurts.
We may be in pain but blaming a website for our pain is ludicrous.
All my life
I sought
an angel.
And he appeared
in order to say:
“I am no angel !” – All My Life <Regina Deieva>
Poetry.
I imagine being a poet is not easy.
Not easy because most of us every day schlubs cannot appreciate, let alone tolerate, an entire volume of poetry.
They are lucky if we schlubs can find a single poem we can like … and remember.
But more likely they end up having to be satisfied if some words they have written … even if I be but a line or two … capture not only our attention … but our minds and imagination and feelings.
And we remember those few words … and on occasion … use them.
In fact.
Whenever I want to write about poetry I remember the West Wing episode with Laura Dern as the poet laureate … she said:
“You think I think that an artist’s job is to speak the truth. An artist’s job is to captivate you for however long we’ve asked for your attention. If we stumble 
into truth, we got lucky, and I don’t get to decide what truth is.”
<Tabitha Fortis as poet laureate>
I think we sometimes stumble upon some truth a poet has written.
Or maybe we stumble upon a scrap of a dream.
That is … if we got lucky.
I say that … because I just got lucky.
I came across a poem called ‘To whom it may Concern’ by a poet named Regina Derieva.
Consisting as I do of scraps of dreams,
of lands I’ve never seen, of underpinnings,
of air and salt, of elemental things
unmeddled with by endings or beginnings,
Regina Derieva was a Russian poet and writer who published around thirty books of poetry, essays, and prose. She passed away December 11, 2013.
“She knows that the hurt truth in us points to a dimension where, for example, victory is cleansed of battle. Her strict, economical poems never waver from that orientation.” – Les Murray
I couldn’t stop reading her work when I found it.
It’s not that all of her work is fascinating <because sometimes she gets a little literal with regard to politics and government> but I can almost guarantee that every single pome I found had at least one line that made me stop … look at the words … and envy the fact she was able to put them together in the way that she did to say what she wanted to say.
“Fetters have become a way of living.”
Derieva remembers that ‘as a child I didn’t cry.’
And I share that because it seems like many of her poems are gorgeously woven together an odd, but interesting, mix of some harsh reality and sharp insightful glimpses of hope and dreams.
Her words are sometimes uncompromising.
Sea of hills, sea of blood and sea
of the crooked roads, oceans of stones.
If one escapes both live and dead
one has to live without all roots.
But … it was “consisting as I do of scraps of dreams’ is spectacular.
Don’t we all?
Don’t we all consist of scraps of dreams?
A patchwork of hope for little things to be better.
We don’t really need the big things in Life. Just some of the little things to be a little better.
In a world where it seems like we are consistently forced to choose one thing.
What is the one thing you really want to do.
What is the one thing you are good at.
If you could only accomplish one thing what would it be.
What is one word to describe you.
One.
One after another we are seemingly being demanded to consist of … well … one.
Well.
I don’t know about you but I consist of scraps of a number of dreams.
I don’t dream of one thing.
I don’t hope for one thing <and … no … you cannot claim ‘happiness’ as the one … because if you are honest with yourself happiness is created from a quilt of varying threads of things done in the past, things being done … and things yet to be done>.
I don’t think I am that different on this topic from many people.
I tend to believe most people consist of scraps of dreams … not dream.
Our lives are a constant work in progress … unfortunately <or fortunately> unmeddled with by endings or beginnings as we gather up the scraps of dreams hoping one scrap gets a little closer to reality then … and maybe picking up another scrap next week hoping that one gets a little closer.
I don’t think it’s bad we don’t choose just one dream. And maybe it is better to have a lot of scraps pf dreams … than just one larger bigger scrap <almost whole … but maybe not quite>.
Why?
Most of us are not simple. And by that we are not just one thing. We are this … and that … an maybe a little of that other thing … and of course we are just a tad of this …. we are a mixture.
A mixture of this & that.
And that is what makes us interesting.
And maybe that is why we consist of scraps of dreams. It makes Life more interesting.
Consisting as I do of scraps of dreams … of things I have yet to do … of places I have yet to see … of thoughts I have yet to think … well … I like that person.
I like that thought.
—–
Here is ‘TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN’:
Consisting as I do of scraps of dreams,
of lands I’ve never seen, of underpinnings,
of air and salt, of elemental things
unmeddled with by endings or beginnings,
of clay and iron, and of ocean wave
and shingle crowds of feet have trod upon,
of faith and hope, stood at the wall, to brave
the rifles, turning into heavenly stone,
of quiet and simplicity, bestowed
upon us by a woman among women,
of emptiness that stretches like a road
into a vastness where things lose their meaning,
of whisperings, of looking long at that
which goes among us by the name of God,
at death, which never was, and now is not,
at life, of which so little can be had.
“Now the beast has revealed it’s ugly face and we shall not rest 
until it is dead.” – Richard the Lionhearted
Facing problems in Life is one of the most personal things anyone can ever discuss.
It is personal because … well … it is really about attitude.
And I am careful when I say this … because you can have the right attitude to face problems … but you can just be too damn tired to face it.
In combination with that last thought I wrote … I love this thought from Richard the Lionhearted.
Take a moment and ponder.
The beast <the problem> has revealed its ugly face … we do not recoil … we do not retreat … we shall not rest until it is dead.
Unfortunately. You cannot do this with every damn problem you face in Life.
If you did … well … I can guarantee a problem would slip up on you and catch you when you just didn’t have the energy or focus to deal with it.
Therefore it comes down to deciding which problems you will ‘not rest until it is dead.’
Now.
What really makes me love this quote is the attitude.
Why?
I sometimes fear far too often that we choose a problem to defeat … only to be misdirected or lose focus or move on to something else which appears to be the problem du jour.
I don’t have answers for this.
I am not that smart.
Nor can I be that flippant with some tripe like ‘defeat the problem in front of you! You can do it!” <exclamation points included>.
Life makes choosing what problem to face and defeat difficult.
There is no code book nor is there a ‘how to choose’ book.
And worse … sometimes Life makes a problem look eensy weensy <that would be very very small> … and yet it is actually expandable with one drop of water to a point where it is huge.
And maybe just as worse … at other times Life gives you a problem that looks massively insurmountable … and you invest a lot of energy & angst approaching 
it … and all it takes is one drop of water to shrink it into nothing.
I am not giving any advice here nor can I tell anyone what to do.
I can’t.
I cannot because many times the beast looks like a beast to me … and I head out with all intentions to kill it … regardless of its size. And unfortunately the beast is simply something simple with a beast mask on.
Maybe sometimes I am better than others at identifying the real beasts from the pretender beasts … but I tend to believe no one is particularly spectacular at this task. You may be better than some other people … but not spectacular.
So all I can do is share a great quote and thought and get people thinking.
In business or in Life … if the beast reveals its ugly face … do not rest until it is dead. And I imagine another thought is that if you actually decide it is a beast … even if it really isn’t … go ahead and kill that one too.