Despite the market swoops and falls, the 2008 year had personal highlights – my sister Nausheen got married and moved to Dubai; Klaus turned 40 and started business school; Barack Obama was elected President. Nonetheless, it’s tradition to mark the year- end and welcome the New Year in anticipation of better times.
Custom dictates that we create resolutions to commemorate. Typically the declarations are one-dimensional goals with measurable endpoints, e.g. “I will go to the gym twice a week” or “I will stop smoking”.
What if instead we create messy resolutions and attempt success on multiple dimensions? Here’s my stab at describing the items I would like to leave behind this year.
Elevating false heroes. For many, this year saw a Knight enter the election to parry, pounce and salvage the US Presidency. Obama has demonstrated promise and reasoning. But he is not superman; he is not a savior; he will not remove the arthritis in my left shoulder. As citizens, we have a responsibility to communicate our desires for change, to support him, and to work to achieve these goals ourselves. Passively waiting for others to fix our lives is a guarantee of failure. We should set the bar high, and put in place the catalysts for success. High expectations can be accompanied with a dose of realism and personal action
Yet, it seems we have a penchant for constructing perfect idols – composite projections of our desires – that we believe will solve our problems and then are troubled when they fall. Why do we care if Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie – two competent and pretty actresses – are fighting over a handsome boy? Or that Amy Winehouse, a Grammy award winning singer, is going back to rehab? Or that Plaxico Burress, a gifted football player, can not maintain control of his gun? We create these false heroes based on their talent, but we really don’t know these people. So why should we be surprised by their lapse in moral character?
In Christopher Nolan’s recent movie The Dark Knight, Batman demonstrates flawed judgment – eavesdropping on private conversations, taking justice in his own vigilante hands. The citizens of Gotham turn on Batman by the end, and Singer’s message is that “We don’t get the hero that we need, but the hero we deserve”. In our lives, we may need hypothetical characters without faults but instead let’s choose as our role models amongst people we know well – a motivational teacher, an altruistic neighbor, a dedicated volunteer. These are really the heroes we deserve and the ones that should be brought to the fore.
Loitering atop the pyramid. I live a privileged life, as do many of the readers of these postings. We all recognize that we are at the pinnacle of the world pyramid on most measures – purchasing power, clean food and water access, health care availability, commodity and resource usage. This is nothing to be ashamed of, most folks have labored to achieve this situation, and we should continue to strive if we envision being higher on the ladder. We should be embarrassed though if we are taking this position for granted – dawdling in this fortunate standing – not taking action to integrate or aid those in a less advantaged situation; or even worse, exploiting this prominence to look down upon others and to bully them into submission.
Over the past few years, the US as a country has taken our elevated position in the global economy for granted. We doggedly pursued a military resolution in Iraq at the cost of political disengagement from other corners of the globe – a resurgent Russia, a cholera-stricken Southern Africa, a human-rights suppressed Burma. We can extend our hand – not just raise our fists – to the others on the pyramid at both a country and personal level. This will involve getting off the proverbial couch and leaving behind the air-bubble surrounding our heads in order to interrelate with the global community.
Retreating to simple solutions. The neo-conservative ideologues (with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney as prominent members) have influenced the country over the past few years. The advantage of accepting any ideology whether conservative or liberal is that it provides doctrines and beliefs that starkly discriminate between right vs. wrong, insider vs. outsider, harm vs. benefit. Of course no situation is ever black or white, but the comfort of simple solutions is attractive in times of strain and stress. In a post- 9/11 world, sending troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein in a country that was never involved in the terrorist attacks is the simple and right thing to do. Landing the President on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with the banner “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 is a straightforward display of victory.
We mustn’t blame the ideologues for trying to convince us of these messages – they may actually believe them. Instead we should be embarrassed for being so gullible. In Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie, Tom Cruise delights as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg – who with a coterie of senior German officials conducts an assassination attempt on Hitler. A taut thriller, the movie conveys the significance of the story by simplifying the motivation – Colonel Schaufenberg is good and the Nazis are evil. Even in this story which seems to demand uncomplicated answers (we can all agree the Nazis were bad), there are some knotty questions: Why did the officers attempt resistance so late in the war? Were they really seeking protection of the German people or glorification of their own position with their allies so close at hand?
Asking the difficult questions doesn’t take away from the basic parable, but forces us to question the baked-up truth that is being provided to us. In the end, we may choose to believe them, but at least we have done so after our own questioning.
So what are you willing to put away with the old year? The next posting will describe the themes I’d like to initiate.
December 31, 2008
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Some thoughts on… Love and a Time of Cholera
The Christmas and New Year period is a time of love and refection. We look back at the year and ponder on our journey. All expeditions have their ups and downs, and this year especially has marked some arcs with startling declines at the end. The stock market which started 2008 at one of the highest points it has ever achieved, has quickly tumbled by the end of the year to lows not seen since the mid-1980’s.
Another voyage which has been particularly precipitous at the end is that of George W. Bush’s presidency. Starting in 2000, the campaign began on a contentious foundation, with a narrow victory over Gore that required a decision by a split Supreme Court. It took the country over three weeks to “count” the votes in Florida; in the end, we looked as foolish as the nascent democracies we chide when they conduct flawed elections. September 11 brought the Presidency into sharp relevance. We looked to leadership for protection from terrorism. The formation of the NSA, the invasion of Iraq and the creation of color-coded security notifications skyrocketed the approval ratings of the White House. The love affair began to dim after re-election in 2004, pictures of Abu Ghraib, breaches of the Geneva Protocol at Guantanamo, and the extended toll on American soldiers on two war fronts shifted societal preference away from protection at any cost.
The final iconic picture of the W. presidency will be a reporter in Iraq throwing his shoes at the President and barely missing. The President demonstrated some quick reflexes and proper temperance afterwards indicating that this was how the reporter was expressing himself in a newly founded democracy. He could have spoken more harshly but in the end he showed presidential poise.
The video is emblematic and indelible in our minds. The reporter expresses the rage of an entire society that trusted the US to help restore a fallen country, but ended up with enormous casualties. A recent government report shows that the administration made large mistakes in the re-building process. The NY Times stated on December 14, that “An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure” The only form of outrage possible for such reckless action impacting the lives of millions is to throw shoes – literally the closest items to the ground of Iraq to the symbols highest echelons of power in the world.
But shouldn’t we be outraged at the Iraqi reporter’s actions? Shouldn’t we still respect our leaders even if they make mistakes?
Zimbabwe was a well-off African country. Located near South Africa, the country was formerly the English colony of Rhodesia named after Cecil Rhodes who also created the Oxford scholarship. Endowed with diamonds, platinum, and fertile soil the country was a source of riches for the British Empire. From 1961 to 1979, a white-led government declared independence from the UK. Through pressure from UN sanctions and internal rebellion, Robert Mugabe, a political prisoner and guerilla leader assumed control of the government in a landslide election in 1980. The gallant general Mugabe was the first leader of the newly-founded Zimbabwe and was heralded as a glorious African leader. His ascension was a source of pride for the African continent – a black leader to lead an indigenous populous.
Unfortunately, Mugabe has been the only leader of Zimbabwe. The country thrived for some years. Unlike the famines of East Africa and the rebellions in Central Africa, Mugabe maintained a period of relative peace and prosperity. But as the country grew richer, so did the pockets of the ruling class. Elections became one party contests where rivals were beaten and tortured into submission. The President is suspected of owning tens of millions stored in foreign back accounts free from repatriation. This year’s elections started with a semblance of respectability. One of the opponents, Morgan Tsvangirai was shown to have won a number of parliament seats and maybe the election officials, but Mugabe has refused to share power.
The results of a failed 200 land reform are economic turmoil and a sustained period of hyperinflation. The most striking indication of the countries decline is the December outbreak of Cholera with over 20,000 reported cases and greater than 1,000 deaths. A gastro-intestinal bacterium transmitted by contaminated water, Cholera typically can kill in 1 to 5 days from severe diarrheal symptoms. The WHO reports that it is no longer an issue in countries where minimum hygiene standards are met, but there has been a surprising increase in incidences since 2005 with outbreaks primarily in Sudan, Angola, West Africa and Iraq. The cure is relatively simple, access to clean water and oral rehydration therapy and potentially a regime of antibiotics. In Zimbabwe, despite these obvious displays of ineptitude in governance, Mugabe refuses to leave claiming that “only God” can remove him from office. Umh, no… you’re an elected official.
On the opposite side of the economic spectrum, in the hallowed halls of multi-billion dollar finance, some of the richest citizens of the world woke up to a harsh reality on Monday morning. The Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Fund which required hundreds of thousands in minimum investment was discovered to be a Ponzi scheme - deals requiring an ever increasing number of people to buy in before the original investors can be paid out. The last individuals to buy-in are the one ones who lose.
These systems of investment have existed for some time (at least since 1920 when named after Charles Ponzi), and are quite easy to set-up. I promise to give people a 3x return on their buy-in. First I take $10 each from three people. In order for them to receive the return on their buy-in, they must now find nine people to get $10 each from. The system continues until no one wants to give $10. By then I am long gone.
Maddoff’s fund returned 9% continuously for over 15 years, and people fought to buy-in. The financial books were kept secret and separated from the rest of the funds under his name. His name cachet and consistent returns brought in the money, and no one probed too hard on how he was doing it. Caveat Emptor is the prevailing ethic here, we don’t need to feel bad for the investors being duped, they willingly engaged. But the self-interest of Madoff to siphon off billions is the breach in trust. Surprisingly, his downfall did not come from the diligence of investors, but because he admitted his scheme to his sons who reported him to the SEC in order to protect the family name.
Leaders should be doing what their name implies – leading the way in an ethical manner. We entrust them to make tough decisions and give them the benefit of the doubt that they have worked in the interest of the broader good when they make mistakes. In the case of these leaders, they have fallen so far in the esteem of the public, that they have lost any semblance of credibility. Even though they accomplished great things in their lives – freed a nation from imperialism, established the NASDAQ stock exchange – their current actions provide little redemption.
The truth is that our trust in leadership can’t be instilled, bought or required due solely to the reason that a person is in power. The ability to lead, like many things in life, must be proven everyday through intelligent and moral action. At a minimum, a leader deserves the same level of respect that we give to any other human being. If it is common behavior to throw a shoe at someone else you know, then why should George W. be any different? The reporter was not denigrating the Presidency, but the man holding the office. Any leader that demands to be respected for their position alone is the one that should be removed.
For Bush Jr, even before the incident in Iraq the administration seemed to be internalizing some lessons from their mistakes. They stated how they don’t want to be viewed as the Herbert Hoover administration – ineffectual and cronyistic – giving way to the grandeur of Roosevelt. Recently, the administration delivered talking points to their staff listing all the accomplishments over the past eight years. Projectile footwear are a pointed reminder how we all face the consequences of our choices.
Now that the people of Zimbabwe and the owners of Madoff Securities have fallen out of love with their leader, maybe they should start throwing their own proverbial shoes?
December 21, 2008
Thanks to Cephas Swamidoss for the idea of Mugabe and the epidemic
Another voyage which has been particularly precipitous at the end is that of George W. Bush’s presidency. Starting in 2000, the campaign began on a contentious foundation, with a narrow victory over Gore that required a decision by a split Supreme Court. It took the country over three weeks to “count” the votes in Florida; in the end, we looked as foolish as the nascent democracies we chide when they conduct flawed elections. September 11 brought the Presidency into sharp relevance. We looked to leadership for protection from terrorism. The formation of the NSA, the invasion of Iraq and the creation of color-coded security notifications skyrocketed the approval ratings of the White House. The love affair began to dim after re-election in 2004, pictures of Abu Ghraib, breaches of the Geneva Protocol at Guantanamo, and the extended toll on American soldiers on two war fronts shifted societal preference away from protection at any cost.
The final iconic picture of the W. presidency will be a reporter in Iraq throwing his shoes at the President and barely missing. The President demonstrated some quick reflexes and proper temperance afterwards indicating that this was how the reporter was expressing himself in a newly founded democracy. He could have spoken more harshly but in the end he showed presidential poise.
The video is emblematic and indelible in our minds. The reporter expresses the rage of an entire society that trusted the US to help restore a fallen country, but ended up with enormous casualties. A recent government report shows that the administration made large mistakes in the re-building process. The NY Times stated on December 14, that “An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure” The only form of outrage possible for such reckless action impacting the lives of millions is to throw shoes – literally the closest items to the ground of Iraq to the symbols highest echelons of power in the world.
But shouldn’t we be outraged at the Iraqi reporter’s actions? Shouldn’t we still respect our leaders even if they make mistakes?
Zimbabwe was a well-off African country. Located near South Africa, the country was formerly the English colony of Rhodesia named after Cecil Rhodes who also created the Oxford scholarship. Endowed with diamonds, platinum, and fertile soil the country was a source of riches for the British Empire. From 1961 to 1979, a white-led government declared independence from the UK. Through pressure from UN sanctions and internal rebellion, Robert Mugabe, a political prisoner and guerilla leader assumed control of the government in a landslide election in 1980. The gallant general Mugabe was the first leader of the newly-founded Zimbabwe and was heralded as a glorious African leader. His ascension was a source of pride for the African continent – a black leader to lead an indigenous populous.
Unfortunately, Mugabe has been the only leader of Zimbabwe. The country thrived for some years. Unlike the famines of East Africa and the rebellions in Central Africa, Mugabe maintained a period of relative peace and prosperity. But as the country grew richer, so did the pockets of the ruling class. Elections became one party contests where rivals were beaten and tortured into submission. The President is suspected of owning tens of millions stored in foreign back accounts free from repatriation. This year’s elections started with a semblance of respectability. One of the opponents, Morgan Tsvangirai was shown to have won a number of parliament seats and maybe the election officials, but Mugabe has refused to share power.
The results of a failed 200 land reform are economic turmoil and a sustained period of hyperinflation. The most striking indication of the countries decline is the December outbreak of Cholera with over 20,000 reported cases and greater than 1,000 deaths. A gastro-intestinal bacterium transmitted by contaminated water, Cholera typically can kill in 1 to 5 days from severe diarrheal symptoms. The WHO reports that it is no longer an issue in countries where minimum hygiene standards are met, but there has been a surprising increase in incidences since 2005 with outbreaks primarily in Sudan, Angola, West Africa and Iraq. The cure is relatively simple, access to clean water and oral rehydration therapy and potentially a regime of antibiotics. In Zimbabwe, despite these obvious displays of ineptitude in governance, Mugabe refuses to leave claiming that “only God” can remove him from office. Umh, no… you’re an elected official.
On the opposite side of the economic spectrum, in the hallowed halls of multi-billion dollar finance, some of the richest citizens of the world woke up to a harsh reality on Monday morning. The Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Fund which required hundreds of thousands in minimum investment was discovered to be a Ponzi scheme - deals requiring an ever increasing number of people to buy in before the original investors can be paid out. The last individuals to buy-in are the one ones who lose.
These systems of investment have existed for some time (at least since 1920 when named after Charles Ponzi), and are quite easy to set-up. I promise to give people a 3x return on their buy-in. First I take $10 each from three people. In order for them to receive the return on their buy-in, they must now find nine people to get $10 each from. The system continues until no one wants to give $10. By then I am long gone.
Maddoff’s fund returned 9% continuously for over 15 years, and people fought to buy-in. The financial books were kept secret and separated from the rest of the funds under his name. His name cachet and consistent returns brought in the money, and no one probed too hard on how he was doing it. Caveat Emptor is the prevailing ethic here, we don’t need to feel bad for the investors being duped, they willingly engaged. But the self-interest of Madoff to siphon off billions is the breach in trust. Surprisingly, his downfall did not come from the diligence of investors, but because he admitted his scheme to his sons who reported him to the SEC in order to protect the family name.
Leaders should be doing what their name implies – leading the way in an ethical manner. We entrust them to make tough decisions and give them the benefit of the doubt that they have worked in the interest of the broader good when they make mistakes. In the case of these leaders, they have fallen so far in the esteem of the public, that they have lost any semblance of credibility. Even though they accomplished great things in their lives – freed a nation from imperialism, established the NASDAQ stock exchange – their current actions provide little redemption.
The truth is that our trust in leadership can’t be instilled, bought or required due solely to the reason that a person is in power. The ability to lead, like many things in life, must be proven everyday through intelligent and moral action. At a minimum, a leader deserves the same level of respect that we give to any other human being. If it is common behavior to throw a shoe at someone else you know, then why should George W. be any different? The reporter was not denigrating the Presidency, but the man holding the office. Any leader that demands to be respected for their position alone is the one that should be removed.
For Bush Jr, even before the incident in Iraq the administration seemed to be internalizing some lessons from their mistakes. They stated how they don’t want to be viewed as the Herbert Hoover administration – ineffectual and cronyistic – giving way to the grandeur of Roosevelt. Recently, the administration delivered talking points to their staff listing all the accomplishments over the past eight years. Projectile footwear are a pointed reminder how we all face the consequences of our choices.
Now that the people of Zimbabwe and the owners of Madoff Securities have fallen out of love with their leader, maybe they should start throwing their own proverbial shoes?
December 21, 2008
Thanks to Cephas Swamidoss for the idea of Mugabe and the epidemic
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Some thoughts on… Doubt
The three US automakers – General Motors, Ford and Chrysler – have again applied to Congress for funds to sustain operations. They claim without a government bailout they may need to shut down in about three months. GM employs about 340,000 people world-wide – almost 10 times the number of people that have been laid off by any one company at the financial institutions. Shutting down these companies would be a severe punch to an already hobbled economy.
For this second visit to DC, the proposed revisions to the business model are more detailed, and the extravagant arrogance previously displayed by the leadership is tempered. Instead of arriving in private jets, the CEO’s drove to DC in their most innovative products and have volunteered to accept a token salary of $1.00. With the rejection by the Senate of the bailout, President Bush has promised a temporary relief to the companies – demonstrating once again his own failure to lead his party.
The US automobile industry which was once a pinnacle of innovation, style and ingenuity, has in the past few decades transformed into a dinosaur. The company has been unable to adapt to the changing consumer landscape – fuel efficient and smaller cars with great design – and to strip the burden of costly wages for their workers. Sustaining these dinosaurs takes a large amount of resource, and there is no doubt, that it will be painful for the local workers, the state economy and the prestige of the country if these companies fail.
There are arguments that even though failure of these companies will have impacts on the broader economy, we are essentially a services-driven country now, and it is time to give up this sector of manufacturing. There are also arguments for revamping and restructuring the industry which will take concessions from both management and workers.
Assuming that we can’t let these companies completely fail, is there a compelling reason that we should trust this management team with taxpayer money to conduct the restructuring? After all, this is the same set of people that made the decisions for the past few years that put the company into this mess in the first place. Why should we believe that they can create a turnaround when we have doubts around leadership’s capabilities?
The themes of misplaced trust and questionable character are explored in John Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt, which recently opened in movie theaters with Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. The original stage production with Cherry Jones and Brian F. O’Byrne, was a thrilling examination of how open questions constantly surround our lives. The head nun of a Catholic school in New York, begins to suspect that the Father’s interactions with one of the students is not appropriate. She has no evidence and is driven by her “convictions” to seek suspension of the priest who may or may not be guilty. A newly inducted nun torn around her viewpoint of the priest’s guilt and the child’s mother with a surprising argument in support of her son, are other major players complicating the viewer’s perspective.
The brilliance of the original stage play was that it provides no easy answers to the open questions. Is the priest really guilty of pedophilia? Is he just a caring soul whose actions are misinterpreted? Are the nun’s doubts of the Father’s character unfounded? Uncertainty lingers over the interactions as heavily as the emotion generated by the characters. The play ends with no clear resolution, no exposition on morality, no comfortable catharsis. In a world where uncertainty surrounds and engulfs our lives, the sin is not making the wrong decision, but not acting on our own convictions.
The bewildering hubris of Governor Blagojevich has raised the specter of dirty Chicago politics. In sharp contrast to the relatively clean campaign of Obama, the Governor’s actions to sell the President-Elect’s senate seat have disillusioned our renewed political hope. Blagojevich’s guilt seems indisputable and his reluctance to resign is contemptible. The uncertainty lies around the politicians that may have bid for the positions. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has been identified by the FBI as one of the potential bidders. His protestations of innocence seem too much. But given the specter of doubt around his character, instead of protesting, a better approach may be to clearly state what his interactions with the Governor has been.
Obama has called for the resignation of Blagojevich and is approaching the situation with the appropriate amount of distance and cooperation. Some strident voices in the GOP have tried to link Obama to the Governor’s actions. They may have doubts about his interactions, or they may be trying to build up a mole-hill. But the right course here is the one which is being taken – provide complete list of dealings between Obama’s staff and Blagojevich. The President-elect is demonstrating action according to his convictions, Jackson would do well to follow suit.
In the case of the CEO’s for the automobile industry, we’re not discussing the moral character of the CEO’s of the companies, but rather questioning their leadership capabilities. But perhaps in the face of the public’s doubt about their abilities, they can demonstrate both moral and leadership capabilities, by acting on their convictions.
The company heads seem to have the conviction that the auto industry can be restructured and made competitive, thus saving thousands of jobs and supporting the economy. If that is the case, then they should act on these convictions and secure the money needed to overhaul the companies. But then why not step aside and bring in a leadership team that can implement the changes needed? These individuals have not made these revisions in the past few years, why should we trust that they will be able to do so now with our public money. By removing their own ego from the equation and acting on these convictions, they also remove some doubt from the public’s mind of the potential success of a bailout.
December 14, 2008
For this second visit to DC, the proposed revisions to the business model are more detailed, and the extravagant arrogance previously displayed by the leadership is tempered. Instead of arriving in private jets, the CEO’s drove to DC in their most innovative products and have volunteered to accept a token salary of $1.00. With the rejection by the Senate of the bailout, President Bush has promised a temporary relief to the companies – demonstrating once again his own failure to lead his party.
The US automobile industry which was once a pinnacle of innovation, style and ingenuity, has in the past few decades transformed into a dinosaur. The company has been unable to adapt to the changing consumer landscape – fuel efficient and smaller cars with great design – and to strip the burden of costly wages for their workers. Sustaining these dinosaurs takes a large amount of resource, and there is no doubt, that it will be painful for the local workers, the state economy and the prestige of the country if these companies fail.
There are arguments that even though failure of these companies will have impacts on the broader economy, we are essentially a services-driven country now, and it is time to give up this sector of manufacturing. There are also arguments for revamping and restructuring the industry which will take concessions from both management and workers.
Assuming that we can’t let these companies completely fail, is there a compelling reason that we should trust this management team with taxpayer money to conduct the restructuring? After all, this is the same set of people that made the decisions for the past few years that put the company into this mess in the first place. Why should we believe that they can create a turnaround when we have doubts around leadership’s capabilities?
The themes of misplaced trust and questionable character are explored in John Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt, which recently opened in movie theaters with Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. The original stage production with Cherry Jones and Brian F. O’Byrne, was a thrilling examination of how open questions constantly surround our lives. The head nun of a Catholic school in New York, begins to suspect that the Father’s interactions with one of the students is not appropriate. She has no evidence and is driven by her “convictions” to seek suspension of the priest who may or may not be guilty. A newly inducted nun torn around her viewpoint of the priest’s guilt and the child’s mother with a surprising argument in support of her son, are other major players complicating the viewer’s perspective.
The brilliance of the original stage play was that it provides no easy answers to the open questions. Is the priest really guilty of pedophilia? Is he just a caring soul whose actions are misinterpreted? Are the nun’s doubts of the Father’s character unfounded? Uncertainty lingers over the interactions as heavily as the emotion generated by the characters. The play ends with no clear resolution, no exposition on morality, no comfortable catharsis. In a world where uncertainty surrounds and engulfs our lives, the sin is not making the wrong decision, but not acting on our own convictions.
The bewildering hubris of Governor Blagojevich has raised the specter of dirty Chicago politics. In sharp contrast to the relatively clean campaign of Obama, the Governor’s actions to sell the President-Elect’s senate seat have disillusioned our renewed political hope. Blagojevich’s guilt seems indisputable and his reluctance to resign is contemptible. The uncertainty lies around the politicians that may have bid for the positions. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has been identified by the FBI as one of the potential bidders. His protestations of innocence seem too much. But given the specter of doubt around his character, instead of protesting, a better approach may be to clearly state what his interactions with the Governor has been.
Obama has called for the resignation of Blagojevich and is approaching the situation with the appropriate amount of distance and cooperation. Some strident voices in the GOP have tried to link Obama to the Governor’s actions. They may have doubts about his interactions, or they may be trying to build up a mole-hill. But the right course here is the one which is being taken – provide complete list of dealings between Obama’s staff and Blagojevich. The President-elect is demonstrating action according to his convictions, Jackson would do well to follow suit.
In the case of the CEO’s for the automobile industry, we’re not discussing the moral character of the CEO’s of the companies, but rather questioning their leadership capabilities. But perhaps in the face of the public’s doubt about their abilities, they can demonstrate both moral and leadership capabilities, by acting on their convictions.
The company heads seem to have the conviction that the auto industry can be restructured and made competitive, thus saving thousands of jobs and supporting the economy. If that is the case, then they should act on these convictions and secure the money needed to overhaul the companies. But then why not step aside and bring in a leadership team that can implement the changes needed? These individuals have not made these revisions in the past few years, why should we trust that they will be able to do so now with our public money. By removing their own ego from the equation and acting on these convictions, they also remove some doubt from the public’s mind of the potential success of a bailout.
December 14, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Some thoughts on… Keeping Friends Close
Thanksgiving is one of the first National holidays instituted to appreciate all that we have and a time to be with friends and family. With Eid al-Adha also falling near this period we can be doubly thankful. The Muslim holiday is one of the holiest of the year, and commemorates Abraham’s potential sacrifice of his son Ishmael (as different from Isaac in the Bible). The day comes at the end of the Hajj pilgrimage and is spent with friends and family.
Unfortunately, the Mumbai bombings and hostage situation were a rude beginning to the Thanksgiving weekend. During this holiday period, the discord between India and Pakistan is especially rancorous. Our sympathy for both the families affected and the lives lost is a sobering reminder that we should not take for granted our loved ones.
In the wake of the crisis, India has obliquely blamed Pakistan for supporting the radical group, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Condeleeza Rice in her remaining days to uphold a failed foreign policy has flown to the region to broker peace. The terrorists tarnish the name of Islam, and there may be some truth in India blaming Pakistan as a source of support for the terrorists. For some time, the United States has remained close with countries supporting a more conservative version of Islam, e.g. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while distancing “enemies” like Iran. It may be high time to re-evaluate who we call friends.
But instead of casting aspersions which may lead to greater strife between India and Pakistan and may generate turmoil domestically, what can we and India learn about keeping our adversaries closer than our friends?
The Obama administration has demonstrated vision and strategy in its choices around the cabinet and senior officials. In an attempt to encompass contrasting perspective in order to hear unconventional voices, Obama has selected friends and rivals as his advisors. Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce - both major contenders for the Democratic Nominee position– are symbols of bringing together a fractured party. Choosing Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary and Lawrence Summers for head of National Economic Council, demonstrates a preference to fill positions with intelligence and excellence over cronyism. While maintaining Robert Gates as Defense Secretary exhibits a willingness to reach across the aisle and continue a steady hand on the rudder. By calling for Senator Joe Lieberman to remain the chair of Homeland Security and Government Reform, Obama has shown decency and astuteness – converting someone who actively campaigned against him into an ally.
People have asked if these choices really represent sufficient “change” given Obama’s platform during the election. Of course they do. We want smart people who know how to run a government at this time of crisis. The change is reflected in the caliber of the individuals chosen and the fact that the advisors are selected to provide conflicting and challenging perspectives on the direction of the country. These choices are significantly improved to the previous administration’s, where the inner circle contained a group of friends and allies who were “yes-men”. From failed FEMA Director Michael D. Brown who “misunderstimated” the effects of Hurricane Katrina to the nomination of his personal lawyer Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush never showed an ability to learn from rivals and opposing voices.
Gus van Sant’s newest movie Milk depicts the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person to be elected to a major public office. Sean Penn is thrilling in the title role, imbuing the flawed character with passion, wit and reflection. Penn is destined to receive an academy award nomination for the portrayal. Harvey Milk’s election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was an opportunity for an unheard and mistreated minority to engage in city politics. The movie reveals Milk’s rise and his eventual entanglement with rival, Dan White who was also elected to the Board of Supervisors. Josh Brolin bristles as White, a staunchly conservative citizen from a blue-collar neighborhood in San Francisco.
The tight-laced White was a strong foil to the more flamboyant Milk. During the mid-1970’s, Milk toiled to defeat Proposition 6, a statewide measure to remove gay teachers from the school system. The Proposition was defeated. White recoiled at these attempts to maintain civil liberties, and resigned from the Supervisor position, but then later petitioned Mayor George Moscone to reinstate his position. At the urging of Milk and others, Moscone refused. In the end, White returned in secret to City Hall building and murdered both Milk and Mayor Moscone. Milk was never able to make White an ally, and though never an excuse for the subsequent events, it subsequently lead to a tragic outcome. One can argue that White though a rival to Milk is not really the enemy in the situation; the true enemies are the people campaigning for intolerance.
Similar to Milk/White, India and Pakistan have a common enemy – the people supporting intolerance. In the end, it is these insidious terrorists who play on the divisiveness of adversaries to achieve their own agenda. To overcome this treacherous cycle, is it not time for Pakistan to take responsibility and bring India closer through demonstrative action? We appreciate our loved ones this holiday season, but let’s also take the opportunity to treasure our rivals. In the end, they may help us more than we realize.
Unfortunately, the Mumbai bombings and hostage situation were a rude beginning to the Thanksgiving weekend. During this holiday period, the discord between India and Pakistan is especially rancorous. Our sympathy for both the families affected and the lives lost is a sobering reminder that we should not take for granted our loved ones.
In the wake of the crisis, India has obliquely blamed Pakistan for supporting the radical group, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Condeleeza Rice in her remaining days to uphold a failed foreign policy has flown to the region to broker peace. The terrorists tarnish the name of Islam, and there may be some truth in India blaming Pakistan as a source of support for the terrorists. For some time, the United States has remained close with countries supporting a more conservative version of Islam, e.g. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while distancing “enemies” like Iran. It may be high time to re-evaluate who we call friends.
But instead of casting aspersions which may lead to greater strife between India and Pakistan and may generate turmoil domestically, what can we and India learn about keeping our adversaries closer than our friends?
The Obama administration has demonstrated vision and strategy in its choices around the cabinet and senior officials. In an attempt to encompass contrasting perspective in order to hear unconventional voices, Obama has selected friends and rivals as his advisors. Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce - both major contenders for the Democratic Nominee position– are symbols of bringing together a fractured party. Choosing Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary and Lawrence Summers for head of National Economic Council, demonstrates a preference to fill positions with intelligence and excellence over cronyism. While maintaining Robert Gates as Defense Secretary exhibits a willingness to reach across the aisle and continue a steady hand on the rudder. By calling for Senator Joe Lieberman to remain the chair of Homeland Security and Government Reform, Obama has shown decency and astuteness – converting someone who actively campaigned against him into an ally.
People have asked if these choices really represent sufficient “change” given Obama’s platform during the election. Of course they do. We want smart people who know how to run a government at this time of crisis. The change is reflected in the caliber of the individuals chosen and the fact that the advisors are selected to provide conflicting and challenging perspectives on the direction of the country. These choices are significantly improved to the previous administration’s, where the inner circle contained a group of friends and allies who were “yes-men”. From failed FEMA Director Michael D. Brown who “misunderstimated” the effects of Hurricane Katrina to the nomination of his personal lawyer Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush never showed an ability to learn from rivals and opposing voices.
Gus van Sant’s newest movie Milk depicts the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person to be elected to a major public office. Sean Penn is thrilling in the title role, imbuing the flawed character with passion, wit and reflection. Penn is destined to receive an academy award nomination for the portrayal. Harvey Milk’s election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was an opportunity for an unheard and mistreated minority to engage in city politics. The movie reveals Milk’s rise and his eventual entanglement with rival, Dan White who was also elected to the Board of Supervisors. Josh Brolin bristles as White, a staunchly conservative citizen from a blue-collar neighborhood in San Francisco.
The tight-laced White was a strong foil to the more flamboyant Milk. During the mid-1970’s, Milk toiled to defeat Proposition 6, a statewide measure to remove gay teachers from the school system. The Proposition was defeated. White recoiled at these attempts to maintain civil liberties, and resigned from the Supervisor position, but then later petitioned Mayor George Moscone to reinstate his position. At the urging of Milk and others, Moscone refused. In the end, White returned in secret to City Hall building and murdered both Milk and Mayor Moscone. Milk was never able to make White an ally, and though never an excuse for the subsequent events, it subsequently lead to a tragic outcome. One can argue that White though a rival to Milk is not really the enemy in the situation; the true enemies are the people campaigning for intolerance.
Similar to Milk/White, India and Pakistan have a common enemy – the people supporting intolerance. In the end, it is these insidious terrorists who play on the divisiveness of adversaries to achieve their own agenda. To overcome this treacherous cycle, is it not time for Pakistan to take responsibility and bring India closer through demonstrative action? We appreciate our loved ones this holiday season, but let’s also take the opportunity to treasure our rivals. In the end, they may help us more than we realize.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Some thoughts on… The Kindness of Strangers
The pundits are predicting a prolonged effect on the economy of the mortgage crisis that first devolved into a monetary crunch and may now become a consumer credit fiasco. The swift systemic shutdown is reaching into every corner of the economy and the solutions of the current administration range from ineffectual to marginal. The non-existent leadership of W is more pronounced as his lame-duck nomenclature defines his final months as President – a broken wing and crestfallen face proceeding into oblivion.
Obama and the Democratic Congress are demonstrating a willingness to place a steady hand on the rudder. The US automobile industry is being asked to demonstrate how government funding would alter and improve their management practices. Government reassurances of a backing on funds, is preventing a run on Citibank despite the crashing stock.
A multitude of ideas are being offered – Refinance home mortgages, Buy back toxic mortgage-backed assets, Create a public works program rivaling the Great Depression. But can the US government really solve this problem by itself?
For the past half-century, the US has been at the top of its game – the largest economy, highest worker productivity, superior graduate education. Generations of immigrants found their way to a country that promised hard work and entrepreneurship would lead to a better life. Perhaps not permanently, but now that position is compromised.
China this week offered assistance to the US to aid in the crisis. China?!? The totalitarian, communist country which only three decades ago could barely feed its billion plus population? The country of melamine in milk, toxins in toothpaste, bird flu and lead paint on children’s toys? The country with the world’s highest savings rate, double-digit growth, the most successful Olympics? Whether you’re a Sinophile or Sinophobe the facts are undeniable – China with its large savings is in a better position than we are now.
The US could swallow its pride and accept the offers – which may also come from other corners of the world like Abu Dhabi or Russia. But do we really have to? These countries have historically not been our friends.
Pal Joey, a revival of the Rodgers-Hart musical based off the John O’Hara book is now playing at Studio 54. A studied example of late-Depression Chicago, Joey Evans is a second-rate stage performer and an unattractive character. He employs charm and cunning to use people for his own goals. Impregnating a chorus girl and then leaving her alone for the abortion; courting a new-comer from Minnesota only to swap her for a high-society woman of leisure; extracting funds from his sugar-mama to start-up his own nightclub, Joey pursues convenient choices at the expense of morality on his climb to stardom and riches.
Joey is not hesitant to use his acquaintances for his own good. And somehow folks fall under his spell and are willing to oblige, because he helps them as well. The show itself still in previews has not yet sparked. The characters provide strong performances – Stockard Channing wows as elder woman bewildered and bothered by the relationship; Christian Hoff from Jersey Boys is magnetic as the rakish title character. Yet the show moves like a variety show rather than a cohesive whole. This may change as it reaches opening night in December. Regardless, Joey remains the affable cad with whom people initially engage with a wary eye and yet inevitably become pals.
There are similar parallels in our lives. For Thanksgiving, we are going to see Klaus’ dad (Niels) and having turkey dinner with his friend, Joan and her family. Joan has been a great comfort for Niels since Klaus’ mom passed away. Her husband passed away five years ago, and the two have known each other for over thirty years. It’s difficult to imagine Niels with anyone except Klaus’ mom, but neither Klaus nor his sister live close enough to California to be with him on a daily basis. Joan provides companionship, empathy and intellectual challenge. She is not a replacement for Klaus’ mom and is a constant reminder that in times of need, solace can come from surprising corners.
It doesn’t make us a lesser person or a lesser country to receive assistance from others especially when we can’t accomplish something ourselves. Regardless of how much we like the person or how others will judge the situation, the support may prevent an even worse fate – bankruptcy, isolation, depression.
As a country, we should be cautious in any transaction and ensure that there is actual benefit down the line. But despite their shortcoming, can we really refuse their kindness? Beggars can’t be choosers.
Obama and the Democratic Congress are demonstrating a willingness to place a steady hand on the rudder. The US automobile industry is being asked to demonstrate how government funding would alter and improve their management practices. Government reassurances of a backing on funds, is preventing a run on Citibank despite the crashing stock.
A multitude of ideas are being offered – Refinance home mortgages, Buy back toxic mortgage-backed assets, Create a public works program rivaling the Great Depression. But can the US government really solve this problem by itself?
For the past half-century, the US has been at the top of its game – the largest economy, highest worker productivity, superior graduate education. Generations of immigrants found their way to a country that promised hard work and entrepreneurship would lead to a better life. Perhaps not permanently, but now that position is compromised.
China this week offered assistance to the US to aid in the crisis. China?!? The totalitarian, communist country which only three decades ago could barely feed its billion plus population? The country of melamine in milk, toxins in toothpaste, bird flu and lead paint on children’s toys? The country with the world’s highest savings rate, double-digit growth, the most successful Olympics? Whether you’re a Sinophile or Sinophobe the facts are undeniable – China with its large savings is in a better position than we are now.
The US could swallow its pride and accept the offers – which may also come from other corners of the world like Abu Dhabi or Russia. But do we really have to? These countries have historically not been our friends.
Pal Joey, a revival of the Rodgers-Hart musical based off the John O’Hara book is now playing at Studio 54. A studied example of late-Depression Chicago, Joey Evans is a second-rate stage performer and an unattractive character. He employs charm and cunning to use people for his own goals. Impregnating a chorus girl and then leaving her alone for the abortion; courting a new-comer from Minnesota only to swap her for a high-society woman of leisure; extracting funds from his sugar-mama to start-up his own nightclub, Joey pursues convenient choices at the expense of morality on his climb to stardom and riches.
Joey is not hesitant to use his acquaintances for his own good. And somehow folks fall under his spell and are willing to oblige, because he helps them as well. The show itself still in previews has not yet sparked. The characters provide strong performances – Stockard Channing wows as elder woman bewildered and bothered by the relationship; Christian Hoff from Jersey Boys is magnetic as the rakish title character. Yet the show moves like a variety show rather than a cohesive whole. This may change as it reaches opening night in December. Regardless, Joey remains the affable cad with whom people initially engage with a wary eye and yet inevitably become pals.
There are similar parallels in our lives. For Thanksgiving, we are going to see Klaus’ dad (Niels) and having turkey dinner with his friend, Joan and her family. Joan has been a great comfort for Niels since Klaus’ mom passed away. Her husband passed away five years ago, and the two have known each other for over thirty years. It’s difficult to imagine Niels with anyone except Klaus’ mom, but neither Klaus nor his sister live close enough to California to be with him on a daily basis. Joan provides companionship, empathy and intellectual challenge. She is not a replacement for Klaus’ mom and is a constant reminder that in times of need, solace can come from surprising corners.
It doesn’t make us a lesser person or a lesser country to receive assistance from others especially when we can’t accomplish something ourselves. Regardless of how much we like the person or how others will judge the situation, the support may prevent an even worse fate – bankruptcy, isolation, depression.
As a country, we should be cautious in any transaction and ensure that there is actual benefit down the line. But despite their shortcoming, can we really refuse their kindness? Beggars can’t be choosers.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Some thoughts on… Keeping up with the Jones
As the world economy grows dimmer and enters into a gloomy Holiday season, in the US we are still basking in the enduring rays of a historic election. The country has a black President-elect and can claim a moral high-ground once again.
From formal and informal polls, world-wide support for Obama is strong, and especially in Europe it is overwhelming.The EU support is sincere and appreciated, but is there an underlying hypocrisy to the sentiment? Similar to the South-Asian family that celebrates the marriage of their friends’ daughter to a black man and secretly prays that it never happens in their home, would any of the Big-5 European countries ever elect a non-white head of state?
A high-level glance at demographics shows the number and composition of the non-white population in the US is significantly larger than the other countries.Total Population in Millions (% of Population that is White)
UK - 60.8 M (84%)
France - 64.5 M (85%)
Spain - 40.5 M (94%)
Italy - 59.5 M (95%)
Germany -82.4 M (92%)
US - 305.7 M (68%)
Source: Government Census Projections
Evidently, the US can draw from a much larger ethnic population and has a much larger pool of talented, people of color. Presumably, once the non-indigenous groups in these other nations grow, a minority leader is bound to emerge. This reasoning is naïve, for the answer to the EU election question is not simply an availability of talented non-white people resident in these countries.
Within a major democracy, the possibility for electing a person from a minority group is precipitated by 1) the willingness and urge of a person to take on such a position, and 2) the means that the society provides to achieve the goal. The cultural landscape provides some insight into these two criteria. Billy Elliott: The Musical is a new Broadway show that captures the joy of the original movie and plays it out to the music of Elton John. Set during the harsh days of the Miner’s Strike of 1984 in a Northern England town, the show describes the story of an 11-year old growing up in a generations-old, coal-mining family. The recent loss of his mother, the deteriorating state of the town’s economic situation, and the slow break-down of his own family are harsh realities of his upbringing. But Billy is uplifted by an internal inspiration – his desire to dance – and he secretly joins ballet class at the community center.
His talent is undeniable and the show unspools to resolve the central conflict: a dream of attending the Royal Ballet School balanced by the need to first convince his miner family and then escape from the embittered landscape of a community that rarely steps outside of its own borders. The show delights in the idiosyncrasies of small-town dynamics – the communal warmth, the disregard for change, the hidden pride for those who succeed outside. In the end, Billy’s dreams are realized through the support of the entire town that breaks its own stereotypes in recognition of a true gift.
The trippy, unswerving and intoxicating film Slumdog Millionaire is a unique invention of cultural globalization. Jamal is a child from the slums of Mumbai, growing up in the accelerating world of modern India. We meet him as a contestant on the Hindi Who Wants to be a Millionaire? This uneducated slumdog has somehow managed to answer a succession of questions that could win him the contest. Has he cheated? Is he just lucky? Or is it written?
The movie swirls through the world of literally rags-to-riches India. Dev Patel portrays the hero with an engrossing earnestness that draws the audience into the stories he relates. Even as he is being challenged by the police, the show’s producers, and life in general, Jamal relentlessly pursues his drive to win and thus gain the heart of his life’s love.
In the US, we thrive on tales of the underdog overcoming adversity to achieve an unattainable goal. It is our folklore, our ethic. The fundamental morality feeds an urge to succeed and sets up the enabling mechanisms. It is a positive reinforcement cycle – the more we enable disenfranchised youth to succeed, the more the younger generation takes on leadership roles, the more the country benefits. You can be anything you want to be in the States. The systems are not perfect, but they seem to be further evolved than our counter-parts across the Atlantic.
Europe has missed this cycle, and likely will not catch up for decades. A nascent ethnic population that feels unheard and disconnected from the center of power; a political system composed of closed doors and willful separation; and a lack of population diversity all lead to one too many hurdles to overcome.
Maybe we need to look to the emerging democracies of India and Brazil with their relatively diverse populations to keep up with the American Jones’ and set a similar example of political leadership?
From formal and informal polls, world-wide support for Obama is strong, and especially in Europe it is overwhelming.The EU support is sincere and appreciated, but is there an underlying hypocrisy to the sentiment? Similar to the South-Asian family that celebrates the marriage of their friends’ daughter to a black man and secretly prays that it never happens in their home, would any of the Big-5 European countries ever elect a non-white head of state?
A high-level glance at demographics shows the number and composition of the non-white population in the US is significantly larger than the other countries.Total Population in Millions (% of Population that is White)
UK - 60.8 M (84%)
France - 64.5 M (85%)
Spain - 40.5 M (94%)
Italy - 59.5 M (95%)
Germany -82.4 M (92%)
US - 305.7 M (68%)
Source: Government Census Projections
Evidently, the US can draw from a much larger ethnic population and has a much larger pool of talented, people of color. Presumably, once the non-indigenous groups in these other nations grow, a minority leader is bound to emerge. This reasoning is naïve, for the answer to the EU election question is not simply an availability of talented non-white people resident in these countries.
Within a major democracy, the possibility for electing a person from a minority group is precipitated by 1) the willingness and urge of a person to take on such a position, and 2) the means that the society provides to achieve the goal. The cultural landscape provides some insight into these two criteria. Billy Elliott: The Musical is a new Broadway show that captures the joy of the original movie and plays it out to the music of Elton John. Set during the harsh days of the Miner’s Strike of 1984 in a Northern England town, the show describes the story of an 11-year old growing up in a generations-old, coal-mining family. The recent loss of his mother, the deteriorating state of the town’s economic situation, and the slow break-down of his own family are harsh realities of his upbringing. But Billy is uplifted by an internal inspiration – his desire to dance – and he secretly joins ballet class at the community center.
His talent is undeniable and the show unspools to resolve the central conflict: a dream of attending the Royal Ballet School balanced by the need to first convince his miner family and then escape from the embittered landscape of a community that rarely steps outside of its own borders. The show delights in the idiosyncrasies of small-town dynamics – the communal warmth, the disregard for change, the hidden pride for those who succeed outside. In the end, Billy’s dreams are realized through the support of the entire town that breaks its own stereotypes in recognition of a true gift.
The trippy, unswerving and intoxicating film Slumdog Millionaire is a unique invention of cultural globalization. Jamal is a child from the slums of Mumbai, growing up in the accelerating world of modern India. We meet him as a contestant on the Hindi Who Wants to be a Millionaire? This uneducated slumdog has somehow managed to answer a succession of questions that could win him the contest. Has he cheated? Is he just lucky? Or is it written?
The movie swirls through the world of literally rags-to-riches India. Dev Patel portrays the hero with an engrossing earnestness that draws the audience into the stories he relates. Even as he is being challenged by the police, the show’s producers, and life in general, Jamal relentlessly pursues his drive to win and thus gain the heart of his life’s love.
In the US, we thrive on tales of the underdog overcoming adversity to achieve an unattainable goal. It is our folklore, our ethic. The fundamental morality feeds an urge to succeed and sets up the enabling mechanisms. It is a positive reinforcement cycle – the more we enable disenfranchised youth to succeed, the more the younger generation takes on leadership roles, the more the country benefits. You can be anything you want to be in the States. The systems are not perfect, but they seem to be further evolved than our counter-parts across the Atlantic.
Europe has missed this cycle, and likely will not catch up for decades. A nascent ethnic population that feels unheard and disconnected from the center of power; a political system composed of closed doors and willful separation; and a lack of population diversity all lead to one too many hurdles to overcome.
Maybe we need to look to the emerging democracies of India and Brazil with their relatively diverse populations to keep up with the American Jones’ and set a similar example of political leadership?
Some thoughts on… Raising Expectations
What a historic moment! America has elected a President who has brought back pride and honor to the position. And the vote was overwhelming. A global love affair with the Commander in Chief has begun and is moving past the honeymoon stage to the recognition of day to day realities. The cabinet is being chosen and key decisions on the economy are being conducted. The haste is appropriate, and expectations are high for a Chief of State who by many (present company included) is seen as a ray of light in the darkening gloom.
But why are we raising our expectations of what can be accomplished? We know that the Chief Legislator can never complete all that needs to be done to get out of our current mess.
An expectation is defined as the situation that is most likely to happen. Upon the election (and subsequent re-election) of W. it seemed our goals of what a President could achieve were lowered to an unfathomable level and then were celebrated as accomplishments
- Osama bin Laden couldn’t be captured (mission accomplished)
- We could conduct a war in Iraq and be hated by the world (mission accomplished)
- An all-time high fiscal surplus could be turned into a fiscal deficit (mission accomplished)
- Prisoners could be detained without civil liberties and publicly humiliated (mission accomplished)
- Spending on education and health care could be dramatically reduced (mission accomplished)
And we as Americans allowed this to happen. We protested but we didn’t demand a higher level of accountability. We saw this gradual decline as inevitable, unmovable, or inherent. We implicitly conspired and collectively lowered our expectations of Government.
Outside of my parents, two family figures influenced me significantly while I was growing up. The first was my paternal grandfather. A gentle soul he taught me many things during our trips to Bangladesh – how to go shopping in the fresh vegetable market with mud up to my ankles; how to hold a chicken while its head was chopped off; how to haggle with a motor-taxi; how to play gin rummy like a pro. He was also a scholar who received a Masters degree from the US back in the 1940’s when it was rare for people to leave Bangladesh. His clothes were impeccable when he was young, he had a sweet tooth and loved good food, and with my grandmother he raised my father and five siblings through the separation of Pakistan from India and Bangladesh from Pakistan.
His tutelage was gentle and always pushed the borders. If I was scared to hold the chicken upside down (so that blood would rush to its head and it wouldn’t squirm as much), he would initially hold it with me and eventually let go. If I was hesitant in the muddy streets, he would walk ahead to show me the dry path. When I made a stupid mistake with the cards, he would point it out and then let me play again. His challenges for me were high, and he always expected me to attain them. In his youth, he had won two gold medals in mathematics. One was stolen by the Pakistani soldiers during Bangladesh separation, the other he promised to give to me if I excelled in school. It made me study my Advanced Calculus in the hot heat of a Dhaka summer even harder.
My mother’s eldest brother, passed away this last week. Her father died when my mom was five years old, and my uncle took the responsibility of running the extended family in Assam which included five other brothers. Our visits to Assam were as frequent as to Dhaka, every two years, and Goalpara, India was definitely more fun to visit. The family lived in a remote town and the houses were on a large expanse of land which was the communal plot. Life was slower and much safer there, and so it was easy to spend time just talking the day away.
Avuncular, knowledgeable, and sometimes strict, my uncle would quiz me on various topics of interest – How does a computer work? Why does skin repair itself? Who just won Wimbledon? His style was inquisitive and platonic. He knew answers to many of the questions but he wanted me to express my viewpoint and learn himself. After every dialogue, in an earnest and strained voice he would say, “We have great expectations of you; You need to be a great man”. My boro mama (term for eldest maternal uncle in Bengali) didn’t study past college and primarily stayed in India, and yet he always demanded that we educate ourselves to the highest level possible. His message was revelatory and unwavering – push yourself and impact the world.
From them both I learned that setting high expectations is in many ways believing and loving the person. We don’t set high expectations for people who we don’t believe can accomplish them. Obama through the campaign has already cleared some high hurdles. He ran the most organized campaign in recorded history; he gathered more financial support than any other candidate through small and large donations; he came from behind to defeat the incumbent in the Democratic Party, Hilary, and then the incumbent party of the Presidency.
A half hour before his acceptance speech on Nov 4 and just after McCain had spoken, the Chief Diplomat - elect sent an email to his supporters thanking them for their hard work and giving them credit for the success. He also started a website (http://www.change.gov/page/content/americanmoment) soliciting suggestions to make the administration better.
Incredible! Transparent leadership? Participatory democracy? A humble Presidency? Why not set the expectations as high as possible again for the US?
Generate the most Nobel Prizes of any country
Assume the role of financial lender of last resort
Maintain the best academic institutions in the world that are a magnet for the brightest talent
Provide basic health care to all residents
Increase dependence on sustainable energy resources
Regain stature for global, moral leadership
Preserve the dollar as the currency of the world
Incent the most innovative industries and patents
Provide humanitarian assistance to the world’s needs
We should not only expect this of our government and our Chief Executive – we need to demand it. It is unacceptable that we have set our own sights so low that we say it is a success when a vice-presidential candidate can get through a debate without making a fool of herself.
The higher we aspire the more we lift ourselves as a nation to the challenge of achieving the goals. What do we have to lose? If we don’t attain our ambitions, we will have at least reached higher, and can we really be any more disappointed than we have been for the past 8 years?
Some thoughts on... Restoring Faith
In the UK as in the States, the biggest topic of discussion is the Presidential election. There is an overwhelming support for Obama, and his rise to the top position is viewed as a means of rebuilding international respectability. Similar to people supporting Barack in America, they see him as a person who will re-establish a multi-lateral approach to world engagement rather than pursue the forced unilateralism approach of an unchecked super-power prevalent over the past eight years.
But are we placing undue hope on the shoulders of one skinny, black man?
Three of the hottest shows on Broadway and the West End are touching on this theme of faith lost and restored in the face of questionable moral choices. They provide some answers to this question.
Zorro the Musical interweaves the music of the Gypsy Kings around the classic story of a wayward swordsman jousting for justice in the California colonies of Spain. Diego (Zorro) is brought up with Ramon as his brother. Ramon diverges to become a totalitarian dictator forcing the army he leads to exploit the pueblo population. Diego inspired by his father’s memory vows to fight against the injustice. As Zorro takes on the cruel regime, the awaiting and until now passive population follows in Zorro’s example to vanquish the oppressive leader. Without the example of an illuminating leader the people would not be inspired; without the repressive regime Zorro would not arise as a guiding light. To place hope on a leader’s shoulders we need to find ourselves in a situation which we can not get out of by ourselves.
All My Sons is one of the first plays by Arthur Miller, the Pulitzer Prize winning writer of Death of a Salesman and The Crucible. In the glorious glow of the 1950’s, a family is recovering from the death of a son during the WWII. The family’s older son discovers the father’s involvement in creating faulty airplane parts that may have resulted in the death of a squadron of airmen during the war. Mrs. Tom Cruise (Katie Holmes) flits about as the girlfriend of the dead son and the soon to be wife of the older brother. The rest of the cast bring gravitas to the play; Patrick Wilson betrayed by his father’s morals (John Lithgow) is wounded by the indirect sin. Dianne Wiest is the mother in denial trying to reconcile a fallen son against the egregious choices of a husband. Despite the love of his family, the elder son pushes aside his family allegiance to reject his father’s moral uncertainty. The younger generation’s questioning and refusal of the existing business and ethical code, brings catharsis to the players and the audience for the dreadful choices of a fallen man.
Christopher Shinn’s play Now or Later is almost too prescient and clever. On the eve of election night in the US, the democratic presidential nominee faces a quandary. His ivy-league, gay son just attended a campus Halloween party dressed as an unflattering Prophet Mohammed. The son holds his own moral judgments, and is trying to prove a point on freedom of expression around Islam. This heady mix of religion and politics challenges and resettles our own borders of cultural acceptance and personal fortitude. To what extent to do we impose our own cultural and religious beliefs on others? Few answers are provided by the play, but it provokes and enlightens the arguments from each side. The characters are forced to reckon with their actions, compromise on their staunch positions, and minimize their own egos by accepting that no issue is as black and white as we would wish,. In the end, settling on a middle-ground in political matters rather than sharp ideologue may be the only way to bring about change.
Could a person who provides inspiration, questioning and then a middle-ground be what we need to counter the uni-laterial views of a decrepit administration and restore our faith in the US system?
But are we placing undue hope on the shoulders of one skinny, black man?
Three of the hottest shows on Broadway and the West End are touching on this theme of faith lost and restored in the face of questionable moral choices. They provide some answers to this question.
Zorro the Musical interweaves the music of the Gypsy Kings around the classic story of a wayward swordsman jousting for justice in the California colonies of Spain. Diego (Zorro) is brought up with Ramon as his brother. Ramon diverges to become a totalitarian dictator forcing the army he leads to exploit the pueblo population. Diego inspired by his father’s memory vows to fight against the injustice. As Zorro takes on the cruel regime, the awaiting and until now passive population follows in Zorro’s example to vanquish the oppressive leader. Without the example of an illuminating leader the people would not be inspired; without the repressive regime Zorro would not arise as a guiding light. To place hope on a leader’s shoulders we need to find ourselves in a situation which we can not get out of by ourselves.
All My Sons is one of the first plays by Arthur Miller, the Pulitzer Prize winning writer of Death of a Salesman and The Crucible. In the glorious glow of the 1950’s, a family is recovering from the death of a son during the WWII. The family’s older son discovers the father’s involvement in creating faulty airplane parts that may have resulted in the death of a squadron of airmen during the war. Mrs. Tom Cruise (Katie Holmes) flits about as the girlfriend of the dead son and the soon to be wife of the older brother. The rest of the cast bring gravitas to the play; Patrick Wilson betrayed by his father’s morals (John Lithgow) is wounded by the indirect sin. Dianne Wiest is the mother in denial trying to reconcile a fallen son against the egregious choices of a husband. Despite the love of his family, the elder son pushes aside his family allegiance to reject his father’s moral uncertainty. The younger generation’s questioning and refusal of the existing business and ethical code, brings catharsis to the players and the audience for the dreadful choices of a fallen man.
Christopher Shinn’s play Now or Later is almost too prescient and clever. On the eve of election night in the US, the democratic presidential nominee faces a quandary. His ivy-league, gay son just attended a campus Halloween party dressed as an unflattering Prophet Mohammed. The son holds his own moral judgments, and is trying to prove a point on freedom of expression around Islam. This heady mix of religion and politics challenges and resettles our own borders of cultural acceptance and personal fortitude. To what extent to do we impose our own cultural and religious beliefs on others? Few answers are provided by the play, but it provokes and enlightens the arguments from each side. The characters are forced to reckon with their actions, compromise on their staunch positions, and minimize their own egos by accepting that no issue is as black and white as we would wish,. In the end, settling on a middle-ground in political matters rather than sharp ideologue may be the only way to bring about change.
Could a person who provides inspiration, questioning and then a middle-ground be what we need to counter the uni-laterial views of a decrepit administration and restore our faith in the US system?
Some thoughts on... Getting out of our Echo Room
An article in Klaus’ organizational behavior class discussed how we naturally gravitate towards people, locations, communities where we hear sentiments aligned with our own perspectives. We naturally step into these Echo Rooms and feel comfortable with the repeated voices and opinions that surround us. It validates our egos and is like harmonious music in the background.
With the Presidential campaign at full crescendo, I realized that in my own Echo Room, the Obama voices seem to be prevalent and overwhelming. The counter perspectives of course exist through the Wall Street Journal or Lou Dobbs on CNN, but it is easy to rationalize these voices away since they are not personalized.
Over the past few weeks though, I found myself in a position to listen to some dissonant perspectives. They were different from the familiar echoes, and they are paraphrased below. The person’s background and the setting provide a little more context.
1. “I voted for Bush twice, and believe he was a terrible President. But I am still
going to vote for McCain because Obama doesn’t have experience.” White woman in her mid-fifties with two kids, married to a retired pharmaceutical industry leader, and having drinks at Atlantic Grill in UES Manhattan, NY.
2. “It doesn’t matter if I vote for Obama, nothing is going to change”. White thirty-something man living in a predominantly Black neighborhood in South Philadelphia, PA.
3. “It feels like a coronation for Obama. He is new and I don’t trust him.” Thirty-year old Bengali-American living in the suburbs of Washington DC.
4. “McCain made a bad choice with Palin but he is still trustworthy”. White thirty something school-teacher living in Long Island, NY.
5. “I could vote for him if only his name were different”. White mid-fifties barman working in Sag Harbor, NY.
Hearing any of these arguments on the screen or print, I would have ready counter points to them. For (1) Obama has run the most well-organized campaign and has the best experts counseling him; (2) Well things can’t get much worse. (3) and (4) McCain’s choice for Palin reveals his poor, untrustworthy, and quixotic decision compared to Obama’s rigorous and well thought-out judgments; (5) His name is different but his background is not that different from John Smith.
But listening to the reasons in a one-on-one circumstance, forced me to reflect on the underlying concerns expressed here. It’s too easy to label all these folks as “biased” or “racist” – that’s not what is playing out. I think the issue is that they fear change – they are unwilling to embrace uncertainty.
These folks are not scared of a black man, they were obviously discussing the issue with me quite earnestly and openly. Instead they fear the unknown as expressed by Obama. Somehow an old, white man in the Oval Office provides more comfort that things won’t change that much; that we need to only make a 90 degree shift in our current policy direction rather than a 180 degree shift.
Many of us may not agree that the change in direction should only be 90 degrees, but fundamentally we can’t relieve these qualms through purely rational arguments. These folks are sending out an emotional call into their Echo Rooms that requires an equally emotional response. By providing a perspective of why change is OK or by sharing our own fears about Obama, we may be able to help the folks on the fence feel more comfortable with the differing viewpoint.
Is it perhaps better to change the sounds in a person’s Echo Room by making distinct and perceptible revisions that are still comfortable, rather than trying to jar them into submission? A rational argument is sometimes too discordant a response
With the Presidential campaign at full crescendo, I realized that in my own Echo Room, the Obama voices seem to be prevalent and overwhelming. The counter perspectives of course exist through the Wall Street Journal or Lou Dobbs on CNN, but it is easy to rationalize these voices away since they are not personalized.
Over the past few weeks though, I found myself in a position to listen to some dissonant perspectives. They were different from the familiar echoes, and they are paraphrased below. The person’s background and the setting provide a little more context.
1. “I voted for Bush twice, and believe he was a terrible President. But I am still
going to vote for McCain because Obama doesn’t have experience.” White woman in her mid-fifties with two kids, married to a retired pharmaceutical industry leader, and having drinks at Atlantic Grill in UES Manhattan, NY.
2. “It doesn’t matter if I vote for Obama, nothing is going to change”. White thirty-something man living in a predominantly Black neighborhood in South Philadelphia, PA.
3. “It feels like a coronation for Obama. He is new and I don’t trust him.” Thirty-year old Bengali-American living in the suburbs of Washington DC.
4. “McCain made a bad choice with Palin but he is still trustworthy”. White thirty something school-teacher living in Long Island, NY.
5. “I could vote for him if only his name were different”. White mid-fifties barman working in Sag Harbor, NY.
Hearing any of these arguments on the screen or print, I would have ready counter points to them. For (1) Obama has run the most well-organized campaign and has the best experts counseling him; (2) Well things can’t get much worse. (3) and (4) McCain’s choice for Palin reveals his poor, untrustworthy, and quixotic decision compared to Obama’s rigorous and well thought-out judgments; (5) His name is different but his background is not that different from John Smith.
But listening to the reasons in a one-on-one circumstance, forced me to reflect on the underlying concerns expressed here. It’s too easy to label all these folks as “biased” or “racist” – that’s not what is playing out. I think the issue is that they fear change – they are unwilling to embrace uncertainty.
These folks are not scared of a black man, they were obviously discussing the issue with me quite earnestly and openly. Instead they fear the unknown as expressed by Obama. Somehow an old, white man in the Oval Office provides more comfort that things won’t change that much; that we need to only make a 90 degree shift in our current policy direction rather than a 180 degree shift.
Many of us may not agree that the change in direction should only be 90 degrees, but fundamentally we can’t relieve these qualms through purely rational arguments. These folks are sending out an emotional call into their Echo Rooms that requires an equally emotional response. By providing a perspective of why change is OK or by sharing our own fears about Obama, we may be able to help the folks on the fence feel more comfortable with the differing viewpoint.
Is it perhaps better to change the sounds in a person’s Echo Room by making distinct and perceptible revisions that are still comfortable, rather than trying to jar them into submission? A rational argument is sometimes too discordant a response
Some Thoughts on... Liberal Elitism
A message to my cousin:
It was so good to see you on Eid and to debate the Presidential campaign. You know that you should support and vote for who you think and feel will be the best candidate to lead the nation over the next few years, whether that is McCain or Obama. The point that worried me the most about your arguments wasn't directly around the candidates, but your use of the word "elite" with a negative connotation to describe liberals who may be supporting Obama.
The word elite is being used a lot in the media and there are many meanings that are floating around. The three definitions that I think are most relevant to describe a person who is elite are:
1. Someone who is a high achiever – athletes, artists, scientists, writers, academics. Almost any one who excels at what they do can be put in this category. I think the use of elite for these people is appropriate and should not have a negative meaning. For example, the Navy Seals are an elite arm of the military since they are high achievers and strive for excellence.
2. Someone who looks down on others. These people are also known as snobs. This is not a good thing.
3. Someone who wants to preserve inequality or differences. In the 50's, the "white elite" in the South tried hard to repress the rights of different races. These people are inherently snobs by definition since they look down on other people.
Taking these definitions, I want to point out three ways how the conservative media and some politicians are actually intertwining these different definitions to create a confused use of the word "elite".
First, you are elite under the first definition, and that is not a bad thing. You are intelligent and intuitive and have had a world-class education. An elite achiever is not necessarily a snob or someone who wants to preserve inequality. The negative media around the word elite has created this Catch-22 trap where people who are achievers feel that they need to hide their accomplishments in order to be "Joe Six-Pack". This focus in the end only encourages mediocrity. People should not be snobbish about their achievements, and people who do achieve have an obligation to help those who do not achieve as high.
Second, people have equated Obama and sometimes the organizations, newspapers and academics that support him as elitest. These people are mixing the first and second definition of elite. Obama and some of his supporters (the New York Times, Robert Reich, Thomas Friedman, etc) are all high achievers. But that does not mean they are snobs! Obama in particular is working very hard to support working-class voters who may not be high achievers but should receive support nonetheless.
The third point is that it is actually the Republican party that historically has been the elite party under the third definition – because their mandate is to preserve the status quo and preserve inequality. It's funny that conservative politicians, like Karl Rove and Michael Bennett, have been using the word "elite" as a negative word against liberals, when it is the GOP that historically has looked down on other classes/ people. At the Republican convention this year less than 10 percent of the delegates were people of color (an all time low). The rest were white Americans. This is not a true representation of America, and I think it reflects the fact that these folks are ones that are looking for ways to preserve an "old" lifestyle which is long gone – and to preserve it at the expense of others.
I would recommend you to use your definitions of the word "elite" carefully, especially, if you are voting for McCain. He is a person who was not an excellent student, does not go to church on a regular basis, comes from a very well off and rich background, and supports many policies that preserve the status quo and would continue to preserve inequality. All characteristics opposite of Obama. I am constantly amazed how the negative use of the word "elite" keeps coming back to portray Obama in this campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)