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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)