Dispatches from the "He's not my president" Department

ABC/Chicago

Clinton impeachment was retaliation for Nixon, says retiring congressman

Republican Congressman Henry Hyde made some surprising comments Thursday on the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton...

The veteran DuPage County congressman acknowledged that Republicans went after Clinton in part to enact revenge against the Democrats for impeaching President Richard Nixon 25 years earlier.

Andy Shaw asked Hyde if the Clinton proceedings were payback for Nixon's impeachment.

"I can't say it wasn't, but I also thought that the Republican party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty, our responsibility," said Hyde.

I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me. There was a time I liked Henry Hyde. Even made ads to help get him some of his better ideas about protection of 3rd and 4th Amendment Rights passed, despite the best efforts of his wacked-out brethren...



Yeah, I wrote/created that. And others. But Hyde lost me that same year when a Blue Dress became a bloody shirt for his gang of House Managers, all of them all the while knowing what thin ice Hyde and many others who shall remain nameless (but probably not for long), were standing.

I don't mind people of less than perfect character because then I'd have to not like myself. I'd also have no clients. But I never trust anyone who measures others up for a coffin with their own busted ruler. Those people make my R-Complex wind up like a turbine. They make me wanna fight. And I like fights, and I'm good at it, and I don't like that in myself.

Good luck, Henry. The rest is what you make of it.

BusinessWeek dives in a crowded pool to explain yet another newfangled tech thingy to the laggards of the flashing 12:00 crowd. There are a few bits of candid self-awareness...

Friday 10:46 a.m. The question came up at a panel discussion last week: Any chance that a blog bubble could pop? The answer is really easy: no.

At least not an investment bubble. Venture firms financed only $60 million in blog startups last year, according to industry tracker VentureOne. Chump change compared to the $19.9 billion that poured into dot-coms in 1999. The difference is that while dot-coms promised to make loads of money, blogs flex their power mostly by disrupting the status quo.

The bigger point, which is blindingly obvious when you think about it, is that the dot-com era was powered by companies -- complete with programmers, marketing budgets, Aeron chairs, and burn rates. The masses of bloggers, by contrast, are normal folks with computers: no budget, no business plan, no burn rate, and -- that's right -- no bubble.

The role of the blog startups is to build tools for this grassroots uprising. Six Apart, a four-year-old San Francisco company, leads in blog software. Technorati and PubSub Concepts are battling it out in blog search. The founders all insist that they plan to remain independent. But if recent history is any guide, most of them will wind up in the bellies of the blog-minded Internet giants -- led by Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. The latest to disappear was Flickr. A photo-sharing service that spread madly across the blog world, 13-month-old Flickr was still running its software in its beta, or testing, phase when it was acquired by Yahoo in March for an undisclosed sum. Caterina Fake, Flickr's co-founder, wrote about the deal in her blog the day it happened: "Don't forget to breathe. It's not the end, it's the beginning."

I'll have to keep an eye on this "Blogg" thing. Seems awfully unstructured and hard to monetize, tho.

Your logo here

Another Worth1000 Photoshop extravaganza. (78 entries besides Mohandas K. Pret-a-porter.)



Question is, "Will Apple sue?"

The Golden Trampoline. Part I

NYT

The top three executives at Viacom Inc. received total compensation last year valued at about $52 million to $56 million each in salary, bonus and stock options, the company disclosed yesterday.

The three officers - the chief executive, Sumner M. Redstone, and the co-presidents, Tom Freston and Leslie Moonves - received a total of $160 million. Viacom filed documents disclosing the compensation with the Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday, [Friday,] after the market closed.

"The compensation is beyond breathtaking, and it dwarfs what their competitors are earning," a longtime compensation specialist, Brian Foley, said.

"If any one of the men had gotten that payment as chief executive, it would still have been a story, but the fact that all three got it is amazing."

A Viacom spokesman, Carl Folta, said the overall compensation was "based on the operating performance of the company, and that was excellent in 2004." While Viacom's share price declined 18 percent last year, Mr. Folta said the compensation "was not based on the stock price."

...Last month, in a move aimed at increasing the value of the depressed stock, Viacom said that it was considering splitting itself into two public companies with Mr. Moonves at the helm of one company and Mr. Freston running the other. Splitting the company could lead to the compensation of the two executives being refigured yet again...

....Explaining the bonuses, the company documents pointed to "the overall position of the company's businesses at the end of the year," as well as the "successful transitioning" as justification for their bonuses.

A longtime compensation expert, Graef Crystal, said, "Sumner certainly qualifies for the 'unclear on the concept award' contest for paying himself $55.9 million in a year when the company lost $17.5 billion."

"Even though Viacom's operating income rose," Mr. Crystal said, " it still wrote off billions in noncash charges."

Yes, the emphasis is mine. More on the trampoline to come.

Bill Frist's going to a brimstone BBQ

But those Unitarians are havin' a gee-hawd!

SF Chron

...Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions. Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!

People of the United States, why is everyone yelling at you??? Whatever happened to ... you know, everything? Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea? Sister Immaculate Dagger of Peace notes for the record that we mean no disrespect to Jews, Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Referred back to the committee of the whole for further discussion...

More? Or is it less? Who cares, it's funny. For wobegon culture warriors and other tellers of Ole and Nina jokes, saddle up your spiritual Saxon with the Unitarian Jihad Name Generator.

Me? I now signify as your ever-humble servant: Brother Neutron Bomb of Love and Mercy; Gatling Gun of Desirable Mindfulness.

Amen, and pass the lutefisk.

Business' Bonehead Management threat to national security?

GM and Ford are national security risks
The car makers are way behind when it comes to building fuel-efficient cars, and they're fighting rule changes for better gas mileage. This leaves U.S. consumers sending money to the Middle East for oil, or to Japan for hybrids.

Scott Burns - Dallas Morning News [sign up - free]

Nearly 35 years ago, General Motors Corp. asked a consulting firm to examine a problem.

Imported cars, mostly Japanese, had captured 25 percent of the California car market. GM management was worried. The Big Three still had 90 percent of the national market, but top brass at GM saw California as the future.

So the study was done.

Today, General Motors' market share is down to 25 percent nationally. The Big Three have seen their share shrink to 57 percent.

Our domestic automakers, including Ford and Chrysler, have lacked foresight and innovation for so long that they are now fighting to hold market share in the big categories essential for survival: midsize cars, sport utility vehicles and minivans.

Management will blame this on intractable labor costs. Although labor costs are definitely a problem, it's time to consider a larger problem: Intractable Bonehead Management.

The same Japanese managers derided for their conformity and slow decision-making are eating Detroit's breakfast, lunch and dinner. That's a management problem.

Today, GM and Ford are well positioned to be dinosaurs. So is Chrysler. Worse, they are threats to national security.

How is this happening? Here are three main thrusts:

• The industry has consistently lobbied against any changes to the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency, or CAFE, rules, even as our dependence on imported energy has increased. The domestic carmakers talk about a global industry but have acted as though the United States was peculiarly immune to rising energy costs. One side effect is that domestic cars are unsuited for foreign markets because foreign markets are geared to fuel efficiency.

• The industry has focused its profitability on gas guzzlers that are supersized – like the Hummer H2 (10/13 mpg), the Lincoln Navigator (13/18 mpg), the Chevrolet Suburban (14/18 mpg) and the Cadillac Escalade ESV (13/17 mpg) – or on an array of super-muscle cars that are remarkably fuel-efficient relative to their forebears but still send plenty of money to the Middle East.

• Rather than innovate and invest in hybrid technology, as Toyota and Honda have done, the industry has repeatedly labeled the most successful car introduction in a decade as a "niche market" car. Ford, belatedly, is licensing Toyota technology for its first hybrid.

When fuel efficiency becomes crucial, American consumers will have two ugly choices: Send enormous amounts of money to the Middle East for oil or send enormous amounts of money to Japan for efficient cars.

Seems to be thread developing here. I've been sitting on a post about a recent fierce McKinsey Quarterly report saying that Corporate Directors think management are bonehads also. There's something for everybody: Sarbox haters and fans, Claw hammer haters and fans, Henry Kravis haters and fans, management haters and well, you get the picture. I'll put it up this weekend.

Seems BusinessWeek smells blood in the water also.

The Boss On The Sidelines
How auditors, directors, and lawyers are asserting their power

If anybody needed proof that the new balance of power in Corporate America has shifted, Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg provided it on Sunday, Mar. 13. While the imperious chairman and CEO of American International Group Inc. was holed up aboard his yacht on the Florida coast, his company's independent directors were packed into a conference room in their lawyer's Manhattan office. The board members faced an urgent crisis: a growing accounting scandal that seemed to lead straight to the CEO. As directors debated whether to cut Greenberg loose, the 79-year-old titan lashed out at them by telephone. "This board is being run by a bunch of lawyers who can't spell the word 'insurance,"' he shouted. "If you get rid of me, you will destroy this company!" It was the kind of intimidation that had helped Greenberg consolidate unprecedented power in his four decades at the helm of the insurer. But this time, the bullying didn't work. Within a day, Greenberg, once the most powerful man in the industry, was out as CEO. Two weeks later, as the scandal widened, he was forced to resign the chairmanship, too.

Hank, Hank, Hank. When you ask for a loan from American Re in the shape of 500 million bux to quiet shareholders and analysts about your dodgy loss reserves, that's not spelling "integrity" either. And it doesn't do much for shoring up the long-term health of the company. What color is the sky in your world?

Hubris? Gilded Age 2.0? Bubble Hangover? Yeah. All the above. And plenty of bad mojo, deserved and otherwise.
There's lots of good stuff if you follow the Bizweek link.

On the bus? Nah! On the Millennium Falcon...

Spooky Action

Throughout history, societies have developed tales of epic adventure to teach and inspire virtue and greatness among their peoples. Like the stories of the [Good to Great] companies, these tales begin with characters living normal, unremarkable lives in safe, well-defined comfort zones. Then, unexpectedly, the comfort zone is destroyed, usually by the intrusion of actors in a larger conflict. One of these actors (the mentor) reveals the nature of this larger conflict to the would-be heroes, and recruits them to play a pivotal role in resolving the conflict.

The initial reaction to this request is usually a combination of disbelief, denial, and refusal to participate in the larger conflict. But the mentor eventually succeeds in convincing the characters to pursue the fantastic quest. The heros then embark, with help and guidance of the mentor, on a series of challenges and encounters with allies and enemies. Through this process the heros are transformed in ways that neither they nor their old acquaintances would ever have imagined - and achieve lasting greatness.

So how do the old good to great stories relate to the new ones? Two ideas suggest themselves to me....

Everybody talks about "being on the bus," yet no-one talks about generating "rider-ship."

Yeah. Who should be on the bus? Why are they there? What's their story? Is it fair to ask "where are you going?" or "why do you want to come?"

Of course it is. In fact, it's primary unless you want to shed motivation, cash and smoke like an AMC Gremlin as you barrel down the highway to your ideal future.

SpookyAction tackles the paradoxical myth and reality of idealized missions, one-eyed skeleton armies and heroes of the balance-sheet variety here.

Outsourcing Ugg, Ogg and Moog

New Scientist

Free trade may have finished off Neanderthals

Modern humans may have driven Neanderthals to extinction 30,000 years ago because Homo sapiens unlocked the secrets of free trade, say a group of US and Dutch economists. The theory could shed new light on the mysterious and sudden demise of the Neanderthals after over 260,000 years of healthy survival.

Anthropologists have considered a wide range of factors which may explain Neanderthal extinction, including biological, environmental and cultural causes. For example, one major study concluded that Neanderthals were less able to deal with plunging temperatures during the last glacial period.

Another possibility is that they were less able hunters as a result of poorer mental abilities, says Eric Delson, an anthropologist at Lehman College, City University of New York, US. But he adds that most theories are reliant on guesswork. Exactly how humans ousted Neanderthals remains a puzzle. “They were successful for such a long time,” he points out.

Jason Shogren, an economist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, US, says part of the answer may lie in humans’ superior trading habits. Trading would have allowed the division of labour, freeing up skilled individuals, such as hunters, to focus on the tasks they are best at. Others, perhaps making tools or clothes or gathering food, would give the hunters resources in return for meat...

He cites archaeological evidence that suggests that humans, who joined Neanderthals in Europe about 40,000 years ago, specialised and traded both within and between regions. The evidence includes complex living quarters with different sections partitioned for different functions. Neanderthals, in contrast, lived in “largely unorganised” living spaces.

There is also evidence that the early humans, mainly one population called the Gravettians, imported materials. Ivory, stones, fossils, seashells and crafted tools were found dispersed through many regions. This greater pool of resources led to increased innovation, says Shogren.

Diversity of materials; diversity of geography, inputs and talents. Gee, are we surprised to think this might be true? Wonder if they had Boards of Directors? I'm pretty sure they had "Sarbox" -- a pissed off mammoth or a vicious cold snap perhaps. Or maybe the Humans were Sarbox to the Neanderthals.

fouro tummy hurt. must go find berries. (hmmm, fouro need get extra and trade for new spearflint)

Jack Welch's Record Bin iPod: Hits of the 70s

America's Way - mp3 - 1.6 mb

HARMONICA INTRO

America's way, our Forefather's way
The freedom to use the choice we choose
that's what got us where are today

It's an Amercan thing, that makes our liberty ring
And we all are a part, very close to the heart,
of a system that -- everyone can say...

It's America's way,
the free enterprise way
All America's way,
all the way

Americas way, the individual's way
Equal for all, the large and the small,
That's the spirit of the USA

It's the freedom to grow, and to be on the go.
And all through the past, we've held on in fact
to a standard -- we had a lot to say...

It's America's way,
the free enterprise way
All America's way,
all the way

There's a spirit of achievement all around,
where opp-or-tunity for all is found

America's way, America's way.
It's America's way, it's America's way.
Just stop and think, we all are in sync
with an eye on profit, holding sway

And the Peoples' content,
with all the effort that's spent
the incentive is clear, opportunity's here
and is well within reach to make it pay

It's America's way,
the free enterprise way
All America's way,
all the wayyyyyy!

HARP OUTRO - END

Efficency - mp3 - 540 kb

BANJO UNDER THROUGHOUT

Zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom,
Zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom,
Zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom,
Zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom

Efficiency, efficiency,
speaking governmentally,
efficiency is in a sorry state.

The government, now it steps in,
and business takes it on the chin
who can be efficient and still regulate?

But too much control, now that just gets in the way
of efficiency, I said efficiency

That good old fashioned Red, White and Blue is
efficienceeeee--yeee-eeeeee-yee-eeeeeee!

END

Sniff. Makes me proud to be an American. And a business-person. And a Chamber member. Gosh darn it, I'm just proud. Gotta run, the little woman has dinner on the table.

Tip o the hat to WFMU, NYC's free-form radio station and their Happy Listener's Guide To Mind Control. Check it out, you'll be glad you did.

Goldberg Variations. Non-handy data, or just dropped alleles?

Whoo-hoo. The Abstract Factory shares its dismay with the learned ponderings of Lucianne's boy:

NRO -Goldberg What he [Paul Krugman ]- Mr. Prize-Winning Economist - neglects to mention or consider is that engineers in the private sector make good money. Ditto many scientists. Indeed, I don't have the data to back this up handy, but it would hardly surprise me to find out that the most liberal members of the science faculty are probably the least likely to be able to find work elsewhere. I'm sure there's a market for private-sector biodiversity experts, but something tells me it's smaller than the market for electrical engineers. Never mind when the last time a Marxist hermeneuticist got a job with Union Carbide.

Observe my jaw, like that of all my computer scientist friends, dropping to the floor at superluminal speed. Computer science is arguably the science and engineering field in which it is easiest to be well-compensated in the private sector. Yet it is an empirical fact that only the brightest undergrads go to top grad schools, and of those only the brightest of the brightest Ph.D's get top faculty positions. Getting a lucrative private-sector position out of grad school is almost considered a consolation prize (particularly if it's a development position, as opposed to a "purer" research position that more closely resembles an academic post). Being successful faculty at a top-tier school requires a comprehensive mastery of the discipline (including strong teaching, research, and interpersonal skills, not to mention massive raw brain power) that no industrial position does. If these faculty decided to go into private industry, they would kick ass and take names, and they would make a bundle of cash along the way. Indeed, many do: top professors remain highly sought-after by private industry for well-paid part-time consulting work; and then, of course, there are professor-initiated startups.

And yet the faculty at top CS departments remain largely liberal. (Although they obviously do not conform to Goldberg's bizarre caricature of "Marxist hermeneuticists" --- erm, I thought we were talking about liberal scientists, not far-left-wing culture critics?)

[lotsa vigorous good stuff snip

And --- this is what's really maddening, all the outrages I've brought up wouldn't matter in the least except for this point --- virtually all right-leaning commentators, running the gamut from David Brooks to Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Reynolds, whether consciously or not, perform roughly the same function, and they're wildly effective. The entire right-wing movement is like a hovercraft floating on the perpetually roaring whirlwind of sub-rational, self-reinforcing nonsense that gusts through the minds of its adherents. It goes on and on and on, and nobody stops the people who feed it; most of the time, nobody with a prominent voice even stands up to them and calls them on their nonsense. For writing this column, and numerous other pieces of garbage like it, for filling people's minds with offal, Jonah Goldberg will never face judgment; he'll die peacefully, with a fat bank account and a kid gloves obituary.

like a hovercraft floating on the perpetually roaring whirlwind of sub-rational, self-reinforcing nonsense that gusts through the minds of its adherents.

Beautifully written code.

Reality Bites: Interview with a Bullshitter

Last week, Authentic Voice posted on Harry Frankfurt's bound essay, On Bullshit:

Bullshitters don't lie, exactly. They simply don't care what the truth might be, which makes them worse than liars. That's the conclusion philosopher Harry Frankfurt reaches in On Bullshit, a 67-page examination of the BS we read and write every day.

This week, AV managed to snare a feral specimen long enough for some face time:

...BS: You still think the truth is out there? You must be younger than you look. Everything's relative, sweetie. It's about time you caught on.

AV: Not everything is relative. There's an objective reality that we can all experience and that—

BS: Spare me. Who experiences reality these days? Look, I spend most of my life sealed in buildings that are connected to some monster grid of pipes, wires, radio transmissions, and satellite feeds—all so I can have constant power, heat, water, phone, TV, and internet. Some guys I pretend not to see take my trash to places I'll never go. Someone else feeds me, makes my clothes, gives me medicine, teaches my kids, and tells me what's happening. Government types that I didn't bother to elect protect me from dirty pictures, bad words, and threats to my way of life posed by people I'll never meet in countries I can't place without a map. Almost everything I know I got from words on a page or faces on TV. What do I know about reality? Where is it? When do I ever do anything with it? [There's more ]

Perfect! The United States of Hermetic Solipsism, with liberty and justice for Me!

And, uh, no--this isn't the argument for Self-awareness. Self-knowledge steels us to engage the world more openly and capably. More confidently, come what may. The above is habitrail. Maybe when the wheel spins fast enough, it doubles as a cuisinart?

Language: Drive-thru or Sit-down?

Isn't it funny how words and phrases--language itself--regain power when we learn the pedigree? It's as if there's a latent universe where the colors and sounds are just brighter and more interesting. When we dig deeper, not only do we discover more sticky, human meaningfulness, we also find lost ideas.

Ever wonder where the phrase "No strings attached" comes from? I didn't. Puppets? Fishing? Nah. This gentleman will tell you a nice story:English Cut

The Fax of Life?

In comments to a previous post about marketers as liars and finding "truth," Aleah reckons (emphasis mine):

A funny thing is, the people who talk the most about lying versus telling the truth, are often times the ones most full of bullshit... The pure answer is sometimes the stuff we say when drunk, when talking in our sleep, when a child, or when developmentally or emotionally injured. Everything else is filler.

What we SHOULD be talking about as marketers is over-consumption. In the words, what we are convincing people to buy is contributing to a giant pile of planetary garbage....

Go, Sister!

Me? I think companies have plenty of faults, but I've never been one to believe that they create "artificial" need. The universe is sublimely efficient; nothing happens without a quantum mechanical reason. In other words, if somebody's buying a "useless" product, that "useless" label is often applied by a non-consumer of said product--and it's really simply non-understanding by the non-consumer. For example, I don't buy Dale Earnhardt stickers to slap on my car because they don't mean anything to me. He doesn't mean anything of note to me. (Mansell or Schumacher? Different story.) But he does to lots of people. So that product has its place in the grand continuum.

Aleah brings up a good point, but is it it the whole point? I thought not and said so:

A la that visual of Jung's Ego with its "hole" or void that we sense we need to fill, many view "stuff" as being the answer. "Stuff" is easier than self-awareness, quicker too, albeit ultimately a dud. But that's not the *fault* of companies, it is just human nature and has been for eons before the Dow Jones or Ad Age.

Now, if someone wants to tackle the third rail of poor parental teaching and uncourageous, therefore, dishonest cultural/political/religious leadership and their effect of generating those nascent consumer/voids called children-cum-selfish-grown-ups, well, I'd say that would be closer to the mark. But that's just me.

Hmmm. Poor prep of seed material. Lack of contextual understanding or interior knowledge. Unsatisfying answers resulting from misperception of the challenge or misunderstanding the question.

Don at Leadership Now has a piece called Coddlers tackling this very thing, but in the workplace itself...

Old fogies have always complained about “kids these days.” But even fairly young and hip managers are increasingly echoing such laments. The complaint from managers of all ages in all walks of life that I’m hearing on an almost daily basis: Many young people entering the workforce today come with wickedly counterproductive attitudes. In particular, evil twins called Needy and Fragility show up with frightening regularity.

The managers lament goes something like this: These kids don’t want to take responsibility. They don’t want to do anything that’s hard. They want positive stroking for the littlest accomplishment, and literally cry at the slightest hint of criticism.

Sound familiar? It’s always unfair to paint a large group of people with a single sweep of a broad brush. But something is going on with the attitudes of the most youthful in the workplace. And it’s no wonder.

Talk with educators about the challenges in schools these days, and inevitably they end up pointing to the My Little Darling Syndrome. You know, as in when a teacher or administrator calls mommy or daddy to the school for a conference to discuss challenges with their little one.

The only response from adamantly defensive parents: “You are either grossly mistaken or you simply don’t understand my wonderful, flawless child.”

This has been going on for a while. And today, the effect of overly protective, over-nurturing parenting is now showing up in the workplace....

Now, if you've read this far, you must be interested in the topic. We could go in all kinds of directions from here:

1. Minimum requirements, maximal consequences. That parent with the flawless child knows the child is not flawless, but any admission of reality or culpability calls into question a succession of choices said parent has made or avoided. Bad mojo for Mommy or Daddy's preferred reality and a very unwelcome challenge to their parental effectiveness with the uncomfortable empirical support that they are sitting in front of that kid's teacher, and not to pick up an award. And they are sitting there because they, too, probably were conditioned to ask: is this gonna be on the test? Children taught or permitted to engage in learning that way are in danger of becoming adults and workers who view their world and commitments that way. Many unpleasant surprises ensue...

2. Situational non-awareness. The above penchant for bullet-pointing the world relieves us from engaging with it, from learning to feel and then trust our own assessment of dynamic situations. Our senses and instinct convey to us a spectacular ability to suss out threats and opportunities; to divine potential and often unconventional avenues of exploration. These are primarily right-brain, gestalt sensations and hard to describe inthe standardized (blandized and boilerplated?) lexicon of business and secondary education. Oddly enough, they are the root of creativity and, also, the foundation of what business and branders call sustainable competitive advantage. (Difficult to copy, counter-intuitive, first-to-market.) As we age to adult, we are implicitly or explicitly told to ignore these non-discursive abilities and stay in the "real world" of facts. But these abilities and their messages don't go away, they're just "demoted." The remaining dissonance or tug of war leads to what Thoreau called "...lives of quiet desperation." And to...

3. Speed kills. Neural connections formed by observation, info assimilation and trial and error problem solving, and the patience required to allow children the luxury of failure are all victims of our current business/economic setup. Those parents, too harried (or just immature) to more closely engage with said child are also harried at work to "just get it done." Analysis and cognition are deemed a drag on efficiency. The semblance of quality will do. Voila: Inert, nonsensical bullet point manufacture and rote testing. The facsimile of educuation and human development. Presto: the setup for future problems....

Phew. On that final note, Don's post led Christopher Bailey at Alchemy of Soulful Work to point us to Ready or Not, Here Life Comes by Dr. Mel Levine. A snippet from a fine, and fairly lengthy excerpt via MSNBC:

We are in the midst of an epidemic of work-life unreadiness because an alarming number of emerging adults are unable to find a good fit between their minds and their career directions. Like seabirds mired in an oil spill, these fledgling men and women are stuck, unable to take flight toward a suitable career. Some are crippled before they have a chance to beat their wings; others have tumbled downward in the early stages of their trajectories. Because they are not finding their way, they may feel as if they are going nowhere and have nowhere to go...

Some anxious junior staffers may have chosen their particular roads for all the wrong reasons. Some embarked upon a career odyssey without fully understanding what that journey was destined to be about. No one told them what dental school or dental practice truly entailed; or if it was explained to them, perhaps they were not ready to hear it. Other young adults find themselves bound to an occupation from which they'd like to bail out, but they feel chained to their entry positions. Perhaps the pay is good, or backtracking would be too hard and risky, or nothing else looks any better. Finally, there are those unqualified for the peculiar rigors and aches of their grown-up work. It may be that their current abilities have failed to match their present interests. You're in for some trouble if whatever you like to do most you do poorly. Some people have strengths they're not interested in exploiting and interests that bring out all their weaknesses....

In other words, you're in trouble if you don't know your Self. And who's teaching that in McWorld today? Or even encouraging it? Mommy? Daddy? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Whipple?

Learning to speak Wal-Martian

CBS Marketwatch

Addressing the retailer's slowing growth rate of same-store sales -- sales generated in stores open at least a year, a key industry benchmark -- the finance chief [Thomas Schoewe] said it was almost a nonevent compared with Wal-Mart's double-digit percentage increases in sales and earnings per share.

Schoewe said higher gas prices had the greatest impact on same-store sales, and also dismissed criticism that the company is cannibalizing older stores sales by opening new ones in the same market.

"We call it market development; you call it cannibalization," he told reporters. "We decided internally the term 'cannibalization' is kind of negative. We're trying to wipe that term out. We call it 'internally impacting ourselves' or 'market development.'"

Snorf! Costco - COST

In the article, titled: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Chief Executive Lee Scott said Tuesday that the nation's unions have declared war on the world's largest retailer, CEO Lee Scott had this to say:

"I don't know where this 'living wage' stuff came from," Scott told reporters on Tuesday.

The chief executive said people were operating under the misconception that Wal-Mart's No. 1 retail position meant it could pay the biggest wages. But the company's commitment to "everyday low prices" precludes that, as any loss of efficiencies could eventually hurt consumers in the form of higher prices, Scott added.

Ooops. Ixnay on talking down the iving-lay age-way thing, Lee. And, since you brought it up, eventually, when?

Okee-dokee, so the question is if you can get a gallon of milk in Las Vegas for:

$1.95 - Walmart
$3.04 - Albertsons
$3.25 - Vons

(Put the smaller grocers and bodegas at, ohh, maybe $3.50.)

And, a brand-identical, 9-item grocery bag (milk, cereal, Coke, bread, lettuce, carrots, hotdogs, coffee, shampoo) that the LA Times filled from the above Walmart, Albertsons and Vons rounding out respectively to:

$17.70 - Walmart
$23.74 - Albertsons
$25.41 - Vons

That $1.10-$1.29 price differential on a gallon of milk or $5.04 per bag is so wide in a razor thin margin business as to be unclosable. Vons and Albertsons or any other regional player has a price floor. You have a 5 story basement in which to chase prices down and wait players out. And that you are. And if you get impatient, you can give it away. While internally impacting yourselves silly.

What was the question? Oh yeah, where did "this 'living wage' stuff came from'?

Lee, you wanna know who's gonna gang up on you next? Brands like Levis, GE, Rubbermaid and Kraft. You're building your brand by watering theirs down. They don't like it. Or you. Or your obtuseness.

Target - TGT

Ipso: All marketers are liars. Facto: We're all marketers.

"Take stock of those around you and you will... hear them talk in precise terms about themselves and their surroundings, which would seem to point to them having ideas on the matter. But start to analyze those ideas and you will find that they hardly reflect in any way the reality to which they appear to refer, and if you go deeper you will discover that there is not even an attempt adjust the ideas to this reality. Quite the contrary: through these notions the individual is trying to cut off any personal vision of reality, of his own very life. For life is at the start a chaos in which one is lost. The individual suspects this, but he is frightened at finding himself face to face with this terrible reality, and tries to cover it over with a curtain of fantasy, where everything is clear. It does not worry him that his "ideas" are not true, he uses them as trenches for the defense of his existence, as scarecrows to frighten away reality."- Jose Ortega Y Gasset

Thanks to Jon Strande for the above quote. As for the headline above it, well, that's my fault; just part of the ongoing crusade for some semblance of actionable non-bullshit (a/k/a Truth. One each: Unvarnished) vis a vis marketing and business stuff. Why? Ever heard the phrase "Promotions for the guilty and pink slips for the innocent"? If not, you have now. It's a concept that matters because so often we all find ourselves having to untangle cats cradles of rationalization and cheese-hiding just so we can deliver a product we're reasonably sure won't blow up in a client's face. Which means in our face. Reasonably sure. Maybe. Depends.

Yes, quality information is handy. It does things like push response rates and compliance higher. It stops us talking to ourselves to make ourselves feel good. It helps with that face thing too. (Self. Saving face. Interesting concepts and more on that later.)

Below, Michael Kinsley does a little empirical economics while plumbing the depths of self-talk. He has lots of juicy numbers, from this White House, no less. They say that--well, if one were a Republican one might not like what the 2005 Economic Report of the President says. And so, maybe a hypothetical Republican might say "impossible." Or that statistics lie. Or that there are other, external causes for economic trends. Or that Congress is the problem.

Or that Judges are.

She might say whatever she needs to say to continue believing that Democrats just HAVE t o be bad managers, terrible Presidents and people of poor character. They just have to be. Don't they? Sure they do. They don't get me. They don't get US. They don't get IT. They are just wrong. Why? Because. Just because. Because they have to be bad for me to be good.

Yeah, I don't buy that any grown-up could really delude themselves into believing that either.

Okay, I lied. I do believe they could. And do. Remember the saying "perception is reality"? When Immanuel Kant inferred it, he didn't mean that perception replaces truth but, rather, that we believe what we want to believe; and that belief, not fact, moves us. In other words, we lie to ourselves, often subconsiously, because it feels better than the truth. And lies often have happier endings. In that dimension, we actually say the perfect witty thing at just the right moment, rather than thinking of it in the car on the drive home. We get to be the hero. And our heroes remain unsullied; our faith in them, and the wisdom of our choice in them stays pristine and unchallenged. Makes me remember another saying, and it's possible reason for being: Reality's only a bitch because she always makes us clean up our room. And do our math. And show our work.

Yeah, come to think of it, this dimension is a real buzzkill.

Take it away Kinsley...

Washington Post

It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe, who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the "Mommy Party" and the "Daddy Party." Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom more often than Dad who must play both roles.

It has not escaped notice that the Daddy Party has been fiscally misbehaving. But it hasn't really sunk in how completely Republicans have abandoned allegedly Republican values -- if in fact they ever really had such values.

Our text today is the statistical tables of the 2005 Economic Report of the President. I did this exercise a while back with the 2004 tables and couldn't quite believe the results. But the 2005 data confirm it: The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn't even close.

The Republican values I refer to are universal. We all want prosperity, oppose unemployment, dislike inflation, don't enjoy paying taxes, etc. These values are Republican only in the sense that Republicans are supposed to treasure them more and to be more reluctant to sacrifice them for other goals such as equality and clean air. [Some interesting numbers]

PS: I know Kinsley's a wackjob centrist and prone to hyperbole (unlike this writer, of course), so I wanted to be fair and balanced. Here's the Wall Street Journal saying the exact same thing a year ago January. But they still don't trust Democrats to run or grow the economy. Just wouldn't jibe with their dimensional reality.

Novak: Bush giving CEOs, "Administration," bad name

Chicago Sun Times

Bob Novak, Prince of Darkness and flipper of deep cover CIA operatives thinks George Bush is winning ugly.

A senior Republican senator who avoids the headlines and tries to help President Bush as much as possible was discussing with me two weeks ago the problems of seeking Social Security reform. Then he said something that surprised me: "I have been around awhile, and this is the worst administration at congressional relations that I have ever been associated with."

I checked with several Republicans in both the House and Senate, and all agreed more or less with that assessment. Last week, I asked an administration official who is willing to speak his mind so long as his name won't be used. "I don't know that much about Congress," he said, "but I do believe this is a dysfunctional administration."

The worst? Dysfunctional? What about the praise of the strategic mastery that carried Bush to a second term? Besides, is Bush not widely popular in Republican ranks? Does he not lead a party pretty well united on issues and ideology? All that is true. The dirty little secret, however, is that this administration succeeds despite chronic malfunctioning, and this more often than not is a matter of bungled personnel decisions.

Unfilled jobs have been a chronic problem in this administration -- especially at the Treasury, where several key posts always seem empty. Recently, the vacant offices have included deputy secretary and undersecretary for international affairs. The latest of multiple vacancies in the deputy's post occurred when Samuel Bodman was named secretary of energy without anyone ready to replace him at Treasury.

The number of unfilled Pentagon positions now rival those at Treasury. Since Paul Wolfowitz had been earmarked as World Bank president for some time, it might be supposed that his successor as deputy secretary of defense would be standing beside him when he was named. But that is not the way the Bush White House works...

Okay, so Dubya actually is living up quite nicely to the "CEO" moniker. The cartoony dark side of it, anyway: Claim delegation and organizational fitness, praise "open doors" and parrot the words of entrepreneurialism, then manage like Leonid Brezhnev. But he's not winning ugly, Bob. He's winning-by-forfeit. 3 1/2 years ago, Democratic leadership parked their brains, and their cojones, in a mini storage outside Altoona. They lost the key or something.

Just like his Texas Rangers and Harken deals; brush cleared for him, it's Bush in a walk. What a problem solver; what a Titan of Business acumen.

Okay, I'm dying to know

Webstats show a whole bunch of people coming in via a very obscure referral, from all over the world no less. You're headed for this archived page...

www.alchemysite.com/blog/archive/2004_09_05_archive.html

Via this google string...

images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://juneaualaska.com
/visit/Images/shipwreck.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.
alchemysite.com/blog/archive/2004_09_05_archive.html

(I broke it in three to fit)

I give up, what's the attraction? Anyone wanna post the email or whatever's generating these hits?

I'll take door #1, Dave (or is it the 7th Ring?)

The inestimable Dave Pollard has posed 4 questions to his readers in addition to a big question of what will be "How to save the world" 's next iteration. Far be it from me to answer that one, but here are the lesser four:

1. Without getting into the ethics of the case, and without blaming the media, please explain why so many people care so much about that one singular right-to-die case in Florida?
2. What's a better name for 'the environment' that is less separate in connotation from human civilization?
   
3. Why does it break our heart to throw out teddy bears and other stuffed animals, even if they're not childhood toys with memories attached to them?
4. How could we effectively teach online the critical skills that take a lot of practice and one-on-one coaching? I'm referring to skills like effective listening, collaboration, and even meditation. It seems to me our inability to do this well is the greatest limitation today of the Internet as an agent of change.

Since today is outsourced post day at Fouroboros Worldwide, it's only proper I lift my comment from Dave's blog and turf it out here....

Well, I'll take Number 1, Dave.

Without getting into the ethics of the case, and without blaming the media, please explain why so many people care so much about that one singular right-to-die case in Florida?

Because they think the future doesn't want them. And they're probably right.

Because, sadly, some people of faith are not driven by their beliefs as much as they are driven by defending their beliefs. For many, a beseiged mentality is a visceral reaction against a mundane and anonymous existence. Existential peace escapes them; spiritual practice leaves them largely un-beatified. (i.e.: still Imperfect) and somebody must pay.

Christian consulting firms like The Barna Group, polling evangelicals and self-declared people of faith, find that many are poor at practicing what they preach. In effect, they are human and succumb to temptations just like regular folks, and in many cases, more so. (Massachusetts libs divorce at rates equal to or slightly less than born-agains [etc and so on].)

Given this reality one has two choices:

1. Adhere to Jesus' admonishment that your relationship with him is personal, not to be worn on your sleeve and so, blame self and try to do better.

2. Make your faith public, and its quality outside your control, like that of the biblical "Hypocrites" and so, blame others and find an all-purpose excuse, security blanket *and* rallying cry.

Cake, and no calories!

Number two has appeal for all kinds of reasons that governments, corporations and tribes of all stripes are familiar with: It cements the bonds of the group, albeit at the expense of greater American community. It changes the subject from personal imperfection and failure, and relegates practical everyday accountability to the back burner because, well, because "we have bigger fish to fry--there are barbarians at the gate!"

Terry Schiavo, rest her soul, will be their Che, t-shirts and all, for years to come. And like today's Che-wearing skateboarder, CYO kids 20 years hence will have their Terri in a beret fashions and have no clue of her significance or the facts of her case. She will be part of the uniform--a prop.

Tip o the Hat to Jane Crow Journal for the link

An Indian view of Outsourcing, via Grand Forks, ND

Grand Forks Herald

VIEWPOINT: Call-center outsourcing hurts all

By Lalit Jha

GRAND FORKS - Outsourcing, especially outsourcing of call centers, is not in the United States' best interest because it snatches from citizens the basic right to demand from employers the perks and privileges that are needed for a decent living.

And while outsourcing does yield job opportunities to the English-speaking unemployed youths back in my home country, India, I don't think call-center outsourcing is in India's long-term interest, either.

That's because outsourcing threatens to take away the advantage we now have in the field of scientific and technical manpower. It does this by luring away young college students to call centers - students who otherwise who would have spent time on their studies.

I did not carry such an opinion about outsourcing until a few months ago, when I arrived here.

I was under the impression that the companies outsourced because there were no takers for call-center jobs or not enough qualified workers in fields such as software.

However, after visiting the Red Lake, Minn., area a week ago - an area where the unemployment rate is as high as 65 percent and a majority of the people are below the poverty line - I feel companies that outsource are running away from their social responsibilities and civic duty.

These companies prefer outsourcing because they get cheap, English-speaking youths for call centers and labor for factories, thus generating more profit.

In addition, these multinationals outsource because they do not want to fulfill their social obligations. In fact, they use outsourcing as a tool to keep American workers mum.

"If you demand anything or assert yourself, we will outsource, and you will lose this job," the workers are told. So, be satisfied with whatever you get.

True, advocates of outsourcing argue that it lets them hire the least difficult and most compliant work force and also helps generate more profits.

But I am suspicious because of my experiences in New Delhi, India, and its neighborhoods such as Gurgoan and Noida - places where we find many call centers.

In India, as in America, companies feel they have no social obligations when they outsource. They take advantage of legal loopholes and large-scale unemployment, essentially forcing people to work 12 hours at a stretch - most of those hours at night because of the time difference.

Such stressful work makes many workers sick after a few months. But employers do not offer health benefits - so within a year or two, it is back to square one for these young college students.

And often, by the time they realize what they have done to their careers, they lose interest in studies.

Mind you, this call-center cycle affects only a portion of the middle class, in that middle-class young people are hired by the call centers because of their fluency in English. Young people from smaller cities or rural areas (where unemployment is acute) rarely get a chance to work at call centers.

Furthermore, it is the same middle class who over the years has been the major source of global manpower in the field of software, information technology and science. The United States has been a major beneficiary of this.

Yet now, it's being threatened by the call-center-led outsourcing culture.

Although it's premature to make any conclusions, a recent survey by the Council of Graduate Schools revealed that the number of Indian students applying for U.S. visas for graduate studies declined by 9 percent in two years.

Under these circumstances, there is an urgent need to regulate outsourcing. Outsourcing needs to be a "win-win" situation, as it is in software - not a "lose-lose" situation as it is in call centers, in which deserving people lose their jobs so that business owners can profit.

Jha is a journalist from India. He is accompanying his wife in Grand Forks, where she is doing postdoctoral work at UND. He can be reached at lalitkjha@gmail.com.

Gee. I think I outsourced this entire post. Wait, I bolded the part that said:

I was under the impression that the companies outsourced because there were no takers for call-center jobs or not enough qualified workers in fields such as software.

Call that my managerial value-adding contribution Thanks for reading--come again. And remember, my door is always open.