Judging from a couple of responses to Rewarding the Republicans, I guess I failed to make my point. That’s what happens to the elderly when they get all pissed off. It’s hard to stay on point when you turn 52 and you know it’s getting harder and harder every spring to run those 4 miles each day.
But I digress. Boys and girls, what I was trying to say in Rewarding the Republicans was that John McCain doesn’t represent. A large number, a very large number of the Republican faithful think Ol’ Johnny is just an amnesty away from being, (shudder!) a centrist. Centrists don’t play too well to the neo-militarist or Bible thumper squads that have become major stakeholders in the GOP. When I pointed out that he has become the presumptive nominee of his party by default, I meant to distinguish that situation from that of the contenders for the Democratic Heavyweight Crown.
Yes, yes, I know that honor now seems to hang by the decision of the superdelagates, but that situation is a far cry from the one the Grand Old Party finds itself in. Whomever the Democrats nominate, the entire party will get behind for the general election. The democratic nominee that emerges, Hil or Barry, will represent almost all the party, because both candidates have nearly the same vision; that’s part of their problem. They’re having a very difficult time distinguishing themselves from each other, partly because they’ve ripped each other off for ideas and stances on issues. But you don’t hear Janine Garafalo or Keith Olberman say “If Barak gets the nomination, I’m going to vote for McCain!” (I don’t think the jack-offs that support Nader count, because they peeled off from the Democratic party 8 years ago. I still haven’t forgiven them for helping put Shrub in office, but that’s another blog.)
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if McCain is forced to choose for a running mate someone from either the Neo-Con or Religious Right wings of the GOP.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Traits I Seek In a Leader
Folks,
This is something I wrote a while back, in the context of a miserable business relationship, but upon re-reading it I realized it has some interesting implications in the context of the political selection process. I hope you enjoy it.
It has been said that to get the most out of people, we must hold the bar high; to set low expectations, we obtain poor results. What do we expect from our leader? After almost 40 years of employment, here are some traits I seek in a leader.
1) Trustworthy. Meets or exceeds all of his obligations to his employees, customers, contractors, and suppliers, in a timely manner. He meet his obligations even when difficult; anyone can keep a promise when it's easy to do so, but a real leader keeps his promise even when the chips are down. People having past relationships with the leader have good things to say about him, and would be willing to do business with him again.
2) Calm. Business is crazy enough. I'm in it for the long haul, and a constant diet of tirades and threats doesn't lead to a lasting relationship for me. I need to know that a stable, well thought out business plan is in place, one that can be governed with a steady hand and a quiet voice. When the boss gets upset, it's rare, and for a good reason.
3) Rational. Willing to accept that his best thinking might not always be correct. Willing to discuss, rather than lecture. Willing to compromise, rather than dictate. Unafraid to face facts, despite implications or repercussions. Aware that people are at their highest motivation when they believe that they have a part in the decision making process.
4) Friendly, courteous, kind. The true leader has high self esteem, and a healthy respect for others. Treats and speaks to others at every level of employment as he wishes to be treated and spoken to. Sees others as more than disposable implements to complete tasks.
5) Generous. Ensures that adequate personnel, tools and materials are available to accomplish tasks. Provides annual goal setting and review of performance, and makes appropriate salary increases on a regular basis. Looks to the long-term financial health of the employee by contributing to his 401k or other savings plan. Looks to the long-term innovative health of the company by recruiting and employing highly qualified technical experts. Makes sure that his employees' needs are met before his own.
A great leader provides for long term corporate, innovative, and personal financial health within his company. Long term financial health of the company is the leader's primary responsibility, and the reason for his employment. To say it is a trait I seek in a leader is to trivialize the responsibility. I am unconcerned with this ability, as anyone who cannot meet this fundamental responsibility is unqualified to be a leader in the first place. To dismiss personal financial and innovative health in the pursuit of long term corporate financial health is to not try hard enough.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
This is something I wrote a while back, in the context of a miserable business relationship, but upon re-reading it I realized it has some interesting implications in the context of the political selection process. I hope you enjoy it.
It has been said that to get the most out of people, we must hold the bar high; to set low expectations, we obtain poor results. What do we expect from our leader? After almost 40 years of employment, here are some traits I seek in a leader.
1) Trustworthy. Meets or exceeds all of his obligations to his employees, customers, contractors, and suppliers, in a timely manner. He meet his obligations even when difficult; anyone can keep a promise when it's easy to do so, but a real leader keeps his promise even when the chips are down. People having past relationships with the leader have good things to say about him, and would be willing to do business with him again.
2) Calm. Business is crazy enough. I'm in it for the long haul, and a constant diet of tirades and threats doesn't lead to a lasting relationship for me. I need to know that a stable, well thought out business plan is in place, one that can be governed with a steady hand and a quiet voice. When the boss gets upset, it's rare, and for a good reason.
3) Rational. Willing to accept that his best thinking might not always be correct. Willing to discuss, rather than lecture. Willing to compromise, rather than dictate. Unafraid to face facts, despite implications or repercussions. Aware that people are at their highest motivation when they believe that they have a part in the decision making process.
4) Friendly, courteous, kind. The true leader has high self esteem, and a healthy respect for others. Treats and speaks to others at every level of employment as he wishes to be treated and spoken to. Sees others as more than disposable implements to complete tasks.
5) Generous. Ensures that adequate personnel, tools and materials are available to accomplish tasks. Provides annual goal setting and review of performance, and makes appropriate salary increases on a regular basis. Looks to the long-term financial health of the employee by contributing to his 401k or other savings plan. Looks to the long-term innovative health of the company by recruiting and employing highly qualified technical experts. Makes sure that his employees' needs are met before his own.
A great leader provides for long term corporate, innovative, and personal financial health within his company. Long term financial health of the company is the leader's primary responsibility, and the reason for his employment. To say it is a trait I seek in a leader is to trivialize the responsibility. I am unconcerned with this ability, as anyone who cannot meet this fundamental responsibility is unqualified to be a leader in the first place. To dismiss personal financial and innovative health in the pursuit of long term corporate financial health is to not try hard enough.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Rebuilding New Orleans
Folks,
Doug Clark (who writes the superb blog "The Itenerant Pedant",) comments:
As for all those taxes he lists at the end, they became necessary when the South proved, TWICE, that "States Rights" is semantically equivalent to saying "Doing reprehensible shit while somehow maintaining moral superiority about your RIGHT to do reprehensible shit." All the taxes Thomas Paine there listed are FEDERAL taxes. Prior to that the STATES fucking collected the taxes and forwarded a cut to the Feds. When South Carolina in 1861 showed why maybe, just maybe, that having strong state governments run by fucking LOONS responsible for funding the Federal Government wasn't exactly a recipe for stability, Federal taxes became necessary.
After WWI they became mandatory, and by the end of WWII it was ESSENTIAL to have taxes to protect us from the Soviets. Who is this guy anyway? A fucking COMMIE? Oh wait, no. Just someone who lives in one of the plushest fucking country clubs in the group of nations, but somehow thinks he PERSONALLY built the fucking clubhouse and thus should get to enjoy it for free. Ante up your membership dues, you selfish asshole.
I would suggest that to spend the tax money to re-build Louisiana into a strong, productive member of our country is a patriotic thing to do, something we can be proud of as a nation. And here are some quick questions to ask: How many billions of dollars have we spent destroying and rebuilding Iraq? Have we achieved our goals there? How many more billions are we willing to spend? Have we gotten our money's worth? Would we have been better off spending that money in the United States?
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
A couple of months ago, someone forwarded an e-mail to me; you know, one of those redneck screeds blaming the "liberal" politicians and their never-ending taxes for the entire decline of Western civilization. Here's an excerpt:
This is too true to be very funny. The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending your tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu, is presently asking the Congress for $250 billion to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean? Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in
New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.
Washington, D.C. HELLO!!! ... Are all your calculators broken??
While this is interesting information simply from the perspective of what the number "billion" means, the implication of how the money is actually spent is incorrect, the value of the spending is ignored, and there is an underlying philosophy to the message that is selfish, mean, and unpatriotic.
The author wrongly implies that the residents of Louisiana are going to be handed a suitcase full of cash; in reality, the money will be spent on vital infrastructure necessary to keep the state a productive part of the union.
The value of this spending is incalculable. 1) The purpose of the federal government is to provide a stable platform for the nation, without regard to regionality 2) Our strength as a nation is the ability to do as a whole the important things that benefit us as a society which we could not do as individual states 3) A productive, healthy and educated people form a strong, stable nation that is sustainable, competitive economically, and easier to defend against aggression from within or from outside 4) Our taxes are much lower than many, if not most western industrialized countries. 5) Because we now recognize the need to support and include all groups within our society, we have managed to avoid the social/economic based riots of the 1960's and the kidnap for ransom crimes so prevalent in other parts of the world where the underprivileged are ignored 6) We claim to be a "Christian Nation"; where is the spirit of compassion and sacrifice in this message?
Doug Clark (who writes the superb blog "The Itenerant Pedant",) comments:
As for all those taxes he lists at the end, they became necessary when the South proved, TWICE, that "States Rights" is semantically equivalent to saying "Doing reprehensible shit while somehow maintaining moral superiority about your RIGHT to do reprehensible shit." All the taxes Thomas Paine there listed are FEDERAL taxes. Prior to that the STATES fucking collected the taxes and forwarded a cut to the Feds. When South Carolina in 1861 showed why maybe, just maybe, that having strong state governments run by fucking LOONS responsible for funding the Federal Government wasn't exactly a recipe for stability, Federal taxes became necessary.
After WWI they became mandatory, and by the end of WWII it was ESSENTIAL to have taxes to protect us from the Soviets. Who is this guy anyway? A fucking COMMIE? Oh wait, no. Just someone who lives in one of the plushest fucking country clubs in the group of nations, but somehow thinks he PERSONALLY built the fucking clubhouse and thus should get to enjoy it for free. Ante up your membership dues, you selfish asshole.
I would suggest that to spend the tax money to re-build Louisiana into a strong, productive member of our country is a patriotic thing to do, something we can be proud of as a nation. And here are some quick questions to ask: How many billions of dollars have we spent destroying and rebuilding Iraq? Have we achieved our goals there? How many more billions are we willing to spend? Have we gotten our money's worth? Would we have been better off spending that money in the United States?
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Rewarding the Republicans
Folks,
I was having a conversation today with one my colleagues, a young, bright and impressionable moderate with conservative leanings. He was making a point about John McCain putting a new face on the Republican Party by being more moderate, a candidate likely to motivate the "Reagan Democrats" in the upcoming presidential election.
As a good progressive, I have some problems with that.
Ronald Reagan appealed to disaffected northern blue-collar workers in the '80's who no longer believed that the Democratic Party represented their interests. John McCain may be less ideologically- and more issue-driven than his predecessor, but he represents the same interests: the wrong war in the wrong country for the wrong reasons, a weak stance on the deficit, and a willingness to continue to prop up a healthcare system that rips off the working man and woman and undermines the social and economic strength of our country. Unless McCain can pull off a Rove-like deception to drive the election with social issues that have high emotional content but little real meaning to the well-being of the country, he will have a hard time explaining how his positions benefit the average Joe.
But even more troubling to me is that McCain is the default nominee of his party. He has apparently achieved the nomination only because the ultra-conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee early in the primary process, preventing either one from achieving a critical mass, not because he inspires his party to more enlightened thinking. The Neo-Cons hate his guts. Just ask Rush or O'Reilly. McCain will eventually have to pay his dues to the demagogue alliance that has co-opted the Republican Party.
Maybe, just maybe, if the Republican Party renounced the antiscientific, unconstitutional, and deceitful practices they have endorsed for the last 8 years and joined together to support a moderate candidate as a whole party, I might buy the idea that John McCain best represents the political center of the nation.
McCain is simply a sheep in wolf's clothing. The Republican Party cannot be rewarded for the accidental nomination of a moderate candidate.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
I was having a conversation today with one my colleagues, a young, bright and impressionable moderate with conservative leanings. He was making a point about John McCain putting a new face on the Republican Party by being more moderate, a candidate likely to motivate the "Reagan Democrats" in the upcoming presidential election.
As a good progressive, I have some problems with that.
Ronald Reagan appealed to disaffected northern blue-collar workers in the '80's who no longer believed that the Democratic Party represented their interests. John McCain may be less ideologically- and more issue-driven than his predecessor, but he represents the same interests: the wrong war in the wrong country for the wrong reasons, a weak stance on the deficit, and a willingness to continue to prop up a healthcare system that rips off the working man and woman and undermines the social and economic strength of our country. Unless McCain can pull off a Rove-like deception to drive the election with social issues that have high emotional content but little real meaning to the well-being of the country, he will have a hard time explaining how his positions benefit the average Joe.
But even more troubling to me is that McCain is the default nominee of his party. He has apparently achieved the nomination only because the ultra-conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee early in the primary process, preventing either one from achieving a critical mass, not because he inspires his party to more enlightened thinking. The Neo-Cons hate his guts. Just ask Rush or O'Reilly. McCain will eventually have to pay his dues to the demagogue alliance that has co-opted the Republican Party.
Maybe, just maybe, if the Republican Party renounced the antiscientific, unconstitutional, and deceitful practices they have endorsed for the last 8 years and joined together to support a moderate candidate as a whole party, I might buy the idea that John McCain best represents the political center of the nation.
McCain is simply a sheep in wolf's clothing. The Republican Party cannot be rewarded for the accidental nomination of a moderate candidate.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)