DOES TIGER WOODS NEED TO EMBARK ON A HUMILIATION PARADE?

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

                                                                                               Albert Einstein (Attributed)

 

Tiger Woods decision to make a statement on Friday, February 19 2010 set off a media frenzy on what he should say and for how long. As usual, arm chair experts and morality police troops are jostling for pole positions to set the apology agenda. Interestingly, in recent piece, read, I dwelt on outrage. In times like this, John 8:1-11 makes absolute sense.

No doubt, Tiger Woods offended some individuals. In the scheme of things, his wife, children, in-laws, surviving parent, sibling(s) and close associates are the most affected. He did the reasonable thing to withdraw and sort out the impact with parties that are directly affected. To my mind, this is the most important constituency to focus on. Only time will tell how well the process pans out.

Obviously, he owes the general public – especially the younger generation – a one-time display of genuine contrition. This is to demonstrate the humiliating effects of personal choices. And that should do it. Anyone or group suggesting that he goes on an apology spectacle from talk show to talk show is, probably, applying common sense as defined by Albert Einstein. Must an individual be subjected to ridicule in order to be genuinely contrite?

The clamor for him to travel the “conventional wisdom” route of going before a camera, shed a tear or two, and engage in all other politically correct agenda is absurd. I hope he puts paid to the nonsense. His statement on Friday should satisfy the lynch mob. To any altruistic sympathizer, his marriage and family rehabilitation should be of paramount concern.

The mantra “.. Is a forgiving society” is a code for someone to submit to an embarrassment procession. What are reasons for insisting on this march whenever a celebrity makes a human error? Headlines are made to sell publications, ratings go up for television outlets and someone gets to enjoy “fifteen minutes” of fame. It is enough degradation for anyone to endure public mortification due to errors of judgment.

I wish Tiger Woods and his family the best. Whenever children are involved, it is better to give peace a chance. What will it benefit society to subject kids to “mental water boarding” by watching a parent harangued on television. The witch hunt brigade, please go get a life. This is 2010 and not the 15th or 16th century.

Difilosofa © 2010

HELLO POLITICIANS AND STRATEGISTS IT IS 2010!

The caption of this piece may appear redundant but it is not. Human beings, in large part, are slow to adapt to changes in society. Politicians and political strategists – especially – are most vulnerable. Strategists include behind the scene actors and talking heads. Also, included in strategists are the media outlets. They all lean one way or the other, no matter what they profess.

Looking back at the beginning of this century, electronic gadgets have grown tremendously in their capabilities and rapid diminishing prices. What are the norms in, say, a cell phone today were status symbols some odd eight years ago. The enormous and relative ease to access and crosscheck information and data would have been unimaginable in the beginning of this millennium.

Politicians and their allies operate as if they are unaware of these changes. They are yet to adopt new strategies or adequately refine existing ones to reflect the new technological landscape. Gone should be the days of repeating untruths hoping some would stick. Furthermore, there should no longer be any “behind closed doors” in politics. See and treat all doors as open. Books deals are lucrative!

Suffice it to relate some incidents. A senator from Virginia was hounded out of the political scene due to a hand held video camera. The health care debate and inflamed passions succeeded in portraying some politicians as political bed hoppers, with the aid of technology. Technology serves as magnifying glasses to highlight political posturing. Forget the cliché that it is part of the process. Be smart about everything. 

Off the cuff comments and/or unsolicited auditioning for Comedy Central must be off limits. President Barack Obama can attest to this during his bid for the White House. Recall his “guns and religion” controversy. Misspeaking is a fact of life. However, when politicians are involved it takes a life of its own. More so, with easily available and affordable editing tools. Altering context to “nail” is not difficult.

Vice President Joe Biden and his “7 Eleven” gaffe is still vivid. The earliest indicator was George W Bush’ quip with Dick Cheney during a campaign stop during the former’s first presidential campaign. Hardly did he realize that the microphone was on and camera rolling! With the 2010 elections looming, the temptation to engage in massaging facts and likelihood to commit technological sins will be hard to resist.

Hence, it is imperative to remind all concerned that this is 2010. The bitter primaries between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton point to what the future holds. In addition, the relentless and all out assault on John McCain, chiefly by Mitt Romney, and other Republican Party presidential contenders also predict future trends. Indicators of a trend towards unpleasant primaries call for immediate changes.

Recently, Rudi Giuliani, former New York Mayor, appeared on many news programs in the aftermath of the botched Xmas bombing. Watching him – on Larry King Live – battle with trying to wiggle out of an avoidable situation was quite pathetic. He had tried one of the old tactics. Fox News’ mix up with video footage and hosts operating as if viewers are incapable of crosschecking information are stunning.

MSNBC calls out Fox News on lack of coverage of President Obama’s town hall meetings when it is guilty of the same shortcoming. CNN’s hosting of one of the 2008 Presidential Debates was at best a charade. The moderator was more concerned with stirring gossips to and fro. Folks this is the twenty-first century. Technological advances coupled with demographic shifts make a strong case for change of antics.

Most polls reflect a growing dwindling of political traditionalists – more voters identify themselves as independents. In other words, the left and the right should rethink their strategies because perspectives are no longer black or white in the eyes of many. Pandering to “the base” will only take either party not too far. The first step towards adapting is to watch what comes out the mouth or any organization.

Television stations might not feel or foresee any impending storm in the near term. The situation is like a boxer, keen on protecting the head, receiving debilitating body shots from the opening bell of a bout. Inevitably, the hands will drop and the head will be there for the taking. Politicians are in a more precarious situation. They should treat technology like the “Mike Tyson of the early 1990’s”.

They face almost relative instantaneous repercussions in the form of primaries and elections. Political Parties are akin to television stations. Looming doom never appears to be near. The ramifications of fibbing take quite sometime and the remuneration is like revenge – terrible and always served cold. Both major political parties have fallen victims and will continue to do so. The turnover will only be higher with evolving technology.

Difilosofa ©2010

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, LIBERALS AND POLICY

To say that the Democrats are in disarray, after the Massachusetts election result, will be an understatement or stating the obvious. The number of announced and impending retirements from both Houses of Congress reflects the panic that has set in. They are reacting as if the world is coming to an end tomorrow. The last to get out of the room should switch off the light!

The Republican Party has had its fair share of shocking results and it is hard to recall when its reaction was as frenzied. This reflects one of the genetic shortcomings of the Democrats – they are not battle tested in the rough and tumble aspects of life. Probably, it stems from their tendency to treat most issues from abstract perspectives. 

They extrapolate out of fear. Also, Democrats and Liberals appear to hold critical emotional issues as constants in policy formulation. Most likely, they assume that mathematical or logical sense will always translate to acceptance. In the scientific world this is wonderful. However, it is a dangerous supposition when it involves human beings. A feature of the Health Care Bill is an example.

The idea to force everyone to buy health insurance or face penalties, in a climate of individual economic uncertainties, is ill timed. This could be based on their ideology of “universal” things. Have they forgotten about choice? In a way, Democrats seem to favor the force of legislation than the force of common sense approach on this matter. 

To make matters worse, the bid to defend and sell the bill is linked to unrelated issues. It not unusual to hear talk of increasing health care costs and the dangers of global warming collaborating to spell doom in the future! Global warming – its hard sell and elevation to “scientific fatwa” not withstanding – is a controversial topic. 

Invariably, the skeptics of global warming are turned off with whatever the message is on health care. In fact, this is the albatross of the Democrats, Liberals and their “scientific” allies. Bandying the word “Global Warming Denier” is a common refrain from the global warming crowd. Is this akin to elevating global warming denial to Holocaust denial? The liberals are using papal tactics to shove it down our throats. 

Global warming is no man’s relative or ethnic cause. The fact that there has been an endless parade of acquiescing scientists without reasonable representation of the opposing camp is alarming and sad. Applying it in pitching policy is a sure way to alienate many folks. Until an equal amount of time is devoted to airing differing views, global warming will continue to be met with serious misgivings. 

The tabling of opposing views serves as elixir of intellectual discourse. Moreover, the speed with which the Nobel Prize was awarded for the salesmanship of global warming is sure to make the ordinary folk to say, “Wait a minute.” Well, the “Billy Mays” of the undertaking was everything but Billy Mays like. By the way, why choose a not so convincing politician to pitch a scientific puzzle. 

The more I analyze the undertaking, the more it is difficult to shake off a deep feeling of cynicism. Serious scientific findings with far reaching consequences are not debated or sold to the non-scientific community. Normally, scientists thrash out differences, agree on certain fundamentals and acknowledge areas of disagreement. The global warming debate looks more like the enforcement of a fiat from the Pope or fatwa issued by an Ayatollah.   

Additionally, liberals are, probably, too neck deep in “scientific social engineering methods” that they are likely to lose sight of the limitations of applying doctrinal scientific ideals to human interactions. In a way, this can be extrapolated to their ostensible lack of leadership on crucial issues. There is so much disarray in their hierarchy leading to dissipation of energy by pulling in different directions. 

The Republicans use commonsensical methods to lead and plead their causes. This is not an endorsement of what the party stands for. Rather, it is a lesson in how to promote principles. The laser-like focus of delivery, no matter how repulsive the argument is, reduces instances of ambiguity in interpretation by the intended audience. They link the debate to everyday people and concerns. Obviously, there are drawbacks. 

The Democrats respond by crying “exploitation of fears”. It is a great political gift needed for success if applied reasonably. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – during his campaign – bucked the Democrat’s penchant to complicate policy explanation with abstract concepts. Getting to Washington and forgetting the skills that aided the journey, is causing Obama sleepless nights. Clinton encountered a version of the same reality. 

Professorial address and talking based on focus group research results will almost always pale in the face of genuine clear talk. The problem is not with research but its articulation in everyday parlance. Academic presentation in social interactions, particularly to explain policies, is a no, no. The key to success is the knack to connect message to everyday experience. In addition, omit unrelated issues.

Who speaks for the Democrats in trying times? Where is the focus when the only light in the room goes out? They have taken the idea of teamwork to a ridiculous extent. It is like a warship full of Navy Captains without ratings. Obviously, this is a recipe for chaos and recurrence of same mistakes whenever they are in control.

 Difilosofa © 2010

ARE REPUBLICANS AWARE OF ICARUS PARADOX?

Thanks to search engines, I will not dwell on the full story behind Icarus paradox. Suffice it to mention the kernel of the paradox. Depending on one strategy, which appears to work, without checking its possible drawbacks down the road, generally, leads to terrible consequences. The Republican Party ought to be aware of this, given its recent electoral setback in 2008. 

Politicians, like the rest of us, fail to learn from history. Or may be, we all find it difficult to avoid tunnel vision syndrome. The party should not be carried away by its recent electoral victories in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. Political pundits, especially those operating out of Washington, seem to operate within a box. They never seem to foresee impending political problems. 

The Party’s should avoid a perception of standing for “our way or the high way”, on issues. This could be backfire earlier than anyone expects. According to political speak, elections have consequences. One of which is that the vanquished does not always dictate to the party in power. Though this statement may appear brutal, that is the way it is.   

Politicians underrate the intelligence and inelastic patience of the electorate at and to their peril. Public opinion can swing on a dime. Republicans have an opportunity to reduce an impending calamity by finding ways to work President Obama to pass some legislation. Doggedness every step along the way will definitely come back to haunt the party. May be not in November. 

It will, inadvertently, create an opening for Democrats. Obama, like him or not, is a very talented and charming politician. He showed signs of what is in store in his first State of the Union speech. Republicans run the risk of allowing Democrats to remind everyone of the situation before Obama took office. Nature abhors functioning along the lines of absolute confrontation. 

As an independent I do not engage in spin doctoring. I call things the way I see them. This blog is to vent my feelings. In other forums I had correctly predicted many political events. I had written to warn Mitt Romney – during the Republican Presidential primaries – on the consequences of going after Senator McCain the way he did. The rest is now history.  

I warned the Democratic Party presidential candidates to watch Barack Obama, when it was not conventional wisdom to fathom him prevailing over the Clinton political machine. These are based on inexplicable insights. There are certain things that polls will never reveal. This is not to suggest non-relevance of polls. What polls fail to show is the effect of pent up feelings. 

Republicans have been praised – in a past posting – on party discipline. However, overplaying this card is extremely dangerous. The resulting perception may lead to in unintended consequences. The party has to find ways to work with the Obama administration and other members of Congress. It is just impossible to justify the present attitude of appearing to raise irreconcilable objections to every proposal.   

Difilosofa ©2010

DEMOCRATS AND THE MASSACHUSETTS DEBACLE

The reactions – especially from the Democrats – on the special election results to fill late Ted Kennedy’s senate seat is as amusing as it is funny. As an independent, the idiosyncrasies of both major political parties provide daily comedy servings.

There is an African saying that “ Nature is so wonderful that it does not endow ferocious animals with horns!” Republicans and Democrats are ferocious animals and as such they are not endowed with horns. Can you imagine if pit bulls had horns?

The Republican Party is a disciplined party for all intent and purposes. Generally, it’s selection of candidates for public office is spot on in terms of personality and personal charm. Arguably, the party is not for minorities and the not-well-to-do.

The intrigue is why the party seems to connect better with voters since, the last time I checked, the well-to-do are not in the majority. I can hear Republicans and Democrats denouncing this piece. An African saying “the day a madman acknowledges his condition is the beginning of his recovery” is my response.  

However, the RepublicanParty has a knack for selecting and crafting any message to appeal to emotions. I do not blame them one bit. Politics is that way. I will not go as far as agreeing with the concept that “ they manipulate based on fear.”

The scenario points to one thing: Democrats leave the opening, deliberately or inadvertently. Democrats have a narcissistic flair. This tendency is something that is inexplicable but discernible to the average folk.  Al Gore, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman are emblematical of one feature – body language.

They appear cosmetic when they speak. Hillary Clinton has a low dosage of similar traits. The exceptions are Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama was saved from his patrician tendencies early during his campaign. Recall the complaints about his handshakes etc?  

Martha Coakley appears not only to harbor the flair but also unable to mask it in public. The public I mean is her clips shown on television. This is the medium where we get to form opinions about politicians. The question remains “why are the Democrats unable to see the obvious?”

On the other hand, Republicans seem not to know the limits of deploying the same “folksy speak and candidates.” Recollect John McCain’s refrain of Joe the plumber at all campaign stops? Well, if both parties can “get it” my source of comedy will cease to exist

Difilosofa ©2010

The Democrats should celebrate, but….

Victory today suggests defeat sometime in the future. I hope the Democrats look back at the period they spent in the political wilderness. It is particularly important to retrospect on how the Republicans ended up this way.

The saying “The only thing man has learnt from history is that man has refused to learn from history” summarizes why the Republicans lost. It is an incurable ailment without any hope of any cure.

Powerful kingdoms, empires and nations make similar mistakes that caused others before them to disintegrate. Business organizations are not immune from the same tendencies. These keep talking heads and commentators busy. 

The democrats, try as much as they might, would at the end make stupid mistakes and prepare the path for the republicans to stage a come back. Are you wondering why?

Have you heard that there is nothing new under the sun? There are constant principles and ideas in reality. They differ only in manifestations. It does take a rocket scientist to come this painful realization.

Arguably, control is one of the principles. Control, in my opinion, underlies most of what transpires in interactions. Yet, control cannot last forever as long as the mechanisms are not updated to reflect changing circumstances.

Ideas have symbiotic relationship with control. Once any idea works out, it is hailed as the panacea and, in many cases, everyone scrambles to perfect it. This is against the nature of reality. 

Failure creeps in as soon as the mindset of absolute control gets better part of individuals or organizations. Any one in ascendancy who fails to keep this in mind is doomed to fail.

If the diagnosis is this simple, why repeat the errors? Most individuals, read strategists, are averse to trying something new out of fear of blame. This leaves the door open for any adventurist.

A good example is the primaries and caucuses of the party. Senator Obama’s team looked beyond the traditional model of operation. On the other hand, Senator Clinton adopted time-tested model. At the end, the former prevailed.

In the general election, Obama’s campaign went against his party’s tradition of protecting its safe-havens and slugging it out in so-called traditional battleground states. The campaign deployed a multi-pronged blitz. McCain was not prepared. Obama won.

Many strategists must be studying and working on adapting President-elect Obama’s campaign strategy with the next general election in mind. Success will not be guaranteed unless the template is seen as a moving target.

Therefore, the democrats should enjoy this victory and prepare for a night of anguish in the future. How and when is not something I am willing to conjecture on. But I know that man always refuses to learn from history.

Difilosofa ©20o8