What’s The Question

Why Are They Talking To The Wrong People?

Posted by Leo under Opinion, Politics

There’s a commonly held belief in marketing: People buy benefits, not features. They need to know what’s in it for them.

For example: TiVo didn’t make sense to a lot of folks. It was just a fancy VCR, right? But once folks started to understand from the early adopters what the benefits were of digital recorders, they started snatching them up. Enough so that “TiVo” is now used as a verb (”I need to TiVo American Idol tonight”). The features included being able to record one show while watching another. Not all that great until folks realized it meant they could watch anytime, and skip right over the commercials, without missing a show. It’s not “what does it do?” that’s important, it’s “what does it do for me?”.

And that’s exactly where I think the problem is with the issue of gay marriage. Personally, I’m all for it. Any two adult individuals should be able to form a legal union recognized by the state, and by extension, business. It’s that simple. At least, it is for me. But I’m not the average John Q. Public.

There are a couple of problems with the way this whole issue had been presented to the American public. Most Americans, if they are already married, couldn’t care less about who marries who. It doesn’t affect their marriage, so who cares? The married folks that do care tend to lean pretty strongly to one end of the political spectrum or the other, usually to the right. You aren’t going to change these people’s minds. Ever. It’s like selling icemakers to Eskimos.

The next problem is continuing to use the phrase gay marriage. The problem isn’t with gay. It’s with marriage.

Marriages are exclusively the realm of faith. People were getting married long before they were signing their names to licenses. What most people refer to as a marriage is technically a civil union that may or may not have been accepted as such by the church. These unions - legal and binding relationships - were designed to resolve issues of inheritance, ownership, and other material matters. As an example, the Church of England allowed marriages well before they started licensing. And when they did start licensing it was approximately 75 years before those licenses would be issued to  individuals not of the congregation.

So, marriages are a matter of faith, the unions that the parties enter into are a matter of law. This may sound like a petty distinction, but in the effort to win the rights of a civil union for all individuals, these little points will make a difference. Fooks who are worried about their “marriages” being destroyed because two people of the same sex “got married” are completely hung up on the word. A great number of them couldn’t care less if it’s just a legal distinction, as long as you don’t say “married”. If your faith allows the rites of marriages, then the legal union allows the state to recognize the relationship, and your faith gives you the rest. Who cares what it’s called?

The main reason people of the same sex want to have their unions legally acknowledged by the law isn’t because they want to throw fancy weddings with fabulous decor. It’s because they want to be able to take care of their partners should something happen. They want to have the right to make wills, hold property, sign legal documents on behalf of one another. And this is the point where the real discussion must happen.

As I mentioned above, you have to sell the benefits, and sell it to the right people. Don’t talk about marriages. Heck, don’t talk about civil unions. Talk about something that really matters - taking care of someone you love. For example, my SO and I have been together a little over two years. We are not married. If something happened to her job tomorrow and she needed a doctor, things would get dicey very quickly. I can’t put t]her on my coverage because the law does not currently provide for that relationship to be recognized. But let’s reverse the situation - let’s say I’m the one that loses a job. My medical needs and those of my 6-year-old daughter are now in jeopardy because my SO can’t put us on her insurance. Now that’s something that gets my attention and makes me think. I’m the kind of person that needs to be engaged in this issue.

How many folks are in a similar situation to me? Those are the follks that should be getting talked to. It’s not about gay/straight/black/white/male/female. It’s about people being able to take care of one another when it’s needed. Talk to me about that. Talk to everyone about that. Because that’s where you get people’s attention - when it’s about them.

The longer this remains an issue of “gay marriage”, the longer it will take for everyone, including me, to be able to have the same rights and benefits that a newly “married” couple gets.

Merced River In Yosemite Reaches Near Flood Stage

Posted by Leo under Uncategorized

Yosemite National Park evacuates campgrounds | Yockster.com

Warm rains from a tropical storm and a heavy snowmelt on Friday and Saturday caused the Merced River to surge almost to its flood stage in Yosemite Valley.
The whirling water forced the evacuation of 71 campsites near the river, according to the National Park Service.

The last really big flood in the Yosemite Valley was back in 1977. It actually damaged a number of structures, but also started a renewal process. Rather than just rebuild, the park used the opportunity to remove some man made structures and allow the Valley to move more toward its natural state.

Flood like this impact camping and visiting in the park, but in the end act as a renewal of the processes that make Yosemite the wonder that it is.

Are Politicians Just Good Storytellers?

Posted by Leo under Observations, Opinion, Politics

The points below are from a 2006 article by marketing guru Seth Godin. They are designed to help marketers understand what it takes to sell a product well. But in reading it, I found strange parallels to the world of politics.

Ode Magazine : How to tell a great story

Great stories succeed because they are able to capture the imagination of large or important audiences.

A great story is true. Not necessarily because it’s factual, but because it’s consistent and authentic. Consumers are too good at sniffing out inconsistencies for a marketer to get away with a story that’s just slapped on.

Note the distinction here. The stories that work aren’t factual. They may be based in facts, but those facts will not sell the story. No, the story itself must be based on those facts, but shouldn’t get bogged down in them.

Most politicians learn this early on. They learn that it isn’t the facts that matter, it’s the story. Cue ‘Joe the Plumber’. Joe’s not his name (it’s Samuel), he is not a small business owner (he works for one), he didn’t buy the company he was talking about (can’t afford it), and the tax plan he complained about directly benefited him (despite his complaints). The facts, in this case, were almost diametrically opposed to the “truth” of the story. It was a good story that didn’t hold up under scrutiny. Politicians learn quickly to keep enough facts in line with the story to keep it “truthful” or the story becomes a joke.

Great stories make a promise. They promise fun, safety or a shortcut. The promise needs to be bold and audacious. It’s either exceptional or it’s not worth listening to.

Politicians making promises? When does THAT happen?

Ok, sarcasm aside, this is one area where the pols excel. The most successful politicians either make the bold promises, or they disappear. What changes a politician into a leader is if they can deliver on the promises made. That’s why there are so many politicians, but so few leaders. Leaders come from every stripe, but the one thing you can count on is that they will deliver on the promises made.

Great stories are trusted. Trust is the scarcest resource we’ve got left. No one trusts anyone. People don’t trust the beautiful women ordering vodka at the corner bar (they’re getting paid by the liquor company). People don’t trust the spokespeople on commercials (who exactly is Rula Lenska?). And they certainly don’t trust the companies that make pharmaceuticals (Vioxx, apparently, can kill you). As a result, no marketer succeeds in telling a story unless he has earned the credibility to tell that story.

Here is a spot where politicians have to walk a very fine line. In political circles, they’ll refer to it as “political capital”, the amount of weight a politician’s words will have based on their past deeds and speech. This ties very closely to the point above about truth. When you hear John Edwards talk about family values, Rush Limbaugh talk about the drug war, or a Wall Street CEO talk about fiscal responsibility, it’s going to ring hollow. Consequently, other topics they want to talk about will be suspect. They may be dead on target, but their audience may not be able to see past their prior acts.

Politicians know this, and will often refuse to commit to a an answer if they feel it might undermine them later, regardless of whether it’s right decision or not. For example, a recent decision by Jim Gibbons, Governor of Nevada, was to allow a bill to pass into law without his signature. In many legislatures, the governor has the option to not veto a bill but not sign it either. The bill was foe use of stimulus package money to fund education. By using this tactic, Gibbons can remain “truthful” when he says that he did not veto the bill because he values education, while still being able to “truthfully” take the stance that he opposed funding from the federal government with strings attached. He plays both sides of the fence. Meanwhile, he continues to look “truthful”.

Great stories are subtle. Surprisingly, the fewer details a marketer spells out, the more powerful the story becomes. Talented marketers understand that allowing people to draw their own conclusions is far more effective than announcing the punch line.

Politicians excel in this technique. For example, remember the focus on Barack Obama’s middle name during (and even after) the ‘08 election campaign? Especially when it was announced that he would use it during the inauguration? Why was the focus there? Because his middle name is “Hussein”. By using that name repeatedly, those in opposition made various connections between the then-candidate and extreme radicals and deposed dictators. They wouldn’t have to make the claim themselves, they’d just let the audience do it.

Great stories happen fast. First impressions are far more powerful than we give them credit for. Great stories don’t always need eight-page colour brochures or a face-to-face meeting. Either you are ready to listen or you aren’t.

With today’s lightning fast news cycle, this point is of utmost importance to politicians. If they can’t tell their story in a sound bite, it won’t pass muster. Of course, today’s media outlets are a large part of this. News has become less about the story than it is about the sensation. The bigger news stories are the scariest, the most outrageous, the most salacious. It has become more important to be the first to tell the story, rather than tell the whole story. Politicians

Great stories don’t appeal to logic, but they often appeal to our senses. Pheromones aren’t a myth. People decide if they like someone after just a sniff.

In the world of the politician, this translates to emotions rather than senses. If they can get to you with fear, anger, even hatred, they get an instant, visceral response. Some have succeeded with positive messages, appealing to hope and goodwill, But this is the exception, not the norm. Politics as usual means appealing to the baser senses, the raw emotions to get nearly instantaneous responses. This of course is directly related to the point above regarding speed of story. They’ll get a single sound bite to get your attention. It needs to hit home quickly.

Great stories are rarely aimed at everyone. Average people are good at ignoring you. Average people have too many different points of view about life and average people are by and large satisfied. If you need to water down your story to appeal to everyone, it will appeal to no one. The most effective stories match the world view of a tiny audience—and then that tiny audience spreads the story.

In modern politics, this is referred to as delivering the red meat. Politicians send the message to specific constituencies to ensure their support for the next election. Sure, they’d like to attract new followers. But the main focus will be to strengthen the base of the followers they already have. So they tailor their rhetoric, their stories, to the group that will be most receptive. You can’t please all the people all the time, as the saying goes, but you can keep a smaller group happy.

Great stories don’t contradict themselves. If your restaurant is in the right location but had the wrong menu, you lose. If your art gallery carries the right artists but your staff is made up of rejects from a used car lot, you lose. Consumers are clever and they’ll see through your deceit at once.

This is where a politician will stumble. Remember John Kerry and “flip-flopping”? While his actions may have been in line with his thinking, his speech and the story line didn’t resonate as true. They contradicted, and the flip-flop meme was built. Politicians who want to succeed in their career have to make sure that their stories don’t contradict, that they stay consistent. That is not to say they should be set in concrete. Often, the story is consistent with itself, but contradicted by outside facts.

An example of this is the “WMDs” that Saddam Hussein was accused of producing. They were never found, nor any evidence of them ever brought to light. The initial story was consistent within itself. Brutal dictator, sworn enemy to the United States, tales of various materials brought in to create weaponry - all these told a compelling story. But as events unfolded, the facts outside of the story began to contradict the initial story. The storytellers stayed consistent with their story, but lost credibility when they stayed with a story that was disproved.

Most of all, great stories agree with our world view. The best stories don’t teach people anything new. Instead, the best stories agree with what the audience already believes and makes the members of the audience feel smart and secure when reminded how right they were in the first place.

This is perhaps the place where politicians have the hardest time. Politicians have to look for their support, and this generally means they have to espouse a particular world view. So, they’ll appeal to those that agree, and push away those that don’t. It’s very difficult to sway someone from one side to the other. This is where the “independent” voter comes into play. These folks don’t have a singular world view. Instead they may lean in one direction on one issue, but completely the opposite on another issue.

Rather than address issues as individual items, politicians tend to try to package things together, creating a “platform”, with each of these issues as a “plank”. And most politicians will fall into supporting that platform not because they necessarily think it’s full of good planks, but because it gives them the support of the party. In fact, those who vary in their support of the planks are often punished with less financial support, less promotion, and less clout in the party. So they have little incentive to have a “world view” that differs significantly from the greater party line.

So, while Godin wrote this to show how successful marketing tells a cohesive, interesting story, it is also easy to see how politicians fit into this same mold. And it also gives us a way to understand how they tell their stories. With this knowledge, we can start to decipher what they’re saying, and make more informed decisions.

Poker and Politics - Can the Republicans be Felted?

Posted by Leo under Opinion, Politics

Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

If you’ve ever been in a no-limit high stakes poker game and found yourself with a short stack of chips, you know what it’s like to play with a major disadvantage. It’s not enough to have a good hand. At any time, another player can force you to make the decision between folding and going all-in with the remainder of your chips. Any hand you choose to play could spell your elimination. Under those circumstances, you have to wait until you have a great hand. Bluffing becomes a suicide mission. And, yet, if you just keep folding as you wait for a great hand, your pile will be slowly bled dry by the antes. You must gamble. Analogous decisions have faced the Republicans since the beginning of this Congress.

Booman’s analogy to poker is close, but not quite there. It is analogous to tournament poker, where losing all your chips means you’re out.

Unfortunately, a closer analogy is to cash games in poker. Here, your all-in bet may drain you of the chips on the table, but you can always go back into your pocket for more money. This is really what the Republicans do.

For example, like an inexperienced poker player who can’t throw away a pocket pair of aces, they held onto their hand stubbornly when it came to the stimulus. They refused to see that they were already beaten, and lost that hand.

But rather than learn from that lesson, they reached back into their pockets. And so far, they have been either bluffing or overplaying each time. They tried to bluff with Michael Steele - it failed. They try to overplay their hands by pumping up the “teabaggers” - another lost hand. But each time, they reach into their pocket for another stack of chips.

The mistake here would be to think that eventually they’ll run out. They won’t. No, this game doesn’t end. They have an endless well of chips to reach for.

Instead, this game should be played just like a good cash game. Let them keep coming, and let them keep donating their stacks. As they do, they give away their play to others. They let others see how they play, and where the money comes from. And they go on tilt, trying harder and harder to win using the same strategies that have already failed. Meanwhile, everyone else’s chips stacks grow, and they become stronger.

Would We Miss Them?

Posted by Leo under Uncategorized

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, suggested today that Texans might want to secede from the union:

Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Texas/Southwest

Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters’ questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.

Texas did secede in 1861, but the North’s victory in the Civil War put an end to that.

Secede from the union. Really? Did Perry watch the last couple of weeks of “24″ and figure that the bad guys were a model for the way to move forward? Perhaps he forgot how well it worked out the last time Texas seceded.

Of course, Perry’s being hyperbolic in front of frothing-at-the-mouth protesters who want to follow him into his secessionary dream. He walked a fine line between roiling up the masses and treasonous invective. But while he talks of the federal government sucking at the teat of the American citizen, he neatly obfuscates the fact that he’s just as willing to take from the federal government as just about anyone else.

For example, for every $1 that the state of Texas sends to the federal government in taxes, it gets back nearly every penny from in the form of federal spending. Compare that to states at the bottom of the list like New Jersey or New Hampshire who get back 30% less.  Yup, Texas makes sure they get their share. Oh, and the stimulus bill - yeah, he made sure they got theirs too.

So what’s Perry up to? What else? Getting re-elected. He’s firing up the hard right noisemakers to get them vocal and behind him. He wants to cater to the fringe element that is ready to “take up arms against their oppressors”, even if that means seceding from the union.

So I say to Mr. Perry - go for it. Pull away. Go ahead and create your own little fiefdom.

But you know those “border problems” of yours. You now own them. And don’t let your secessionist riff-raff across our border. Oh, and the federal funds you were receiving? Those are gone. Fix your own damn roads, secure your own ports, work out your own trade agreements. Hey! Maybe you can get George W. to run things for you if Perry doesn’t work out. We all know how well he did in his last gig.

Of course, that won’t happen. And I truly believe there are a whole bunch more reasonable, thinking Texans that are embarassed by Perry’s bloviating. Will they get tired enough to find a better choice for governor?

Does It Make You Mad?

Posted by Leo under Annoying, Opinion, Politics

This is the kind of story that makes me crazy.

Remember “yellowcake”? The stuff that is so evil, so dangerous that we went to war in Iraq over it? That a CIA operative was outed for discrediting its’ existence? The WMD manufacturing material that has, in part, cost the lives of thousands of our men and women in uniform?

Apparently, we were looking in the wrong place. We should have been looking at Lehman Brothers.

April 14 (Bloomberg) — Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is sitting on enough uranium cake to make a nuclear bomb as it waits for prices of the commodity to rebound, according to traders and nuclear experts.

The bankrupt bank, in the throes of paying off creditors, acquired uranium cake “under a matured commodities contract” and plans to sell it when the market improves “to realize the best prices,” Chief Executive Officer Bryan Marsal said.

Lehman, once the fourth-largest investment bank, has an estimated $200 billion in unsecured liabilities left to pay. The uranium, which may be as much as 500,000 pounds, might fetch $20 million at today’s prices of about $40.50 per pound, said traders who asked not to be named because of the confidential nature of the data. Marsal said the traders’ estimate of Lehman’s uranium holding is “reasonable,” while declining to be more specific.

…

The market is regulated by governments, who control transport of radioactive material and limit the number of buyers and sellers by requiring them to obtain licenses. Utilities and producers are key buyers and sellers. Lehman got its license just a month before its bankruptcy, one of the traders said.

A supply of 500,000 pounds of yellowcake is just “slightly” less than the amount needed to make one bomb, or fuel one nuclear power reactor for a year, if the latest enrichment technologies are used, said Gennady Pshakin, an Obninsk, Russia-based nonproliferation expert.

Yup, that’s right. The bankrupt company was given a license to trade this stuff just a month before they declared bankruptcy, and bought it after they filed.

If you or I file for bankruptcy, our assets, for the most part, are forfeited. You can lose your home, your savings, etc., to repay at least some of your debt. In a business bankruptcy, the move is usually made to stave off creditors and give the company time to reorganize. And this usually involves someone looking at the assets. Who botched this one so badly that they thought it would be ok for a bankrupt company to be holding uranium for sale to the highest bidder?

Note that the trade of this stuff is regulated by government entities. These governments require licensing and documentation of radioactive material, and track the sale and transport of these materials. So, ostensibly, someone knew Lehman had this material, and knew they had filed bankruptcy before the purchase. Which means that Lehman was allowed to purchase a highly dangerous nuclear material - enough to build a nuclear bomb - then look to sell it to the highest bidder.

How does this happen? Are we supposed to just say, “hey, that’s business”?

h/t @bipartreport Where I rant about Lehman nuking us and the economy | THE BIPARTREPORT

Why Is Something This Simple So Difficult?

Posted by Leo under Opinion

Official Home of the Free Hugs Campaign - Inspired by Juan Mann - Home

Sometimes, a hug is all what we need.

Juan Mann’s (a pseudonym) story is not new. He’s been on plenty of TV programs, covered on the Internet. His story has been told.

And yet, it still speaks to the growing inability of people to reach out to one another.

Mann had suffered a series of setbacks in his life, leading him to head back home to Australia. On disembarking the plane, he saw families greeting loved ones, friends embracing. And he wanted a hug too.

So he embarked on a mission to do something for others - give them a hug. He started simply, with a handwritten sign that said “Free Hugs”. And he got plenty of odd looks. Eventually, someone did take him up on the offer. She was having a particularly bad day. Her pet had died on the 1 year anniversary of her daughter’s death, that same day. And she felt alone. What she needed was to not feel alone, to feel connected. What she wanted was a hug.

That started a movement. Mann spent a great deal of time in public places, simply offering free hugs.

And then, it happened.

He was stopped because he he didn’t have the appropriate amount of liability insurance ($25 million) to give hugs on the street. Insurance against hugging injuries.

Petitions were circulated and Mann was once again allowed to hug.

So why the interest now? He started almost five years ago. It’s not new.

As I watched the video included here, I was stricken by a common thread with the folks seen. As they hug, they have a look of joy, of relief, of feeling good. Some laugh, most smile. All look happy. How simple it was to get them there - just a hug from a total stranger.

Why is it we find it so hard to do those simple things that make others - and by extension, ourselves happy?

Have we really become so narcissistic, so cynical, that we can’t understand why a hug can have such power?

When my dad passed away, I got to hear many great stories about how he had impacted people’s lives. And one was how my dad had caused my stepmother’s family to become “huggers”. Early on in their relationship my dad and stepmother had gone to my grandmother’s house. They weren’t physically affectionate, and my stepmom simply said “hello” to her mother upon entering the house. My dad wouldn’t stand for this. As far as he saw it, you hugged your mother when you saw her. So he insisted. They hugged. And so did anyone else who walked in while he was present. To this day, the family hugs, including the men - “manly” hugs, of course.

Such a simple gesture, a hug. Yet it conveys an emotion, a connection between two individuals. And that’s what makes the “Free Hugs” message powerful. The movement is an attempt to deliver random acts of kindness to total strangers - to give them something with no expectation of anything in return. And that, perhaps, is why people seem to have a hard time understanding it. Some dismiss it as frivolity, as “stupid” or “pointless”. They have become so jaded to the world that they can see no reason for offering something for nothing, for connecting to a random human being with no ulterior motive.

Some will respond that they give to charities, they donate clothing. But ask them to put their arms around someone in need, to make that simple, physical connection, and they shy away. Why? Do they fear that by making that connection that perhaps they might show their own vulnerability? That someone might exploit their kindness?

Or are we really so far down the path that we can’t do anything for anyone unless there is something in it for us? That we can no longer make that connection to let them know they aren’t alone, and neither are we.

My daughter is a hugging machine. Enough that it has actually worried me - what if she hugs the wrong person? What if she chooses to hug someone who might have an inappropriate thought? There are people out there that might hurt her. My job as a dad is to keep her safe, right? And yet, I don’t want her to lose that desire to hug. I want her to give of herself, and receive of others, that human connection.

How have we gotten to this point, that we require a guy giving free hugs to obtain liability insurance? And can we ever get to a place where we don’t distrust a random act of kindness? I hope so. I really hope so.

Who will you give one to today?

How’s This For Stimulus?

Posted by Leo under Uncategorized

Miami banker gives $60 million of his own to employees - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com

Lots of bosses say they value their employees. Some even mean it.

And then there’s Leonard Abess Jr.

After selling a majority stake in Miami-based City National Bancshares last November, all he did was take $60 million of the proceeds — $60 million out of his own pocket — and hand it to his tellers, bookkeepers, clerks, everyone on the payroll. All 399 workers on the staff received bonuses, and he even tracked down 72 former employees so they could share in the windfall.

For longtime employees, the bonus — based on years of service — amounted to tens of thousands of dollars, and in some cases, more than $100,000.

At a time when financial titans are being paraded before Congress to explain how they blew billions on executives’ bonuses even as they received a taxpayer bailout, the big-hearted banker’s selfless deed stands out.

With all the news about big bank execs taking piles of cash in bailout money and doling it out to in bonuses, I’ll admit I was a bit jaded. But this appears to be the real deal. Abess is the son of the bank’s founder, and wanted to do something for the employees when he sold his interest in the bank. All of the employees.

You can’t legislate this kind of stuff. But can you imagine what might actually happen in the economy if more execs thought this way? Each of these employees will find a way to use their bonus, all boosting the economy in their own way. Now that’s stimulus.

Forget Being Bi, At Least In Washington

Posted by Leo under Opinion, Politics

Sure, it’s a novel, perhaps even titillating idea. Playing both sides, experimenting with new ideas. but in most cases, folks make a choice, and someone gets hurt. You know what I’m talking about.

Bipartisanship.

It’s an unfortunate word, that bipartisanship. It assumes that both sides, both parties are interested in meeting in the middle. And frankly, that never happens. Such was the case the last two weeks with the stimulus bill being put forth by President Obama. A lot keeps being brought up in regards to bipartisanship, and how it isn’t happening. Depending on who you listen to, either the Democrats are not following through on bipartisanship because they claim a mandate, or the Republicans aren’t following through because they have no interest in anything other than obstructionism.

The fact is, no matter how good bipartisanship sounds, it’s a pipe dream. And the media keep swarming around the White House asking about it.

But here’s my theory: We have elected someone who is a bit smarter than the average bear. I don’t think he’s shooting for bipartisanship at all. No, I think what he is doing might be more accurately termed non-partisanship. Let’s look at what he’s done.

First, he meets with House and Senate members from both sides of the aisle on the Hill. He invites members of both parties to the White House for more discussion. He even appoints multiple Republican members to his cabinet.

Now, some will say that all he did was appease the Republicans and they slapped his hands. I see it differently.

But understand the bottom line that I’ve got right now, which is what’s happening to the people of Elkhart and what’s happening across the country. I can’t afford to see Congress play the usual political games. What we have to do right now is deliver for the American people. So my bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is, send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs. Because everybody has to be possessed with a sense of urgency about putting people back to work, making sure the folks are staying in their homes and that they can send their kids to college.

This quote is from the President’s first press conference. The “bottom line” mentality is what I mean by non-partisanship. Instead of thinking about what one side or the other can gain from their action, what should be considered is what is going to work. When it comes what needs to be done in Washington to help the economy, for example, there is agreement on both sides on the biggest issues. Jobs need to be created; both sides agree on that. But what happens fairly quickly at this point is that the argument then degrades into whose idea will do that better, and the ideas tend to fall down on one side or the other. That’s what the pols in Washington are used to doing.

But perhaps there is another way. Rather than bringing in ideology, lets look at things pragmatically. Start with the stuff that actually creates a job. Forget about tax cuts or incentives. Instead, actually create jobs. Get people back to work. Once that has been done, you can discuss how to “stimulate” the economy with tax cuts or incentives. But first, get people back to work.

The only way this can happen is if both sides stop thinking about winning against the other and instead focus on just getting the job done. This is the heart of non-partisanship.

Do I think that politicians are capable of this? Maybe. But I’m not holding my breath. There is too much entrenched cynicism in the system to easily break the habit of red/blue thinking. But there maybe some who can pull it off.

Meanwhile, back at the White House, I think they may have already figured this out. There are some wiley folks out there. And from my vantage point (out here in the wilds of average America), they’re already working it to their advantage. Much has been made about the “outreach” the White House has made to Republicans. In fact, there is actually criticism that the effort may have set back the passing of the stimulus package. I believe, that it plays directly to the strength of the White House. Something needs to be done, they made the case, and now, anything short of getting the job done looks like obstruction. It makes the next step easier. The “outreach” will continue, and the pendulum swings to the polite side as the other side gets nasty.

The politicians who will survive in the next elections cycle will likely be those who figure out how to be non-partisan; those who figure out how to deliver for their constituency what is needed first, and what the party wants behind that. That should be the way business is done in Washington

Why Hasn’t This Woman Been Sent To A Mental Health Specialist?

Posted by Leo under Annoying, Opinion, Parenting

You’ve probably heard a whole bunch about this story already…

Octuplets’ mother wants Oprah to turn her into a $2m TV star - Times Online

THE single mother of octuplets born in California last week is seeking $2m (£1.37m) from media interviews and commercial sponsorship to help pay the cost of raising the children.

Nadya Suleman, 33, plans a career as a television childcare expert after it emerged last week that she already had six children before giving birth on Monday. She now has 14 below the age of eight.

Although still confined to an LA hospital bed, she intends to talk to two influential television hosts this week — media mogul Oprah Winfrey, and Diane Sawyer, who presents Good Morning America.

Her family has told agents she needs cash from deals such as nappy sponsorship — she will get through 250 a week in the next few months — and the agents will gauge public reaction to her story.

Are you kidding me?

The woman now has 14 kids, all under the age of 8. One of the first six is autistic.

Angela and Ed Suleman, Nadya’s parents,bought her a two-bedroom bungalow in the suburb of Whittier in March 2007, but soon after got into debt and had to leave their own home.

They filed for bankruptcy and moved in with their daughter and grandchildren. Last week her father said he would return to his native Iraq to work as a translator and driver.

Angela Suleman, who is caring for the first six children — one of whom is autistic — while her daughter is in hospital, said yesterday that she had consulted a psychologist over Nadya’s “obsession with children”.

So - this woman’s parents lost their own home to give her one, and her mother has already suggested that she might need some mental help.

Let’s look at some of the issues here:

• She works at a fertility clinic
• She has already had twins from in vitro fertilization
• She was a single mom with no real income other than student loans.
• She somehow had enough embryos implanted this time to have octuplets, far more than is considered acceptable by the standards of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
• The apparent donor is a friend who works in the same fertility clinic she does.

Now, she want $2 million from someone to tell her story.

So, either she’s completely off the rails, and was willing to endanger her life just to try to max out the number of babies she could deliver - ostensibly because she just wants to keep delivering - or she is the most cynical, self-centered, greedy individual I have heard of in a long time.

I seriously, seriously hope this is a mental illness issue, and that this poor woman is just obsessed with having babies. Because the alternative, that this was planned just to make a grab for a payoff is so abhorrent to me that I want to believe otherwise. But it doesn’t look like it. The kids are less than a week old, she has already signed with agents, and she’s looking for the paycheck.

The sad thing here is that there are thousands of would-be parents who would give their appendages for a chance at one child, in vitro or otherwise. As I saw mentioned in the original comments on the story above, this woman, regardless of motivation, is slapping these poor folks in the face. They have to jump through hoop after hoop, and it’s still a crapshoot as to whether they’ll conceive. But this woman, by virtue of the fact that she works in a fertility clinic, is having children she can’t possibly afford to support, and now is looking for a handout that rivals that of Wall Street CEOs.

WTF.

Edit: Here’s a link to someone who has a little different take on it…

I Don’t Have 14 Kids - Home

I Don’t Have 14 Kids…

So Give Me Money!!!