~synthesis~

suppressing obsession

If a species thinks itself enlightened or evolved, it must go beyond violence to use reasoned and sustainable approaches to resolving differences.

Military actions lead to one of two outcomes - perpetual war between peoples whose antipathy grows stronger every day (ex. Israel v Palestine); or absolute destruction of one side combined with generational investment to hopefully forge peace (ex. Allies v Axis in WWII, and the resulting European Union).

Violence is a terrible answer, but if one is to use that tactic, then one must go in prepared to annihilate the other side, and then invest for decades to help create a new society. Surgical strikes, and limited engagements have proven pointless, and invariably lead to more violence.

If President Obama (or the UN or whomever) is seeking to intervene in Syria, they must either personally participate in mediating an accord between all parties, where peaceful coexistence is the outcome (unlikely); or they must eradicate all the violent elements, and prepare to spend the next several decades forging a new society (unpalatable).

There is another option. The West can urge the governments of surrounding Arab states step in. The Arab nations and Muslims in general have been under siege for years. "External" interventions have exacerbated both the internal situation, and their relationship with the rest of the world. They must come together to make their communities and peoples find lasting peace. It can not come from without.

If the majority of peaceful Arabs and Muslims in the world are not horrified by the violent acts of a malevolent minority, then the majority has a much bigger problem - their own similarly evil nature.

I don't believe this is the case, I think they are complacent because the West has always swooped in.

It is time for America and her cohorts to recognize their impotence; to suppress their compulsion to intervene; and to allow the Arabs and Muslims the room to forge their own tomorrow.

Lasting peace can not be imposed, it must be chosen.

americanada

My good friend Brian Singh from Calgary published this in the Globe & Mail today. It is an excellent analysis of the Conservative Party’s strategy for ascendancy, and ongoing domination of the Canadian government.

There are clear parallels between Ottawa and Washington DC. And there are lessons to be learned about effective, sustainable governance.

Canada: Conservatives rise in the wake of (despite?) years of a strong and successful Liberal leadership, which presided over budget surplus (yes, surplus!) after surplus.

US: Republicans come to the fore in 2002/3 via Karl Rove despite the economic strength of the Clinton/Democratic leadership.

How did they do it? Brian nails it with his 8 Lessons. And with his indulgence, let me add my two cents.

By definition, underdogs are smaller, hungrier, and have less to lose. They have two paths to follow - leaderless/vacuous self-pitying petulance (the road to under-underdoggery), or disciplined, pertinent leadership. Examples of the former include the anti-gun and anti-immigration advocates, whose arguments are specious and whose policies will never improve things.

Then look at how Karl Rove transformed the Republican party into a consistent, relevant, and singular force of political might. He corralled people; narrowed their focus to a handful of clear, simple issues; and created a new truth (Republicans = economic strength and success). All of which led to a close race in Bush vs. Gore, and then a decisive win vs. Kerry.

The Democrats (and the Liberals in Canada) lost their mojo because their sustained success created too many wanna-be kings, excessive infighting, and through this, a fractionalized party whose leaders spent more time trying to one-up each other vs focusing on their Conservative opponents. (Similar also to the last Republican Primary.)

Like the US Democrats, the Canadian Liberals (with the right leadership) were able to coalesce and form effective and long-lived governments. Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien are examples of leaders who were able to achieve critical mass.

Will Justin Trudeau be able to do the same for the Liberals in the years to come? Will Hillary Clinton (?) be able to keep Democrats in the White House in 2016?

I defer to Brian on the first question.

South of the 49th Parallel, the Republican party is in the midst of a 3-way tug-of-war. Traditional fiscal conservatives vs. the religious right vs. the Tea Party. Each seems to “control” about 1/3 of the Republican representatives in Congress, and certainly each believes they are the only hope for victory in 2016.

Try as they might, they’ve not been able to win (or even unite) under a traditional fiscal conservative (McCain, Romney), in fact, they’ve been spanked both times, and from what we’ve seen of the Primary candidate pool, they may be in line for another spanking.

Successful gerrymandering combined with trumped up voter fraud-prevention tactics will almost certainly assure them of a majority in the House, but to what end? There is no emergent House Republican winner or leader; worse, they can only agree on one thing - voting against Democrats. Other than that, they are consistently an inconsequential, and sometimes destructive (last debt ceiling fiasco) Congress.

Like the Liberals in Canada, the Republicans are mired in pettiness and infighting - they lack a consistent vision and are unable to believe in their leadership. Unlike the Liberals (who are now the third party behind the NDP), their success in Congress means they don’t believe they are underdogs. If it ain’t broke...

The Democrats on the other hand have an anti-1% and anti-gun fetish that will doom them. Say what you will about the 1%, they got there by fulfilling the American Dream. Persistently vilifying them is not only moronic, it is destructive and hypocritical. It is equally naive to believe that laws will stop people bent on committing unlawful acts. There are over 300 million privately owned guns in America - background checks are not going to stop gun violence.

Bizarrely, I would advise either party to listen to Sarah Palin’s speech at the CPAC 2013. She crystalized the issues beautifully in terms of what it will take to win votes. Avoid politics, stop blaming other people, just focus on the wellbeing of the lower and middle classes - fight for them, and not against your opponent or within your party.

The Republicans should get over ObamaCare, recognize that eliminating entitlements is not realistic, and see that shrinking government creates unemployment, which further drags the economy. That is not to say we should inflate government, but rather to say that we should spend more efficiently. If they were really smart (and hungry), they’d stop the “we oppose everything Democrats support” line, and become reasoned, compromising people intent on public service. Imagine the change in how independents and liberals would regard them.

The Dems should get over hating rich people, realize that entitlements are not sacrosanct, and stop being so sanctimonious. If they were really smart, they would focus solely on, and trumpet job growth and economic growth. This would especially be effective if Hilary Clinton were to win the primary, as she could “take credit” for the economic positives in both Bill Clinton and Barak Obama’s presidencies.

In the end, I feel more optimistic about Canadian politics and government, where with the right leader, a Party can make a difference. Here in America, it seems that we are doomed to a House, Senate, and White House that will prioritize one-upmanship over governing.

To paraphrase Brian's 8th lesson - winning is easier if your opponent is dumber than you.

the pope loop

My list of questions if the Papacy was a job won via interview, and if I were on that interview loop.

1. Name the one thing you believe every Catholic must be/have - the one thing without which you would not consider that person a Catholic.
2. Name the one thing that if a person was or believed it, you would consider them a non-Catholic.
3. Beyond the "typical" officiating work of a Cardinal, what ONE thing would you (as Pope) define as your priority for the next three years?
4. As Pope, will you focus more on regions where Catholicism is on the rise or in decline?
5. If you had to strengthen the Church's relationship (alliance) with another mainstream religion, which one would you select? What would your goal be in doing this?
6. Are there any aspects of the Church's teachings (traditions/rules vs. religious tenets) that you believe should be reevaluated based on changing times (between now and when these traditions/rules were established)?

My ideal candidate's answers (bearing in mind I have no affiliation with the Catholic Church, nor am I religious):

1. A practitioner of the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, combined with love thy neighbor, which I believe are two sides of the same coin.
2. That harming another or allowing them to come to harm is acceptable.
3. To turn our religion from a series of "No's" to a conversation about "Yes" - assuming the worst and a model that scares people into behaving seems antithetical.
4. I will focus on people in need no matter their faith or location.
5. I would pick Islam. The loudest fringe always subsumes people of moderate voices; this is and has been true in our faith, and it is so in others. It saddens me when the fringe uses faith to advance a self-serving agenda, and it scares me when they advance a violent agenda. I would seek to build a bridge between moderate Catholics and Muslims in the hope that our combined strength and tolerance will help the fringe find its way to the middle.
6. I believe Catholicism is centered on the notions of faith, love, tolerance, and service. Anything beyond this is a matter of time and place. I would look at homosexuality, contraception, celibacy, and the role of women in the Church as subject to reinterpretation.
   • I would rather people are guided by their faith in God and love for each other when it comes to which gender they should love and marry; our teachings should focus on faith and love, and we must trust in God that people will choose wisely, and then accept the guidance God gives them.
   • I would urge adults to view parenting as their most important role; one that must be entered into intentionally, and when ready. There is nothing worse in the world than a child suffering needlessly because their parents are not able to care for them; I would support the use of contraception to prevent this form of child abuse.
   • Rather than being celibate, I would like to see the leaders of our Church be exemplars of healthy, successful marriages and parenting.
   • I would hope that one day soon the person answering these questions is a woman - there is no reason why it should not be so.

the NRA is right - it’s not about the guns...

...it’s about the gun owners. According to Wayne LaPierre (head of NRA), “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” It’s hard to argue with that, just as it is hard to implement an “only good guys may have guns” policy.

Proponents of gun control will say that access to certain (or all) weapons + ineffective buyer "qualification" are the issues. This might be true, but so what - it will not prevent gun violence in a country where there are ~9 times more gun dealers than McDonalds restaurants; where there are already ~300 million guns in circulation, and where 5-10 million guns are purchased every year.

The American Bill of Rights protects an individual’s right to bear arms; changing that is nigh impossible, so the real question is not how to prevent gun ownership; it is akin to what LaPierre said, how do we prevent bad guys from wanting to use guns.

I think the anti-gun lobbies/organizations are wasting their time and money. They ironically draw strength and impetus from killing sprees (especially where young people are involved), and sure they create a feverish signing of anti-gun petitions and calls to Congresspeople, but in the end, the outcome is status quo. And then comes another spree, the process begins anew, with the same outcome - status quo.

Back to LaPierre, who are these “bad” guys? The killers are almost always male, they often are killed or kill themselves in the process (society gets no justice), and they are deranged.

So most gun violence is committed by men; these men buy/get guns as an extension of their penis/machismo. They use guns to assert their maleness, and as a conduit for their anger and bravado. Their role models are gun-toting archetypes, like John Wayne/Rambo/etc., revolutionaries, survivalists, gangstas, soldiers, other spree-killers, etc.

They crave the luster of strength, confidence, coolness, assertiveness, heroism, etc. that comes from wielding a gun. Guns are perceived to be a supremely manly accessory.

Rather than relentlessly pursing the pointless cause of legislative relief, let us instead change the perception of guns. Let us reposition gun ownership and gun usage as something other than an expression of machismo.

It would take time; it would take persistence; it would certainly take creativity; but compare that to the multi-decade failure of every anti-gun organization to meet its goal. It is time to try a new approach.

Positioning is a powerful, powerful tool. It allows a thing to be conceptualized or re-conceptualized in a way that will endure. I wrote this a couple of years ago - if you have a moment, read it, and more importantly, watch the two videos. They are outstanding, and they are exactly what is needed to redefine the lure of “bearing arms.”

How would “men” feel if guns were associated with tampons, or as an indicator of erectile dysfunction? Will this happen overnight? No. But look at how we view cigarette smoking today vs. during the era of Mad Men.

If America’s love of guns is to be diminished, it will NOT be with laws; it will be because we redefined the notion of gun ownership to be insipid.

stimulating peace

America is a generous country - from 1946-2010 (in 2010 $), she has given just under $2.1 trillion in foreign program and military aid. Impressive, and well... it makes me proud to be an American.

Over this period, the #1 beneficiary of American largesse is Israel ($185 billion or 8.9% of all aid).

Israel receives American aid with good reason - they are the longest-standing democracy in the Middle East, and they have the most effective lobbyists in the world. The value proposition is the preservation of Israel in the face of their anti-Zionist neighbors.

I’ve spent time in the Middle East, and except for the (very) rare zealot, the people I’ve met care little about the Jew/Muslim issue - their focus is their family (health, economic, social wellbeing). This is because the people I knew were gainfully employed and had something besides zealotry to live for.

Are there freaks on both sides that are filled with hate? Of course, but not as many as we might think. Do some of them wish to create armies with which to wreak violence? Yes - on both sides. The media’s relentless and gawky focus on the ugly side of humanity is why we think they represent the majority.

America also has it’s share of hate-filled people, but it’s not so easy to achieve critical mass here - most Americans have too many other things to live for/distract them. Even the Occupy Wall Street movement petered out because people soon had better things to do than sit in tents and be irritating.

In 2010, America gave Israel $2.8 billion ($386/person or 1.3% of Israeli GDP) in aid. The West Bank/Gaza received $693 million - $4/person or 10% of GDP. Israel’s GDP/capita is ten times that of their poorer neighbors; the average income in Israel is just over $30,000/year vs. just under $2,000/year in the West Bank.

Is it any wonder that it’s easy to recruit Arab “soldiers” - they literally have nothing better to do, and very sadly, nothing to live for but dying. Having just $5.50/day will lead anyone, however civilized or educated, to desperate acts. It’s not hard to see how a Palestinian parent might join a terrorist organization, or “volunteer” a child to the “cause” - it’s the only available way to feed their family - they’re that poor.

Has the $185 billion in American aid done anything to create a (self-) sustainably peaceful Israel? No. Should we stop? No. Should we continue doing the same thing? No. So...?

Our goal is the long-term preservation of Israel; we should then stop funding their ability to kill Arabs (majority of US aid to Israel is military), and instead help Israel by enabling the Arabs' economic viability.

Employment is the offspring of the marriage of demand with capacity. If America were to proffer large tranches of demand (we will buy $X millions of products Y1, Y2, etc. for the next Z years) to the Palestinians, the result would be widespread employment in Gaza and the West Bank. We would phase out our investment as they became self-sustaining.

This would profoundly change the dynamic in the region. If you had two ways to feed your family - send your daughter to her suicide-bomber-death, or work at a job, which would you choose?

If the majority of Palestinian families are earning enough money to cover shelter, food, education, healthcare, etc., and if they are then earning just a bit more so as to buy that new iPad Mini or a TV, I guarantee you they will not reelect Hamas. They will choose a commerce-minded government bent on improving their economic situation even more. Israel won’t matter except as a trading partner; they’ll be too busy playing Angry Birds, watching Desperate Housewives, and thinking about what they’ll buy with their next bonus.

Now think of how much more stable and peaceful Israel would be. The best way to end war is to give people something more valuable to live for.

America should never weaponize other countries. Peace through prosperity should be our foreign policy motto.

de facto fallacies

What happens when an organization makes a “big” decision? It becomes truth. The level of cognitive dissonance is such that facts, dissenting views, and even wise and pertinent questions are disdained - the “word” has been given.

A few years ago, the Canadian government decided to upgrade their fleet of fighter planes. After a protracted “analysis” they decided to purchase 65 Lockheed F-35s for $9 billion. (They’d already spent $160m by mid-2010 + another $350m in related contracts, despite the fact that the first plane won’t see Canadian shores until 2016.)

During the process, assumptions made early on were so endemic that they became fact. This phenomenon persisted over months. In the end, the project was a house of cards vs. a rigorous, fact/truth-based analysis.

But this wasn’t the only problem. Price creep also set in. When you or I go out to buy a car, we start with a budget - say $30k. With initial good intentions, I look slightly below the limit ($25-27k), and then “out of curiosity,” check out the $30/32k cars. “Wow - this is so much better!”

Now what were luxury features become necessities, “No way I can live without heated seats.” Pretty soon, I’m looking at $35k cars, thinking, “It’s only another $5k - I can swing it.” I walk out happy, having rationalized “only” spending 17% more. Kicker #2 - my next car’s baseline is at least $35k probably closer to $40k (massaging and cooled seats!) -- price creep.

The bigger the organization, the more faux truths and creeping price risk $billions being wasted. In the case of the F-35 fighter, 2012 the “revised estimate” is $25 billion!! Ouch!

It gets worse - the original motivation is also not questioned: “Of course we need new fighter planes - we have no choice!!” Really? What would happen if we retired the current fleet and didn’t replace it? Yes - commitments and capabilities would change, and people would lose their jobs.

But we’d also save $billions - what could we do with that money to employ more people, find new ways to solve the old problem, and maybe even give back a few $billion to the national coffers.

Will this happen? No. The assumption that Canada needs fighters is based on century-old thinking (Canadian planes were part of the RAF in WWI). They’ll never question it – stupid, stupid, stupid.

Government (and most large organization) departments assume power based on the size of their budgets vs. their service to the mission. Budgets are assigned every year on a LOBA (lower of budget or actual spending) basis, which means you have to spend everything you were given, and then figure out ways to get more, ‘cause that demonstrates your relevance. There is zero incentive to do more with less - it’s actually discouraged because this kind of efficiency lowers the department’s “standing.”

This article in the Atlantic is a great example of entrenched thinking at GE vis-à-vis outsourcing. Look also at Boeing’s 787 project and how much difficulty, patching, and mitigation they’ve had to do to overcome what was initially a cute idea (multi-site sourcing), but quickly became the de facto and not-to-be-questioned strategy. Even a nimble company like Apple is going to inshore some of its product assembly.

No assumption deserves absolute faith forever.

Always, always question your assumptions. More than 50% of American marriages end in divorce because the preconceptions were proven wrong. We no longer consider marriage a de facto state; permanence, multi-race, age disparity, and gender are now part of the new normal of marriage. In the same way, there should also be a new normal for divorce - why does acrimony have to persist?

There is a Mexican proposal to redefine marriage as a 2-year contract that must actively be renewed - I think this is a brilliant approach to ensuring that the parties involved continually question their assumptions and actively choose to “re-up” vs. passively enduring a bad situation until things become so bad that hate and anger and vindictiveness ensue.

Entrenchment leads to bad decision-making, costly repercussions, and sadness.

less walls

An act of God (Sandy) resulted in $billions committed to reparations, many benefit concerts by famous entertainers, and a ton of political action.

What, I wonder will an act of man (Sandy Hook) provoke?

It is not realistic to think that even the slaying of 20 children will create a sufficient change of heart to provoke new laws. So I don't expect this country will suddenly become anti-gun, nor do I expect that America will legislatively and enforcement-wise shift from being the most weaponized country on the planet.

What then is possible? What then is realistic? Many are comparing the regulation of cars and driving to guns, but this doesn’t apply either. There is simply no practical way to achieve this.

A knee-jerk reaction will be a demand for guards, stronger doors, and metal detectors in schools so that students are protected. But this is also wrong - I’m reminded of something I wrote a few years ago:

South Africa is one of my favorite places. In Johannesburg, some people live in beautiful homes but you wouldn't know it, because they are surrounded by huge, thick concrete walls with broken glass on the top and steel gates. Safety is in being inside your jail-like walls. I've also been to Soweto a few times, and there, if there is one at all, the fences are low (3 feet) and decorative. I asked why they didn't use tall concrete walls and was told, "we feel safer when our neighbors can see into our homes and come to our aid if we're in trouble. The bigger the walls, the less safe we feel."

This speaks volumes, doesn't it?

In Soweto, they gain support and security from each other. Together they are stronger than as individuals.

In America, every time people do bad things, we act passionately and aggressively to build bigger walls - from tough on crime to anti-terrorism to anti-lunacy. The reward for every bad act is a curbing of everyone’s freedom. America imprisons a greater percentage of its population than any other country in the world - by far. I imagine we also spend more on law enforcement than anyone else.

I believe all of this “tough on X” bluster actually creates more criminals. That the extolling of bad acts in the media actually spawns more bad actors.

Instead of improving things, building bigger walls has only made us more vulnerable.

I believe our friends in Soweto have it right - in the face of bad behavior, our reaction must be to demand more freedom, less or no walls, and more opportunities to be there for our neighbors; to be able to see that there is trouble and come to their aid. There is no shortage of heroes in our world let us give them a chance to save us.

As ever, I am inspired by Aaron Sorkin and Josiah Bartlett. These 3 minutes and 37 seconds are worth another look.

healthy wallets, healthy bodies, healthier US?

Why are healthcare costs around the world rising so dramatically? The costs of innovation, lawsuits, and an aging population are among the “claimed” reasons. Of course they have an effect, but are they the only reason?

If you have an expense account or your parents’ credit card, your “generosity” with their money is much greater than with your own money. You’ll buy more expensive things and be more careless with them - after all - you aren't paying for it.

Health insurance = other people’s money.

If it's your own hard-earned money, you’re more likely to think before you spend; put more effort into preventing expenditures (live healthily), be diligent with your medicines, etc.

American health care was regulated [fascinating read] in the early 1900s; it resulted in better hospitals, but initially very few licensed physicians; this scarcity increased costs, and health insurance was created to ensure that patients could pay their bills. Insurance became pervasive through the 1960-‘70s, and when Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, we were off to the races. By distancing the cost from the consumer, people progressively became more cavalier.

The very existence of health insurance assures excess.

Any issue/injury/ailment/ingrown toenail is worthy of a doctor/hospital visit. We aren’t paying so what the hell! As coverage became based on procedures, doctors "found themselves" doing more tests, but since we aren’t paying, test away!

Costs escalated, insurance companies panicked. Rates increased, employers panicked. Lobbying increased, politicians panicked. Laws were written, and now citizens are panicked.

But then the economy began to slow, unemployment rose, and more people were without coverage.

This increased the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP), which allow individuals (and employers) to set aside before-tax monies in a savings account for routine medical care, and purchase lower premium disaster coverage with high deductibles as a backstop.

Now it's your money, from your account, and you're more careful. The effect? Health care spending growth slowed!

We not only think twice about going to the hospital, we even pay more attention to diet and behavior to keep our costs down. Doctors, knowing it’s the patient’s money, are ordering less tests and expensive or frivolous extras. When GE implemented an HDHP-type plan for its employees, there was a noticeable decline in the use of their own expensive imaging (MRI, CT) products! Not good for GE, but absolutely indicative of better overall behavior. :-)

If you’ve read this blog for a while, you know I’m a proponent of universal health care. But it is subject to abuse and mismanagement. I believe all Americans should have healthcare, but let's learn from previous mistakes. Our implementation should be universal, prioritize patient health, and save money by mandating a minimum of HSA/HDHP for everyone:

• Government pays HSA + HDHP for those earning up to 1.5 times the poverty level.
• Government pays HSA only for those earning up to 2.5 times the poverty level.
• All government employees (including ALL elected officials) receive HSA + HDHP.
• All others are self/employer insured.
• All insurance providers must offer HDHP for anyone without descrimination.
• HSA is tax-free/pre-tax; any unspent $ can roll into an IRA or next year’s HSA. 
• This supplants Medicare/Medicaid and any prescription drug benefits.
• High school graduates qualify for lower rates, as do those with a post-high school certification (see below).

Potential upside:

• Doctors say they can’t assure health because patients don’t take care of themselves or take their medicines properly. This doesn’t solve that, but people might pay more attention if it’s their money, and spend a little today (preventative) to avoid spending a lot tomorrow.
• Less excess = lower costs.
• More self-care = healthier people.
• Direct payment by the patient via HSA (debit card) reduces administrative costs.
• The elimination of Medicare/Medicaid in favor of subsidized HSA/HDHP for those that need it most.

Education mandate - it seems obvious that the more educated you are, the healthier your are, and the longer you live. Now there’s data. So why not tie universal health care to universal education? It only makes sense.

Health insurance costs in the developed world are rising much faster than GDP, and the US is in the worst shape. This approach blends universal access with the very American idea that that we should all have a vested stake.

If we see success (lower costs, improved well being) with this approach, maybe we should also try it for public education?

America is a unique country - it's approach to social services (health, education, etc.) should also be unique.

life choice

Politics in America is polarized and infantile; governing in America is even worse. Governing should be about the whole country; it should prioritize the well-being of all citizens now and in the future. It does neither. Short of a revolution, there doesn’t seem to be a way to change this dynamic. Or is there?

What if we put the most fracturing issue of our time on the table? If both sides can find common ground on this, their most polarizing issue, might that open the door to further compromise?

If the first presidential debate did anything, it showed that one event (in a campaign that began more than 18 months ago) + the right conversation + the right audience + the right visibility can markedly alter the election dynamic.

Maybe a similar approach can be used to alter the governing dynamic.

Abortion - more than taxes or socialism, abortion is the litmus test in American politics. It is the pivotal question when choosing Supreme Court Justices; it plays a role in our choice of political candidates; and it is an enormous sink of effort, money, passion, and divisiveness in America. This despite clear laws for almost forty (40) years.

It is a complex argument fraught with nuance, but I think the politics are simpler; and if presented in the right way, perhaps open to compromise.

Background:

1. Over 80% of Americans belong to a religion that proscribes sex outside wedlock.
2. 70% of boys and girls in America have had intercourse by their 19th birthday.
3. By age 44, 95% of Americans have had premarital sex.
4. 80% of young evangelical Christians have had premarital sex; 1/3 of their unplanned pregnancies ended in abortion.
5. Abortions have shrunk from 1.61 million in 1990 to 1.21 million in 2007.
6. 49% of pregnancies in 2006 were unintended; 43% of these ended in abortion.

With this undisputed data as context, what if we were able to bring the five most ardent and visible advocates/politicians on either side to a televised panel, where a moderator asked each of the ten people these questions:

1. Do you agree that in a perfect world, no fetus is destroyed; that every child is wanted and lives a healthy and fulfilling life?
2. Do you agree that every abortion is a tragedy; and that we should do everything possible to prevent it?
3. Do you agree that the best way to prevent an abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy?
4. Do you agree that the data above shows that we are failing to prevent abortion more than one million times a year?
5. Is creating a national goal to dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies and the resulting abortions something you would support wholeheartedly?
6. Do you agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies and thus the more than one million abortions would by far be your highest priority?

Would all ten would unanimously reply “yes” to every question?? Would you?

I think so; and I would too.

How could they not? How could you not??

What then have we accomplished? We’ve bypassed the questions of a woman’s right to choose, and when life begins; and gotten agreement that preventing unwanted pregnancy is paramount. We have recognized that while there may be areas where we disagree, it is possible to find common ground, and more critically to act based on that common ground to serve the greater good.

During 9-11, Congress united with the White House to pass laws aimed at protecting America. We acted as one in response to the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans. The issue before us was without party affiliation; and we were able to rise together and as one to make progress.

Can we now act as one to dramatically reduce the more than one million abortions that happen in our country every year? Surely that is an even greater calamity?

Might this act of cooperation lead to new avenues of accord between the Left and the Right?

Is that not after all the essence of governing?

the single biggest issue in this election...

...is not the economy, unemployment, terrorism, reigning in Wall Street, foreign policy, gay rights, or anything like that.

There is only ONE thing that matters in this election and neither the debate moderators, the media, or the candidates will discuss it.

If I were moderating the debate tonight, my instructions to the debaters:

1. You will get as much time as I decide you need. It will not be equal.
2. I will ask the questions, and keep asking until I get satisfactory answers.
3. I have no tolerance for BS.

My first (and perhaps only) question to President Obama:

If you win a second term, you will most likely inherit a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The last two years marked the least effective Congress/White House combination in memory. You've failed at working with this Congress for two years - how will this change? What assurances does the electorate have that you will be able to get ANYTHING done?

My first (and perhaps only) question to Governor Romney:

If you win the presidency, you will most likely inherit a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The Republican caucus is dominated by a Tea Party fringe which does not suffer centrists gladly. Speaker Boehner was rendered impotent by this caucus. How will you get ANYTHING done knowing the obstacles you face in a partisan House, and an obstreperous Senate?

This may take a while...

America's greatest challenge is a Congress + White House so infantile that they would make a room full of drooling two-year old pouters and bullies appear coherent, dignified, and civlized.

my first vote

Yesterday was a good day. I’ve been a fan of the Dallas Cowboys since I was 12 (yes - it was the cheerleaders), and they won their first game of the season vs. the team that undid them last year, the NY Giants. :-)! The Cowboys won because both the offense and defense played well; last year it was one or the other, and they sucked.

I also watched one of the best orators of our time, President Bill Clinton speak at the Democratic Convention. He is masterful. I watched him on FoxNews, and was impressed by how differently they heard his speech vs. those at MSNBC. Their interpretations also differed during the Republican Convention, except the other way.

This is to be expected - elections are a zero-sum game, you either win or die. Fox advocates the right, and MSNBC the left. Their “journalists” interpret the candidates based on the outcome they seek vs. the true nature of the candidate, their platform, their patriotism, or even their record.

The Constitutional framers designed our government (division of power, House vs. Senate, debate procedures, etc.) to create a stilted enough process where as little as possible could get done, where megalomania was less likely, and where government has as little influence on citizens’ lives as possible. This is a good thing - we want government to do just enough so that our country is safe, our infrastructure is reliable, and we have a basic safety net to protect us in tough times.

Because of the complex and convoluted design, effective governing requires that the White House work with Congress; it requires that the House work with the Senate; and it requires that members of the House and Senate work with each other.

When this doesn’t happen, we are destined for dysfunction. Witness the last couple of years.

I have always thought that the Democratic Party is at best a random collection of special interests who hardly agree with each other much less anyone else. That they can never be organized or cohesive enough to stay in power on a sustained basis. The Republican Party on the other hand has always struck me as being both focused and unified - a powerful combination.

I didn’t realize until now that Democrat dysfunction embodies a fundamental principle of democracy - pluralism. Whereas Republican cohesion demands homogeneity. In the former, there are many roads to Rome; in the latter, it’s Caesar’s way or nothing.

When the Tea Party started to coalesce in 2007, they were idealistic about effective, constitutional governing - I liked them then. The 2008 elections were a landslide the other way, and they realized they needed to retool. Their new strategy: gain strength and inertia by co-opting the far right; focus the message (spend less, tax less, grow military, fear God); and, most critically, forget winning elections, just win primaries.

They realized that heartland Republicans vote against what they don’t like vs. for what they do like (witness how fervently they’ve now embrace Mitt Romney, a candidate they disliked intensely during the primary; but they hate Barak Obama more). They also realized their distributed, grassroots nature is ideally suited to placing their candidates in positions to win primaries. Once their person was the mainstream party candidate, all Republican voters would flock to him/her - they didn’t need to worry about the last mile.

This is how they took over the Republican Party in 2010. Ironically, the very adaptability and situational awareness that led them to this strategy has made them ABJECTLY INFLEXIBILE. They will now NOT compromise.

The result - Congressional dysfunction.

It took years of bad performance before the Dallas Cowboys made some tough changes, invested, and are now more balanced than they’ve been in a long while. This balance will hopefully lead to sustained success.

President Clinton’s speech yesterday extolled the Republicans of his time as much as it extolled President Obama. He harkened back to a day when governing took precedence over party, and when compromise took precedence over ego.

Governments are effective when politicians balance leading with winning.

The "new" Republican Party is incapable of this thinking; those that do believe that governing requires compromise know they will be replaced by “righteous” Tea Party candidates in the next Primary unless they toe the line. There is no balance, and there is no compromise.

This is the first national election in which I will be able to vote. As a Canadian, I was always a conservative voter - abortion, gay rights, national healthcare, role of religion in politics, and other social factors are broadly adopted and not up for debate. I care about these issues, but I care also that we have a government that will create a sustainable future for our children. I always believed that the Supreme Court would help protect the former, and a good Republican government the latter.

I must admit, I now have a hard time voting for a party that is so intractable, so absolute, and so opposed to balance and cooperation, that it would allow us to fall rather than compromise.

politics and not getting stoned

The Democratic Convention happens this week; they now get to respond (in kind) to what was thrown their way last week at the Republican Convention.

American politics is full of many things, most are far from honorable. But one thing which is more present than ever in both parties does give me hope. It is not supposed to have a place in government, the Constitution makes that explicit; and yet both parties honor and celebrate it with vigor.

I didn't watch much of the Republican Convention (I missed the genesis of Eastwooding :-(). All I did see was the last of Mitt Romney's speech, and of course the 100,000 balloons + 500 lbs of confetti. Did you see what happened next? The Romney/Ryan families left the stage amid raucous celebration, and suddenly the entire stadium - tens of thousands of celebrants, fell silent. Why? This man came to the podium to lead everyone in the closing ceremony - the shift from partying to praying was remarkable.

This same phenomenon will no-doubt occur at the close of the Democratic Convention - religion is a powerful, powerful force in American politics. But instead of an instrument of spirituality, community, and moral purpose; it is a bludgeon of orthodoxy, divisiveness, and ultimatums.

If I were President Obama, I would ask that the invocation to open the Democratic Convention speak of this passage from the Gospel of John, where the people brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus, and asked if they should stone her as the Law of Moses commanded. He contemplated this, and then said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd then dispersed, and Jesus told the woman to "go, and sin no more."

If you have or know children, I'm sure that like me, you've counseled them with a variation of these words. We do this because we want them to turn the other cheek, and to do to others as you would have them do to you.

These simple yet powerful lessons which every politician has earnestly shared with his or her children, are fervently ignored when it comes to their own behavior.

Imagine how many undecided votes the candidate would attract if they began their convention with the promise that their party would henceforth (through to election day and beyond) act with respect and integrity? What if they would judge the other party only the way they wish to be judged, and seek to create bridges (even during the campaign) with all parties and candidates, for they know that once the votes are counted, all those elected are required to work together to serve the country.

They'd have my vote.

Divisiveness is difficult enough in good times, but in tough times it results in catastrophic dysfunction. We witnessed the invective in Congress and the White House over the last four years, and we have suffered because that made it impossible for them to accomplish anything.

Why can't we the electorate demand and expect civility? I have to believe the majority of American voters seek in their leaders a level of morality that at a minimum reflects what they were taught by their parents.

Religion is not supposed to influence politics but it does. There is no political risk greater than dismissing religious leaders or their opinions. Today, religion influences three issues - reproduction, homosexuality, and Israel.

Why such a narrow expression of religion??

Can we find a religious leader, a peer of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and their brethren to advocate cooperation and respect? Can we help this voice become as powerful as those who care about abortion and gay marriage? Can we ensure that this voice is just as vigilant about holding government accountable?

It would be impossible for the Falwell/Dobson/Robertsons, the Democrats/Republicans, and even the left or right wing media to stand in opposition to a moral and effective government. Imagine if candidates had to condemn all forms of negative campaigning because they had to live up a moral standard?

America is a deeply religious state - over 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated, and every one of these religions espouses spirituality, community, and moral purpose. It took less than five years for the Tea Party to go from random disaffected pockets to a major political force. Why can't we create a pro-cooperation movement between now and the 2015 primaries?

Today religion in politics is an agent of divisiveness; whereas religion itself is a champion of community. It is up to us to transform the former into the latter.

yahoo two

Yahoo just hired its fifth CEO in five years, this time it's Marissa Mayer of Google fame.

Context: Yahoo's home page reaches 700 million users/month; they earned $5 billion in 2011 (down from $6.3b in 2010); and have a market cap of $19 billion. That's something to work with, though the downward revenue trend, constant layoffs, and inability to hire talent (except for Mayer) are disquieting.

So... what will she do that the four+ before her didn't or couldn't?

I would suggest one of two approaches - both are dramatic, one is easy and the other is a gamble.

Option 1 - Easy: before the week is out, get a meeting with Steve Ballmer and offer him Yahoo + Marissa for a cool $25 billion (a mere 25% uplift on their current valuation). "The deal is good through the weekend Steve, you have my number."

Why would Microsoft be interested? The reasons for pursuing Yahoo in 2008 still exist -- it would give them a stronger base from which to compete with Google on search, and it would create a real Microsoft presence in the Valley -- something they've been craving for many a moon.

But there's one more reason -- Marissa herself -- she would be a huge feather in Steve's cap. With former Yahoo exec Qi Lu already running their Online Division, I'd look to place Meyer as either the leader or leader-in-waiting of the Server and Tool Division. This division has $17+ billion in revenues (3x Yahoo), and with a visionary leader, could do much better than their current 10% CAGR. It would IMO be better for her not to compete directly with Google, and instead forge a new and hopefully profitable path of her own.

The MSFT Board might also look at her as their 3rd CEO...

In essence, the Yahoo board would have hired Meyer as acquisition bait to create a graceful exit.

Option 2 - Risky: rethink Yahoo's business altogether. Look at the current search/email/ad business as Yahoo One, and put it in maintenance mode. Now use this cash flow to cover the startup costs for the next adventure, and to engage the next competitor -- Amazon.

With Meyer, Yahoo has three interesting assets -- their Developer Network and Tools, their small business clientele, and Meyer.

Yahoo still has a good technology reputation; they know how to run data centers, have partnerships around the world, and are proven in hosting and provisioning services globally. I would use these assets to establish a business akin to Amazon Web Services - AWS (whose recent service outages have given new entrants a window of opportunity) -- Yahoo Two.

The Yahoo Developer Network and their Tools give them a resource leg-up + a community of app developers to kick start things. But the difference maker is the connection to their existing small business customer base -- this could be a huge attractor for companies looking for app-hosting providers, and might even lead to a partnership/merger with someone like Salesforce or Quicken.

This gives Yahoo Two a slightly different positioning vs. AWS, and I think an advantage and differentiation in the long run. Their initial customers would lean more B2B, which would be easier, and give them a "known" base from which to pursue consumer-facing companies. They could even eventually integrate their email/web/ad services within Two for their app clients.

This is not an easy row to hoe, and it would require something that Yahoo does not have enough of today - a really talented computer science/engineering team. This is where Meyer comes in -- as a computer scientist, she would be able to woo talented graduates and professionals to Yahoo Two with her credibility + the lure of being part of something new and big with a proven winner.

Yahoo Two is a risky strategy, one that veers away from what made Yahoo Yahoo, but their current trajectory aims them squarely at AOL, whose market cap is $2.6 billion on revenues of $2 billion...

Not sure you want that on your resume Marissa.

impossible??

You are what you measure. What gets measured gets done. These and other phrases are taught in most business schools around the world -- if you want someone to do something, pay them based on getting it done.

In sales, it's commissions -- if you don’t sell, you don’t eat; outside sales, many use MBOs (management by objectives). The process is slightly different, but the effect is roughly the same. The key is designing the measurement to ensure the desired outcome.

When students are measured based on test scores, the skill created is not understanding the curriculum, but rather knowing how to pass tests (an unhelpful skill in the working world). More insidiously, if schools are paid based on standardized test scores, an easy was to improve is to expel the poor performers. Sure the numbers look good, but is that really the right outcome? Are we measuring the right thing?

You need money to live, you work to earn money; like students who learn test-passing but not curriculum, adults learn how to game their system, how to interpret and translate their MBOs into the greatest income at the lowest effort.

Health care is rife with “gaming,” and like any other player in this game, (some) doctors are no exception. I was listening to Marketplace recently, and their fascinating show on billing codes -- every patient-related activity has a code assigned to it, and doctors must map their work to these codes to then bill the insurance companies and get paid.

To “clamp down” on rising costs, the insurance companies are reducing the $/code - so if lancing a boil used to pay $100, it now only pays $90. The result? Increased payouts, and more sophisticated gaming. Not exactly the desired outcome.

According to the show, 2.2 people are employed to do billing for each doctor in America. They even have their own conference -- CodingCon, where they “equip medical coders, billers and related healthcare professionals with best practices and tools needed in correcting codes from the start, avoiding claim denials, maximizing productivity and increasing practice’s bottom-line.”

Or, “learn how to not only overcome the $10 cut on boil lancing, but also add $100s more to your bottom line.”

The Marketplace doctor’s codistas have increased his revenue by 70% ("hundreds of thousands of dollars per year”). A codista at a hospital discovered that instead of claiming knee surgery and rehabilitation under one code, they could discharge the patient from surgery and then readmit them to the physiotherapy clinic downstairs, thus billing against two codes, and making much more.

How big is this? An additional $360B (yes, BILLION) per year is spent on the whole coding process - a concept that was introduced to standardize care and lower costs... We reap what we sow.

Net -- the best way for a doctor, clinic, or hospital to dramatically grow revenues is not by providing better care, adding more doctors, or serving more patients; it is by hiring more coders, and sending them to CodingCon.

We are what we measure, and what we measure gets done.

What if instead of student test scores and attendance, schools were paid according to how well their graduates did after they left that school? (Click for more info.) Now principals, teachers, staff, unions, etc. have a common purpose: the more prepared their students are for the future, the more money they earn. You’d better believe they will work together to ensure that their students are prepared for elementary (if a pre-school), middle, high school; or college/university, and the workplace. Attendance and tests are a piece of the picture, but the key measure is student preparedness.

The (state of federal) secretary of education’s only concern is tracking how students do after they graduate (something they, and the census system already does). By eliminating tons of redundancy and complexity, we should be able to educate all public school students at half the cost of today, saving $2-300B/year.

What if instead of procedures, doctors were paid based on how healthy their patients were? (Click for more info.) The job of health care is not to perform procedures, it is to assure a healthy community. This measurement would save $2-300B/year in coding procedures and such.

It is possible to create centralized (federal) funding with autonomy at the point of execution. The key is to ensure that the recipient of funds does NOT control how their performance is assessed or reported. Create the right measures...

For both education and health care, we can accomplish this with existing measurement systems and existing funding mechanisms. Not only would we achieve better graduates and a healthier population, we would do it for as much as half a $trillion less.

These are but two examples - consider the 39-year long war on drugs (metrics: arrests and interdictions). The result is $billions spent jailing street corner dealers (3 years in jail @$33k/yr for a $200 transaction) and intercepting tons of easily and inexpensively replaced drugs, with NO corresponding drop in consumption (constant for the last decade). If instead the last 39 years had been spent helping addicts, the war might already be over.

To quote a man of immense wisdom: “Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing."

motility

Tyler Cowen co-authors Marginal Revolution with Alex Tabarrok - it is a fantastic blog; I read it every day. In a recent interview, Tyler said that one of America’s biggest problems is a lack of economic mobility. People are stuck in their economic stratum because they don’t have access to better schools, particularly in their K-12 (primary & secondary) years. Sure excellent people will succeed no matter their background or school, but the vast majority are immobile because the only education available to them is not good enough to help them rise.

They’ve also written that the US government’s approach to stimulating the economy (spend $trillions) is ineffective. I agree, and think it’s for the same reason - immobility.

Effectively executing the latter, might also give us the answer to the former:

When an economy falters, we must increase the flow of money -- get people and businesses to spend, this creates monetary mobility. That movement of money causes goods to flow, inventories to be replenished, and people to be hired. It’s not just about increasing the money supply, the added money must actually do work -- if it is put in the bank or invested, the effect is diluted or eliminated. So, who is most likely to very quickly spend every penny they get? What also is the most efficient approach - where there is little or NO leakage of funds to bureaucracy or other interests?

First who: In a shrinking economy, businesses will lower operating costs (layoffs, other efficiencies), grow profits through savings, and ONLY spend if they see sustained proof that customers are buying. They will not (and should not) create capacity when there is no demand. The result is profitability growing much faster than employment. Companies are NOT spending. They will only act when people buy. So not business.

People? If you already earn enough to meet your needs, any incremental income may not all get spent - you might save, pay down debt, or invest it instead. The richer you are, the less likely it is that a new dollar is spent. This money is least mobile. Poor people on the other hand, can’t afford to save money; they will spend whatever they have to subsist, if they get a bit more, it means they can afford to buy more necessities, not save more. There is also no overhead to their spending; they don't commission research, or conduct needs analyses, or consult McKinsey, they just buy food or clothing or whatever.

A thousand dollar bonus to someone earning $20K or less represents at least a 5% increase in income. If this person were the sole breadwinner of a family of four, they would still be $1,350 below the 2011 poverty line, and every cent would be spent. At that income, savings is not an option. There are 82.6 million people in the USA who earn $20K or less; giving each of them a $1K bonus would require a stimulus of $82.6 Billion.

When the lowest wage earners are spending money, their inertia creates a ripple effect that accelerates money flow, drives capacity creation and reinvestment, and thankfully (!) also enables the not-so-poor to buy new cars and drink mojitos in the Hamptons.

Then, how: Fighting the urge to form a task force, hold 735 meetings over three years, and create a 3,000-page manual, filled with absurd crap, let's just issue a $1,000 check to everyone who whose total W2 income (box #1) was less then or equal to $20,000.

In a commitment to failure, Presidents Bush and Obama chose and continue to choose a trickle-down approach with their stimuli, believing that giving $$$ to bigger companies will cause them to invest to create more infrastructure (manufacturing and service capacity), and in turn employ more of the middle/lower class.

Why? Perhaps because America doesn't like the idea of giving people a handout (though we have food stamps, welfare, jails, etc.). It is more palatable to give a business money because that feels less like charity.

But I don't think of this as charity as much as low-overhead-high-efficiency investment.This same view applies to education - the goal is simple, but instead of acting, we analyze; instead of inspiring students, we measure them; instead of empowering teachers, we oppress them.

This is not an argument against business, or the rich, or for charity; it is instead a plea for us to learn from nature, which teachers that the nimblest, most efficient, and most directly-aimed things prevail, ...and perpetuate.

flaunting the third rail

The third rail in many railway systems (tubes, subways, metros, etc.) is electrically charged, and fatal if touched; unless you’re contemplating suicide, stay away from it.

In American politics the third rail is Social Security (SS). The people most affected are the fastest growing segment of the population (older people); they have very strong lobbies (AARP); a lot of sympathy (we’re all planning to get old + Congress’ average age is 57); and they turn out in droves and vote in both primaries and general elections.

After reading Monique Morrissey’s testimony before Congress and talking to a few people I thought SS was a sustainable program, needing only minor rate increases, and that Governor Rick Perry’s Ponzi claim was specious. But...

SS beneficiaries receive significantly more than they + their matching employers invest; to make this sustainable, the system counts on a reasonable return on invested capital, a certain mortality rate, and more people contributing than consuming (i.e. disproportionately younger, income-earning population).

This is similar in design to a Ponzi Scheme, so it is reasonable for Gov. Perry to make his claim. Plus here’s Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution quoting three Noble Laureates who agree with Perry, and argue that people are having fewer babies and living longer (= more older people, fewer SS contributors), and economic growth has slowed (a lot); all of which affirms that Social Security as-is is no longer sustainable and in a literal sense, fraudulent, especially to younger contributors.

The "fix" strategy is to pare things back a little - increase the contribution percentage, implement a means test, delay eligibility, and significantly reduce the amount of benefit paid. Does this make the return worth it for seniors? Can they live on this reduced benefit? Are Republicans right that it should be self-managed? Can the public do better on its own? I say, "Yes."

The President is fumbling the ball all over the place, has a largely vision-free and uninspired record thus far, and could very well lose the 2012 election. This is no time to be timid or take half measures. He could overcome his legislative impotence and take a bold step to redefine entitlement - he could propose that we face reality and sunset Social Security.

The first question in all of our minds - how will this affect me? Well, if you're:

1. Over 50: Three changes - increase in contribution percentage (+2%), a means test for recipients, and an increase in the retirement age (+1 year). You keep paying in, and you will receive what was promised until you die.
2. Over 35: You stop paying into the plan, and you get the current value of your historical contributions back in a locked, tax-deferred US Treasury Bond that you can access upon retirement. All your very important future contributions into this nest egg are tax deferred.
3. Under 35: Sorry, and thank you - your contributions will go towards your parents’ and grandparents’ retirements. You are encouraged to contribute towards your own retirement with tax-deferred deductions of up to 15% of your annual salary. You have the option of buying the same US T-Bonds, or a number of other tax-deferred instruments.
   
4. Federal employee: The same (#1-3) formula will apply to federal employees for their pensions - we will increase salaries slightly to compensate for this, but per the scheme above, times are tough, and we can't afford this benefit anymore.
5. Elected official: Historically, the President, Vice President, Congress, etc. received pensions to discourage, well... bribery. We will continue to offer this pension to elected officials as long as it is their ONLY source of income.
   

This is a long sunset - it will take about 40 years for those who are now 50 to die, at which point Social Security dies with them.

Advantages:

1. Take the government out of the pension business.
2. Screw everyone a little bit - spread the pain.
3. Create a palatable, self-managed savings scheme for American workers.
4. Offer tax-deferred T-bonds as a secure retirement investment, that are also a way for the Feds to raise money, put more of America’s debt in the hands of Americans, who have the greatest vested interest in ensuring its repayment.

This is a dramatic step to be sure, but real leaders face issues head on; they don’t patch things up and leave them for future generations to deal with. Will this be the only step in the “face and deal” process? Nope - MMO (Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare) also needs to be rationalized, consolidated, and made available as a basic service to all Americans in a way that encourages well-being and good health vs. the current system which funds visits and procedures and tests, but that’s for another post :).

If President Obama has a hope of not just winning, but winning a decisive mandate, he must LEAD. He should not marry this to taxes for jet plane owners or any other silly ploy. He should set the precedent for proposing simple, clean legislation that deals with our most important problems one at a time.

Start with entitlements, show that you're bold enough to go where others have feared to tread, and that you have our nation's best interests at heart, with no fear of the political consequences.

feckless

Tony Karon argued yesterday that Israel's 'Diplomatic Tsunami' has arrived, I think he’s right, and it got me thinking about America’s foreign policy.

From Wikipedia, “a country's foreign policy... consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations milieu.”

For almost a century, America has been the world’s cop, the world’s strongest economy, and even the world’s authority on morality. From protecting Korea and Taiwan in Asia, to helping Japan and Germany with their post-war economic recoveries, to leading the world in communications and high tech and entertainment, to being Israel’s doting uncle, America has been a (really “the”) dominant force in shaping the world’s behavior.

America, the President of the United States, and the American Congress were regarded, respected, and feared as the pinnacle of freedom, integrity, power, and achievement.

When “powerful” is your norm, you assume infallibility and righteousness are forever yours. The most brazen example of this is the Bush Doctrine (aka National Security Strategy of the United States) wherein the American government empowered itself to preemptively strike any entity or sovereign state that it deemed threatening.

American foreign policy is/was not so much a diplomatic process as thuggery; using either the threat of, or the actual act of military or economic retribution to impose its wishes.

Wielding brute force will go to your head; when you have this kind of power, why bother with subtlety? Why waste time on nuance and wit when you own the most powerful one-two punch (US Military, US Dollar) in history? Sure it's dominant now, but time isn’t kind to those that drink too much of their own Kool-Aid; Davids are able to find slingshots, Goliaths are vanquished.

Ten years ago today, America was the victim of a horrible and criminal act, and it reacted with force and anger, some of which was directed against its own citizens, making us a lot less free than we’ve ever been. America is a more intrusive place to live today than it was on September 10, 2001.

That same act also robbed America of its integrity, as evidenced by three words - Guantanamo, Rendition, and Torture.

The American military is without equal in “traditional” warfare; the last time they were asked to fight one of those was 21 years and 40 days ago, and they were victorious. Since then, the “enemy” has been replaced with individuals and small groups of criminals who are inhuman, without honor, and lack any national affiliation. This is a law enforcement problem, not a military one.

Using the military to counter terrorism is like using a gun to kill a mosquito. You make a fool of the weapon, create a ton of random damage, and help the foe look agile and effective. Case in point - Afghanistan, ironically the same place where Americans helped the “locals” defeat the Soviet Union. American power does exist in reality, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, it is no longer mighty, nor is it feared. The thug mind assumed that every problem could be solved with the same weapon, and that delusion made a mockery of both the thug and the weapon.

Can we at least rest on achievement?

Going back to Karon’s article, taking its cue from Uncle Sam, Israel assumed that a powerful military and self-righteousness are all that’s required to maintain the status quo; but they didn’t count on the agility and effectiveness of the mosquito, which took the form of individuals and their desire for personal freedom and justice.

They did count on Uncle S to stand with them and “prevail” on the Turks, Egyptians, and even the Palestinians to respect and honor the integrity of Israel; and of course America did stand with its favorite nephew, but regrettably, with little effect. Nations (and worse, individuals) that once cowered are no longer bowed. They listened politely, but then followed their own beliefs rather than US "advice."

Why? Because today even America’s ability to get it done is suspect - the military will leave its last two theaters of operation without victory; the economy is weak and depleted; the government prefers ideology over strategy.

What was once a majestic and imposing and relentless is tired and fading. The “assets” that America has held dear for so long, it’s military and the all-mighty dollar remain, and remain strong, but only according to the definitions of the last millennium.

While the world moved on, America chose laurels and rest.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin’

These are harsh words on this sad day; but this is also a day of reflection, when we contemplate not just what was lost, but how we've changed, and what we've become. Reflection must encompass the whole image in the mirror, not just the convenient illusion. Humility always prevails over hubris.

demoPrats

Nope - it’s not a typo - a prat is an incompetent fool; and looking at the Party of Donkeys, I see a whole lot of those in their midst.

The DemoPrats have accomplished little to nothing since 2006, during which they’ve had control of the House (‘06-10), Senate (‘08-) and White House (‘08-); their leadership is inept and toothless, and they lack the ability to lead.

The Republicans are dogmatic bullies under the dual (and bizarre) thumbs of the Tea Party and Grover Norquist. But they are masterful at focusing their message in a way that is instantly resonant. Their platform in my words:

1. Taxes are evil - We must curb government excess and put Americans to work.
2. Life is sacrosanct - We must protect innocent unborn children from those who would kill them.
3. Peace through might - We must ensure America’s freedom and safety with a powerful military and border security that deters all our enemies.

To any Democrats that might read this post - can you in as succinct a way articulate your Party’s position?

...

Yeah - it’s a problem isn’t it? In the absence of a compelling message, you allow the Rs to define you as Anti-Jobs, Anti-Life, and Anti-Freedom.

...DemoPrats

From the President down to the petulant Reid/Pelosi dullards, no-one has been able to effectively challenge the Republicans. This is after all the party favored by most of the media, almost all of Hollywood, and some of the brightest minds in the country, and yet, they are bumfuzzled.

1. Taxes create jobs. Capitalism is greed - if your net revenue/employee is positive, you will hire more people because you will make more money. If your taxes go up, you’re still greedy and you’ll hire even more people to make back the tax money - remember employees are a tax deduction. There’s a ton of data to back this up.
2. Life doesn’t end at birth. Every life must be protected; a healthy birth is the beginning - we must ensure a healthy life for every child - that includes an excellent education and guaranteed healthcare. Healthy, well-educated children are net contributors to our economy - they do honest work, and pay their taxes. In fact, they give back more than we spend on them. The Bible says we must protect life, and we couldn’t agree more - the healthier our nation, the wealthier we are, the more jobs we create, and the less debt we incur.
3. America first. We have a lot of problems to fix here at home, and a lot of enemies wishing to attack us in our own backyard. Let us bring our troops back from abroad, and defend our own cities and towns. We don't need to be the world's cop anymore.

This is just an off-the-cuff (one hour of thinking) response written by an immigrant marketing guy.

The Dems could easily de-Prat themselves if they were to utilize the full capacity of the talent on their side; they just need to focus on connecting to their audience, and not on trying to be smart, something in which all DemoPrats revel.

Effective communication is not when the speaker does a good job, but when the audience hears what they need, in the way they need it.

To be clear, this is only a way to engage the voters politically, and win an election. It does not change the DemoPrats' ineptitude in government.

I think there is a possible fix. President Obama needs to replace Vice President Biden with someone who will run the entire Domestic portfolio. He must be able to wrangle Congress, and know how to streamline our government and catalyze job creation. He must be confrontational, decisive and impolite, but most of all, he needs to totally resonate with "regular people."

I think that person is Ross Perot.

kill skills

It's easy to get caught in a rut - the greater the risk or threat of change, the taller the walls become, the harder it is to accept new things, and worst of all, the less aware you are of your self-imposed exile.

When change occurs in a team, or they are asked to rethink their business given new market conditions, rutted people will produce a PowerPoint presentation that references new market research, extensive analysis of Twitter feeds, and select customer quotes that proving that strategy X is exactly what's needed to achieve success.

X is of course the current mission restated with a new team name, new logo, renamed programs, and one or two tweaks that come with incremental budget requests - PowerPoint lipstick on the status quo pig. They will also revamp their "scorecard" with additional rows to reflect the tweaks, and of course the team leader will require a business manager to manage the growing "burden" of command.

Does this sound familiar? Have you looked back after a couple of years of genuinely hard work to see what was really accomplished? There will have been a TON of "busy" results that can be documented in scorecards and spreadsheets (thanks to the now entrenched business manager), but how have you helped the business?

In consulting with organizations, the first question I ask is, "What is your why?" Once we are clear on why you exist, figuring out how you will get there and what you will do are easy. This is a difficult discussion because even CEOs are in a rut of busy work that is assumed to be of value, but rarely mapped back to the why. I wrote a few weeks ago about an organization I knew with ~90,000 employees, and my belief that they could achieve the same results with 30,000 people. One reason is this organization has misplaced its why; there are many brilliant people who are accomplishing amazing things that have little or no contribution to the business and have nothing to do with their why. In fact, I bet fewer than 30,000 could accurately state their why.

The reason clients resist the why discussion is because it leads to evaluating every investment (the whats) vis-à-vis its contribution to why. Many of the investments were created for good reason, but do those reasons exist today? If the what is still meaningful, then its contribution to why must be clear; if it isn't, then why are we still doing it?

Whenever something new comes along (especially in large organizations), if there is an openness to try it, it will never come at the expense of something old. "Without incremental resources or funds, fugedaboutit!"

What just happened? The organization chose NOT to make a difficult decision. "This new what is great, it can and will help us achieve our why. Which of our current what(s) should we kill to do this?" The text in red creates tension, angst, the killing of sacred cows, and a lot of hand wringing and unhappiness, and that is always difficult.

The reason organizations fall into ruts, the greatest impediment to good business is an inability and unwillingness to confront every (existing and new) what with why? Rationalizing ruts is easy; making difficult trade-offs is not. The more you rationalize, the more ingrained your siege mentality; this mistrust makes you think you can't be dependent on "them," thus justifying redundant what's in your portfolio. This balloons rapidly - contributing to the 60,000 excess employees in the example above.

Leadership is not just about the salary, stock options and the big office. If you can't make tough decisions, you are not a leader; the skill to kill investments that don't contribute enough to the why is a fundamental criterion of leadership.

leap of faith

Education's goal is to prepare students to succeed in life. What skills will help kids be healthy, independent and even happy?

Most schools choose English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and "World" Languages as core skills. Missing is anything that helps students bridge concepts across subjects, or become independent thinkers and learners. Also missing is anything that looks at the whole student, their hopes and emotions (as they go through puberty), how they will live and work within our society, and how they become ...a person.

Research shows that employers are looking for broad, creative thinkers who can work in varied settings and in teams to solve complex, multi-disciplinary problems. In other words, people who know how to learn and have the confidence and wherewithal to get things done in ambiguous and unpredictable settings.

There are schools whose mission is to graduate students like this. Two that I know are Seattle Girls' School and High Tech High. They are amazing.

Both schools incorporate an integrated curriculum in which students actually become entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, activists, writers and artists. They also focus on the person before them, treating them not like a widget in a factory but a human being with feelings, fears, interests and lives outside school.

Tangentially, the US Department of Education is investing $4 Billion to fix the 1,000 poorest-performing schools in America. The primary approach is a complete reboot, including a complete staff overhaul. Cynics predict a 1% success rate, or 10 good schools, and $3.96 billion wasted. I think they'll do better, and I'm willing to bet that the successful schools will have principals who are focused on the whole student, who aren't pitting teachers against each other, and who recognize that an integrated and experiential curriculum is not only what the kids need, but how best to engage them in the magic of learning.

Leaders like this are what made Seattle Girls' and High Tech High successful, and what's needed not just in the worst of our schools, but all of our schools. These aren't easy people to find, so we need better resources to help the less-brilliant leaders.

I recently suggested an approach that leads to integrated learning by inverting the classroom, turning lectures into homework, and what was homework into teacher-facilitated classwork. This ought to be a part of the academic solution, but it doesn't address a problem most poor schools face - that the students have a tough, tough life (poverty, violence, drugs, etc.) outside school; and with that occupying their minds, can hardly be expected to care about math or grammar.

Of course a school can't fix problems at home, but is it possible for them to help children cope with these issues, and in doing that enable them focus on school? Yes. Are there examples of this in action? Also yes.

John Gilmour founded four LEAP Science and Maths Schools, in townships (where the black people were forced to live during Apartheid and continue to live now) in Cape Town and Johannesburg. I had the opportunity to visit one school last year and was amazed. Each class spends one hour/day in Life Orientation, where an Occupational Therapist helps students listen, feel, understand and express what is inside them, and learn how to interact with each other.

The result is a remarkable awakening of children who might otherwise have lived lives of crime, poverty and disaffection, but instead are successful, empowered contributors to society. Gilmour has made this work with students who are immersed in the worst circumstances, and created graduates whose brightness and brilliance easily matches that of any American private school student.

Are inverted classrooms and Life Orientation a panacea? No. Are they worth exploring? Absolutely. What holds us back? They're different and not invented by the "establishment."

There is a fear of trying anything new or "radical" even though America is only graduating 70% of its students, of which most are unprepared for college (1/3 drop out after their first year, and 1/2 never graduate). Shouldn't some of the $4 Billion from the Dept of Ed go towards proving these approaches in American schools?

The traditional approaches are failing; radical is our only choice.

tech in ed - epic failure

Education today is designed to meet the needs of 19th century Industrial Revolution employer - “We need millions of assembly line workers, who are all similarly-skilled, and able to work for a simple wage.”

But children today want more, they have broader needs and expectations from their school - not the least of which is to be treated as individuals and to be engaged based on their unique aspirations and abilities. This is not possible if the least interactive and differentiated part of learning in today’s schools is the lecture, and the most interactive part is the homework. We are not only wasting the most valuable asset in the room - the teacher - but also flaunting the idea that you can create creative, critical thinkers in a one-way, generic teaching system. Real learning is a curated experience; humans - teachers - must be involved, but in an interactive and personalized way.

Technology’s role is NOT to mechanize, but to humanize. The most humane technology interventions in history are characterized by a simple truth - the target audience naturally consumed them. The telephone, television and browser are examples of this.

Sadly, a generation of school leaders, administrators, teachers and parents are now conditioned to view technology in the blandest way; from the slate to the blackboard to the whiteboard to PowerPoint to the SmartBoard, the ONLY improvement is mechanization. Teaching and learning NEVER changed. To-date the use of technology in learning has been a waste.

Successful teaching can’t be an act of oppression, it can’t be “pushed,” it needs to be “pulled” - the student must want. Talk to any teacher and they will say that student engagement is fundamental to success. Combine the best teacher with the smartest but disengaged student, and learning will NOT occur. But if the students are engaged, and if the teacher can meet them where they each are and work with them, any student can be successful.

This is our challenge, but in a system this complex (USA: 50 million students, 3 million teachers, 15,000 school districts, $600B/year), it must be done correctly.

The answer is not rocket-science. In fact, it's right in front of our noses. Look at children at play - watch them engage and interact in mediums of their own choosing - they have already know how they see, learn, play, and enjoy. My favorite example is Pokemon. Excerpt from student teaching?:

Most Pokemon aficionados that I know mastered the game in about six months. Mastery implies a full understanding of the Pokemon vocabulary, ecosystem, evolutionary paths, strengths and weaknesses of each character and appropriate strategies with which to select the right Pokemon and win battles, etc.

Moreover, each child also learns to interact with their peers, learn tricks and techniques from each other, and of course battling to achieve supremacy in the game.

Finally, for particularly tough battles, students need to also do research online to uncover cheats that they can use to achieve status.

How often do you see average students achieve this level of skill this quickly in Algebra, Grammar or even simple Fractions, forget Organic Chemistry, Biology, or a foreign language? Animated cartoons, simple re-playable simulations, pervasive, easy-to-use, child-friendly, long-battery-life devices are the basis for Pokemon's success.

This can be translated into mainstream learning. Technology can inspire children to want to learn.

We can't ignore the role of the teacher - they are essential to connecting with students based on their specific interests, abilities, and learning needs; and to being the human connection that all Brain Science tells us is crucial to effective learning.

Technology should liberate teachers from the burden of generic lectures and enable them do what they're best at, what they came to do in the first place - engage students. But we have to do this practically, knowing that they have 30 students and 50 minutes per class.

What if we took the current education standards in a given school system and created short (< 10 mins), animated lectures of each concept(s) with a simple assignment to test comprehension? The teacher could assign these lectures to students as homework, have them "play" their homework and complete their assignments, and automatically receive "reports" on how each student did, and what they understood before class started. In class, the teacher would group the students based on their comprehension, and work directly to inspire, and bridge their learning gaps.

Of course there is much more to this approach; but in the end, it helps accomplish three things:

1. Recognizing and accommodating the way children naturally think, learn and play.
2. Empowering the teacher to directly engage students and help them learn.
3. Eliminating the child abuse of forcing young children to shoulder 20lb (10kg) backpacks filled with dated textbooks.

It can be done at a substantially lower cost - American public schools spend more than $5 billion/year on text books - this approach would cost much less, if for no other reason than most kids already have the devices (smartphones, MP3 and game players), and that all learning content should be open-source.

He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. ~Confucius. Bold school districts and teachers unions need to step up and lead our children into safety.

pro child-labor

What's the return on investment of education? Why bother? Why especially in poor communities? Just because I/you/we believe education is a silver bullet doesn't mean it is. As a skeptic, I can find many examples of education shooting blanks or even causing harm.

If I'm a parent of a family living in one room in a shanty town or village, why should I bother wasting my kids on education? How is grammar going to feed us? How are fractions going to heal my sick baby? How is history going to clothe us? I need none of this; it's a waste of my children's time and life. Go away.

Today UNESCO released The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education, which states that: "Armed conflict is robbing 28 million children of an education by exposing them to widespread rape and other sexual violence, targeted attacks on schools and other human rights abuses."

Their agenda for change includes: "tougher action against human rights violations, an overhaul of global aid priorities, strengthened rights for displaced people and more attention to the ways education failures can increase the risk of conflict."

UNESCO is asking for US$2 billion to cover current budgetary shortfalls, and changing the proportion of humanitarian aid that goes to education (currently only 2%). All worthwhile goals, aimed at giving "them" what we have. But as Einstein famously said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result.

Yes - 28 million children aged 5-12 are not in school, yes this is a crime, and yes it will result in bad things (disease, starvation, rape, war...). BUT - building more schools isn't the complete answer, nor is training more teachers or distributing textbooks or laptops.

Philanthropy is the least effective way to affect change. The best way is for the community itself to change because it values that change over existing subsistence priorities. This is the crux of sustainable transformation.

To get kids into schools, the parents need to be convinced that it is the right thing to do. Not "right" based on some abstract morality, but right based on what they care about, they need, and they value. This is what matters most; what we believe is irrelevant.

Parents will compel their kids to go to school if it enables survival of the family. If you can't directly and immediately connect to that, parents will choose other subsistence (food, shelter...) needs over education - you would, I would. Moreover, the "ROI" of education happens after graduation - that's at least a decade out! If you're starving now, that kind of future is meaningless.

We in the wealthy world delude ourselves into believing "if you build schools, they will come," or "it's so obvious - why don't they understand it?"

Ironically, we're clothing our ignorance in empathy, and believing that empathy will save the wretched from their ignorance!

We must give parents something they need now in exchange for their children's attendance:

1. School as a farm. The students will learn innovative farming techniques; they will plant and harvest crops; they will be required to work the farms in exchange for being fed and bringing food home for their families.
2. School as a factory. The students will learn innovative production techniques; they will create and produce goods that we will sell; they will be required to learn factory-work, in exchange for being fed and bringing goods home for their families.
3. School as a clinic. The students will learn about health care; they will assist in providing services to the injured and sick; they will be required to clean and cook and feed patients; in exchange for being fed and bringing food and medicines home for their families.

Yep - this is putting 5-year old kids to work. CHILD LABOR - get used to the term; learn to like it.

Children are not in school because their parents value subsistence over education. "In exchange" for being fed and bringing food home every day, these children will also happen to learn literacy and numeracy + skills that can help improve their family's health and standard of living. BUT if they don't get fed and bring food home, they will not have reduced the family burden sufficiently to warrant their parents' commitment.

We suffer from the desire to assuage our own guilt and feed our intellectual egos by over-engineering things. The issue is not education, it is survival. Education is nowhere near the top of Maslow's hierarchy for a reason. It's not important enough when you and your kids live on 500 calories/day, with dysentery and AIDS.

This feels dastardly - railing against child abuse/sweatshops/etc. is ingrained in us - but we're wrong.

If UNESCO is serious about getting 28 million kids in school, they need to first employ them, and then educate them. Let's spend money on that.

in the best interests

Are you familiar with the Butterfly Effect? It states that a small change in one part of a system can dramatically affect outcomes in another part of the system, or more poetically, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas.

A look into the roots of recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt reveals that some of their inspiration came from far-away sources like American Gene Sharp, and the Optor in Serbia. They were bolstered by a history of civilian uprisings against authority - from Kent State in May, 1970, where students reacted violently to President Nixon's announcement that the US had invaded Cambodia, to the African National Congress and people like Steve Biko rising up against Apartheid in South Africa, the list goes on.

Lives have been sacrificed and countries have been shaped through civil disobedience, but sadly, humanity is not yet civilized enough to claim that this phase of our "development" is over. Recent events in Bahrain eerily echo what happened at Kent State 40 years ago. We are at least consistent...

Our hackles are raised when our sense of what's right is shaken; we feel righteous indignation when what we know to be fair and just is violated; indignation turns to anger when the perpetrators are those entrusted with authority and expected to represent the will of the people (their victims).

What about those on the "other" side of these actions?? I think/hope most are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the people, that they are doing what they know in their hearts and minds to be the correct response given the situation and available information.

Look at President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction, and how we see that the information he believed to be true and verified was a lie. Look at the actions of the British Empire, who for centuries believed that they were "civilizing" the Colonies. It's easy to fault their actions in hindsight, but in that moment, in their moment, I can't honestly say what I would have done, given what was known to be "true" at the time.

In their minds, they were doing what they felt to be "right." If any of you are or were children, were you ever "subjugated" by your parents for doing or wanting to do something you thought was OK? Did you swear that you'd never do that if you had kids, then when you became parents, you put the screws to your kids in much the same way??

Context matters. Our judgment about the best interests of those in our charge is at best complex, and infrequently based on pure, unbiased reason.

Parenting is different from politics - in politics transparency matters, due process matters, and the voice of the people matters. In the politics of a democracy, these are sacrosanct, aren't they?

Texas Governor Rick Perry believes that abstinence is the only way to teach sex education, and he has invested more than any other state on promoting virginity before marriage. Texas has one of the worst-performing public school systems in America, the 3rd highest teen pregnancy rate, and more sexually-active high school students (52.9% June/08) than the national average (47.8%), when recently questioned about his decision cut education budgets, close schools, lay off teachers, etc., but maintain abstinence funding, he responded: “I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works.”

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has decided to arbitrarily rewrite the rules governing public service employment in his State. His legislature will vote to ratify this despite strong opposition from the people of Wisconsin. His rationale - we can't afford to do what we were doing, we must live within our means, and this is the only answer - I/we know what's right.

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak have always acted in what they believed to be the best interests of Tunisia and Egypt respectively. King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa has always acted in what he believes to be the best interests of Bahrain. Each of these leaders' assumptions have been challenged over the last weeks.

We in the West have looked on these events with some feeling of superiority, sanguine in the belief that at least we live in nations with government[s] of the people, by the people, for the people.

I wonder - are there butterflies in Tunisia or Egypt or Bahrain?

awakening

The recent uprising in Tunisia was sparked (sorry) by the act of one person, it (very) rapidly expanded into a national uprising that resulted in the ousting of a long time President whose resounding electoral victories (he won his fifth election in 2009 with his lowest mandate - 89%) were always suspicious. Despite his close call in 2009, it was not until January 13 of this year that he announced that he would not seek reelection in 2014, and then realizing this was not enough, fled the country the next day. I'm willing to bet that in the 29 days following Bouazizi's immolation, former President Ben Ali had NO idea that that one seemingly inconsequential event would so quickly evaporate his once-powerful stranglehold on Tunisia.

That one man's desperate act would have gone unnoticed without the amazing communication capabilities, which even the poorest among us now enjoy, is a powerful testament to the world we now live in.

President Hosni Mubarak is reeling from roughly the same kick in the groin, and wondering, "what the hell just happened?" Emboldened by these acts, the oppressed from Morocco to Pakistan are rising against their leaders; leaders who until very recently lived under a wonderful shelter of power, wealth, and comfort without accountability. These regimes (even the faux-democracies) have wielded power over their citizens (many of whom live in poverty) for generations without repercussions. How will things change?

I think there are three lessons to be learned - first, politics or leadership is a delicate balance between the application of power and serving the citizens. Second, the right (and ability) for people to assemble may not be pervasive, but it is unstoppable. Third, be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.

Politics - citizens expect that leaders will be somewhat heavy-handed; they also expect public safety, employment, the opportunity to feed, clothe and shelter their families, and in most places, education and health care. We are all willing to suffer, but there is a breaking point. The Middle East reached it recently; we saw it in Sudan with their referendum; it affected the dissolution of the Soviet Union; and caused America to declare her independence from Britain.

Are Western states immune? Nope - the Wars on Terror + the Patriot Act combined with severe domestic belt-tightening have created unrest across America and Western Europe. The difference in the West is that politicians give away more than they should to win, where in the East, they suppress the populace more than they should to remain in power. But either way, in the end, the people suffer.

I think sustainable leadership requires adherence to three absolutes - Integrity, Transparency, and Accountability. There can be no compromise. Once you cross this delicate line, you are either perceived as insipid (President Jimmy Carter) and lose respect, or as despotic (almost every other example of government gone bad) and subject to revolt. Most governments will use misdirection (Wars, etc.) to keep their citizens in line and resistance at bay, until they get found out.

Assembly - the Communication Revolution is upon us and there is no turning back. Anyone has the capacity to create and share and associate, though its implications are not fully grasped by all. Even the American government was caught off guard by the speed with which things progressed in Tunisia and then spread to other countries. Birds of a feather are able to find like-minded people, convene and create movements in ways that were not possible even five years ago. Once tightly-held secrets (Wikileaks) are also fair game. Governments simply can't keep up.

Wishes - the Egyptians want Mubarak ousted - he is why they live in poverty, suffer high unemployment, and a high cost of living, etc. They want free and fair elections to choose their next government, believing that once Mubarak is gone, Egypt will once again flourish and all will be better. I feel sorry for the eventual winner of the elections - the world markets are in crisis, oil and grain (and hence most food) will be more expensive due weather, this turmoil and the economy; and let's face it - the situation in Egypt (or anywhere else) is not caused solely by its leader - most of the contributing factors that caused these problems still remain, and are very difficult to fix. The next leader may not fare any better.

The world is holding its breath to see what happens in the Middle East - from economics to diplomacy to war, changes of this magnitude to the status quo will have gigantic repercussions. Bouazizi may have ended up doing a huge favor to the Ben Alis and Mubaraks of the world - they will leave (with $$ tucked away in offshore accounts), their successors will inherit the messes they presided over, and the citizens will need to start over.

But there is something to celebrate - rising against despotism is a good thing. Self-determination is a good thing. I hope the citizens of these countries will look inwardly to realize that they are now responsible for their destinies, that they can no longer blame "the man," and that they alone have the ability to create viable economies, and ensure the health, safety and well-being of their families.

deFUDdle

Back when I worked at IBM, if we didn't have the "winning" solution, our strategy was simple - we used FUD. It was brilliant, and worked more often than you might think. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The idea was to push the customer's emotional buttons, poke holes, create scary what-ifs, do whatever it took to force a delay, redefine the problem, or whatever so that we were in a more favorable position.

The Republicans FUD skills are renowned. They are able to create a sense of tension in the electorate in ways that routinely befuddle Democrats. Take health care - they did a brilliant job of associating the reform bill with "bad for the economy" and "a perilous step towards socialism" - fantastic! First, I'm willing to bet that most of us don't even know the definition - according to Webster, socialism is a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Is there any real risk that America turns into a socialist country through health care reform? Hardly. There is no correlation between the government providing a service and the elimination of all private ownership, but it's a fabulous way to create FUD. The first people to oppose socialism are our much-vaunted Congress, who let's face it, enjoy private ownership of a lot of stuff, some of which was funded by special interests and the tax payers(!); they will do everything in their power to preserve the fruits of their avarice. So - socialism is an absurdity.

What about "bad for the economy"? Again - there are many ways to make numbers mean what you want. You only have to look at this NY Times article about law schools using misleading data to shore up their performance numbers (graduate employment rates, etc.) to help improve their rankings, and you can see how universities ("reputable" universities) will lie.

When it comes to the economy, there are two things that matter most - I want a good job, and I want to take home more money than I am now. But then here's one pretty diabolical piece of FUD: taxes are bad. Well... I don't think it's that simple. How much tax do you want to pay? As little as possible - right? Me too. Thus the resonance with the Republican push on lower taxes. It makes total sense - or does it?

Do my taxes really matter or is there more to this?? Put another way, the real question in my mind is: how do I maximize my net earnings? What I really care about is how much I take home at the end of the day, the nature of the deductions from my earnings are less important than the value I get for those deductions and whether the net amount I'm taking home is going up. <-- Does that make sense?

If it does, then it's not really about taxes is it? Why not make it about personal profitability? Profits being what you get to keep in your wallet after all your expenses are paid. So if there is a change to our economic system that costs me more in tax but lowers or eliminates another (bigger) salary deduction, and after all that I end up ahead, why should I care?

According to this (well worth a read), the American health care system is the most expensive in the world; in 2006, we spent more than $6,700 per person on health care, compared ~$3,500 for most Western nations. The cost is actually higher since every other Western country has universal health care, and about 10% of Americans don't have any coverage at all, so the $6,700 is actually closer to $7,500 per person.

Digging a bit deeper, 70% of Canadian health care costs are borne by the government vs. 46% in the US; the Canadian system costs about $3,700 per person (just about half of the US cost), and yet Canadians live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate - these are the two primary measures of national health care effectiveness.

Bottom line: Canadians spend $3,800 less per person for better health care. If you're American, you might think - yeah but my employer pays my share - what do I care? Well - if personal profitability is your goal, then you will know that you are paying EVERY penny of your medical insurance costs, whether it is in taxes, payroll deductions, a lower salary, or lower prices at the store. No matter how you cut it, the $3,800 difference DOES come from your wallet, and means those of us who live in the USA earn that much less every year, and die earlier to boot.

Even if the US decided to spend $4,500 per person (for every person), that's still a savings of $2,200 for each of us plus the knowledge that no-one gets left behind. Every person in this country gets access. Every person also gets to pad their wallets a bit, and rarely is that a bad thing!

But how to communicate this? It's a pretty complex analysis, and given the state of education in America, I'm not convinced that every voter is going to understand it. Think back to the last person that had a tough economic message to share with the populace - President Ronald Reagan in is first address to the nation from the Oval Office in 1981 - a brilliant speech.

If President Obama had addressed the nation in just this way - not talking to politicians and special interests as he did in his attempts, but talking to the American people, sitting in his office, and not standing in the House; if he had applied simple metaphors as Reagan did, perhaps each of us might have been able to look forward to an extra $2-3,000 in our wallets in 2011.

curativity

Being charitable is an essential part of humanity. The definition of society is a community formed to (among other things) help those who can't help themselves. Humans are inherently giving beings.

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, as of August 2010, there are 980,000 nonprofits (that filed IRS returns; there are 1.6 million registered .orgs) in the United States alone; they earned $1.74 TRILLION, and have $3.89 TRILLION in assets. That's an average of $1.78 million in annual revenue, and $3.98 million in assets per organization.

Obviously the "big" foundations skew these numbers with their $multi-billion endowments, but still - $5,637 per American resident was donated in this last (economically tough) year. Impressive.

About a year ago, I received an email from Paul about giving - what's the motivation, why do people do it, etc.? Most people give money to relieve guilt or to (as Paul put it) "make a spectacle of themselves." You only have to look at how philanthropic organizations solicit money - guilt is the essential ingredient in .org marketing. Almost every advertisement or solicitation you see will in some way make you think, "there but for the grace of God go I."

In good times, this works well - those who have respond, and help those that don't. Tough times are often (sadly) also marked with major disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.), and in these times, people will rally in support of these causes, taking money away from their normal nonprofits, and their beneficiaries can be left with nothing.

Back to the numbers, I'm most shocked by the almost one million nonprofit organizations - surely there aren't this many societal issues that Americans alone wish to address? Surely there aren't a million Americans who are skilled at managing philanthropic organizations? And ...surely there aren't a million+ people/potential employees skilled at eliminating societal problems??

Most nonprofit founders have either personally experienced, or observed a "problem" first hand, and are now compelled to do something about it. This is a great thing - the motivation to help others not suffer as much as you did or saw is truly heartwarming.

But as an old friend once said, in business as in life, you must put the right tool in the hands of the right person. The wrong tool in the hands of the wrong person creates unwanted results: if you give a dentist a jackhammer, dentistry will not occur (!).

We give because we care; we give because we feel guilty; we give because we can. But how do we know the ones to whom we are giving "can"??? What's the assurance that these 980,000 nonprofits have the ability to not just make a symptomatic difference in the moment (palliative care), but actually do work that creates real and sustainable improvement, that eventually eliminates the need for that nonprofit altogether?

There is no assurance - this is the problem. Rarely do the people that form nonprofits have the skills and experience to solve the problem. They may not even have the skills or aptitude to effectively operate a nonprofit. More often than not, their core skills are empathy and fund raising. These are both important, but not enough to get the job done. This is where the whole point of giving is at risk.

You might be asking yourself "what's wrong with hiring the people that can do the job?" Nothing! Except - most people who have the expertise/talent/experience to contribute to the solution and can afford to work for a pittance are already trying to set up their own .orgs! Hence the almost one million separate organizations! Irony abounds.

To Paul's question, I think this is why people make their giving visible - they recognize that motivating others to give is the only real difference they can make.

To the question of how you fix it - how to make giving curative and not palliative? I suggest two acts - first - raise the bar so that actually setting up a nonprofit is incredibly difficult. Second - the big foundations should use their marketing muscle to showcase successful interventions (ones that create sustainable improvement); and then show givers how they can contribute their time and money to helping proven interventions scale through the existing channels vs. setting up their own .orgs. "This is working - here's proof - help make this work in more places!"

Happy New Year everyone - here's to a curative 2011!

the america moment

President Obama recently called the US education crisis our Sputnik moment; this because there are significant challenges:

1. Education budgets around the country facing even more dramatic cuts.
2. The incoming Republican Congress intending even deeper budget cuts.
3. PISA scores (OECD global student achievement testing) place America near the middle of the world, sandwiched between Iceland and Liechtenstein, well below the leaders.
4. The belief that to be successful, America must follow "the leaders."

Dennis Pierce talks about this in today's eSchool News, and ends his editorial with: If we don’t spend more on our schools, our children’s future will suffer.

Here's the data (knowing that things have changed a bit since 2008): Education America spent $10,259 per student that year (=$593 billion total), this total has shrunk some in the last couple of years but I guarantee most what I point out in the link are still true:

1. Student populations are declining year over year.
2. The proportion of the overall payroll going to teachers is declining year over year.
3. There are still almost 15,000 school districts in this country, each requiring its own infrastructure, budget, and politicians.
4. Education leaders are stuck in a rut and think the only path to success is more spending.

Dennis Pierce and President Obama couldn't be more wrong. Increasing the budget for education will NOT fix things. It is true that we must improve the situation in our schools, but more money is NOT the answer.

America is afraid of everything right now - Homeland Security has declared a war on Americans (TSA, etc.); the Pentagon has declared a war on disaffected people labeled as terrorists, but who live in poverty in some of the worst places on Earth; the Republicans are afraid of China taking over the American economy; and the Democrats are afraid of Finland, Poland, and Estonia because their students are smarter.

But America is forgetting some fundamental truths. (Perhaps I see this more clearly because I was born in the Third World looking from the outside into countries like the US.)

1. America didn't become America by following in other countries' footsteps. It became America because it charted its own path and believed that success will come to those who work the hardest and choose to break molds, vs. to those who copy and conform.
2. Corruption is human nature - the more money you throw at a problem, the less likely you are to find a solution, and the more assured you are of creating an even bigger mess. The data clearly shows that the more we spend, the fewer we graduate, and worse, the weaker the graduates.
3. ONLY in the minds of bureaucrats has education EVER been about test scores or single subject proficiency.

Rather than being America's Sputnik moment, this should be the world's America Moment. The rest of the planet needs to look at what the US is doing and despair. Leadership requires others to look to you, not vice versa. That's the challenge I expect a President, Congress, and Edu-cognizanti to proclaim! Where is your gumption people???

America went from being an average country to a superpower in less than a generation. A defining moment in this transition happened in 1940, when President Franklin Roosevelt went to Congress asking that America go from the 12th largest Air Force to the LARGEST Air Force, that she build the most advanced planes ever, and that her production capacity should increase at least five-fold.

The essential America Moment happend when despite his using these numbers metaphorically, the country took him literally. America not only achieved what everyone said was impossible, but doubled it (100,000 planes/year vs. the 50,000 in FDR's speech)! She created a industrial force that innovated in design, engineering, and production at levels never before seen; and in ways that put the fear of Uncle Sam in every other country's heart.

The President (and the rest of the Edu-Cognizanti) should find their inner FDR and demand that: "American students deserve an education system the likes of which has never before been seen. One where each student is able to find and develop their greatest selves; where every teacher is passionate, committed and excellent; and where all schools are filled with joy and achievement.

The graduates of Education America 2.0 will be equipped to not just survive, but adapt and thrive no matter what future unfolds. They will be the engine that drives America into the 22nd century as the country that is not only the best place to live, but the only one that all others look to achieve similar greatness."

America is neither Finland nor Korea - the people, their aspirations, their very natures are different. We need an education system that is of the people, by the people, for the people - uniquely and bespokenly American. It is possible to create a clear and simple plan that Republicans, Democrats, the Unions, parents and most school leaders) will wholeheartedly support - we just haven't tried.

Stand up people - our time has come.

bumfuzzled

There's been a lot of furor lately about WikiLeaks and the US State Department documents they published (vs. stole). The United States Congress is seeking to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange; Senator Joe Lieberman in a recent Fox News interview stated that Assange (an Australian) should be tried for American treason! He is also contemplating charges against the New York Times for bad citizenship! Do Senators now get to fabricate their own laws? Next he'll outlaw literate people - oh wait - that was Pol Pot.

Every government/police system in the world wishes to prosecute Assange for his part in publishing these documents. I bet if they had their way, the US Congress, Interpol, etc. would also want to prosecute everyone who tweets or blogs, and possibly everyone who's under the age of 25 just on principle.

According to www.senate.gov, the average age of this, the 110th Congress is 57 years (55.9 House, 61.7 Senate). This is one of the OLDEST Congresses ever. The average Congressperson was born in 1953, when TVs had two channels, no remotes, and black & white pictures; they were teenagers before it was even possible to send telexes. They graduated from university five years before CNN was created, a decade before personal computers became commercially available, fifteen years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and almost a quarter of a century before mobile phones were broadly available. The world's population has almost tripled since they were born.

Sadly for them, we are in the midst of the Communication Revolution. Going from the Industrial Revolution (their world) to the Information Revolution to this, the Communication Revolution, we have shifted from standardization (Ford Model T) to discoverability (Internet/Google) to transparency & immediacy. While foreign to these relicsleaders (many of whom have never even read email), the need to be transparent and expect to have anything be immediately exposed for all to see is today's reality. Keeping secrets like you did during the age of Leave it to Beaver, in a time where the latency between information capture and global distribution is measured in seconds is absurd.

Congresspeople: the good old days are over. The RIAA faced this with online music, the MPA is facing it with online films, and you are now facing it with pervasive (and unfettered) access to information. The systems you employed to safeguard your secrets are antiquated and designed for the Cold Warriors, not today's average 12-year-old. But like your much-vaunted HUAC and Senator McCarthy's demagogic anti-communist investigations, you have charged decrepit freaks like Lieberman to persecute these modern "evil-doers" in the name of National Security. Bravo.

History will judge you as it did McCarthy and HUAC - as a Congress unable to fathom a changing world, using its power in desperate ways to impose order, and putting its energy into holding on to the past vs. leading your country towards a brighter future.

Punctuating the 2010 US Government's reaction to this leak is their edict to all government employees instructing them NOT to read any of the WikiLeaks documents. Quoting MSNBC, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a strongly worded memo to all employees and contractors telling them that not only may they not “download or attempt to download” any of the classified WikiLeaks memos onto their computers, they also may not “discuss the content” of such “potentially classified” documents “with persons who would not otherwise be authorized access,” according to a copy of a Dec. 3 memo from the department’s Office of Chief Information Officer. NASA and the Library of Congress have blocked the WikiLeaks site from their employees.

As a Homeland Security employee put it, "So, my grandmother would be allowed to access the cables, but not me."

Remember - these same government leaders have publicly decried the Chinese Government for impeding free information flow to her citizens.

The modern world has left the aging US Congress and various government Ministries bumfuzzled.

How does one de-fuzzle? I don't think it's possible - with apologies to canines everywhere, you can't teach old dogs like Lieberman/Pelosi/etc. new tricks - they're simply too withered, and sadly too entrenched.

Giving them some credit, they do understand that the WikiLeaks episode portends an even more dangerous future - one where no secrets are safe, no back-room dealings are kept in the back room, and what happens in Vegas becomes a TV movie that everyone can watch. Their strategy is to delay that future as long as possible, not realizing that their very acts (which only serve to extend the story) are actually helping seal their fate.

That this is news to Congress is not surprising given their agedness, but it is surprising that one of the youngest (and most tech-savvy) presidents in history is behaving so much like his septuagenarian colleagues.

Or is it that the very act of joining the government not only bumfuzzles but also calcifies?

endurance

Is "good" an absolute or does it change over time? We are creatures of habit and tradition; in general what was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow. This especially applies to the things we value, and while most "goods" do and should endure, there are some that don't, and some that shouldn't.

Often these "goods" are benchmarks or measures that say things should be done tomorrow the way they were done yesterday. But is "good" good enough this time? For example:

1. We expect medical interns to work extended hours because the doctors that came before did. This despite studies in the New England Journal of Medicine, and other publications that prove that this does not improve learning or develop skills, and worse, actually harms patients!
2. We want our kids to do as much or more homework than we did, despite studies that show that it does not lead to meaningful learning. We believe in measuring student performance in the same way we did a generation ago, despite the data that shows that the ability to do well in a test has no correlation to success in the world or to personal achievement or happiness.
3. We base current business models on the past despite the fact that the (business) world has changed fundamentally, what worked yesterday is absolutely not guaranteed to work today, and that the world tomorrow will be different yet again.

We fear tomorrow but know and understand yesterday, so by measuring tomorrow based on yesterday, we are admitting that tomorrow matters less than yesterday. This is not leadership; it is instead a classic example of traditional MBA thinking - administer micro events based on historical trends, and assume the bigger picture will take care of itself.

Leaders who think this way should neither lead nor think.

What happens when a business model comes along that is fundamentally different from what came before? Google's model was brilliant - they turned the end user into the product and the advertiser into the customer. Microsoft turned the application developer into value-added "pull" for their products, and used these external "solution developers" as the sales machine that just dragged Microsoft along. The "establishment" scoffed at these two companies, as they did at Southwest Airlines, PayPal, Skype, Napster, ...and even the once radical notion of using ball-point pens in schools. Forsooth!

But the establishment (teeming with MBAs) does a bit more than just scoff at these upstarts; they actively subvert them by portraying them as untenable, wrong, evil, unproven, charlatans, etc.; they lobby against them through governments, press, and public. This is how incumbents attempt to hold on - by suppressing competitors vs. improving themselves. Just read this article to see that even the market-watchers (supposed innovators) get into the game of decrying those who are challenging the status quo.

A couple of weeks ago, Steve Wozniak said that Google's Android will become the most pervasive smartphone operating system. EVERYONE (media, competitors, Apple-haters) jumped on this assuming he meant that Apple's iOS will lose, and the iPhone is doomed. They compared this to Apple's "loss" to Microsoft in the personal computer marketplace (Windows still enjoys a ~90% market share vs. Mac/OSX and others).

Really? What is the basis for measuring "win" and "loss"?? Narrow minds define winners based on market share - and it's true, from that point of view, Android is more likely to win, because it's free to the manufacturers and they're not limiting the design criteria all that much. But is that really winning? Is Mac/OSX a loser in the PC market because it has less share than Windows? What computer are you using right now? What do you wish you had?

Outside of sports there are very few places where "winning" is clear-cut. In war - the "winning" side does get to write history the way they want, but let's face it, no-one would call America's invasion of Iraq a "victory" despite the fact that they technically won. Take Windows and PCs - it's fair to say that Microsoft "won" and continues to win the PC war but at what cost? Their success put them in the cross-hairs of a number of governments who feared their market share and pervasiveness as threats to competition. This cost Microsoft $billions, and even worse, altered the very nature of the company and its approach to doing business. This is not a "win," but this is the fate of share "winners." Hmmm...

Now let's look at the "loser." Apple seems to have done ...adequately despite their "poor" market share. Looking at their stock price, market cap, share of PR voice, future prospects, etc., I don't know about you, but they seem quite viable for a loser. How do their competitors look?

Perhaps NOT having a dominant market share was the best thing for them? It allowed them to diversify their efforts beyond the PCs, into music players, music services, and other consumer devices. Not being committed to one category or product-type let them be open to cannibalizing their own products, be innovative, creative and driven. When your market share is very high, your tendency is to preserve it vs. usurp it - you only have to look at the music industry to see how well this plays out.

I'm not saying they had a master plan and things turned out exactly as intended, but I am saying that Apple approaches the world differently than its peers, and stays true to its intention despite market pressure/ perception/ etc. This is a mark of leadership and vision. I don't believe for a second that they want to be the most sold phone in the market - I think they want to be the best phone, the best experience, and the most fun. Rather than volume, their obsession is impact or effect.

Are there absolute performance characteristics that will always be "good"? How about:

1. Are you competing on price or value?
2. Do your customers choose you in the face of cheaper alternatives?
3. Are your products more important than your ethos/values ...your "why"?

Arbitrarily deciding that X is good just because it worked a generation ago or even yesterday is naive and doomed. Absolute measures of "good" should be about who you are, and why you are. These are the enduring "goods."

tax refunds

When money is exchanged for a good or service, the buyer and seller enter a contract where the product offered will meet expectations and achieve advertised results; and if it doesn't, some form of restitution/refund is expected.

In a market economy, providers of goods or services that do not operate with integrity should as a matter of course lose customers and go under. This behavior is enforced in America by the Federal Trade Commission. With all of this, one would think that the American consumer is well taken care of... but no.

In 2008, Americans spent almost $600 billion (via income taxes alone) on public education (or well over $10,000 per student per year). That's a lot of money. Where is the consumer protection? If a student doesn't successfully complete high school, fails to get accepted to college, or fails to get a job, shouldn't the "buyers" be entitled to a refund? What if the school doesn't do enough to educate a child? What then? How does one get restitution?

If we look at Education America as a business (EA.com), who are its customers? What is the product (how do they create value)? What does the model look like?

1. EA.com creates value by taking raw materials (students age 5) and machines (curriculum, exams, standards) them within its factories (schools) and with its workers (teachers) into theoretically actualized, independent, and contributing members of society (students age 18-ish) 13 years later.
2. A company's customers are the ones that pay for the good or service, or in this case, the American taxpayer. The customers are the ones that have already passed through the system, not the ones currently in the system. Their stake is in the "future value" of EA's product and not in the process. This is a pretty significant nuance, and rather convenient for EA.com as its customers are unable to judge the quality of the product until well after the product has left the factory, and the payments have been collected.
3. The model is brilliant - get paid to crank out widgets according to an external specification (curriculum) and measured based on an antiquated (standardized tests) assessment, which has no connection to the graduate's ability or likelihood to succeed per the customers' requirements (blue text in #1 above).

By the time you realize the education you bought your child didn't meet expectations, it's already too late 'cause they've already graduated. And since there are no refunds, EA.com is counting on the fact that you will recognize there is no value to airing your very legitimate grievance, and just give up.

This can't be allowed to go on. Since a bad-education-refund is not possible, what can we do??? Where is our Fair Education Commission???

In the spirit of my last post, to create change, we must identify the most influential constituency, pick the most provocative issue, and pour some Tabasco into that wound.

The only way to truly and sustainably change Education America is to mobilize most if not all citizens to vigilantly ensure #1 above for every child. Adults aren't doing this today because it's in their past, and they don't correlate it to their future. We need to reposition Education and make it much, much more viscerally relevant to everyone.

Education America is funded by American taxpayers, all of whom are current or future retirees. Every one of whom expects to receive Social Security and Medicare until they die. Social Security and Medicare (SS&M) are the political third rail - the one place where all political parties fear to tread. This is because both are at risk of bankruptcy, and more taxpayers are closer to retirement than ever before (i.e. they are going bankrupt faster). 

SS&M were designed on the premise that there will always be more employees than retirees (bizarrely, no-one counted on people being healthier, living longer, having less kids) and that the current employees' taxes keep the system afloat (unemployment = bad). So if I'm retiring in the next 10-20 years, I want to make damned sure that today's students are VERY employable and will pay a ton of taxes, otherwise all I've done is fund my parents' retirement, and I'm left holding the bag.

Strategy: Make SS&M the wound, a poor education the Tabasco, and push the masses to personally focus on improving Education America to ensure their retirement benefits.

Let's take a look at the "biggest" education change agent in America - the Gates Foundation. They are investing a TON of money (my guess: $1-3billion/year), but that's less than 0.5% of the total education budget - a relative pittance. They can't make a big enough impact with that - they need a bigger lever.

Rather than creating programs, they should stand squarely on the third rail (since they're not political), and use their $Billions to create a fervor among Democrats and Republicans alike. If the citizens of America want to ensure SS&M access for their own retirement, they need to make sure that EVERY student graduates and is very GAINfully employed very soon after. The Foundation should produce a clear, simple list of three things that the voters must expect from Education America in the upcoming election (step 1). In the following election round, they should specify the next three things that voters must focus on (step 2), and so on.

We can't get a refund on the misspent $600 billion - let's at least make sure all future money is spent well.