As I said in my previous piece about decision making, what’s essential is the quality of your understanding of the situations in which you find yourself. This is important because we always “decide” (that is, act) in accord with our understanding.
Two things can happen when you are confronted with a problem, especially a new problem. You can either try to fit that problem into your current understanding, flawed though that may be, and act. Or you can step back and recognize that you don’t have enough information or aren’t sure of the consequences of the different courses you might take. In this case, you then gather more information and consider the different paths you might take. Then you choose the one that most closely fits the facts. According to many observers, this characterizes the style and approach of Barack Obama.
In the Newshour review of how Obama makes decisions, one of his mantras is “no drama.” Drama usually comes from taking actions without fully thinking through what might happen. When you do that, it often results in unintended consequences and problems that could have otherwise been prevented. In other words, you create drama, and that’s often not a good thing.
David Mendell, who wrote a biography of Obama, says, “[Obama] would always try to bring all sides of an issue, if there were conflicting sides, into the room, into one room, sit them all down, and try to get them together. He came out what seemed to be with respect from both sides.” He also usually comes out with some consensus among the parties.
David Axelrod, his campaign chairman, says of Obama, “His hallmark, his style of leadership is to try and bring people together. His attitude is, ‘We may disagree on 90 percent of what we want on issues, but on those [other] 10 percent, how do we work together and move things forward?’”
A perfect example of the difference between McCain and Obama is the current debate over the bailout of Wall Street and Main Street now going on. McCain precipitously said he is suspending his campaign until a solution is found and even suggested delaying the long planned first presidential debate in Oxford, MS.
According to news accounts, Obama called McCain and suggested they deliver a joint statement about the crisis. McCain apparently agreed, but within the hour, without telling Obama, he announced the campaign suspension and that he was going to Washington to, in a manner of speaking, “save the day.” This is despite the fact that he had not spoken with either Senator Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee or Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, both of whom Obama had spoken to several times.
In the meantime, Obama issued a statement of principles of what the bailout plan should include. In contrasting what the two candidates did, Obama has remained calm and thoughtful, while McCain has been impetuous and unsure of what to do next.
Here’s how Time Magazine’s Joe Klein describes what’s been going on: “What McCain didn’t understand was that the legislative crisis was already receding when he made his melodramatic—and somewhat wild-eyed—suspension of campaign activities statement. (He didn’t understand this because he has had no input into the process and, indeed, is neither respected for his financial expertise nor desired in the process because of his combative, peremptory negotiating style.)”
Note Klein’s characterization of McCain’s combative and peremptory style in negotiations—not an approach that leads to consensus and definitely a style that leads to, yes, more drama. And as I write this, that is just what is going on, even as an agreement was close, McCain’s decision to interfere has, apparently, muddied the water and taken us further from a resolution of this financial crisis.
One other thing that characterizes good decision making is the ability to learn from your mistakes. Mistakes are when things don’t turn out like you expected and what happened instead was not in your best interest. In a Newshour piece on how Obama deals with adversity, it’s clear that he learns from his mistakes. David Axelrod recalls Obama telling his campaign team after losing two big primaries to Hillary Clinton: “I can think of a dozen things that I did wrong in these last couple of weeks. And I’m sure each of you can think of things that you would have done differently. I don’t want to review that. I want to think about what we’ve learned from this and how it affects what we do moving forward.”
I don’t know about you, but this is the approach to leadership and decision making that engenders confidence in me. As for McCain, everyday, by his actions and remarks, he seems to be—ironically—reinforcing the idea that “John McCain, not ready to lead.”
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Reflections on John McCain’s Decision-Making Style
Recently the Newshour on PBS has analyzed the decision-making styles of McCain and Obama. This was an insightful and useful presentation that can serve as an important consideration in choosing which candidate to support. Before reflecting on what we learned about, I want to talk a bit about the process of decision-making and how I think it works.
I believe that rather than make decisions, what we do is understand situations and act in accordance with our understanding. What I mean by this is as individuals, we encounter situations, we project our sense of order onto what’s happening, and then we act to preserve that sense of order. If we’re thoughtful and see that our sense of order isn’t adequate and that we don’t fully understand what’s going on, we collect more information to bring things into focus and then act.
Our sense of the order things is really our paradigm. The better our paradigm, the more it conforms with how the world really works, the more likely our understanding of the situations we’re confronted with and the decisions and actions we take will result in something productive happening.
The contrast in the Newshour stories on the McCain and the Obama decision-making styles was startling. The paradigm, the understanding, from which John McCain operates is one of black and white, with few shades of gray. He will talk to those foreign leaders he considers to be America’s friends and won’t talk to those who he believes are not our friends. He seems less interested in facts than in impressions and personal ideology. He has a long history of deriding those who don’t agree with him. He is not one to seek additional information on a new situation because he quickly projects his already-held views (whether valid or not) onto it and discounts other points of view.
The choice of Sarah Palin is an example of this. He talked to her and saw that she too seemed to be someone who, at least superficially, was willing to take on entrenched interests, like McCain has in his career. Once he had that impression of her, that was enough. Forget about finding any information that might provide another point of view on the qualifications of neophyte Palin.
In interview after interview, McCain’s long-time friends and allies commented on his impulsiveness and shoot-from-the-hip style. McCain himself even acknowledges this style in his autobiography and admits it has frequently gotten him into trouble. Now this may be a relatively minor problem in his role as a senator where the consequences mainly reflect back on him. But as president, the consequences of his impulsiveness reflect back on all of us.
In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, David Brooks writes of the importance of prudence in the decision making of national leaders: “How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.”
Brooks was specifically writing about Sarah Palin, and no one would say that John McCain is inexperienced, though I think his sense of history is questionable. And I think it can be argued pretty convincingly that imprudence is a clear aspect of his character. Brooks is suggesting that a leader comes by his model (his paradigm, his understanding) of the world though experience, reflection, and study, and this serves as the foundation of what he or she chooses to do. From what I have seen and read, I question the quality of John McCain's model.
And keep in mind, the model from which we operate is not just an intellectual one—it also has important psychological components. In other words, we’re also talking about personality. John McCain readily admits that in his younger years he was a rebel, a troublemaker, who did not like to take orders.
By the age of 72, it’s easy to see that he has mellowed a lot, but these basic personality traits don’t go away. And there is ample evidence during his long senate career that these traits remain. He is still a contrarian who believes he already has the answers and is impatient with anyone who challenges his views. Given this approach to deciding and acting, I think we would be entering dangerous territory indeed should we wake up on November 5, 2008 and find John McCain is the next president.
In another piece, I will talk about Barack Obama’s decision style.
I believe that rather than make decisions, what we do is understand situations and act in accordance with our understanding. What I mean by this is as individuals, we encounter situations, we project our sense of order onto what’s happening, and then we act to preserve that sense of order. If we’re thoughtful and see that our sense of order isn’t adequate and that we don’t fully understand what’s going on, we collect more information to bring things into focus and then act.
Our sense of the order things is really our paradigm. The better our paradigm, the more it conforms with how the world really works, the more likely our understanding of the situations we’re confronted with and the decisions and actions we take will result in something productive happening.
The contrast in the Newshour stories on the McCain and the Obama decision-making styles was startling. The paradigm, the understanding, from which John McCain operates is one of black and white, with few shades of gray. He will talk to those foreign leaders he considers to be America’s friends and won’t talk to those who he believes are not our friends. He seems less interested in facts than in impressions and personal ideology. He has a long history of deriding those who don’t agree with him. He is not one to seek additional information on a new situation because he quickly projects his already-held views (whether valid or not) onto it and discounts other points of view.
The choice of Sarah Palin is an example of this. He talked to her and saw that she too seemed to be someone who, at least superficially, was willing to take on entrenched interests, like McCain has in his career. Once he had that impression of her, that was enough. Forget about finding any information that might provide another point of view on the qualifications of neophyte Palin.
In interview after interview, McCain’s long-time friends and allies commented on his impulsiveness and shoot-from-the-hip style. McCain himself even acknowledges this style in his autobiography and admits it has frequently gotten him into trouble. Now this may be a relatively minor problem in his role as a senator where the consequences mainly reflect back on him. But as president, the consequences of his impulsiveness reflect back on all of us.
In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, David Brooks writes of the importance of prudence in the decision making of national leaders: “How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.”
Brooks was specifically writing about Sarah Palin, and no one would say that John McCain is inexperienced, though I think his sense of history is questionable. And I think it can be argued pretty convincingly that imprudence is a clear aspect of his character. Brooks is suggesting that a leader comes by his model (his paradigm, his understanding) of the world though experience, reflection, and study, and this serves as the foundation of what he or she chooses to do. From what I have seen and read, I question the quality of John McCain's model.
And keep in mind, the model from which we operate is not just an intellectual one—it also has important psychological components. In other words, we’re also talking about personality. John McCain readily admits that in his younger years he was a rebel, a troublemaker, who did not like to take orders.
By the age of 72, it’s easy to see that he has mellowed a lot, but these basic personality traits don’t go away. And there is ample evidence during his long senate career that these traits remain. He is still a contrarian who believes he already has the answers and is impatient with anyone who challenges his views. Given this approach to deciding and acting, I think we would be entering dangerous territory indeed should we wake up on November 5, 2008 and find John McCain is the next president.
In another piece, I will talk about Barack Obama’s decision style.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Dangerously Out of Touch
Am I the only one who’s noticing this? John McCain really seems out of touch. His so-called claim to expertise in foreign policy? I don’t believe it. He makes mistakes regularly and doesn’t even seem aware he made them. He clearly is confused about Shiites and Sunnis as we saw in that clip with Lieberman some time ago. The other day, when asked about whether he would meet with the president of Spain when being interviewed on a Spanish language radio program in Miami (in English), he simply said he would meet with our friends in this hemisphere and wouldn’t meet with those who are not. First of all, the question was about the leader of Spain, not about leaders in this hemisphere. Second, if you don’t meet with those with whom you disagree, how will you ever resolve disputes? If you treat people as your enemy, you ensure they will remain your enemy. McCain clearly doesn’t get that.
McCain long ago admitted he knows little about economics and how the economy actually works, this despite being chairman of the commerce committee for several years. During his tenure, deregulation was his watchword. We have all seen him these past few days claim the economy is strong, it’s not strong, we shouldn’t bail out AIG, we had to bail out AIG. And please note, every word he says publicly is scripted, and he seldom deviates from the script (when he does, it usually results in a gaffe).
And what’s really interesting to me is the lack of passion in his pronouncements. He’s given his lines, and he reads them. All the footage of him yesterday had him with his eyes down on the script. It’s discomfiting to watch. You’d think at this point in the campaign he’d be more comfortable and more familiar with his lines. But by his body language and his tone of voice, it’s clear he is not. About the economy, there has been this really obvious fake indignation. I don’t see how he can get anyone who is undecided to think he has the ability to deal with the complex problems we face. We should note that yesterday he did suggest with some animation that he would fire the head of SEC. It’s pretty clear he didn’t realize that the president has no authority to do that. In other words, whenever he deviates from the script, he blows it.
McCain’s pronouncements are usually very general and cliché-laden. Evil? Defeat it. We are all Georgians. Drill, baby, drill. Trust me. I know how to win wars. I know how to capture Bin Laden. Huh? How do you win wars, John? (And what does winning mean, anyway?) What’s your plan for getting this outlaw? Why don’t you share it with us or at least with your buddy, W? There is no nuance in McCain’s pronouncements or responses to questions. There is no indication of a grasp of the subtleties of different issues. It’s very disconcerting.
Here’s the bottom line for me: Forget about Sarah Palin not being qualified for the vice presidency and the impulsiveness of her selection in the first place. John McCain has not indicated in any way that I could trust him to be a president who can reverse the disastrous course we have been on for the past 7.7 years. You pick the area: health care, global warming, the economy, foreign relations, the occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the deterioration of relations with Russia, McCain’s ideas are hackneyed and ideological.
And what about temperament? McCain is known as a hothead, quick to anger, a person who shoots first and asks questions later. This is not the kind of person we need these days. I’m not sure it’s his age, but at 72, I would say that his habits of mind and behavior are pretty much set in stone. So what you see is what you’re going to get. Further, the actuarial tables for a person his age taking on this responsibility are not in our favor. And we know what that might portend. Enough said for today.
McCain long ago admitted he knows little about economics and how the economy actually works, this despite being chairman of the commerce committee for several years. During his tenure, deregulation was his watchword. We have all seen him these past few days claim the economy is strong, it’s not strong, we shouldn’t bail out AIG, we had to bail out AIG. And please note, every word he says publicly is scripted, and he seldom deviates from the script (when he does, it usually results in a gaffe).
And what’s really interesting to me is the lack of passion in his pronouncements. He’s given his lines, and he reads them. All the footage of him yesterday had him with his eyes down on the script. It’s discomfiting to watch. You’d think at this point in the campaign he’d be more comfortable and more familiar with his lines. But by his body language and his tone of voice, it’s clear he is not. About the economy, there has been this really obvious fake indignation. I don’t see how he can get anyone who is undecided to think he has the ability to deal with the complex problems we face. We should note that yesterday he did suggest with some animation that he would fire the head of SEC. It’s pretty clear he didn’t realize that the president has no authority to do that. In other words, whenever he deviates from the script, he blows it.
McCain’s pronouncements are usually very general and cliché-laden. Evil? Defeat it. We are all Georgians. Drill, baby, drill. Trust me. I know how to win wars. I know how to capture Bin Laden. Huh? How do you win wars, John? (And what does winning mean, anyway?) What’s your plan for getting this outlaw? Why don’t you share it with us or at least with your buddy, W? There is no nuance in McCain’s pronouncements or responses to questions. There is no indication of a grasp of the subtleties of different issues. It’s very disconcerting.
Here’s the bottom line for me: Forget about Sarah Palin not being qualified for the vice presidency and the impulsiveness of her selection in the first place. John McCain has not indicated in any way that I could trust him to be a president who can reverse the disastrous course we have been on for the past 7.7 years. You pick the area: health care, global warming, the economy, foreign relations, the occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the deterioration of relations with Russia, McCain’s ideas are hackneyed and ideological.
And what about temperament? McCain is known as a hothead, quick to anger, a person who shoots first and asks questions later. This is not the kind of person we need these days. I’m not sure it’s his age, but at 72, I would say that his habits of mind and behavior are pretty much set in stone. So what you see is what you’re going to get. Further, the actuarial tables for a person his age taking on this responsibility are not in our favor. And we know what that might portend. Enough said for today.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Earmarks: Not What They Seem to Be
Dear Paul Krugman,
John McCain says he is going to reform Washington and makes a very big deal about earmarks. So I decided to find out what the total cost of earmarks were in the federal budget in 2008. Fortunately that information is on the Internet. The total was $16,501,833,000. Or put another way, about 1 1/2 months of the cost of our misbegotten adventure in Iraq. I would love to see you write about this point: getting rid of all earmarks would be like dropping rose petals into the Grand Canyon and waiting for an echo if they think this will make a whit of difference in federal spending.
It's a cruel joke that they spend all their time talking about this stuff. McCain's grizzly bear example is getting really stale. If this is what he thinks is important, then it's a huge problem that he thinks he's qualified to be president. To hear him in interviews, he often sounds as if he, like his impulsively selected running mate, is winging it. As a professor, I'm sure you've seen answers on essay tests where the student was trying to bluff his way through the question (first repeat the question and then throw in cliché after cliché hoping that you will think he said something). That's the way both McCain and Palin sound when interviewed and asked questions that require some mastery of government and the issues that confront us. I could go on and on, but you get the point. I hope you will talk about the inconsequentiality of earmarks in solving American problems. It's pathetic that people are fed this stuff as if it actually had nutritional value.
John
Postscript: From Jonathan Alter's piece on which candidate represents change in the September 22, 2008 Newsweek:
The single domestic issue that McCain gets passionate about is pork-barrel politics ("earmarking"), the 200-year-old process by which members of Congress slip in goodies for their constituents outside the normal appropriations system. Earmarks account for less than 2 percent of the budget; the "Bridge to Nowhere" is offensive but amounts to the cost of a few hours in Iraq. McCain claims he has never sought earmarks for Arizona. This is mostly true. But the vast majority of all the bills he has sponsored in Congress have been favors for Arizona's Native American population. While the Indians deserve it, the difference from earmarks is procedural. Both amount to bringing home the bacon.
John McCain says he is going to reform Washington and makes a very big deal about earmarks. So I decided to find out what the total cost of earmarks were in the federal budget in 2008. Fortunately that information is on the Internet. The total was $16,501,833,000. Or put another way, about 1 1/2 months of the cost of our misbegotten adventure in Iraq. I would love to see you write about this point: getting rid of all earmarks would be like dropping rose petals into the Grand Canyon and waiting for an echo if they think this will make a whit of difference in federal spending.
It's a cruel joke that they spend all their time talking about this stuff. McCain's grizzly bear example is getting really stale. If this is what he thinks is important, then it's a huge problem that he thinks he's qualified to be president. To hear him in interviews, he often sounds as if he, like his impulsively selected running mate, is winging it. As a professor, I'm sure you've seen answers on essay tests where the student was trying to bluff his way through the question (first repeat the question and then throw in cliché after cliché hoping that you will think he said something). That's the way both McCain and Palin sound when interviewed and asked questions that require some mastery of government and the issues that confront us. I could go on and on, but you get the point. I hope you will talk about the inconsequentiality of earmarks in solving American problems. It's pathetic that people are fed this stuff as if it actually had nutritional value.
John
Postscript: From Jonathan Alter's piece on which candidate represents change in the September 22, 2008 Newsweek:
The single domestic issue that McCain gets passionate about is pork-barrel politics ("earmarking"), the 200-year-old process by which members of Congress slip in goodies for their constituents outside the normal appropriations system. Earmarks account for less than 2 percent of the budget; the "Bridge to Nowhere" is offensive but amounts to the cost of a few hours in Iraq. McCain claims he has never sought earmarks for Arizona. This is mostly true. But the vast majority of all the bills he has sponsored in Congress have been favors for Arizona's Native American population. While the Indians deserve it, the difference from earmarks is procedural. Both amount to bringing home the bacon.
Friday, September 5, 2008
John McCain's Not So Great Speech
I just listened to John McCain give his acceptance speech and heard several pundits say it was a great speech and that Barack is in for the fight of his life. Chris Matthews opined that McCain will likely be ahead in the polls tomorrow. I don't know if that will happen. However, from my perspective, this was a speech of platitudes. There were no specifics given (except to select judges who would not legislate from the bench, whatever that cliché means). I don't really have a clue what he would do if he were president. Senator McCain has a history of reaching across the aisle. He said he would do that as president. Yet he gives us hyper-partisan Sarah Palin as VP.
It seems candidate McCain has been captured by the right wing of his party (as John Kerry reminds us) and all their ideological claptrap. The only compelling part of the speech was his telling of his time as a POW, which we all honor. But that has nothing, nothing to do with his ability to be an effective president. Indeed, his loner approach is still problematic. He has a reputation for impulsiveness and for being disorganized and for showing anger and impatience with those who get in his way.
One other thing—executive experience should never be confused with leadership ability. There are many executives in this country who are lousy leaders, including the guy who lives in the White House right now. Thinking strategically is one aspect of leadership. However, what really distinguishes leaders is their ability to inspire people to follow them because they know it will be in their best interest to do so. This is one of Barack Obama's gifts along with great intellect and judgment and compassion. I am old enough to remember JFK very well. I long for a president who will inspire me like JFK did once upon a time. I think Barack has that ability.
John Woods
September 5, 2008
It seems candidate McCain has been captured by the right wing of his party (as John Kerry reminds us) and all their ideological claptrap. The only compelling part of the speech was his telling of his time as a POW, which we all honor. But that has nothing, nothing to do with his ability to be an effective president. Indeed, his loner approach is still problematic. He has a reputation for impulsiveness and for being disorganized and for showing anger and impatience with those who get in his way.
One other thing—executive experience should never be confused with leadership ability. There are many executives in this country who are lousy leaders, including the guy who lives in the White House right now. Thinking strategically is one aspect of leadership. However, what really distinguishes leaders is their ability to inspire people to follow them because they know it will be in their best interest to do so. This is one of Barack Obama's gifts along with great intellect and judgment and compassion. I am old enough to remember JFK very well. I long for a president who will inspire me like JFK did once upon a time. I think Barack has that ability.
John Woods
September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Save Us John and Sarah, Save Us
Gail Collins writes of Rudy, Mitt, et al (the Sunshine Boys), who spoke on the third night of the Republican convention, "Reliving the golden days in which they managed to convince Republican voters that no matter what John McCain’s defects, he could not possibly be as bad a candidate as they were."
This sentence reminds me of how John McCain ended up winning the Republican primaries after everyone thought it was a lost cause last summer. Just look at the competition: Giuliani (noun verb 9/11), Huckabee (We're all descendants of Adam and Eve), Romney (I was for it before I was against it—oh you're not against it, OK neither am I), and so on. McCain looked good compared to them.
But this in no way affirms candidate McCain's competence in anything other than berating colleagues with appropriate epithets when they disagree with him. Oh yeah, he has great foreign policy credentials, as long as the situation is black and white. (Evil? Defeat it. Sunnis, Shiites, Al Qaeda—they're all Islamoterrorists, aren't they? Joe, where are you when I need you?)
And now we have Sarah, clearly the most carefully considered and vetted selection for VP ever. I’m wondering, however, whether my wife should have been in the running. She has executive experience as president of our neighborhood association, and she actually has an opinion on the Iraq war, Iran, and knows that when referring to the recent troubles Georgia, we're talking about a part of the former Soviet Union and not the state in the southern U.S.
And that bridge to nowhere she said thanks but no thanks to? Well so much for the bridge, but they kept the money anyway. But that's what we like in our politicians, isn't it? Zingers and flip responses to serious questions. Distortions and pandering are clearly the key to success. I mean what would Jesus do? Making big elections about small things? Sign me up.
John Woods
September 4, 2008
This sentence reminds me of how John McCain ended up winning the Republican primaries after everyone thought it was a lost cause last summer. Just look at the competition: Giuliani (noun verb 9/11), Huckabee (We're all descendants of Adam and Eve), Romney (I was for it before I was against it—oh you're not against it, OK neither am I), and so on. McCain looked good compared to them.
But this in no way affirms candidate McCain's competence in anything other than berating colleagues with appropriate epithets when they disagree with him. Oh yeah, he has great foreign policy credentials, as long as the situation is black and white. (Evil? Defeat it. Sunnis, Shiites, Al Qaeda—they're all Islamoterrorists, aren't they? Joe, where are you when I need you?)
And now we have Sarah, clearly the most carefully considered and vetted selection for VP ever. I’m wondering, however, whether my wife should have been in the running. She has executive experience as president of our neighborhood association, and she actually has an opinion on the Iraq war, Iran, and knows that when referring to the recent troubles Georgia, we're talking about a part of the former Soviet Union and not the state in the southern U.S.
And that bridge to nowhere she said thanks but no thanks to? Well so much for the bridge, but they kept the money anyway. But that's what we like in our politicians, isn't it? Zingers and flip responses to serious questions. Distortions and pandering are clearly the key to success. I mean what would Jesus do? Making big elections about small things? Sign me up.
John Woods
September 4, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
On Sarah Palin
This blog is not by me. I am posting a note my sister, Caralee Woods, sent me in response to long piece by a resident of Wasilla, Alaska (a place very few people had ever heard of until a few days ago) that chronicled the mixed record of Sarah. My sister lives in the small town of Kanab in southern Utah, a place with perhaps more than its share of ideologically bound right-wingers. With this as preface, here is what my sister had to say:
Since I've now lived four years in a small town of about 4,000, I can totally relate to this woman's essay. When our city council here in small town Utah adopted the Natural Family Resolution, it finally brought out in protest those people who had before remained silent and groused only in private in fear of retribution from the city leaders. Even I tried to stay under the rug because Jim and I still need to get annual permits to live on our land in a temporary building while we build the permanent house. The opportunities for harassment there are obvious to anyone who lives here. And of course there is great overlap between who is on what committee and everyone pretty much knows who everyone else is, so you can't hide. We aren't 6 degrees away from anyone here; we're about 2 degrees away. To make it worse, the likelihood that whoever you are talking about probably has a close relative in the room, so you have to be very careful. So I know what this woman is talking about. In fact, if the mayor of Kanab suddenly died, the net average IQ of the entire world population would have a measurable increase.
This Palin thing is very ugly and frightening. I have immersed myself in information about Palin and realize that who we're talking about is just a female George W. Bush. Bullying tactics; lacks knowledge but acts anyhow; doesn't listen to anyone but her small group of cronies; likes to shoot things; is a flat-earther. If you think McCain follows Bush's tactics and programs, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. If I prayed regularly (or at all), I'd pray that somehow the stars would align, that, as Bill Clinton said, “the right side of history” would come into play, that fate would take over and Obama will win in a landslide. Or even by 1 vote. Whatever it takes. Because if he doesn't, it means that the American voter no longer has the kind of heart it takes to want to help their neighbors in a meaningful way; that they are incapable of learning from past mistakes--or even recognizing them. Instead, they will have become mean-spirited, anti-intellectual, lost souls who can no longer have hope in their hearts but instead wish only to force their self-righteous beliefs on others because that's the only way they know how to deal with their cognitive dissonance over how screwed up the world whether it's the environment, invasions of other countries, health care, education, or the economy. They have decided that the Emperor is fully clothed and if you say it often and loud enough, the Big Lie will come true and prove them right—so THERE!
So all I know to do is send Obama money, make canvassing phone calls for him, and if not pray, at least hope that whatever is left of my optimism that the United States can right itself is warranted.
Since I've now lived four years in a small town of about 4,000, I can totally relate to this woman's essay. When our city council here in small town Utah adopted the Natural Family Resolution, it finally brought out in protest those people who had before remained silent and groused only in private in fear of retribution from the city leaders. Even I tried to stay under the rug because Jim and I still need to get annual permits to live on our land in a temporary building while we build the permanent house. The opportunities for harassment there are obvious to anyone who lives here. And of course there is great overlap between who is on what committee and everyone pretty much knows who everyone else is, so you can't hide. We aren't 6 degrees away from anyone here; we're about 2 degrees away. To make it worse, the likelihood that whoever you are talking about probably has a close relative in the room, so you have to be very careful. So I know what this woman is talking about. In fact, if the mayor of Kanab suddenly died, the net average IQ of the entire world population would have a measurable increase.
This Palin thing is very ugly and frightening. I have immersed myself in information about Palin and realize that who we're talking about is just a female George W. Bush. Bullying tactics; lacks knowledge but acts anyhow; doesn't listen to anyone but her small group of cronies; likes to shoot things; is a flat-earther. If you think McCain follows Bush's tactics and programs, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. If I prayed regularly (or at all), I'd pray that somehow the stars would align, that, as Bill Clinton said, “the right side of history” would come into play, that fate would take over and Obama will win in a landslide. Or even by 1 vote. Whatever it takes. Because if he doesn't, it means that the American voter no longer has the kind of heart it takes to want to help their neighbors in a meaningful way; that they are incapable of learning from past mistakes--or even recognizing them. Instead, they will have become mean-spirited, anti-intellectual, lost souls who can no longer have hope in their hearts but instead wish only to force their self-righteous beliefs on others because that's the only way they know how to deal with their cognitive dissonance over how screwed up the world whether it's the environment, invasions of other countries, health care, education, or the economy. They have decided that the Emperor is fully clothed and if you say it often and loud enough, the Big Lie will come true and prove them right—so THERE!
So all I know to do is send Obama money, make canvassing phone calls for him, and if not pray, at least hope that whatever is left of my optimism that the United States can right itself is warranted.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Michelle Obama: Just as Special as Her Husband
Last night Michelle Obama gave a speech at the Democratic Convention in Denver. Here is my take on that speech:
I have heard Michelle Obama speak before. She is intelligent, articulate, authentic, with a full grasp of the issues. In my opinion, she is the equal of her husband in terms of her skills as an orator and in terms of knowing what she is talking about and in her ability to move and inspire an audience. You want charisma, Barack has it, but so does Michelle. It's clear she is a wonderful mother and partner for her husband. They used to say that with the Clintons you got two for the price of one, but there was all that baggage that went with it. With the Obamas, you also get two for one, but no baggage this time, just an honest desire to serve and do what's right for this country. These are two self-made people whose gifts are there for all to see. I can only hope the American electorate gets it right this time.
John Woods
August 26, 2008
I have heard Michelle Obama speak before. She is intelligent, articulate, authentic, with a full grasp of the issues. In my opinion, she is the equal of her husband in terms of her skills as an orator and in terms of knowing what she is talking about and in her ability to move and inspire an audience. You want charisma, Barack has it, but so does Michelle. It's clear she is a wonderful mother and partner for her husband. They used to say that with the Clintons you got two for the price of one, but there was all that baggage that went with it. With the Obamas, you also get two for one, but no baggage this time, just an honest desire to serve and do what's right for this country. These are two self-made people whose gifts are there for all to see. I can only hope the American electorate gets it right this time.
John Woods
August 26, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
If You Can't Say Something ...
Written in response to Maureen Dowd’s column that kind of put down Barack Obama and his recent trip abroad.
Maureen,
I know your job seems to be snide critic of whomever you’re writing about, but god almighty, do you have to put down Barack who is our best hope to get beyond the morass that has taken over this country for the past 7.7 years. Yeah, Barack was warmly received abroad, which speaks to the fact that it isn’t Americans they dislike, but the incompetent people the Supreme Court unfortunately selected to run the government in 2000.
The fact is that we all have our foibles and weaknesses, so why ALWAYS focus on those when you’re writing about a person, especially one as smart and admirable as Barack seems to be. From what I have read, it’s clear he isn’t the touchy-feely back-of-the-bus guy that John “gaffe-a-day” McCain is, but he’s the first person running for this office to inspire the likes of me since JFK. So I look forward to a column where you don’t zero in on foibles and trash someone because of them—and rather tell me some good stuff you like about the person. It would be interesting to see what kind of e-mail you would receive in response to such a column.
Your friend in Madison,
John
July 30, 2008
Maureen,
I know your job seems to be snide critic of whomever you’re writing about, but god almighty, do you have to put down Barack who is our best hope to get beyond the morass that has taken over this country for the past 7.7 years. Yeah, Barack was warmly received abroad, which speaks to the fact that it isn’t Americans they dislike, but the incompetent people the Supreme Court unfortunately selected to run the government in 2000.
The fact is that we all have our foibles and weaknesses, so why ALWAYS focus on those when you’re writing about a person, especially one as smart and admirable as Barack seems to be. From what I have read, it’s clear he isn’t the touchy-feely back-of-the-bus guy that John “gaffe-a-day” McCain is, but he’s the first person running for this office to inspire the likes of me since JFK. So I look forward to a column where you don’t zero in on foibles and trash someone because of them—and rather tell me some good stuff you like about the person. It would be interesting to see what kind of e-mail you would receive in response to such a column.
Your friend in Madison,
John
July 30, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A Tribute to My Brother George
This is my eulogy for my brother George, July 24, 1944 - May 26, 2008, delivered at a celebration of his life at his daughter Stacey's house on June 14, 2008.
An old cowboy sat down at the bar and ordered a drink. As he sat sipping his drink, a young woman sat down next to him. She turned to him and asked, “Are you a real cowboy?”
He replied, “Well, I've spent my whole life breaking colts, working cows, going to rodeos, fixing fences, pulling calves, bailing hay, doctoring calves, cleaning my barn, fixing flats, working on tractors, and feeding my dogs, so I guess I am a cowboy.”
She said, “I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. As soon as I get up in the morning, I think about women. When I shower, I think about women. When I watch TV, I think about women. I even think about women when I eat. It seems that everything makes me think of women.”
The two sat sipping in silence.
A little while later, a man sat down on the other side of the old cowboy and asked, “Are you a real cowboy?”
He replied, “I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian.”
That’s the kind of joke George would tell me nearly every time we spoke on the phone. One of his talents was his ability to remember jokes and tell them with the timing of a skilled comedian.
You know, I can’t really get my head around the idea that George is no longer with us. I mean, he’s been part of my life for all my living memory. Every picture you see of him in my slide show, there I am right next to him. So I’m still trying to accept that I can’t call him up for his latest joke. In fact, about a month ago when he was very sick, I talked to him on the phone and said tell me a joke, which he proceeded to do. During his sojourn in Hawaii, he often called me and as soon as I answered, without saying hello, how are you, or what are you up to, he’d just start telling me a joke. Usually it was a bit off-color, and it always made me laugh.
George spent his first six years and I my first seven years at the Adriatic Avenue house in Long Beach. We shared a small bedroom with bunk beds, and we figured out how to take one of the poles out of the bed, put it between the upper bunk and the wardrobe, creating our own jungle gym right there in the bedroom. We were very fortunate not to break that pole. And I’ll never forget the day we were outside this restaurant/bar behind the house that had a faucet on the side of the building. We turned on the water and after it filled the gutter, we proceeded to march back and forth in this water getting our shoes and clothes soaking wet. I don’t know if this was my idea or George’s (most likely George’s), but man we were having fun. That was the one time our mother made us go to bed in the afternoon. She was not amused
One of our rituals during that time was walking to the Santa Fe Theater every Saturday for cartoons, serials, and cowboy movies. I think it cost about 10 cents to get in. As we walked to the show, we always went through a lot with a tree that we loved to climb. Then we waited in line and, once inside, found our way to our favorite seats in the front row. Our dad’s upholstery shop was just down the street, Santa Fe Upholstery, and it was always fun to visit the shop and mess around with the tools.
In the summer when George and I were about 10 and 11 and then living on Easy Avenue in Long Beach, everyday, we’d pay 10 cents and ride the bus down to the beach at Linden Avenue and sit next to the lifeguards who we got to know quite well. That was a wonderful summer. Our mom didn’t know it, but we would often find our way over to The Pike, the amusement park that existed in those days. We’d end up in the penny arcades (when everything actually cost a penny), play pinball machines and the penny pitch. We never had enough money to go on the rides.
In those days, we lived near the LA River, which everyone called the flood control or just the “flood.” It was reputed to have quicksand and bad people hanging out there. We were not to go there. Of course, for us it was like a magnet, and we couldn’t stay away and after several warnings, were told that if we did it again, we would get it with the belt. Yeah, we did it again, getting our shoes wet walking around trying to find the quicksand I guess. I remember riding home talking to George about how we would explain our wet shoes. We had a friend with a fishpond in the backyard and that was going to be our story. Of course, it didn’t work and we did get our spankings. I don’t know if we learned our lesson, but it certainly was a memorable experience.
Another memorable experience was the first time our dad was going to take us deepsea fishing. We were both so excited that we hardly slept and suddenly it was 5 am and dad was getting us up. We were ready in about 5 minutes and off to Pierpoint Landing in Long Beach (that’s gone now) and the boat. Me, I got seasick. I can’t remember if George did, most likely he didn’t. We didn’t catch any fish, but it’s still memorable. Later on when we were in junior high, nearly every day in the summer we went down to Belmont Pier in Long Beach to fish for whatever we could catch. There’s a picture of George and I in the slideshow taken after one of those days.
When George was 11 and I was 12, we moved to east Long Beach on Studebaker Road. I managed to get a paper route delivering the Press Telegram. After a while, there was an opening, and I made an impassioned case for George to get the job (after all, he had substituted for me a few times on an earlier route I had). It worked, and for quite a while George and I spent our afternoons pedaling our Schwinns from street to street, paper bags on the handlebars and rear rack, delivering the Press Telegram. Later on, when George was 13 and I was 14, we both had LA Times routes. I remember well that we were paid $11.50 every two weeks for routes that required each of us to ride about 7 miles to deliver about 50 papers each every morning before school.
As we got older, I remember our dad taking us over to what was then the only parking lot at Long Beach State College where he taught us to drive in a 1956 Ford Mainliner with a 3-speed stick shift. We both had trouble but finally managed the clutch-accelerator motions so the car wouldn’t stall. Before I actually got my driver’s license, our parents went to Las Vegas for the weekend. We had the keys to that Ford and decided to drive it even though that was a major no-no. Nothing bad happened, but our neighbor told my dad we did it. That resulted in me having to wait an extra 3 months to get my driver’s license. George still had a year to go. Later we took that car to Pasadena to the Rose Parade. Dad told us not to drive on the freeway because the engine was not in good shape. Of course, we did take to the freeway to drive home and that resulted in the engine throwing a rod, which basically means the engine was destroyed. With much trepidation, we had to call dad and tell him what we did. He actually didn’t get too mad at us despite having to pay $500 for a new short block.
During high school, we each had our own group of friends. George was the athlete of the family, and I was the spectator. The sport he actually played and for which he won his letter was, believe or not, water polo. Now I’m pretty good swimmer, but not good enough to make the team. George was, and he had the letterman’s jacket that I kind of envied.
In the 1962, my dad’s company sent him to Hawaii to run a job building a power plant. I lived with my Grandma Woods and attended Long Beach City College, and George lived with Uncle Jim finishing his senior year in high school. Then we were both to fly to Hawaii with my dad after George’s graduation. It was during the next nine months that George fell in love with Hawaii and got into pipefitters’ union as an apprentice. I joined as well, but dropped out after that summer. We both worked on my dad’s job. George bought an old surfboard and got into surfing. We lived right next to the beach and could hear the surf from our bedroom at night. Those were good times for us. We used to drive into Honolulu on the weekends in my 1957 MGA that I’d shipped over there from Long Beach and try to find girls, something we were not very successful at. I know that from this time forward, George had it in his head to return to Hawaii, and he finally succeeded some 40 years later.
In the spring of 1963, we returned to Long Beach. I went back to Long Beach City College, and George continued working. My dad’s next job was in Michigan. At that time we both had VW bugs, George a 1958 model and me a 1959. In June of that year after school let out, we followed one another across the U.S. mostly on Route 66. It took us four days, with me leading all the way, except when we finally got to our destination, Holland, Michigan, where he pulled out in front and drove into our new home for the summer ahead of me. I was put out about that for quite a while.
After that summer, our lives took different directions. I went off to Berkeley and George continued working in construction. We saw each other when I came home for the holidays, and we worked on jobs together in the summer, when my dad got us on whatever job he could. Everyone came up to Berkeley in June 1965 for my graduation. It was George, however, who stole the show. He took off with my dad’s camera after the ceremony and went up to the podium and managed to get his picture taken with Clark Kerr, who was then president to the University of California system. My mom has that slide showing George with his arm around Clark. It’s classic.
After that, we went our separate ways, I to the Peace Corps in Ethiopia and he to the world of work. I do remember receiving a letter from him with a picture of his new dark blue Mustang. That was a cool car, and one I had no chance of having then or later. A couple of years after that, we both got married and were members of each other’s wedding parties.
Then I took off for Illinois and later New Jersey and George got drafted into the Army at 25 years 9 months (the cutoff for the draft was 26 years). We saw each other on occasion over the next several years and kept in touch via phone calls and so on, but didn’t see each other often enough—which is, looking back on it, very unfortunate. We each had our kids, but they never had a chance to get to know one another as they were growing up, which is also very unfortunate. I know that George was a great dad. All you have to do is ask Josh and Stacey. He was always involved in their activities and really took fatherhood seriously.
George was a victim of the Southern California curse of having to commute 60 or 70 miles each way to work and home, driving from Temecula to the outskirts of LA. As a reader this gave him a chance to read many books, not by listening to them on tape, but by balancing them on the steering wheel as he waited for traffic to move. I don’t know anyone else who’s ever done that.
As I said, for many years as our kids were growing up, we only saw each other occasionally, but when George and Leslie divorced and George left for Hawaii, we retrieved our brotherhood and talked very regularly about our lives. I would call him or he would call me to check in. He always had his joke to tell me and would describe his work life and what he was doing to upgrade his condo and lots of other stuff that should remain private between brothers. He’d tell me he was sitting on his lanai smoking a cigar and enjoying the view of the ocean across the street. I didn’t really know he had this drinking problem, though my sister told me he did—I just never saw it.
George was always the sentimental one between us. He would sometimes tell me how much he loved me and our family and I would be trying to change the subject, not wanting to get into all that stuff. I never quite succeeded, and that’s probably a good thing. George, as you may know was left-handed, and I think this type of person is just more likely to be emotional and creative than guys like me. He was someone about whom a teacher could say, “he works and plays well with others, and everyone liked him.”
Tomorrow is father’s day. George was a great father as we can tell by his wonderful children Stacey and Josh. I am bothered about the fact that his future grandchildren will never be able to know him or he them. As Josh and I have discussed, he would have been a great and I mean a great grandfather.
It’s very hard for me to say goodbye to my brother. I always teased him that I am 1 year, 3 months, and 16 days older than he is. Somehow I thought that gave me the right to lord it over him. That wasn’t true and as we got older, that stuff disappeared. He lived 63 years, 10 months, and 2 days. A good stretch, but not long enough. I am very sorry he’s gone. I’m his brother, and I can say with no false sentimentality that I loved him, too, and that he will always be alive inside me and a part of who I am, just as I am a part of who he is.
One of my friends sent me a card on the passing of George that included a quote from Antoine de Saint-Exupery from The Little Prince. The quote goes like this: “In one of the stars I shall be living. In one of them, I shall be laughing. And so it will be as if all the stars were laughing when you look at the sky at night.”
I think when I look at the stars, I will think of my brother George and wish him well and he’ll know I’m thinking about him. Good-bye bro. I love you and all the times we had together.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Barack, Reverend Wright, and Denial
The following is something I wrote and posted on The New York Times site, commenting on Nicholas Kristof's op-ed, Obama and Race, published March 20, 2008.
I have seen some, perhaps not all, of the taken-out-of-context videos of Rev. Wright’s comments from the pulpit. What I heard, and I say this is as a white person, is pretty much true things. Yes, he spoke with great emotion, but injustice evokes great emotion. And, as Barack rightly pointed out, it’s not so useful to break us up into two camps—blacks vs. whites. And it’s not really accurate. But from my perspective, this country is very flawed and to act as if someone is completely wrong to point that out is equally wrong and suggests that Rev. Wright’s critics are living in denial of the many injustices that have occurred and continue to occur in this country.
I remember seeing bumper stickers in the 1970s that said America--love it or leave it. I used to think if those were my only choices, I might have to leave. Now we have a potential president who actually says not love it or leave it, but, yes, the U.S. has a lot of problems, and some of them have to do with race prejudice and a real misunderstanding between the white culture and the black culture in this country. And then he says that we need, first, to acknowledge these differences, second, to talk about them openly, and third, to try to get beyond them and embrace our common humanity. That’s pretty remarkable.
And when the wife of this candidate says she finally feels proud of what’s going on in this country as shown by the amount of support this candidate has received, I agree with her. Because I can say that for many years, I have not felt good about many of the policies pursued by our government, especially as pursued by George Bush. I am not proud of what he has done—and to the degree that reflects back on our country, I’m not proud of our country.
I now read that Republicans feel Rev. Wright’s words are a gift that will allow them to win against Mr. Obama should he be the candidate who runs against John McCain. If that’s their weapon in the upcoming election, it simply affirms that they prefer to live in the denial I referred to above than to actually confront our problems and solve them. For the Republicans, it’s always “us vs. them.” For Barack Obama, it’s much more, “we’re all in this together.” The implications of the Republican perspective will always lead to perpetuating the problems we have now. The implications of Barack Obama’s basic assumption lead to realistically addressing our differences and coming together to bridge them. That makes a lot more sense to me than the former. I can only hope, for first time in a long time, enough people in enough states agree and Obama will receive the 271 electoral votes needed to win in November.
—John Woods, March 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
