Senseless Killing Using Guns

Here is what I wrote today on Facebook after this tragedy (and I saw many other such comments):

I can't help myself from commenting on this latest in a long line of gun violence incidents that plague our country. We need better gun control laws. We need to make a it a lot harder to purchase handguns, which have no purpose other than to maim and kill others at short range. I hope the deaths of perhaps 20 children and 7 adults in Connecticut serves as the tipping point to take on the gun nuts in this country and the group that leads them, the NRA, and make it really hard to get these weapons of individual destruction out of our society.

And what does it say about our national culture that these incidents happen so frequently? We are a country where a frustrated individual can actually contemplate shooting other people because of his or her frustration. Why oh why is that even a viable alternative to people? We are suffering from a disease here, and that disease is taking lives every day. And for the most part, we are ignoring that disease.

We cannot change our culture quickly. But we can make it a whole lot more difficult for the crazy people who entered a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin or a mall in Oregon or, for God's sake, an elementary school in Connecticut and started randomly shooting people to get the weapons that allow them to wreak their havoc. I really do hope this is the tipping point.

Letter to the Editor: Recall Scott Walker

My letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal about the recall Scott Walker election, written on May 31, 2012:

Scott Walker has collected millions from out-of-state billionaires and millionaires, which he has used to misrepresent and lie about the record of Tom Barrett. Do you think any of those donors to Walker’s campaign care one whit about the people of Wisconsin? They care about one thing: making sure the Tea Party agenda is not put off track in this state and country and that ALEC can continue to write legislation that right-wing legislators duly pass without even reading the fine print. This is so out of whack with the Wisconsin progressive tradition that I can hardly recognize my state anymore.

It is tragic that we have a governor and legislative autocrats who have so divided us that political civility has disappeared. With Scott Walker we have a governor who cannot show his face in Madison. He cannot walk around the capital during the farmers market. He cannot walk up State Street. He will hear derisive remarks anywhere he appears. This certainly could not be said of Tommy Thompson or Jim Doyle. Vote for Tom Barrett and bring back civility and sanity to our politics and governance. Recall Scott Walker, the only sitting governor with a criminal defense fund.

On Steve Jobs

I think Plato described the philosopher king, who really understood what was in the best interests of his subjects and made those things happen. A similar idea is the benevolent dictator. I think those ideas fit Steve Jobs. He really did think, in terms of technology, that he had a pipeline to the truth. This didn't always lead to great products, but it did often enough that the company he led attracted other great minds who could help him execute his ideas. He had no other ambition except to create great products, and his intuition pointed to true north in doing that. These products helped us connect with one another with elegance and ease. That's why they were so successful and emulated. We admire that intuition even if on occasion his style was one of humiliating others to achieve his goals, which is not so admirable.

However, this does not mean we must not be leery of those who believe they know the "truth" and want to impose it others. Throughout human history, it has too often been those types who have fomented war and destruction on the world. The greatest among us are remembered for what they did for others. The reviled are those who exploited others for their truth. If you are bothered by the behavior of so-called Tea Party members, it is their insistence on their way or the highway that is so off-putting.

Let's admire Steve Jobs for the things he gave us. Let's hope others with his insights succeed him. Let's not seek to make him a role model in his sometimes less-than-admirable methods of achieving his goals.

I think in the end we can say Steve Jobs was more of a good guy than not (as I'm sure we would like ourselves to be thought of), who left us too soon, and because he gave us so many wonderful tools, he will be remembered among the great of business and, who knows, human history.

President Obama Gets It Right This Time

In response to an editorial in today's New York Times called "President Obama, Reinvigorated", I wrote a response, which I am also posting here.

I live one congressional district over from Paul Ryan’s but in vision for this country, I might as well live on the other side of the world. The gap between Democrats and Republicans on today’s issues is greater than at any time in the 68 years I’ve been on the planet. George Bush pushed the idea of an “ownership society.” What he meant is “you’re on your own.” And that is the essence of Ryan’s approach to things. Well, the fact is, folks, we are interdependent, and to the degree we don’t acknowledge and act on that, we facilitate our own demise. President Obama’s speech seems to agree with that.

After reading the book “The Bridge” by David Remnick, I know that Obama’s default position is to listen and seek common ground with all parties. But I hope he holds to his position stated yesterday and uses his powers to stop Republican foolishness now. The Ryan crowd won the house not because of their policies but because in Obama’s first two years in office he was not able to get us out of the Great Bush Recession. Let us hope that this dose of culture war, science rejecting, rich get richer approach to governing is rejected quickly in 2012.

A few weeks George Lakoff wrote an essay on his blog called “What Conservatives Want.” In it, he included this paragraph:

“Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should NOT have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil’s own means can be used against conservatism’s immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women’s doctors.”

This pretty well captures what the Republicans want. I am glad to see President Obama unequivocally rejecting such nonsense, and so should all thinking Democrats and especially independents (whoever they are) who ultimately decide elections in this country.

A Bill of Particulars

A Bill of Particulars

RE: Governor Scott Walker and Republican Co-Conspirators’ Blatant, Divisive Actions to Destroy Cooperation and Collective Bargaining in the State of Wisconsin

1. As the Executive for the County of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Scott Walker illegally fired county employees who served to provide security at various government facilities. These employees were replaced by a private company, Wackenhut, from outside Wisconsin. It turned out that the head of the Wisconsin operation was a felon. After Walker was elected Governor, the courts decreed that the firing of county employees was illegal. As a result, the fired employees had to be brought back and given back pay. Currently Milwaukee County must pay two sets of employees (Wackenhut and the illegally fired County employees) until the Wackenhut contract expires. This is the first example of a reckless attempt to weaken employee rights by Scott Walker. The significant cost to Milwaukee County has been unnecessary and outrageous.

2. Once inaugurated as Wisconsin’s Governor, one of Mr. Walker’s first actions was to award over 130 million dollars in tax breaks to Wisconsin corporations. These “gifts” will go into effect in the 2011-2013 biennial budget year, only adding to the current deficit. These are not the actions of a person concerned about budget deficits. The additional deficits created only further shift the burden to persons with disabilities, poor people, public employees and the middle class.

3. There is in place a short-term budget deficit for the remainder of this fiscal year. It could have been handled without the “Budget Repair Bill” proposed by Governor Walker.

4. Under cover of “the Budget Repair Bill” the Governor also sought to strip all collective bargaining rights from state and local public employees. He claimed that it was fiscally necessary. This argument had no substance because employee unions had agreed to all financial and benefit sacrifices demanded in “the Budget Repair Bill”. Nonetheless, the claim of fiscal necessity continued to be alleged.

5. These massive labor law changes would undo 50 years of public employee collective bargaining in Wisconsin. This proposal was made after the Governor was in office for only one month. He made not one mention of his union-killing intention in any of his campaign appearances or literature. It can clearly be called a radical, stealth intention. Polls show that, by a wide margin, the citizens of Wisconsin do not approve of this initiative by Mr. Walker.

6. The Governor asserted that if “the Budget Repair Bill” did not pass, he would have to immediately lay off more than one thousand state workers. Yet since his election, there has ensued an unprecedented massive retirement of state employees with many more in the process, the need to lay off state employees is clearly unnecessary given the high volume of new vacancies. Employees who took early retirement did it despite the financial penalty they would personally experience out of a fear that they would lose even more. This exodus has weakened state government by an abrupt loss of decades of organizational memory and invaluable skills. The usual adjustments made possible by gradual attrition are not currently happening..

7. The entire process was structured by the Governor and his Republican Senate and Assembly co-conspirators to ram the proposal through. It was announced on a Friday afternoon with the intention to have it passed by the next Tuesday, given majority Republican control of both houses. The Senate Democrats did the only thing they could to stop the juggernaut; they left the state thus denying the Wisconsin Senate the quorum needed for any proposed legislation with fiscal content. This action by Democrats created a time frame in which the citizens could understand, discuss and respond to the radical provisions contained in the bill.

8. The loss of collective bargaining rights for public employees will also cost Wisconsin millions of dollars in U.S. Transportation allocations that are conditioned on employees having the right to collective bargaining.

9. The cost of security for law enforcement can be defined as the money the state must reimburse local governments for police-related personnel from across the state who have been called to Madison to respond to the massive demonstrations that “the Budget Repair bill” has provoked. The current estimate is that it will cost the state $ 4 million to date.

10. When the initial plan to ramrod through the radical provisions in “the Budget Repair Bill” were stymied, there followed a series of highly questionable actions to pressure the absent Democrats to return: financial penalties, reassigning staff, denying copying and other resources needed for constituent response. This also included sending law enforcement personnel to the homes of the absent senators.

11. One of the “reasons” offered by Walker for stripping the rights of local union employees was that this was a critical tool for local and school managers to deal with their budget cuts. This was disputed by many local managers including the Wisconsin Association of School Superintendents. No single example of local support for this provision has been offered.

12. When the response to the proposal was an overwhelming outpouring of citizens coming to the Capitol in unprecedented tens of thousands, other repressive actions were taken. These included denying citizens access to the Capitol- an action that was subsequently overturned by court order.

13. The Governor also revealed his true colors in a taped telephone call in which he thought David Koch, billionaire and a major financial contributor, was on the line. He not only revealed his unprincipled dishonesty, but candidly admitted considering planting agitators among the crowds of protesters. While this option was considered, it was not rejected on ethical grounds, but on the cynical political assessment that it would not work. In the 20 minute conversation, there was not a single mention of concern about the budget – only a clear intention to bring down all public unions.

14. On March 9th, despite ongoing assertions that the collective bargaining provisions were in the budget for a fiscal impact, the Senate took the abrupt and unexplained stance that now, magically, the collective bargaining provisions did not have a fiscal impact. They were therefore stripped from “the Budget Repair Bill” taken to a conference committee, despite the fact that neither house had passed the bill. The stripped provisions were then taken back to the Senate for a vote. This was done in violation of Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law as the Conference Committee was noticed less than 2 hours before it occurred; the law requires at least 24 hours notice.

15. The State Department of Administration, under the Governor’s Cabinet has made two wildly untrue assertions: first that the cost to clean up the Capitol would exceed $7 million dollars; second: that protesters had broken windows to gain access to the Capitol once the illegal vote had been taken on March 9^th. Both assertions were patently untrue and had to be retracted.

16. The Governor’s headlong obsession with demolishing public unions has resulted in his failure to fill numerous other appointive positions within state government, creating further chaos and confusion in the government for which he is responsible.

This bill of particulars does not touch the substance of the Governor’s proposed budget which contains even greater provisions to radically shift power to the Governor’s office, thus undoing a critical balance of power needed for healthy and viable government.

We have structured our civil society to protect minority rights from majority tyranny. All people are entitled to basic civil rights, as listed in the Bill of Rights, but also as adopted informally through social contracts over the years. The right to form unions, while given through legal authority, is generally a matter of social contract. It is a way for management and labor to communicate, for each stakeholder to be respected and have a voice in the operations in which both are involved.

The state of Wisconsin is not broke. We do not deny that there are budget deficit issues that must be dealt with. However, they require a thoughtful, balanced response and shared pain. Massive structural changes should not be enacted under the guise of a “budget crisis”. We demand fairness, integrity, and a balance of power with decisions being made for the common good. None of these critical dynamics are evident in the actions taken by the Governor and most Republican legislators to date.

It is also clear that the Governor intends to “privatize” a number of the functions currently done by state employees by these actions. He has already begun this process by the restructuring of the Department of Commerce, giving private business a far greater hand in the operation of that important agency. This kind of restructuring is a major change that should not occur by fiat, but by broad and sweeping public discussion. That is clearly not a democratic value held by Governor Walker.

For the above reasons, the Governor has violated his oath of office to “faithfully discharge” the duties of office. The faith and trust that each citizen can reasonably expect to have in the state’s chief executive officer has been severely betrayed. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor should be expeditiously removed before even more damage can be done to the health and well-being of this state.

By Carol Lobes

The Sargent Shriver I Knew

I just watched a repeat of the wake for Sargent Shriver on C-Span, a wonderful service. I have been reflecting on Sargent Shriver all this week. I am amazed at the outpouring of affection shown him in every publication I have read. The comments sections after those articles are remarkable both in the amount of comments and the sentiments expressed. He really did touch more lives than we can possibly imagine.

I was thinking that he didn't know me, but I knew him because he awoke a part of me that I would not have known were it not for him. I was particularly moved by Timothy Shriver's reading of how his father defined himself. I think he was completely right about himself. He knew who he was and what was important, and his life is a lesson that we can all learn from.

In a world where there is too much violence, too much hate, too much cynicism, too much selfishness, too much unhappiness, too much poverty, too much self-righteousness, he stands as a role model for how to turn all that around and at the same time live a happy, fulfilled life, with more friends and admirers that we can possibly imagine. The tributes he has received are proof enough about what is the best way to live. I just wonder if we will ever wake up to that. We really are all in this together, and when we look out for that of which we are a part, we look out for ourselves. That is what Sargent Shriver in his own way knew and how he lived. His passing only reminds us of this once again.

I did some searching on the Internet and found the Sargent Shriver Web site, and they have his speech delivered at the 25th anniversary of the Peace Corps in 1986. Reading that speech again, with its theme of service, especially its conclusion, takes me back to that celebration and how inspired I was by his admonition to “serve, serve, serve.” Amazing.

No Adults Allowed

Here's another comment on a NYTimes op-ed, this time one from Gail Collins called "Running on Empty." I think she got it right, and here's what I had to say in reaction:

It’s clear that neither most politicians in this country nor the people who elect them heard what President Obama said in his inaugural address: “... in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.” And “... we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

Sorry to say, Mr. President, we haven’t declared an end to pettiness, and our politics take place in the adult-free zone. We are a nation of cable chatter and radio bombasts where intelligence and facts have little room in the conversation. Personally, I long for a political debate that is civil and rational rather than one that is confrontational and emotional.

That may be a generalization, but it’s not too far from accurate when we are still paying attention to the rants of Sarah Palin, and the great majority of people in this country have no idea who Paul Krugman is. So I think you got it right, Gail, about our politics, and it’s not a pretty picture.

A Theory of Business

On occasion, I like to submit a comment on an op-ed that I've read in The New York Times. On Friday, I felt so motivated to comment on Paul Krugman's piece "Don't Cry for Wall Street." Here's what I had to say:

I have a theory about business, including the banking business. Here it is: Businesses do not exist to make a profit; they exist to serve the needs of their customers and the larger society of which they are a part.

To the degree they do that, they will earn the means to be around tomorrow to continue doing it. When businesses exploit their customers and ignore the good of society, they ultimately undermine their own viability. In other words, I see profit for what it really is: as the way to measure the quality of a business's service to others--and so are its losses. When Toyota was making money and GM was losing money, what do you think that said about the two companies and what they were doing for their customers?

With that said, a lot of banking businesses have made tremendous profits by ignoring this idea, especially the part about paying attention to the good of society. By doing this, they certainly brought the economy to its knees a couple of years ago—and we still have a long way to go to recover.

Even now some banks remain overly profitable. I sincerely doubt that Goldman Sachs’ profits are a measure of the quality of its service to others. Those folks know how to game the system, and as long as they and others like them have the ability to do that, we will all pay the price. And by all, I'm including the banks themselves, as they will come tumbling down just like the rest of us eventually.

That's why regulation and rules are important. They give us a level playing field and help balance the clear asymmetry of information and power that exists today. In reality, it's not Wall Street vs. Main Street; it's Wall Street and Main Street, and we're all in this together.

Keep raising your voice of sanity, Paul. I for one greatly appreciate it.

Maureen Dowd and No Drama Obama

On Sunday, January 10, Maureen Dowd did another of her numbers on Obama to which I could not resist responding. Here's what I had to say:

It’s so refreshing to have a smart guy in charge who keeps cool and manages well. It’s so refreshing to have a guy who examines the facts and makes reality-based decisions.

It’s not refreshing that we still haven’t figured out how to completely stop young aspirational/operational crazies from Al Queda from getting on American airplanes with dangerous materials.

But that is as much a failure of Congress not passing legislation to implement the 9/11 commission suggestions as it is in the executive branch.

No drama works for me. I wished it worked for Congress as well (not to mention the occasional columnist). We have too much junk politics, too much fake drama, in this country. Please refrain from encouraging more.

In fact, next time you have the urge to complain about Obama’s style, turn that urge on its head and tell readers why no drama is good and why junk politics is bad. I’m pretty sure you would quickly be rewarded with the number 1 spot on the most e-mailed list if you did.

John Woods

The Holiday Season 2009

There is an argument to be made that home is where you are, wherever that is. When you visit a place with an open and welcoming spirit, you can make it your own, for however long you are there. We start our Christmas letter in this way because 2009 has been a year in which we have made many places our temporary home, where nearly every month we were traveling to visit friends and relatives, to relax, and to see new places.

Since our children now live in two places: Eagan, Minnesota, and Washington, DC, those are two of our regular destinations. Indeed, we started the year with a visit to Washington, not only to see our son, Chris, his wife, Jaime, our little granddaughter, Maddie, and our daughter, Lindsay, but also to attend, along with about 2 million of our not closest friends, the inauguration of our new president, Barack Obama. We will remember it as spending about seven hours in the cold, but also as a celebration of our country’s election of a leader who has the ability to inspire us not unlike JFK inspired us when we were young.

In February we abandoned the cold of Madison for about three weeks with our now annual trip to Cabo San Lucas in Mexico. An indulgence to be sure, but the weather, the beach, relaxing with a good book around the pool, the warmth of the Mexican people, and enjoying the company of new friends, makes this place a magnet that we cannot resist. And so we don’t, nor will we in 2010. If you need to contact us in February of next year, return e-mails will be sent from there.

I think the most memorable travel of 2009 for us was spending 20 days in The Netherlands in July. We participated in a home exchange, turning our home over to another family as we took up residence in Dordrecht, one of the oldest Dutch cities, not far from Rotterdam. Holland is a small country, and you can easily take the train to many cities and after seeing the sites be home for dinner. So we visited places like Delft, Rotterdam, The Hague, Maastricht, Utrecht, Gouda, Bruges in Belgium, and more. We visited European friends and had some who visited us while we were there, and we had a place for them to stay—our Dordrecht home. The final three days, we spent in Amsterdam partaking of its canal walks, museums, and restaurants.

During our time there, we visited some art museums with more masterpieces in one room than most museums have in their entire collection. Of course, everywhere there are canals and bicycles and buildings from the 1600s and picturesque views just waiting for John to take pictures of, and he did a lot of that. Home exchange is a great way to visit a country, and it substantially reduces the cost. We are fortunate to have had this opportunity and the good sense to take advantage of it. Flying back through Minneapolis, we were there just in time for our granddaughter Amber’s fourth birthday party and finally back home in Madison.

Not too long after arriving home in early August, we were off to Washington again for Maddie’s first birthday and how much fun that was. She is in the picture that accompanies this letter on her mommy Jaime’s lap and sitting next to her cousins, Amber and Kyle. While in Washington, we try to see whatever the current exhibit is at the National Gallery, and if Congress is in session, to attend whatever Senate hearing looks interesting.

In September, it was off to southern Utah to visit John’s mom and his sister, Caralee and her husband, Jimmie. We were not aware of the beauty of this part of our country, and it is no exaggeration to say it is simply stunning. In one week during our visit, we went to Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, and the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Thank goodness for digital photography because John couldn’t take pictures fast enough. Because we were in the west, we took the opportunity to split up, Nancy to California to visit family and friends and John to Oregon to do the same. Finally back in Wisconsin for a few weeks before yet another trip to California in October for our niece’s wedding and a visit with friends in the Palm Springs area.

And then to Minneapolis for grandson Kyle’s second birthday. Back in Madison, we happily welcomed our entire family for Thanksgiving, during which time the picture on the card was taken. Interwoven during and between this travel, John kept CWL going with five new titles in the Briefcase Books series, with more to come in 2010. Maybe he is semi-retired and maybe not—he hasn’t figured that out. And Nancy managed to keep up with her volunteer activities.

So on to 2010, a new grandchild in June, and making a home where we find it, sharing our times with friends and family and having yet more adventures—we know we’re not near done with those, and we hope you’re not, either.

Happy Holidays and Happy 2010

John and Nancy Woods

Human Nature and Our Instinct to Help Others

In a widely e-mailed article in the New York Times, We May Be Born With an Urge to Help, I submitted the following comment, which was posted at the end of the article.

My take on this comes from this basic premise: the brain cannot abstract itself out from the world in which it exists. There are only two things that have meaning to us as thinking beings: relationships and processes (and process is about how relationships change through time in a purposeful manner). To make sense of ourselves is to make sense of how we are related to and part of the world. The self is quite literally the sum of our relationships to the world. To look out for that world is to look out for ourselves. To harm that world is to harm ourselves. There is a lot of pain and misery in the world because many people are not aware of this fact of our human nature.

That there are negative consequences to doing ill to others and the world in which we exist affirms the premise laid out above. That there are positive consequences when we look out for our world also affirms this premise. Just consider when you felt best about yourself. I can almost guarantee it's when you have been generous, kind, compassionate, and helpful to someone else or made some kind of contribution that makes the world a better place. Now think about those times when what you've done causes you to feel anxious, unhappy, or nervous. It's almost always when we have exploited others in some way. These feelings are the body's way of providing feedback on when you have done something either good or bad to yourself.

It's not that children have a tendency to help others. It's that in doing so they naturally feel better about themselves. That’s built in to our nature. To the question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" My response would be "No, I am my own keeper, but this means I am my brother's keeper." Why? Because when we look out for that of which we are a part, we look out for ourselves. It really is as simple as that. And when things don’t work out as we expect, we can learn from the experience and do better next time. You can read more more about some of these ideas at www.cwlpub.com/brain.htm.

Does the Peace Corps Really Matter?

John Coyne at the site Peace Corps Worldwide asks, “Does the Peace Corps really matter?” The following is my reply.

Does the Peace Corps matter? I can say it matters to me. I remember in the middle of my second year thinking how meaningful this experience was to me personally. I was really enjoying myself and for one of the first times in my life really felt good about myself and what I was involved in and the people I was involved with. That’s when I decided to extend for a third year. Why leave something after two years when you’re just really getting good at it?

The point is that the Peace Corps is an organization that gives people a chance to make a difference, each person in his or her own way, in a place where what we do actually makes a difference. In a way, the Peace Corps isn’t the people who make it up. It’s really that each person is an individual Peace Corps and this organization is just the umbrella that makes this possible.

The work we do as PCVs does help the countries in which we serve. But there is something else going on as well. It’s the relationships we form among our fellow human beings in other countries that I think make the longest lasting difference. We Americans have our own culture, with all its strengths and weaknesses, just as is true of cultures across the globe.

What the Peace Corps allows, for a very small investment, given the return, is the connection between people of different cultures to learn about and from one another, to grasp our shared humanity, and from the American perspective, to add value in the country in which we work, while broadening our personal understanding of the world and ourselves at the same time.

It’s pretty amazing that we have this organization whose most important result is opening people up to one another. If that isn’t the foundation for peace, I don’t know what is. And in that sense, the Peace Corps is well named, indeed.

If this seems a bit idealistic, well, it’s how I feel, and it reflects my experience of serving three years in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia. I think it also captures my son’s experience of spending two years as a PCV in Kazakhstan.

My Health Insurance Rant

I got this e-mail from Senator Russ Feingold asking my opinion about upcoming health care legislation in Congress. Well, I let it all hang out:

I have been in business for myself since 1992. From 1992 to 1999, my wife, who has a degree from the University of California, Berkeley, kept a job that she was way overqualified for mainly for benefits for she and I and our younger daughter. Finally, revenues from my business reached a point where we could afford health care ourselves, expensive as it was.

However, several years before 1999, my wife had a bout with sarcoidosis, and the first time we applied to GHC, the plan that worked best for us, we were turned down because of this preexisting condition. However, because we were friends with an influential doctor who worked for GHC, he intervened on our behalf, and we were accepted.

However, the charges every year went up by double digits, and by 2008, the last year we were on this plan before joining Medicare, our price for two adults who seldom went to the doctor, was $1,175 a month, with a $30 co-pay and no drug coverage. If we had continued through 2008, our total outlay for that year for two healthy adults would have been $14,100. And I am sure it would have cost more in 2009.

Small business people and individuals basically get taken to the cleaners by our current system. I have long favored single-payer health care. That is essentially what Medicare is, and it seems to be working fine. In fact, let those Republicans who are screaming about public insurance consider doing away with Medicare, and see how quickly they are not reelected.

I think we need universal health care. Health care is not a privilege but a right in a civilized, developed country. My own belief is the cost of health insurance in this country could be greatly reduced by having a single-payer system that reduces the overhead of insurance companies, who spend way too much time figuring out what not to cover rather than simply being there for people when insurance is needed.

Also, for those Republicans who think our taxes would go up dramatically, I say, what do you think that $14,100 I would have paid in 2008 to GHC is? If that is not the same as a tax, I don't know what it is. I am sure I would have paid less for a public plan.

It seems we are not mature or realistic enough politically to go for a single payer system, but I believe that a public plan is important. And if the Republicans don't want to go along, I say do it through what I believe is called "reconciliation," where you don't need 60 votes to close debate and pass a new piece of legislation. I say do not let the ideologically bound Republicans stand in the way this time.

Finally, one other thing: Connecting health insurance to employment is crazy. In this current economic debacle, people aren't just losing their jobs, they're losing the health insurance as well. That doesn't make any sense. Imagine if that were you.

And yet one more thing: If health insurance is not connected to employment, this would free people to go to the kind of work they want to do without fear of losing their insurance. It would open the door to more contract employment and freelance work. It would make the workplace more efficient because people would be engaged in the work for which they are best suited, rather than just jobs that provide those vital benefits. Far too many people take jobs they don't like or that are not consistent with their skills simply for health insurance. That's a terrible state of affairs.

Senator Feingold, I hope you get a chance to read this. Health care has been an issue for me for a long time. Let's fix it this time.

Susan Boyle and Our Tears

I have been reflecting on why, no matter how many times I view the video of Susan Boyle on Britain’s Got Talent, it brings tears to my eyes and to nearly all who see it. First of all, let’s dispense with the cliché you can’t judge a book by its cover. I’m kind of tired of reading that in the various comments people have made after watching Susan. Like all clichés, it is a crutch for not looking deeper at what’s going on.

The feeling I get when I watch this video is not different from what I have experienced when I have teared up watching a movie that has a particularly poignant scene in which the real goodness of a character comes through. Think of Sydney Carton who sacrifices himself for his friend at the end of A Tale of Two Cities or Rick saying goodbye to Ilsa Lund at the end of Casablanca.

In all of these situations, and especially when we watch and listen to that sweet powerful voice of Susan Boyle, a regular person who simply believes in herself, we experience that tightening in our chest, the goose bumps, and the tears that slide down our cheeks. I think this feeling is called forth when we witness the emergence of the most admirable parts of our shared humanity when we least expect it.

Susan and the best writers, along with the actors who portray the characters they create, touch us in ways that remind us of the simple grace that we each possess but seldom experience. In those moments we forget the superficiality and the defensiveness that pervades our everyday interactions. And the relief of that releases an emotional response that is pure joy.

The voice of Susan Boyle is a wonder, but it is connected to a regular person—not someone we have already recognized as special, and that is what truly touches us. We discover that she is indeed special, and maybe I am, as well. Barbra Streisand also sings beautifully, and we listen for the pure enjoyment of hearing her music, yet it usually doesn’t bring tears to our eyes.

We may think we are responding to the authenticity and innocence of Susan and her singing, but at a deeper level, we are experiencing our own authenticity that she, completely unintentionally, has awakened in us.

As I write this, there have been about 27 million views of her video in less than a week. If this doesn’t speak to a longing for simplicity and honesty in our lives, I don’t know what does. Maybe that cliché “don’t judge a book by its cover” does apply, but we are not just speaking of Susan, but ourselves as well.

The Decision-Making Style of Barack Obama

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.”

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.

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.

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'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

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