I have a friend who sends me political snippets and action alerts. Sometimes a dozen or so a day. And they are all good causes. But it's too much, and too scatter-shot.
I finally made a filter just for her, and once a week or so I look to see what she's sent. And then I delete most of them. She is so outraged, and so willing to find a dastardly conspiracy behind everything, that I have to stop listening. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?
That may be the point. This interesting blog (pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com) proposes that at least some of the outrageous proposed legislation is being proposed just to provoke outrage. Yelling on both sides just makes the uncommitted public tune out the argument. "They're both equally bad, and equally at fault," they think.
If you are a minority party, this is a good, albeit risky, strategy. Risky, because you don't want to energize the uncommitted. You want them so uncommitted that they won't vote.
The committed opponents won't vote for you anyway. But you may fracture their solidarity. You can bring up issues that are contentious even within their ranks. By carefully framing the issues so that some react with extreme outrage, you may get the moderates to distance themselves from the extremists. The moderates may give up in disgust if their colleagues start sounding like conspiracy theorists. Or they may simply become confused by the shouting. Either way, if you can split them, you will be closer to gaining a majority come voting day.
Once in power, you can drop the extreme proposals. You can do it under the guise of being misunderstood at the start, or you can say you are being responsive to the constituency. You never need to say it was all just a ploy to start with.
The moral for us on the other side: don't fall into the outrage trap. If the issues are being provocatively addressed, don't rise to the bait. Recognize that in many cases there is a real concern being addressed. Respectfully consider what is being proposed, and answer intelligently. Point out an alternative solution to the concern, rather than just reacting violently to their proposal.
This isn't a game. It's not a matter of winners and losers. They are not unalloyed evil, we are not unalloyed good. Both sides want what they think is best for this country. I happen to think that their vision is corrupted by entrenched special interests and a selfish lack of empathy for others. They probably think mine is starry-eyed and unrealistic. But in the end, we will all be travelling this road together.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Mother's Day
Today, Mother's Day is a day for pampering Mom, for giving her chocolates and flowers and breakfast in bed.
Its origins, however, lie with Julia Ward Howe, the woman who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The carnage of the Civil War so distressed her that she called on mothers everywhere, as natural peacemakers, to prevent the killing of sons by other women's sons. In 1870 she proposed:
Anna Reeves Jarvis, some years later, recast the holiday as Mother's Friendship Day, in an attempt to heal some of the families split by the Civil War. Instead of being anti-war per se, the emphasis was on reconciliation and healing. But as the need faded with time, so did the holiday.
But then in 1908, after ARJ's death, her daughter Anna M. Jarvis revived a Mother's Day celebration in remembrance of her mother. And third time's the charm.
The anti-war message had been transformed into honoring mothers, something everyone could get behind, and they did. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson declared a national Mother's Day celebration. Commercial interests began exploiting the sentiment. Anna, who had lobbied for the creation of the holiday, now began to fight its commercialization. She wrote,
Perhaps I am cynical, but I think the success of Mother's day is entirely due to that commercialism. Sentiment is easily commercialized. Reconciliation is tougher. Our society treats reconciliation with suspicion; victims and perpetrators are kept apart, and divorce lawyers assume unending hostility between the parties. "Closure" is assumed to mean punishment, not reconciliation. Not something that lends itself to commercialization.
And the original proposal, that mothers settle differences to keep their sons from killing each other, is downright unsettling; it completely upends the political and economic order. Politicians don't WANT mommy telling them they should play nicely.
A sentimental Mother's day needs no importance other than remembering and honoring Mom. And, in true American style, just maybe spending a lot of money on her.
Its origins, however, lie with Julia Ward Howe, the woman who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The carnage of the Civil War so distressed her that she called on mothers everywhere, as natural peacemakers, to prevent the killing of sons by other women's sons. In 1870 she proposed:
"That a general congress of women, without limit of nationality, may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace."Needless to say, this general congress of women (a good 50 years before women were given the right to vote) never occurred. Some cities did celebrate the day for a time.
Anna Reeves Jarvis, some years later, recast the holiday as Mother's Friendship Day, in an attempt to heal some of the families split by the Civil War. Instead of being anti-war per se, the emphasis was on reconciliation and healing. But as the need faded with time, so did the holiday.
But then in 1908, after ARJ's death, her daughter Anna M. Jarvis revived a Mother's Day celebration in remembrance of her mother. And third time's the charm.
The anti-war message had been transformed into honoring mothers, something everyone could get behind, and they did. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson declared a national Mother's Day celebration. Commercial interests began exploiting the sentiment. Anna, who had lobbied for the creation of the holiday, now began to fight its commercialization. She wrote,
"What will you do to route charlatans, bandits, pirates, racketeers, kidnappers and other termites that would undermine with their greed one of the finest, noblest and truest movements and celebrations?”Jarvis's opposition did little to stem the tide of commercialism, and today Mother's Day is about a 16 billion dollar industry. The origin of the day as an anti-war effort are mostly forgotten.
Perhaps I am cynical, but I think the success of Mother's day is entirely due to that commercialism. Sentiment is easily commercialized. Reconciliation is tougher. Our society treats reconciliation with suspicion; victims and perpetrators are kept apart, and divorce lawyers assume unending hostility between the parties. "Closure" is assumed to mean punishment, not reconciliation. Not something that lends itself to commercialization.
And the original proposal, that mothers settle differences to keep their sons from killing each other, is downright unsettling; it completely upends the political and economic order. Politicians don't WANT mommy telling them they should play nicely.
A sentimental Mother's day needs no importance other than remembering and honoring Mom. And, in true American style, just maybe spending a lot of money on her.
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Business of Politics
Once upon a time, in a former life, I worked for a Fortune 500 company. They trained me in Project Management and sent me through Six Sigma certification, and I eventually became a member of the Global Business Process Team (as the most junior member).
I think I can say, with some confidence, that no business would make policy the way Congress does. I'm not talking about the kinds of decisions they make; a government is NOT a business and has entirely different goals and capabilities. I'm talking about the decision-making process itself.
A bill represents a change in policy, sometimes a major change. Such a change should only be undertaken after appropriate analysis, and analysis can only be based on data.
Right now, bills are introduced higglety-pigglety, at the whim of the sponsors. Some bills are pet projects, some are unimportant, and some will affect every person in this country. We trust that things will muddle through, that bills with merit will pass, and those without will get stuck in committee, or at least do no harm. Meantime, the attention of our legislators is drawn equally to all projects. It's a massive case of ADHD institutionalized as standard operating practice.
Government should do what any organization should do before implementing policy changes.
First: Define the problem. Is there a need for a change (bill)? What is the scope of the problem? Define metrics that measure the problem. Collect data to supports the idea that change is needed. Make projections as to how the problem will persist or worsen if no action is taken.
Second: Propose a change. Explain how the proposed change should affect the metrics you are using to measure the problem. How will you know if the change is working?
Third: Identify possible consequences. As far as possible, identify all stakeholders, both for the original problem and for the proposed solution. List possible side effects and analyze their impact.
ANY proposed bill should include these elements. In essence, you are doing a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. The word "social" indicates that neither the investment nor the return is necessarily monetary. But it should still be possible to provide metrics, otherwise you will not know if you are making an effective change.
If bills had to have this sort of analysis to qualify them for introduction, I suspect a lot of bills would never be introduced, or be instantly revealed as political posturing. That might be fine; unimportant bills get passed all the time. Schoolkids might submit a petition to name the bald eagle in the National Zoo George, and there is nothing wrong with congress considering and passing such a bill. There is little need for such a change, but the cost primarily consists of our legislators' time, and the social benefit in terms of PR and political education may make it worthwhile, especially since such a lightweight bill acts as comic relief to the legislators themselves.
But bills such as the voter ID laws may be stopped. (Or perhaps not -- I don't have the data, and that's the point.) A need has not been demonstrated. If there is data (and not just rhetoric) to support such a bill, then it should be provided as supporting documents for the bill's introduction. However, perhaps the current problem is small, but the consequence of not acting is anticipated to be large. If that is the case, provide projections and a well-supported argument. Balance that against the cost of other consequences -- the disenfranchisement of certain voter blocks.
All of this should be hashed out in committee (including the ability to return the proposal for more data or analysis), and only if the proposal is satisfactory should the bill actually be introduced on the floor.
I think it implementing this one administrative change would redeem the entire governmental decision-making process.
It is essentially a conservative move, in the truest sense of the word. It maintains the status quo unless there is demonstrated need, and ensures (as much as possible) that only effective programs are instituted and financed. And it limits time wasted on political posturing. It is also essentially liberal, in that it identifies need and encourages effective action to address those needs.
Now, if this were a business proposal, it would be implemented first in some sort of test bed, so the entire company is not committed until there is some evidence that the anticipated benefits will materialize. That requires additional metrics -- how will we know this is working? -- and a back-out plan -- if it's not working, how can we cancel its implementation? The way our legislative system is set up, this isn't really possible. Ideally, each bill would have a standard escape hatch clause-- that is to say, a bill that is passed could be easily revoked in say, a year, if the metrics show that the anticipated benefits are NOT occurring, or that unanticipated consequences ARE occurring. But that's a topic for another day.
I think I can say, with some confidence, that no business would make policy the way Congress does. I'm not talking about the kinds of decisions they make; a government is NOT a business and has entirely different goals and capabilities. I'm talking about the decision-making process itself.
A bill represents a change in policy, sometimes a major change. Such a change should only be undertaken after appropriate analysis, and analysis can only be based on data.
Right now, bills are introduced higglety-pigglety, at the whim of the sponsors. Some bills are pet projects, some are unimportant, and some will affect every person in this country. We trust that things will muddle through, that bills with merit will pass, and those without will get stuck in committee, or at least do no harm. Meantime, the attention of our legislators is drawn equally to all projects. It's a massive case of ADHD institutionalized as standard operating practice.
Government should do what any organization should do before implementing policy changes.
First: Define the problem. Is there a need for a change (bill)? What is the scope of the problem? Define metrics that measure the problem. Collect data to supports the idea that change is needed. Make projections as to how the problem will persist or worsen if no action is taken.
Second: Propose a change. Explain how the proposed change should affect the metrics you are using to measure the problem. How will you know if the change is working?
Third: Identify possible consequences. As far as possible, identify all stakeholders, both for the original problem and for the proposed solution. List possible side effects and analyze their impact.
ANY proposed bill should include these elements. In essence, you are doing a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. The word "social" indicates that neither the investment nor the return is necessarily monetary. But it should still be possible to provide metrics, otherwise you will not know if you are making an effective change.
If bills had to have this sort of analysis to qualify them for introduction, I suspect a lot of bills would never be introduced, or be instantly revealed as political posturing. That might be fine; unimportant bills get passed all the time. Schoolkids might submit a petition to name the bald eagle in the National Zoo George, and there is nothing wrong with congress considering and passing such a bill. There is little need for such a change, but the cost primarily consists of our legislators' time, and the social benefit in terms of PR and political education may make it worthwhile, especially since such a lightweight bill acts as comic relief to the legislators themselves.
But bills such as the voter ID laws may be stopped. (Or perhaps not -- I don't have the data, and that's the point.) A need has not been demonstrated. If there is data (and not just rhetoric) to support such a bill, then it should be provided as supporting documents for the bill's introduction. However, perhaps the current problem is small, but the consequence of not acting is anticipated to be large. If that is the case, provide projections and a well-supported argument. Balance that against the cost of other consequences -- the disenfranchisement of certain voter blocks.
All of this should be hashed out in committee (including the ability to return the proposal for more data or analysis), and only if the proposal is satisfactory should the bill actually be introduced on the floor.
I think it implementing this one administrative change would redeem the entire governmental decision-making process.
It is essentially a conservative move, in the truest sense of the word. It maintains the status quo unless there is demonstrated need, and ensures (as much as possible) that only effective programs are instituted and financed. And it limits time wasted on political posturing. It is also essentially liberal, in that it identifies need and encourages effective action to address those needs.
Now, if this were a business proposal, it would be implemented first in some sort of test bed, so the entire company is not committed until there is some evidence that the anticipated benefits will materialize. That requires additional metrics -- how will we know this is working? -- and a back-out plan -- if it's not working, how can we cancel its implementation? The way our legislative system is set up, this isn't really possible. Ideally, each bill would have a standard escape hatch clause-- that is to say, a bill that is passed could be easily revoked in say, a year, if the metrics show that the anticipated benefits are NOT occurring, or that unanticipated consequences ARE occurring. But that's a topic for another day.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
All that *!&%#)&* swearing!
When did "swearing" come to mean the use of scatological and sexual terms? Those terms may be offensive to some; they may be childish or shocking or obscene, but they are not swearing.
Swearing is what you do when you hold up a Bible and say "I promise ... so help me God". It is the use of the Lord's name to emphasize one's sincerity. So why is swearing bad?
One of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". In other words, don't call on the Lord unless you mean it. Some religious denominations hold that the only proper use of the name of God is prayer and religious discussion; any casual use (like squealing Oh my God! when you see something you like) is a misuse. According to some denominations, so is secular use such as taking an oath.
I was on jury duty last year. Potential jurors were asked to take an oath. Those who objected were permitted to make an "affirmation" instead. Those who did so were vilified by some ignorant souls who assumed the objectors were atheists. Perhaps some were; it shouldn't matter. Separation of Church and State means that a particular expression of religious belief cannot be required. For whatever reason, these people objected to taking a religious oath. The bailiff had to call for order.
But that is not what we commonly call swearing. Instead, to preserve the purity of our public airwaves, we are not allowed to use certain words. George Carlin's famous seven words were: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. In 1972 he added fart, turd, and twat.
Note that while all of these can be considered rude or even obscene, none are swearing.
Half of these words refer to body waste or functions. Today, 40 years after Carlin's monologue, most of these bathroom words are no longer taboo. Fart is especially normal. Turd and piss are OK. Shit is borderline; euphemisms are preferred. Waste, BM, scat, number 2, feces, turd; they're all OK. However, "Oh, shit!" is OK.
The other half refer to sex. Tits, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker -- these are all considered objectionable; "tits" is probably the most acceptable. "Fuck" is still taboo, at least on the airwaves. It's not the meaning. You can certainly say "rape", which is an even more violent sexual act. And "WTF" has gone mainstream (I don't know what the censors think the F stands for). In any case, it's obviously not the concept that is taboo, it's the word itself. Somehow, the word will damage our moral fiber. That's ridiculous.
To be sure, I'm not a fan of pottymouth. It's ugly, tiresome, and shows a singular lack of imagination, if not a lack of vocabulary. There are other adjectives in the English language. Learn them. Express yourself well.
Meanwhile, actual swearing, the type that is forbidden by the 3rd commandment, is commonplace. "Oh my God!" (or OMG!) is a common expression of surprise, even in cartoons meant for kids. Same with "Jesus!" or other overtly religious phrases. If anything, this sort of thing is portrayed as "cute". Negative expressions seem to be less acceptable. You can usually get by with "hell" or "damn", but for some reason, "Goddamn" is still bleeped out, even when neither "God" nor "damn" is.
But why is the FCC concerned about these words, anyway? If the problem is pottymouth, the government need not step in. What is socially acceptable changes over time, and in any case the taboo, like most social taboos, is socially enforced. If religious swearing is the problem, then the government needs to stay away. Enforcement of religious practice is not a secular problem.
There's another interpretation of the 3rd Commandment, though, that makes more sense. In this interpretation, to "take the name of the Lord thy God" means to operate under the aegis of the Lord, to do things in His name. And "in vain" means to do so falsely. Those who claim to be among God's children, but who do not act according to his precepts, are breaking this commandment.
That includes those hypocrites who claim to be Christian, but who spew hatred and intolerance.
That's a real problem.
Swearing is what you do when you hold up a Bible and say "I promise ... so help me God". It is the use of the Lord's name to emphasize one's sincerity. So why is swearing bad?
One of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". In other words, don't call on the Lord unless you mean it. Some religious denominations hold that the only proper use of the name of God is prayer and religious discussion; any casual use (like squealing Oh my God! when you see something you like) is a misuse. According to some denominations, so is secular use such as taking an oath.
I was on jury duty last year. Potential jurors were asked to take an oath. Those who objected were permitted to make an "affirmation" instead. Those who did so were vilified by some ignorant souls who assumed the objectors were atheists. Perhaps some were; it shouldn't matter. Separation of Church and State means that a particular expression of religious belief cannot be required. For whatever reason, these people objected to taking a religious oath. The bailiff had to call for order.
But that is not what we commonly call swearing. Instead, to preserve the purity of our public airwaves, we are not allowed to use certain words. George Carlin's famous seven words were: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. In 1972 he added fart, turd, and twat.
Note that while all of these can be considered rude or even obscene, none are swearing.
Half of these words refer to body waste or functions. Today, 40 years after Carlin's monologue, most of these bathroom words are no longer taboo. Fart is especially normal. Turd and piss are OK. Shit is borderline; euphemisms are preferred. Waste, BM, scat, number 2, feces, turd; they're all OK. However, "Oh, shit!" is OK.
The other half refer to sex. Tits, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker -- these are all considered objectionable; "tits" is probably the most acceptable. "Fuck" is still taboo, at least on the airwaves. It's not the meaning. You can certainly say "rape", which is an even more violent sexual act. And "WTF" has gone mainstream (I don't know what the censors think the F stands for). In any case, it's obviously not the concept that is taboo, it's the word itself. Somehow, the word will damage our moral fiber. That's ridiculous.
To be sure, I'm not a fan of pottymouth. It's ugly, tiresome, and shows a singular lack of imagination, if not a lack of vocabulary. There are other adjectives in the English language. Learn them. Express yourself well.
Meanwhile, actual swearing, the type that is forbidden by the 3rd commandment, is commonplace. "Oh my God!" (or OMG!) is a common expression of surprise, even in cartoons meant for kids. Same with "Jesus!" or other overtly religious phrases. If anything, this sort of thing is portrayed as "cute". Negative expressions seem to be less acceptable. You can usually get by with "hell" or "damn", but for some reason, "Goddamn" is still bleeped out, even when neither "God" nor "damn" is.
But why is the FCC concerned about these words, anyway? If the problem is pottymouth, the government need not step in. What is socially acceptable changes over time, and in any case the taboo, like most social taboos, is socially enforced. If religious swearing is the problem, then the government needs to stay away. Enforcement of religious practice is not a secular problem.
There's another interpretation of the 3rd Commandment, though, that makes more sense. In this interpretation, to "take the name of the Lord thy God" means to operate under the aegis of the Lord, to do things in His name. And "in vain" means to do so falsely. Those who claim to be among God's children, but who do not act according to his precepts, are breaking this commandment.
That includes those hypocrites who claim to be Christian, but who spew hatred and intolerance.
That's a real problem.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Occupy Sodom
Newsflash: The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. It was greedy inhospitality.
To paraphrase Ezekiel 16:48-50, the inhabitants of Sodom lived in a land rich with God's gifts. They were prideful, rich, and idle, yet they did not care for the poor. Instead, they were haughty and committed "abominations". Wait - "abominations". Surely that means homosexuality?
Uh, no. At least, it was never interpreted that way by the ancient rabbis. In the Babylonian Talmud, a record of thousands of years of rabbinical discussion and analysis, the sin of Sodom is in two parts: first, they were "wicked with their bodies". The rabbis illustrate this using the story of Potiphar's wife enticing Joseph to commit adultery, and by the quoting of laws that seem to encourage adultery. This is sexual misconduct, but the examples are strictly heterosexual. One would think, if homosexuality were the problem, it would be mentioned at least once in the two thousand years of commentary that the Babylonian Talmud represents.
The second part of Sodom's wickedness is they were "sinners with their money". They lived in a rich land, they themselves had plenty, but they refused to share the blessings God had given them. They not only refused to help the poor and needy, they made helping them a crime. One woman (Lot's daughter, according to the discussion), took pity on a beggar and sneaked bread crusts to him. When the man didn't starve as expected, she was discovered and executed horribly.
Just as bad, the inhabitants of Sodom were lethally inhospitable towards strangers and travelers. They treated them as did Procrustes in Greek legend; if they were too tall to fit on a cot, the extra height would be cut off; if too short, they would be racked. No differences were to be tolerated. The Talmud especially castigates the four judges in Sodom who incorporated this selfish greed and inhospitality into law.
That seems an awful lot like what the Occupy movement is protesting, doesn't it?
Oh yes -- and the "abominations"? Talmudic scholars held that to be their violation of the rules of hospitality. They came in a mob, threatening the visiting angels (to whom, by contrast, Lot had offered hospitality. Lot's hospitality qualified him and his family to be spared).
Interesting essay on this topic by Rabbi Steven Pik-Nathan.
Oh yes -- and the "abominations"? Talmudic scholars held that to be their violation of the rules of hospitality. They came in a mob, threatening the visiting angels (to whom, by contrast, Lot had offered hospitality. Lot's hospitality qualified him and his family to be spared).
Interesting essay on this topic by Rabbi Steven Pik-Nathan.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The word "sodomy"
Today is Martin Luther King Day, a day for contemplating issues of social justice.
There is a related word, the verb gadash (Strong's H6942), which means "to set apart, to consecrate". This appears 172 times in the Bible, and is a positive attribute. It is translated as "sanctify" 108 times, also as "hallow", "dedicate", "holy", "prepare", "consecrate", and nine other terms. No confusion with Sodom here!
Dr. King seems to have been of two minds regarding homosexuality. On the one hand, his friend and right-hand man made no secret of being gay, and at a time when being gay was generally not tolerated, Dr. King refused to rebuke him. On the other hand, he advised a young man who wrote to him with fears of being gay that with prayer and diligence the young man could overcome this tendency.
Christians often point to places in the Bible which condemn the sin of Sodom, and call sodomites an abomination. But is this even talking about homosexuality? Almost certainly not. (The sin of Sodom is selfishness, greed, and inhospitality; see my other post).
But isn't the story of Sodom and Gemorrah where the word "sodomy" comes from?
Not exactly. Turns out the word "sodomy" was coined in the late 1800's. Before that, it was always the "sin of Sodom" or something about "sodomites". In about 395AD, letters from St. Jerome to a priest named Amandus refer to the men of Sodom engaging in sexual misconduct, but the details are not explained. Thomas Aquinas, in the 1200s, defined the "sin of Sodom" as any sort of nonprocreative sex. Masturbation, oral sex, sex during menses, sex using contraceptives, and anal sex were all included.
Much of the confusion comes from a poor translation. The story of Sodom and Gemorrah are in Genesis, part of the Torah; the story is written in Hebrew. The name of the city (word H5467 in Strong's concordance) is transliterated Cĕdom, and comes from a root meaning "burning". In English, this became Sodom. Chances are, it was not the original name of the city, when people lived there, but a name applied after it was destroyed by fire.
The word translated as "sodomite" comes from another root altogether. Word H6945 in Strong's Concordance is transliterated gadesh, and only occurs six times in the Bible. This is a noun, and technically, it means "one who is consecrated". In context, it refers to the temple prostitutes (female and male) consecrated to Astarte or Venus. Five times out of the six times it occurs, it is translated "sodomite", and once it is translated "unclean" (KJV). A temple prostitute consecrated to a different god is indeed an abomination to a follower of the God of Israel. But the abomination has nothing to do with homosexuality.
There is a related word, the verb gadash (Strong's H6942), which means "to set apart, to consecrate". This appears 172 times in the Bible, and is a positive attribute. It is translated as "sanctify" 108 times, also as "hallow", "dedicate", "holy", "prepare", "consecrate", and nine other terms. No confusion with Sodom here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)