Thursday, February 21, 2013
Pistorius speaks to Gun Control not Murder
Most in the media appear to want to paint Oscar Pistorius as a innocent-looking albeit, cold-blooded perpetrator of "Roid Rage" who murdered his beautiful girlfriend. But beyond the hype what you have is just another in thousands of all-too-routine individual cases of a "responsible" gun owner who's decision to keep a gun next to his bed for protection is mistakenly used to kill a loved one rather than a real intruder. Even in areas of high crime, the likelihood that your home is going to be inhabited by a friend or relative vs. invaded by an intruder is the simple math behind why homeowners should keep guns locked far away from direct access or not have them at all.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Quitters Often Win and Winners Often Quit!
Quitters often Win and Winners Often Quit
This misperception that Vince Lombardi promulgated on the public in the 1960s that "Quitters NEVER win and Winners NEVER Quit" like most things in sports don't translate into the real world. Even in sports their is some doubt when people like Todd Helton quit playing football (despite being drafted by Jacksonville and playing ahead of Payton Manning at TN) to play baseball for 17 years and Bo Jackson plays both and blows out his knee at 24.
But in life, there is no doubt that quitting is one of the most important attributes of success, personally and professionally. The axiom "never quit" prevents us from taking risks, changing directions and trying new things. If we cannot quit, we are less likely to be able to make decisions and start something for which we fear there will be no exit. Success is very much driven by following positively-influenced habits. But it is also driven by quiting negatively-influenced habits and even more so by putting yourself in a situation where you can quit one habit or direction in order to take another. There is no better way to pursue a path than to start down it, decide if appears worthwhile or pleasant to continue along and if not, reverse your steps to take another. Compare this with standing at the fork in the road and attempting to decide which path while considering every conceivable outcome from each choice. In the latter example you are paralyzed by indecision and in the former you potentially make a mistake and potentially achieve success. The ability to quit allows you to improve the odds because you get a preview of the choice rather than relying only on your imagination or even the subjective advice of others. When such decisions arise, why should we risk joining a team, trying an activity or taking a job that we are not completely convinced will be the right decision if quiting is not an option?
The clearest example of the effect of "not quiting" is the Armed Services for whom the ranks have shrunk by nearly 60% in 20 years. By enlisting, your commitment for tours of duty are such that you cannot quit. Therefore, those who join fall into one of two categories. Those who are so determined and interested to be soldiers for the United States and those who have few other options. I believe most men and especially women would love an opportunity to serve our country and examine life in the military if they were at least afforded the opportunity to quit if they find the life to be more damaging than desirable. I know the common military view is that if service remained optional throughout your tour, individuals would remain committed until deployed in harms way at which time the majority would quit when the going got tough. Undoubtedly, perhaps many would do just that, but if they joined in the first place knowing such potential is likely (particularly these days) obviously many would overcome that urge to quit and serve gladly in most areas of conflict. But weigh that risk of people quiting once they enlist with the risk of having smart and able bodied individuals never enlisting in the first place. I would suggest a military with 5 million serving an average of 6-12 months (if quiting was allowed and became prevalent) would be more powerful and cost effective than the current 1 million serving for a minimum of 2 years including reluctant soldiers who cannot quit. They certainly would be mentally healthier when they do leave.
Keep in mind that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs all quit collage. In fact almost every entrepreneur has quit a job and sometimes even a career path to pursue their dream and run companies of their own. It is unfortunate that in our society many entrepreneurs are the victims of layoffs and only out of necessity are they offered the freedom to create a company. But our society has told us for decades to "never quit" in which case one must feel disloyal or a failure before embarking on the most critical aspect of a capitalist economy. At the other end of the economic chain, consumers are asked every day to quit the brand that they currently use and switch to the latest product. Keep in mind it is important to have a well considered exit strategy when leaving any endeavor. You don't want to leap out of your seat on the descending plane only to learn you are running away from the exits. But when the consequences are well understood, the exit is near and you have your parachute, you really cannot suggest that quitters never win. My suggestion is that we remove this axiom from our society and encourage our kids to try new sports, take risks and stretch socially to meet new friends secure in the knowledge that if they don't like it or it doesn't work out:
JUST QUIT.
This misperception that Vince Lombardi promulgated on the public in the 1960s that "Quitters NEVER win and Winners NEVER Quit" like most things in sports don't translate into the real world. Even in sports their is some doubt when people like Todd Helton quit playing football (despite being drafted by Jacksonville and playing ahead of Payton Manning at TN) to play baseball for 17 years and Bo Jackson plays both and blows out his knee at 24.
But in life, there is no doubt that quitting is one of the most important attributes of success, personally and professionally. The axiom "never quit" prevents us from taking risks, changing directions and trying new things. If we cannot quit, we are less likely to be able to make decisions and start something for which we fear there will be no exit. Success is very much driven by following positively-influenced habits. But it is also driven by quiting negatively-influenced habits and even more so by putting yourself in a situation where you can quit one habit or direction in order to take another. There is no better way to pursue a path than to start down it, decide if appears worthwhile or pleasant to continue along and if not, reverse your steps to take another. Compare this with standing at the fork in the road and attempting to decide which path while considering every conceivable outcome from each choice. In the latter example you are paralyzed by indecision and in the former you potentially make a mistake and potentially achieve success. The ability to quit allows you to improve the odds because you get a preview of the choice rather than relying only on your imagination or even the subjective advice of others. When such decisions arise, why should we risk joining a team, trying an activity or taking a job that we are not completely convinced will be the right decision if quiting is not an option?
The clearest example of the effect of "not quiting" is the Armed Services for whom the ranks have shrunk by nearly 60% in 20 years. By enlisting, your commitment for tours of duty are such that you cannot quit. Therefore, those who join fall into one of two categories. Those who are so determined and interested to be soldiers for the United States and those who have few other options. I believe most men and especially women would love an opportunity to serve our country and examine life in the military if they were at least afforded the opportunity to quit if they find the life to be more damaging than desirable. I know the common military view is that if service remained optional throughout your tour, individuals would remain committed until deployed in harms way at which time the majority would quit when the going got tough. Undoubtedly, perhaps many would do just that, but if they joined in the first place knowing such potential is likely (particularly these days) obviously many would overcome that urge to quit and serve gladly in most areas of conflict. But weigh that risk of people quiting once they enlist with the risk of having smart and able bodied individuals never enlisting in the first place. I would suggest a military with 5 million serving an average of 6-12 months (if quiting was allowed and became prevalent) would be more powerful and cost effective than the current 1 million serving for a minimum of 2 years including reluctant soldiers who cannot quit. They certainly would be mentally healthier when they do leave.
Keep in mind that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs all quit collage. In fact almost every entrepreneur has quit a job and sometimes even a career path to pursue their dream and run companies of their own. It is unfortunate that in our society many entrepreneurs are the victims of layoffs and only out of necessity are they offered the freedom to create a company. But our society has told us for decades to "never quit" in which case one must feel disloyal or a failure before embarking on the most critical aspect of a capitalist economy. At the other end of the economic chain, consumers are asked every day to quit the brand that they currently use and switch to the latest product. Keep in mind it is important to have a well considered exit strategy when leaving any endeavor. You don't want to leap out of your seat on the descending plane only to learn you are running away from the exits. But when the consequences are well understood, the exit is near and you have your parachute, you really cannot suggest that quitters never win. My suggestion is that we remove this axiom from our society and encourage our kids to try new sports, take risks and stretch socially to meet new friends secure in the knowledge that if they don't like it or it doesn't work out:
JUST QUIT.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
NFL Stadiums have become Cotton Clubs
NFL Stadiums have become The Cotton Clubs of the 21st Century.
The performers are largely black and the attendees are almost exclusively white.
Maybe it shouldn't matter, but to me it does.
The performers are largely black and the attendees are almost exclusively white.
Maybe it shouldn't matter, but to me it does.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Terminator, Inc. (TERM) NYSE
Public Companies are the Terminators of the American Economy
I don't mean that in the context that public companies will kill the American Economy. What I mean is that like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who according to the movie "has only one function and will not stop until you (the target) are dead", the Public Company is a government sanctioned machine with only one function: To increase shareholder value typically through increasing profit quarter by quarter. This singular function was not established for any nefarious reason, on the contrary it is heralded as one of the few objective, pure and transparent goals in our marketplace. Since the shareholder has no say in operations, the shareholder's only motivation is for increased dividends and/or value, thereby it is the public companies moral duty to achieve those singular results. But when something has only one function, one target goal, it ignores ALL concepts that can hinder that singular mission. In the case of the Terminator, that means ignoring laws, the health and well-being of others and even the fabric of society as it attempts to Terminate its prey. In the case of a public company that means avoiding regulations, exploiting the health and well being of employees (to the extent that lowers unnecessary costs) and weakening the fabric of society (by outsourcing jobs and minimizing tax payments).
Public Companies have long been characterized as nameless and faceless machines and my metaphor would certainly suggest support for that notion. But the truth is public companies are made up of millions of fine and decent people, the vast majority of which only have the best intentions to work hard, provide for their families and produce quality products and services in the market. Many public companies are directed by well-meaning Boards and Executive Teams who believe in philanthropy, the environment and the safety and reward of their employees. It is considered "good business" for the corporation to treat its employees, society and the world around it well in order to be sustainable in the long term. These companies require benevolent leaders at the helm like Sergey and Larry at Google but just ask another American success duo, Ben and Jerry, how the public markets accommodate benevolence without growth as they saw their ownership melt away based on the current system.
Undoubtedly hierarchical organizations like public companies can often accomplish results more rapidly than companies run by committee the same way dictatorships can set a national path and accomplish change more rapidly than democracies with legislatures or parliaments. Unfortunately, like most dictatorships, absolute power corrupts absolutely and since nothing in the public company code requires malevolence, corporations MUST adhere to their prime directive... increase profits and/or shareholder value.
Although there are some interesting alternatives such as "Benefit" or "Flexible Purpose" Corporations, I don't see these dynamics changing as public companies become more and more powerful the higher up the Dow climbs. But as the U.S. Government explores ways to deal with moral hazard and "too big to fail" policies, I would suggest that instead of rating corporations alone for their balance sheet strength, the agencies should rate the companies for what they bring to the country in terms of jobs, security, infrastructure and environmental benefits. A company that scores high in these areas can benefit from the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government and count on a "bail out" if times get tough. While public companies that focus only on growth in profit and/or share price without regard for these other benefits will be free to operate as they please, but with the understanding that if the going gets tough, they will have to get going with no support from Uncle Sam.
I don't mean that in the context that public companies will kill the American Economy. What I mean is that like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who according to the movie "has only one function and will not stop until you (the target) are dead", the Public Company is a government sanctioned machine with only one function: To increase shareholder value typically through increasing profit quarter by quarter. This singular function was not established for any nefarious reason, on the contrary it is heralded as one of the few objective, pure and transparent goals in our marketplace. Since the shareholder has no say in operations, the shareholder's only motivation is for increased dividends and/or value, thereby it is the public companies moral duty to achieve those singular results. But when something has only one function, one target goal, it ignores ALL concepts that can hinder that singular mission. In the case of the Terminator, that means ignoring laws, the health and well-being of others and even the fabric of society as it attempts to Terminate its prey. In the case of a public company that means avoiding regulations, exploiting the health and well being of employees (to the extent that lowers unnecessary costs) and weakening the fabric of society (by outsourcing jobs and minimizing tax payments).
Public Companies have long been characterized as nameless and faceless machines and my metaphor would certainly suggest support for that notion. But the truth is public companies are made up of millions of fine and decent people, the vast majority of which only have the best intentions to work hard, provide for their families and produce quality products and services in the market. Many public companies are directed by well-meaning Boards and Executive Teams who believe in philanthropy, the environment and the safety and reward of their employees. It is considered "good business" for the corporation to treat its employees, society and the world around it well in order to be sustainable in the long term. These companies require benevolent leaders at the helm like Sergey and Larry at Google but just ask another American success duo, Ben and Jerry, how the public markets accommodate benevolence without growth as they saw their ownership melt away based on the current system.
Undoubtedly hierarchical organizations like public companies can often accomplish results more rapidly than companies run by committee the same way dictatorships can set a national path and accomplish change more rapidly than democracies with legislatures or parliaments. Unfortunately, like most dictatorships, absolute power corrupts absolutely and since nothing in the public company code requires malevolence, corporations MUST adhere to their prime directive... increase profits and/or shareholder value.
Although there are some interesting alternatives such as "Benefit" or "Flexible Purpose" Corporations, I don't see these dynamics changing as public companies become more and more powerful the higher up the Dow climbs. But as the U.S. Government explores ways to deal with moral hazard and "too big to fail" policies, I would suggest that instead of rating corporations alone for their balance sheet strength, the agencies should rate the companies for what they bring to the country in terms of jobs, security, infrastructure and environmental benefits. A company that scores high in these areas can benefit from the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government and count on a "bail out" if times get tough. While public companies that focus only on growth in profit and/or share price without regard for these other benefits will be free to operate as they please, but with the understanding that if the going gets tough, they will have to get going with no support from Uncle Sam.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Barack Obama - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Life imitating Art has rarely been demonstrated to a greater degree than in the comparison of Barack Obama "killing" Osama bin Laden in the vein of Jimmy Stewart "killing" Liberty Valance in the 1960's Western. The basic story-line metaphor is so obvious, Rush Limbaugh and other comedians have jokingly conjured the analogy of an arch villain gunned down by a seemingly mild-mannered thin politician in their acts.
In 2007 the film was selected for preservation by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant". Certainly the same can be said for the killing of Osama bin Laden.
But beyond that simple story line there are at least ten other similarities between actual events and the movie.
In 2007 the film was selected for preservation by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant". Certainly the same can be said for the killing of Osama bin Laden.
But beyond that simple story line there are at least ten other similarities between actual events and the movie.
- Rance Stoddard (played by Jimmy Stewart) and Barack both stammered their speech
- Rance (Hero) rhymes Valance (Villain). Obama (Hero) rhymes Osama (villain).
- Both men are over 6 ft. tall and thin.
- Rance Stoddard and Barack Obama started their career as lawyers
- Rance Stoddard and Barack Obama both became politicians
- Both enjoyed the love of a good woman. Vera Miles in the Movie and Michelle in real life.
- Vance Stoddard and Barack Obama first attempted to remove the threat of their villains using the law as their quiver. Both failed in these attempts.
- Both men were credited with killing the villain but neither actually shot the man.
- John Wayne and "Mark Owen" sound exactly the same in their 60 Minutes interviews.
- Regardless of health care reform, ending the war in Iraq along with Don't Ask Don't Tell and whatever else Barack Obama accomplishes, like Vance Stoddard, he will always be known as:
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Obama in Colorado - A Missed Opportunity
I attended the campaign stop by Barrack Obama today at the University of Colorado and while it included a speech by Governor John Hickenlooper (D) and a shout-out to Congressman Jared Polis (D) who is running for re-election, I was surprised that neither was heralded for their success in business as part of the presentation. More so than Mit Romney, Hickenlooper and Polis are entrepreneurs in the 18th-century sense of the word. Both started small businesses and became wealthy as Hickelooper's net worth has been estimated in the $5-10 million range and Polis over $60 million. That may pale in terms to Romney's net worth, but they didn't just invest in companies along the way, they created them from scratch. Hickenlooper succeeded in business through the (second) oldest profession as a pub owner and Polis in one of the newest professions, as an internet entrepreneur. The point I am making is why isn't the democratic party parading their own successful business people to show that you can be a democrat, successful in business and not mind paying more in taxes to support a stronger middle class and the struggling unemployed and/or uninsured.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Democrat is to Republican as NFL is to NRL - An Anology
The Democratic Party is opitimized by The NFL (National Football League - U.S.)
The Republican Party is opitimized by the NRL (National Rugby League - Australia)
Independents like me sometimes have difficulty really distinquishing the ideals of the Democratic and Republican Parites. In deed many aspects of the two parties are indistinguisable in that they both have members, hold conventions, rely on donor support, and viamaetly support their respective candidates.
But as a sportsfan, when I look at those two political parties, I am reminded of two sports leagues that are analogous to those parties.
As with Australian Rugby and American Football, Democrats and Republicans have the same goals - Achieve success (however you define success) for you and your family while maintaining life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.
The NFL and NRL have the same goals - Score points on a large grass field by carrying the oblong ball across the goal line or kicking it through the uprights.
But while the goals are the same, the respective parties and leagues use very different methods to allow their players to acheive those same goals.
- The NRL allows only 17 players per team.
- The NFL allows more than twice that number on the team.
- Rugby is largely a free-for-all, with all 17 NRL players on the team and all 13 on the field each allowed to score, kick, tackle, block and throw the ball. Their are forwards and backs, who will each specialize in a position, but unlikely as it may be, the large slow guy is allowed to carry or kick the ball for a score at anytime.
- NFL Football restricts everything from what each player can and cannot do, to which direction the ball can travel to who is allowed to carry, kick or pass the ball.
- In Rugby, the two teams push, shove and use their own strength to fight for possession in every scrum.
- In the NFL, each team takes turns with the ball and if you can't score or move 10 yards you give the other team their turn.
- Rugby positions include tight-heads, locks and hookers
- NFL positions include tight-ends, wide-receivers and quarter-backs.
- NRL players are often homogenious, comprised of large but fast stocky white men.
- NFL players come in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities.
- NFL players wear costumes including shoulder pads and skinny pants
- RFL players wear baggy shorts and sneakers.
- The NFL requires protective gear like helmuts (like it or not, for the players own good)
- The NRL says "wear what you want, and good luck to you Mate."
- The NFL has a union that limits salaries and a league agreement that distributes the wealth evenly
- The NRL competes directly with The National Rugby Union (but it does have salary caps and shares TV income).
- The NFL has the Dolphins
- The NRL has the Sharks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)