I trolled the comments sections of various news articles this past week on gun control legislation and was saddened by the generally low level of intellectual content in comments posted by either side of the argument. This is why I generally don't read such comments, but in this case, the potential legislation says so much about what we value as a society that I could not help myself because people who comment are probably people who vote. Our governments are elected by a lot of people who come across as not being very smart.
I have been thinking a lot about the issue of management skills. There is an article in today's NY Times about how President Obama is not a very good manager and doesn't seem to hire good managers. That is not only true of the President but also society as a whole. I am a terrific manager, but the only people who know that are people I have worked with in the past, and it is a very difficult skill to accurately portray on a resume. And forget about being able to discuss it in a job interview where the only two things that matter are (i) have you done that specific job before and (ii) does your personality fit the organization. Thus, many terrific managers over 50 can't find level appropriate work despite there being a general shortage of good managers in many places. I think this has been true for a long time, and I cannot think of a solution.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
What is a Proper Balance?
I have to admit that I favor President Obama's proposal to limit military style automatic weapons and gun magazines and am glad that NY State has passed such a law. We don't want just anybody to have shoulder fired missiles or bazookas, why would we want just anybody to have a military assault rifle?
We cannot have 1st responders worried about people assassinating them when they get somewhere (like they were in Rochester). We need to minimize the risk of automatic weapons killing many more people who might otherwise escape if only non-automatic weapons were available.
And I, for one, do not want to be anywhere near a private citizen pulling out his concealed revolver to defend citizens from another armed person? Stray bullets flying around rarely fail to hit an innocent person.
But I do recognize the right of every individual to own a hunting rifle and I reluctantly recognize the right of every individual to defend themselves in their home, although that leads to many unfortunate incidents every year.
What we must have is a systemic solution for is the following:
1) Preventing people from going to more liberal gun rights states and bringing illegal weapons back to more conservative gun rights states.
2) Preventing people who cannot handle weapons responsibly from having access to them. This might have prevented all 3 Colorado shootings.
3) Because people's mental makeup changes over time and family members mental makeup can change over time, we must limit access to automatic weapons and their large magazines. This is the only thing that would have surely reduced the number of dead from the Connecticut, Virginia Tech and Colorado shootings.
Unfortunately, nothing done now will have any immediate effect because the existing hardware will float around the country for the next 50 years at least. But at least, we will start to make progress.
I welcome any counter points from my friends who are gun owners.
We cannot have 1st responders worried about people assassinating them when they get somewhere (like they were in Rochester). We need to minimize the risk of automatic weapons killing many more people who might otherwise escape if only non-automatic weapons were available.
And I, for one, do not want to be anywhere near a private citizen pulling out his concealed revolver to defend citizens from another armed person? Stray bullets flying around rarely fail to hit an innocent person.
But I do recognize the right of every individual to own a hunting rifle and I reluctantly recognize the right of every individual to defend themselves in their home, although that leads to many unfortunate incidents every year.
What we must have is a systemic solution for is the following:
1) Preventing people from going to more liberal gun rights states and bringing illegal weapons back to more conservative gun rights states.
2) Preventing people who cannot handle weapons responsibly from having access to them. This might have prevented all 3 Colorado shootings.
3) Because people's mental makeup changes over time and family members mental makeup can change over time, we must limit access to automatic weapons and their large magazines. This is the only thing that would have surely reduced the number of dead from the Connecticut, Virginia Tech and Colorado shootings.
Unfortunately, nothing done now will have any immediate effect because the existing hardware will float around the country for the next 50 years at least. But at least, we will start to make progress.
I welcome any counter points from my friends who are gun owners.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Things All D.C. Politicians Should Remember
I heard a great line in a nice little movie we watched last night. "Anger soaks up intelligence"
I could also add to that "Panic results in stupid actions" and "Failure to offer respect to others is not a path to opening communication"
And finally a basic rule of negotiation with parties you need something from: "Analyze what the other side wants, and where you can give on those points, so you can achieve as much as possible on your overall objectives"
We have a divided government and both sides need to walk away with something they can claim as a victory. I am not impressed with the way any leading politician in D.C. is behaving in 2013 despite my relief that we did find some revenue. We have not solved the problem sufficiently.
For those interested in the movie, it was from Netflix and called: Adoration
I could also add to that "Panic results in stupid actions" and "Failure to offer respect to others is not a path to opening communication"
And finally a basic rule of negotiation with parties you need something from: "Analyze what the other side wants, and where you can give on those points, so you can achieve as much as possible on your overall objectives"
We have a divided government and both sides need to walk away with something they can claim as a victory. I am not impressed with the way any leading politician in D.C. is behaving in 2013 despite my relief that we did find some revenue. We have not solved the problem sufficiently.
For those interested in the movie, it was from Netflix and called: Adoration
Friday, January 11, 2013
Why does the GOP eat their own?
I have been busy with work, so reading a bit less and not being so angry with the Political World. However, I was struck this week by an article on John Boehner and the reaction of some Tea Party types to his leadership. They called him a RINO.
Now if John Boehner is a Republican in Name Only, how are the GOP every going to win the Presidency again? How are they going to achieve some influence over positive policy movements as opposed to simply blocking things by saying NO?
The GOP has real influence; they control the House and they have a blocking position in the Senate. If they simply negotiated in good faith and dealt with the Democrats as realists, there would be a path to negotiation on things that would really bring the Budget onto a path in the right direction.
Just saying No is a disservice to the country and a path to no progress on a budget position that is unsustainable. The AARP, after saying a balanced approach to Medicare and Social Security was needed in the fall, are now saying No to anything. If the left and the right are just saying NO, we are not going to make any progress unless the people in the middle are talking to each other and crafting policies that represent both sides and take us in the right direction of a balancing the budget.
However, when the GOP center does something like that and gets called a RINO, they cannot negotiate and we do not make progress. This is really a potential disaster somewhere down the road.
Now if John Boehner is a Republican in Name Only, how are the GOP every going to win the Presidency again? How are they going to achieve some influence over positive policy movements as opposed to simply blocking things by saying NO?
The GOP has real influence; they control the House and they have a blocking position in the Senate. If they simply negotiated in good faith and dealt with the Democrats as realists, there would be a path to negotiation on things that would really bring the Budget onto a path in the right direction.
Just saying No is a disservice to the country and a path to no progress on a budget position that is unsustainable. The AARP, after saying a balanced approach to Medicare and Social Security was needed in the fall, are now saying No to anything. If the left and the right are just saying NO, we are not going to make any progress unless the people in the middle are talking to each other and crafting policies that represent both sides and take us in the right direction of a balancing the budget.
However, when the GOP center does something like that and gets called a RINO, they cannot negotiate and we do not make progress. This is really a potential disaster somewhere down the road.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
The Real Problem
Neither party is candid with the voters when it comes to the real issues. Obama is reacting to the GOP hatred of him and cannot be seen as giving away the store without some give from the GOP. I believe that Obama and Boehner understand what needs to be done. Otherwise, why would we have repeated undetailed discussions of the Grand Bargain? It always breaks down when the Boehner goes back to the House and cannot deliver a sufficient number of GOP votes to pass with Democratic support. And we don't learn what the details are.
Hopefully we will as we enter the Debt Ceiling Raise debate. This is a two stage process and I hope, now that we have $600 billion in hand, we can get another $600 billion from tax reform and $1.2 trillion of spending cuts. Then we will be over half way toward where we need to be.
The substance of the Economist article that the US is starting to look more like Europe is (i) a lack of candor of politicians in educating voters and (ii) kicking the can down the road rather than dealing with the real problems. Both sides need to agree on what spending cuts are coming because both sides need to convince the voters that such cuts are necessary.
Ohio is cutting reading tudors for 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders that is proven to make a long term difference in preventing drop outs because they are spending more money on health care. We need to spend money on helping people of all age groups not just the elderly.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
House GOP Refuses to Recognize Reality
Late Breaking News: 3:45 pm New Years Day
Nothing matters to the economy more than avoiding the fiscal cliff. It is the difference between positive GDP growth in the 2nd half of 2013 and a recession with higher unemployment, lower government revenues, a bigger budget deficit, and reduced savings for retirees and the nearly retired. Will valuations recover from such a recession? Who knows how many times the market can suffer from legislative ineptitude?
Now that the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the cliff and pushes spending discussions into the next 2 months when a debt ceiling bill must be passed or the U.S. will default, House GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor say they cannot support a bill like the Senate passed 87-13 because it does not contain spending cuts.
Well, if Mr. Cantor was so set on having input into such a bill why did he not work to support the Grand Bargan that Mr. Boehner and President Obama were working on? It contained both the tax increases that the Senate bill has and spending cuts that Mr. Cantor is now complaining are not in the Senate bill.
I don't understand what the House GOP wants for this country. The House of Representatives is not the only elected body in D.C. and they must compromise with the Senate and the President. Otherwise, the country is going to go down the toilet.
Nothing matters to the economy more than avoiding the fiscal cliff. It is the difference between positive GDP growth in the 2nd half of 2013 and a recession with higher unemployment, lower government revenues, a bigger budget deficit, and reduced savings for retirees and the nearly retired. Will valuations recover from such a recession? Who knows how many times the market can suffer from legislative ineptitude?
Now that the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the cliff and pushes spending discussions into the next 2 months when a debt ceiling bill must be passed or the U.S. will default, House GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor say they cannot support a bill like the Senate passed 87-13 because it does not contain spending cuts.
Well, if Mr. Cantor was so set on having input into such a bill why did he not work to support the Grand Bargan that Mr. Boehner and President Obama were working on? It contained both the tax increases that the Senate bill has and spending cuts that Mr. Cantor is now complaining are not in the Senate bill.
I don't understand what the House GOP wants for this country. The House of Representatives is not the only elected body in D.C. and they must compromise with the Senate and the President. Otherwise, the country is going to go down the toilet.
A Priceless Comment
and not all in keeping with my immediately prior post about the need to consider all points of view in reaching compromise so we can overcome problems.
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.
"Now, though, it is conservatism that is both intellectually exhausted and nearly indefensible. It is the movement of the ideologically ossified, of gun zealots and homophobes, of the immigrant-phobic and the adamantly selfish. It insists that government must be small (an impossibility!), .......... and that debt, no matter what the reason, is immoral and reckless. The movement has lost its reliable monster. Godless communists have been replaced by the church ladies of Planned Parenthood."
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.
"Now, though, it is conservatism that is both intellectually exhausted and nearly indefensible. It is the movement of the ideologically ossified, of gun zealots and homophobes, of the immigrant-phobic and the adamantly selfish. It insists that government must be small (an impossibility!), .......... and that debt, no matter what the reason, is immoral and reckless. The movement has lost its reliable monster. Godless communists have been replaced by the church ladies of Planned Parenthood."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)