Archive for July 7th, 2009

Senate shifts focus to college football … I say: go get ‘em !

July 7, 2009

 Excerpted from WSJ, “College Football Goes Down the Hatch:,
July 7, 2009

Today the Senate antitrust subcommittee will hold hearings on the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Like an earlier hearing in the House, this one will ask whether the system by which college football chooses its national champion is “fair.”

Specifically, the congressional look-see into college football has been led by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) and Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas). They have not been shy about the menace they see. Mr. Hatch calls the BCS “un-American.” Mr. Barton likens it to “communism.” The Texas Republican has even introduced legislation that would forbid the BCS from holding a “national championship game” unless that game was the result of playoffs.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692993074303505.html

* * * * *

Ken;s Take: Now, some may ask: why is the Senate wasting time on this issue instead of working on the economy, healthcare reform, cap & tax  … ?

I disagree with those people.  This is precisely the kind of issue I want filling Congressional agendas. .I figure that every minute they’re fretting over college football, is a minute that they’re not wastefully spending another $1 trillion of our money.

In fact, isn’t it about time that Congress reopened their baseball steroids investigation?  Or, what about hearings on the Designated Hitter rule? I say, keep ‘em distracted as long as possible.

P.S. Since I prefer controversy over clarity, I like the BCS

* * * * *

What is your relationship style?

July 7, 2009

From the summer read:
Why Loyalty Matters, Keiningham & Aksoy, Benbella Books, 2009

in a prior post, I highlighted 25 notable nuggets from the book.

In my opinion, the most useful part of the book was a relationship framework based on the notion that each of us has our own relationship DNA that serves as the code for how we interact with one another. 

While  no two people are identical in how they connect with others, all are made up of the same 10 basic building blocks:

  1. Leadership
  2. Reliance
  3. Empathy
  4. Security
  5. Calculativeness
  6. Connectedness
  7. Independence
  8. Traditionalism
  9. Problem-focused coping
  10. Emotion-focused coping

Being high or low on a particular factor does not imply good or bad, since each factor has the potential to have both the positive and negative impact on our relationships, regardless of where one falls on the factor.

People have their own idiosyncratic relationship styles. We are able to build strong, loyal relationships with one another precisely because each of us is different. It is our differences that allow us to enrich each other’s lives.

* * * * *

Leadership is the ability to influence others to follow you voluntarily. Leaders have a general sense that they are in control of themselves and their surroundings, are motivated to achieve success, attain a comfort level interacting with others, and are not afraid to take risks. The leaders competitive spirit fuels ambition. Some people see this fortitude as a blessing; it alienates other people who see it as being too competitive and too aggressive.

Reliance describes how well a person trusts and attaches to people around him. Reliant people have a support web that is based on openness and accountability. They are willing to ask for help when it’s needed. Reliant people tend to have “deep” and long-lasting friends. People low in reliance usually try to solve problems autonomously without depending on others. They often have difficulty building long-term relationships.

Empathy is the ability to identify and sympathize with others. Empathetic people tend to have a more flexible outlook and appreciate people for who they are. This brings with it more friendliness and is inviting to others. Empathetic people are compassionate, kindhearted, and understanding. They see problems through the eyes and hearts of others. People with  low empathy create distance between themselves and others.

Security is a general sense of stability and comfort with oneself and one’s environment. It’s a feeling that things are going well and there is no need to worry excessively or be anxious. This leads to life with a lower amount of stress and pressure, and prevents being needlessly encumbered by a sense of the impending. Secure people are able to manage anxiety and stress successfully. Insecure people often feel “on the edge”, and think that things are either wrong, or are going to go wrong. Insecurity leads to worry.

Calculativeness is an attempt to control and promote one’s self image and create an ideal environment for personal benefit. Calculating people place importance on showcasing themselves in the right way.  So, they have an air of formality in their interactions, selectively articulate themselves to others (versus “being themselves”), and tightly control their self-presentation. Calculating people are often viewed as contrived, less sincere, and less worthy of complete trust. They are often perceived by others as unemotional and manipulative.

Connectedness is how one interacts with others on a personal level  Close and tight relationships typify the crux of this dimension. The feeling of connection to others forms the basis in the bedrock of happiness. People low in connectedness may be loners, or may be surrounded with casual friends — lacking deep and intense bonds.

Independence is marked by autonomy, self-discipline, and thoroughness. On the upside, independent people are rarely disappointed by others, since they usually take matters into their own hands. But, they often miss out on valuable opportunities by failing to capitalize on other people’s ideas and strengths.

Traditionalism reflects a desire for consistency, normalcy, and regularity. Traditionalists like to operate within their comfort zone, and are cautious when approaching truly unfamiliar situations. Traditionalists rarely flaunt their successes, instead preferring humility. As a result, they may sometimes be underrated and underappreciated. Of course, traditionalists miss out on new experiences that could potentially provide novel perspectives and excitement.

Problem-focused coping is taking a planned, reasoned and rational approach to solving problems, meeting challenges, overcoming obstacles, making choices, and withstanding the consequences of decisions. Problem-focused people dissect issues and examine them from multiple angles. They are sometimes viewed as coldly analytical and callous in their decision-making.

Emotion-focused coping tries to suppress or manage the emotions surrounding a problem, rather than the problem itself. Often, advice and comfort is sought from others.

* * * * *

Next up: The “Are you loyal? “ checklist.

* * * * *

Spiking the ball on the 3 yard line …

July 7, 2009

Ken’s Take: As a “get it done” aficionado, I’m intrigued by Team Obama’s inability to make anything really happen. Banks are still holding toxic assets and foreclosing, the economy is still unstimulated, etc.  Their recipe: motivating rhetoric, passed legislation, a new web site, and a declaration of victory … followed by ginned up numbers that they don’t even believe. Below is a partial explanation …

* * * * *
NY Times, “Vince Lombardi Politics”, David Brooks, June 30, 2009 

There are two types of political pragmatism. There is legislative pragmatism — writing bills that can pass.

Then there is policy pragmatism — creating programs that work. These two pragmatisms are in tension, and in their current frame of mind, Democrats often put the former before the latter.

On the stimulus bill, the Democratic committee chairmen wrote a sprawling bill that incorporated the diverse wishes of hundreds of members and interest groups. But as they did so, the bill had less and less to do with stimulus. Only about 40 percent of the money in the bill was truly stimulative, and that money was not designed to be spent quickly.

For example, according to the Congressional Budget Office, only 11 percent of the discretionary spending in the stimulus will be disbursed by the end of the fiscal year. The bill passed, but it is not doing much to create jobs this year and it will not do nearly as much as it could to create jobs in 2010.

On cap and trade, the House chairmen took a relatively clean though politically difficult idea — auctioning off pollution permits — and they transformed it into a morass of corporate giveaways that make the stimulus bill look parsimonious. Permits would now be given to well-connected companies.

The bill passed the House, but would it actually reduce emissions? It’s impossible to know.  A few years ago the European Union passed a similar  cap-and-trade system, but because it was so shot through with special interest caveats, emissions actually rose.

The great paradox of the age is that Barack Obama, the most riveting of recent presidents, is leading us into an era of Congressional dominance. And Congressional governance is a haven for special interest pleading and venal logrolling.

When the executive branch is dominant you often get coherent proposals that may not pass. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense.

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/30brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

* * * * *