Distraction

I am surprised at how easily we allow ourselves to be distracted. Whether it is politicians, marketers or other sources, we easily take our eyes off what is truly important to us.

A great example is the recent *controversy* over the moveon.org ad involving General Petreaus. We have Americans dying and getting injured each day in Iraq with no real plan on how to effectively honor their sacrifice by providing them a clear, attainable mission. Yet, both sides are spending valuable time debating a newspaper ad. The argument has now shifted to an ad.....not good news if you or your loved one is in harm's way.

Shouldn't our effort be spent on resolving this? No, because our system now gives us people who are interested in winning elections, not in solving issues.

Unfortunate, but true...

Iraq

I have been listening to candidates, politicians, news anchors, the white house, etc....for some real insight on Iraq. Not rhetoric, not canned sound bites, but real, actionable, unbiased information. A plan, an assessment of where we are and where we should be going.

What I have come to realize, and what I hope anyone in, or running for public office does as well, is we need real leadership on this issue. We need someone who will speak to us completely unvarnished and create a plan of action that makes sense, irrespective of pubic or political fallout.

I do not have enough information, nor am I presumptuous enough to think I know the answer. I do however know real leadership when I see it.....and I do not see it from anyone of real influence on either side of the political fence.

Any candidate, politician, pundit or spokesperson who makes blanket statements (stay the course, pull out now, etc..) is pandering to us and it is high time we demand they stop insulting out intelligence.

Churchill was a leader, Lincoln was a leader, Washington was a leader. I wonder what they would have to say on this?

Home Run Record

So, Barry Bonds broke Hank Aaron's all-time home record last night and most people are discussing how this is tainted through steroids, an asterix should be affixed next to it in the record book, etc...

I have to say, I disagree. While performance enhancing drugs were illegal throughout this time, Baseball did not actively test players while having at least some tacit knowledge of their use. Unless they are prepared to revisit all aspects of the record book throughout that time, including batting titles, pitching wins, world series titles, etc..., the record should stand without qualifiers. Selectively applying this filter to only Barry Bonds and his home runs is hypocritical at best. This is not to say that people should not mention these issues when discussing this record, but they should not lay all of this at Barry Bonds' feet nor should they neglect the role of other players who likely behaved in a similar manner or owners/league officials who were not proactive in weeding this out of the sport.

One other point, people want to engage in the hypothetical * if he did not take these dugs, he would not have this record* But, hypotheticals should cut both ways. He missed almost the entire 2005 season. Had that not occurred, would he have hit the *extra* home runs he got through his supposed steroid use?

I think we are all guilty of looking for the easy target often and do not fully apply the same standards to all parties. This seems to be an example of that type of *selective morality*.

Politics Redux

I was thinking a bit about what I have read and watched recently concerning the election/candidates and almost universally, polls of some ilk were quoted liberally. Of course, candidates and campaigns use these polls (as well as their own, internal polls) to shape/grind/refine etc... their message.

I was reminded of Greg LeMond in the 1989 Tour de France. Going in to the final day of a racing, an individual time trial, he trailed Laurant Fignon of France by 50 seconds, by all accounts, a nearly insurmountable lead. Le Mond instructed his team to not provide him with split-time updates throughout the time trial. The result, he won by 8 seconds. By concentrating on only his performance and not that f his competition, he was able to produce exceptional results.

Would that philosophy translate to a political campaign? I am not advocating the candidate insulates himself from the public, but rather that he resist the urge to shape his message based on polls. No refinement/focus group/pollster *tweaking* of the message, just the unvarnished beliefs and convictions of an honest man (or woman) While maybe not the best strategy for a front runner, why not use this if you are a second tier candidate trying to make some waves?

Maybe this has been done or is being done currently, not sure.

Politics

Over the weekend I invested some time in both the republican debate as well as catching up (via Meet the Press) with the democratic candidates. Now, all of these people seem very adept at getting their point across as well as magnifying minute differences between them and their opponents. All well and good, but I was disappointed overall in the quality of candidates our system now produces. I think what I am seeking (and there seems to be many others that I speak with that share my view) is someone who has convictions and integrity but can also disagree with someone without either questioning the character/motives of that person or demonizing them and/or their supporters.

I know each candidate strives to be the *anti-cola* and the strategy of a political campaign mirrors that of a major product ad campaign by Ford/GM/Pepsi/ et al. (really, is the difference between coke and pepsi so great that it takes billions of dollars to make certain we understand it? If that were in fact the case, wouldn't the differences be self-evident the first time you tried the product?)

It seems there is room for just such a candidate. One who does not blindly support or oppose an issue. The issues that face our country and certainly every American must be more complex and nuanced then a 30 second tv ad or a portion of a stump speech wherein the candidate commits to absolutely without question oppose or support issue *a* with his or her 5/10/12 point plan.

I guess what I am saying is where is the candidate that is equal parts humble and reflective. That says, out loud, *These are my views and my ideas, but they are not in and of themselves right and my opponents are not wrong for not agreeing wholeheartedly with them. Real progress rarely comes from a single source. You must always be willing to try a fresh approach. You must surround yourself with bright, well-meaning people and collectively work to serve the public interest*

Maybe this candidate would get crushed from the weight of the others *ad campaign* approach. *Candidate *a* once voted 10 times in row to raise your taxes.....he will do it again* (paid for by the committee to shape statistics in such a way to favor our guy) Heck, maybe I wouldn't even respond well to that type of campaign. It would be interesting, however, to see it in action......

First, when there is nothing.......

What is the purpose/theme of this blog? Good question.....one with no easy answer. I hope this will be a voice for some of my thoughts and ideas. So powerful will be this forum that it will eventually change the world leading me to be widely recognized as one of the great writers of this, or any generation. More likely it will devolve in to random posts peppered with 4th grade humor and infantile observations about sports, politics and the coach of my son's current sports team. We shall see......