I'll come up with some constructive ideas on immigration reform later. For now, consider Bush's failure to craft a passable immigration reform bill, and his fracturing of the GOP base in the process.
We know that Bush doesn't change course easily, if at all. We know he likes to pick a direction and stick with it, ignoring critics and shaking off course corrections. He's done it with the Harriet Miers nomination, with Iraq multiple times, with his failed Social Security reform.
A more successful approach would have been that of a Reagan or Clinton - both were at least aware of public opinion (Clinton perhaps to excess). Both were willing to actively court critics and naysayers, and to find ways to tweak proposals to address their concerns and gather support.
Bush's weaknesses as a leader - his inability to persuade skeptics, his inability to compromise when it would help - have now overwhelmed his strengths.
It's been said that Ronald Reagan, in his first month in office, made more phone calls to Democratic US House Representatives than Jimmy Carter had made in his entire term in office. I'm guessing Bush has followed Carter's lead more than Reagan's.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Who's Really 'Sicko'
Who's Really 'Sicko'
In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years
Excerpt from the article:
"In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves."
A compelling read, and a good counter-weight to the hype around "Sicko". Too bad Moore doesn't care about facts.
In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years
Excerpt from the article:
"In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves."
A compelling read, and a good counter-weight to the hype around "Sicko". Too bad Moore doesn't care about facts.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Pork Project (OpinionJournal)
Pork Project - An earmark lesson for Washington from the states: shame.
Details the state-level move towards transparency and the political capital to be gained from opposing pork-barrel spending.
Details the state-level move towards transparency and the political capital to be gained from opposing pork-barrel spending.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Harry Reid hopes to help unions deprive workers of their right to vote
Card Trick - Harry Reid hopes to help unions deprive workers of their right to vote.
Wow - it seems that many organizations eventually come to undermine the goals they originally claimed to serve. In this case, labor seeks to victimize workers instead of empowering them. Ugly.
Wow - it seems that many organizations eventually come to undermine the goals they originally claimed to serve. In this case, labor seeks to victimize workers instead of empowering them. Ugly.
OpinionJournal - Featured Article
OpinionJournal - Featured Article - a cautionary tale of lawsuit abuse that apparently cannot be stopped short of a change in the law. Frightening.
Housing security in Hillsboro fades with economic growth - OregonLive.com
Housing security in Hillsboro fades with economic growth - OregonLive.com - an amazing story of supply and demand!
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Why it's so hard to be open minded
Most of us have noticed how human beings tend to react to "consonant" (agreeing) and "dissonant" (disagreeing) data on a topic where they have strong emotions.
The recent findings of Drew Westen et al. are that humans, when faced with data that contradicts their strongly held positions, essentially "stop thinking" (the reasoning part of the brain shuts down). Humans also, when faced with data that supports their position, "feel good" (the pleasure center of the brain lights up).
This explains the enduring popularity (in some circles) of everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore: we humans seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for being told things we already believe.
It makes phrases like "fact centered decision making" less laughable. I think we really do need to take extraordinary steps to remain open minded on topics we care a lot about - from global warming to transit to the War in Iraq.
Look at the bottom half of this article, and also here and here.
The recent findings of Drew Westen et al. are that humans, when faced with data that contradicts their strongly held positions, essentially "stop thinking" (the reasoning part of the brain shuts down). Humans also, when faced with data that supports their position, "feel good" (the pleasure center of the brain lights up).
This explains the enduring popularity (in some circles) of everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore: we humans seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for being told things we already believe.
It makes phrases like "fact centered decision making" less laughable. I think we really do need to take extraordinary steps to remain open minded on topics we care a lot about - from global warming to transit to the War in Iraq.
Look at the bottom half of this article, and also here and here.
The Need for Victims
Some time ago Camille Paglia wrote about the Democrats' (I would say Leftists') singular world view - that every situation (as I recall her saying) had to be boiled down to a three-sided morality play, containing an oppressed victim, an oppressor, and the brave (Leftist) savior who saves the victim.
Every single major Leftist hot button is couched in this form, it seems. And it carries with it a strange set of imperatives.
For one, if your world view requires victims, you're always looking for someone to play that role, whether they really fit the role or not.
If a person or group starts to become strong and self-reliant, that violates the world view - they must be pushed back into their victim role. A black person who is too successful "isn't really black". Women perpetually earn less than men because of "discrimination" not career choices.
The need for a victim is so strong that it overrides common sense and can lead to an infantilizing or dehumanizing of the target - as when Palestinians disastrously vote for Hamas, and Leftists blame it on the Israelis and President Bush.
Sometimes a particular person or group can play both roles at once, as when US soldiers in Iraq are wickedly oppressing the victimized Iraqi people, but become victims as soon as they return home and lapse into PTSD-driven alcoholism.
Why else is it that Leftists only love US soldiers when they are the drug addled, dysfunctional Vietnam veteran of so many Hollywood stories? A brave soldier who serves well - is strong and might be a threat. Such a soldier can only serve as an oppressor, or perhaps a hero (if part of a Leftist armed group).
Any US soldier - one who is strong, competent, and not furthering a Leftist cause - is a threat to the Leftist cartoon universe. So is any person or group in a victim role who starts to show signs of growing or maturing into a non-victim.
Every single major Leftist hot button is couched in this form, it seems. And it carries with it a strange set of imperatives.
For one, if your world view requires victims, you're always looking for someone to play that role, whether they really fit the role or not.
If a person or group starts to become strong and self-reliant, that violates the world view - they must be pushed back into their victim role. A black person who is too successful "isn't really black". Women perpetually earn less than men because of "discrimination" not career choices.
The need for a victim is so strong that it overrides common sense and can lead to an infantilizing or dehumanizing of the target - as when Palestinians disastrously vote for Hamas, and Leftists blame it on the Israelis and President Bush.
Sometimes a particular person or group can play both roles at once, as when US soldiers in Iraq are wickedly oppressing the victimized Iraqi people, but become victims as soon as they return home and lapse into PTSD-driven alcoholism.
Why else is it that Leftists only love US soldiers when they are the drug addled, dysfunctional Vietnam veteran of so many Hollywood stories? A brave soldier who serves well - is strong and might be a threat. Such a soldier can only serve as an oppressor, or perhaps a hero (if part of a Leftist armed group).
Any US soldier - one who is strong, competent, and not furthering a Leftist cause - is a threat to the Leftist cartoon universe. So is any person or group in a victim role who starts to show signs of growing or maturing into a non-victim.
Turbo's Leadership Development Lab
I'm pleased to be working with Larry Dennis and Turbo Leadership Systems. I'm extremely impressed with the quality of the leadership training.
It's hard to describe the training itself, and I get enthusiastic when I try. So instead, here is a video of some students recently graduated from the Leadership Development Lab:
Check out the comment at about 1:41.
It's hard to describe the training itself, and I get enthusiastic when I try. So instead, here is a video of some students recently graduated from the Leadership Development Lab:
Check out the comment at about 1:41.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
It's Not Easy Pleasing Greens
It's Not Easy Pleasing Greens asks the question - are environmentalist against capitalism or against pollution?
Me, I think they're against capitalism, and their posture against pollution is just a convenient excuse. But I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Me, I think they're against capitalism, and their posture against pollution is just a convenient excuse. But I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
