Walls And Bridges

I was really surprised this week when the Pope entered the election fray and made a comment about presidential candidate, Donald Trump, not being a Christian if he is wanting to build walls (on the Mexican border) and not bridges. 

And then the Trump campaign pointing out that the Vatican City is surrounded by what of all things...a very big wall!

We have a history in the U.S. of separation of Church and State and a First Amendment that codifies this as law. 

To me, unless a candidate is truly criminal, discriminatory, or evil in their conduct, it's not appropriate for a lofty religious figure to publicly question their personal faith like that. 

Further, when it comes to immigration this is not just an issue in America, but all over Europe now with the refugee crisis, and in many other places in the world. 

Of course, we most definitely need to welcome refugees fleeing persecution, conflict, catastrophe, or war. 

But when immigration is principally an economic migration, this is something for each nation to debate and decide for what is best for them.

This is not an endorsement of any candidate or party, but rather an acknowledgement that we shouldn't:

1) Mix religion and politics (and impose undue influence in a sovereign nation's elections)

2) Judge our neighbors faith by valid policy debates

3) Throw stones in glass houses (or walled areas as the case may be).

If building bridges is what is promoted and preferred here then the Pope and Trump should kiss (proverbially-speaking that is) and make up. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Walls And Bridges

What Would MLK Say?

Bloomberg BusinessWeek writes about how Congress orders NASA to complete a testing tower for rocket engines at Stennis Space Center that is no longer needed, since the rockets themselves were cancelled. 

The price tag of this tower is $350M!

But not to worry because NASA caught in this muddle says they will maintain the tower in case it's needed in the future at a cost of just $840,000 more a year. 

Why does this happen?

Pork barrel politics, where the the Congressmen and -women (in this case of Mississippi) don't want to lose out on the federal spending, so they make deals whereby they get what they want and others what they want for their home states--even if the taxpayers end up getting little to nothing. 

Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal that while public servants are "expected to be less selfish than the average Joe...they are [actually] the locus of selfishness."

She writes, "there isn't a staffer on the Hill who won't tell you 90% of members are driven by their own needs, wants, and interests, not America's."

Essentially what Noonan describes is a broken political system, where we elect individuals as politicians to represent us, but they take our vote of confidence and their elected office platform and instead use it to vote either for what they think should be done--not what their constituents think or want--or they work the system in order to make themselves look good and line up votes for their next run at office. 

Either way, we don't get representation of the people, for the people, with big picture strategic decisions for the future of the nation, but rather we get narrow thinking and voting driven by self-centered thinking of what's in it for me (WIIFM). 

Freedom is not free, especially when we make bad decisions to fund testing towers that are no longer needed or bridges to nowhere. 

How we fix this is by having politicians with a genuine vision of where we need to go, anchored in the thinking of the people they represent and a foundation of integrity.

The leader can create a shared vision by explaining why, what, and how and building a genuine consensus around it. 

Selfishness is not an inherent trait of politics--it can be replaced by selflessness when the greater good of the nation is placed above any one "I"--whether that be a person, party, state, or special interest. 

(Source Photo: here)

What Would MLK Say?

Righting Our National Economy

We made it through he fiscal cliff--whew!  But the economic landscape remains a minefield. 

In terms of our national debt ceiling, we already passed the $16.4 trillion mark at the beginning of the year and are on borrowed time (no pun intended) until about mid-February when we exhaust accounting gimmicks and can no longer pay our national bills. 

Then there is the elusive government budget where we are on a "continuing resolution" that funds the government at the prior years spending levels until the beginning of March; there is no agreement on what the budget should be after that. 

Finally, there is the Sequestration that was delayed from the beginning of the year to March, which will produce across the board budget cuts to government--not surgically, but sweeping cuts that will hit almost all major government spending. 

All of these budgetary and debt issues are highly contentious and politicized and involve substantial policy decisions in terms of tax reform, spending cuts, and even income and wealth distribution. 

As difficult as it is to navigate a mine field, there is genuine fear that our national luck is running out and the sides are digging in such that even if we get over another one of these hurdles (likely by another delay) or even two of these, what are the odds that we get through all three unscathed economically and with our national image and strength intact?

Already in August 2011, S&P lowered the U.S. credit rating because of these unresolved issues and political stalemate around them, and Moody (in September 2012) and Fitch (this past week) threatened the same putting us at risk of higher borrowing costs, inflation, and even recession. 

Bloomberg BusinessWeek (3 August 2011) using game theory seemed to advocate for political compromise--that produces a "deal no one likes" but avoids pure political victory by one party over the other where one party gives in and the other holds out, and also avoids "financial Armageddon" where both sides hold out and can't get any deal done at all. 

In games of "chicken" both sides "entertain the option of killing everyone" until they finally realize this results in mutually assured destruction (MAD). 

In Washington "everyone, however, is playing a game called 'election'" and "the only possible goal in that game is to win the next one"--in this game, the real question--is there the leadership to rise above the politics, the short-term focus, and bring the two sides together in compromise to forge a path through a difficult economic road ahead. 

Truly, there is really only one way ahead and it is through national sacrifice that will spare no one, but may save the country and our ideals and make us stronger in the end. We are at a dead end for kicking the can further--next step must be to right the ship through cooperation and making the tough choices.

Just like the Washington Monument is one, we must become one. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Righting Our National Economy

Here's To Tomorrow

I was trying to get this photo of the beautiful sunset.

Instead, I ended up getting this wierd juxtaposition with this guy on the train.

And he is is looking like it's been kind of a rough day.

Election is almost over...who won? 

The sun will rise tomorrow and people will be looking more settled knowing the indecision and waiting--and election commercials--are over. 

Here is to tomorrow. ;-)

Here's To Tomorrow

Voting Firsts

With voting, this was the first time I've ever:

- Voted early--even though it was on the last early voting day.

- Had to wait on any sort of real line to vote--this one was about 30 minutes long!

- Waited outside in the cold on a line snaking around the building--until the election volunteers had a heart and let us all in and out of the cold. 

- Had electioneering occurring right outside at tables and people handing out "information" until maybe 25 feet before the doors of the polling center--in the past, this activity was always kept far away and and they didn't have the nerve to approach you as you were literally going inside the polling stations. 

- Got to sit down at a voting machine--always had to stand up previously, but from the sitting position and the "ergonomics" of the voting machine, you could hardly see them properly. 

- Had virtually no voting privacy--the machine faced the walls with the touch screens facing inward towards everyone else in the auditorium.

Despite all these voting firsts and most of them disappointing, the one voting first that I would have liked to see and didn't was Internet voting, where we would usher voting into the 21st century with ease of voting, convenience, and privacy. 

For some reason we can bank, shop, and pay taxes online, but to vote, we're still stuck in the dark ages and it seemed like overall it was getting darker. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Voting Firsts

And She Was...

Seeing and hearing the candidates continuous jockeying for the women's vote in their speeches, debates, and commercials, it was sort of funny to see this sign hanging in a local store. 

Anyway, I don't know who the "she" is in this advertisement--but I think it refers to basically all women--and the description is supposed to be the many positive attributes they have--professionally and personally. 

Regardless of the adjectives, maybe the point is to respect, appreciate, and treat women properly in every way--and not just at election session. 

And to recognize that you can't charm their vote, you must earn it with truth, trust, and equality. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

And She Was...

Ominous Sky

This was the skyline in Washington D.C. this past week. 

I have never seen anything quite like it. 

You can clearly see the grey clouds forming overhead. 

And the contrast with the clear sky off in the back. 

The trees along the train tracks provide almost an end of days feel--just a few standing.

There is a guy on the train on the right with his head bowed back against the train doors--is he feeling sick, tired or just down with the weather. 

This picture was taken one day before the second Presidential Debate, only weeks before the election, months before we come up on the "fiscal cliff," and perhaps only a few seasons before as they say, Iran gets "the bomb."

Where is this train taking us, what are we going to do to solve the sizable problems ahead, and will these dark cloud lift or settle in on us?

Hope and pray that G-d gives us the good fortune to succeed in these trying times and that the sun shines bright again for all of us soon. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Ominous Sky

Go Curly!

This was a funny picture hanging around a local eatery in D.C--at election season.

Curly for President--sort of reminded me of when I was in grade school and had a head full of curly hair and some of the other kids (especially the females in the class) fondly called me "chief curly chicken"--yeah, it stuck for about a year or two. 

Anyway, maybe this is something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on: the three Stooges--Moe, Larry, and Curly--were pretty darn funny. 

With the big looming issues facing America today (exploding national deficits, high unemployment, endangered social programs, declining global competitiveness--now 7th, and more), we can certainly use a little humor to get past it, along with a good dose of strong leadership and breakthrough solutions. 

Whoever you vote for--keep smiling!  :-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Go Curly!

Voting, The 7-Eleven Way

Want to know who is going to win the Presidential election? 

Just ask 7-Eleven!

With the rollout of 7-Election, they have accurately predicted the last 4 elections.

So get out and cast your...cup of coffee?

The red is for Romney and the blue is for Obama (and there are neutral cups for those still undecided voters). 

So far, from what I can see here, this is literally neck and neck.  

My best guess is that the donuts sell out first--especially the chocolate eclairs.

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of any candidate or coffee/donut. 

Happy Friday folks!

(Source Photo: Dannielle Blumenthal)

Voting, The 7-Eleven Way

Feminist Power

In the spirit of the election season, this was a funny/serious display of feminist bravado in Washington, D.C. 

Having a big feminist in my family--my wife--I can emphasize with the majority emphasis here.

As my dad says when an issue comes up: "you better ask your better half." 

Let's just say, I've learned after more than 20 years of marriage--that feminism is alive and well--and something to be respected and feared. :-)

Hope you enjoy!

Andy

Feminist Power

It's The Right Thing To Do

In election season, there is a lot of confusing messaging and as citizens, we are left trying to figure out where to go with our country's leadership next. 

The rhetoric is heating up as each side tries to outdo the other on why they are right and the other side is wrong on the issues and who will be better at leading us into the future. 

- But where is the negotiation, balance, compromise, and win-win for all the people? 

Then of course, there is the blame game that seems to go on too, with politicians saying things aren't getting done because of partisanship or this administration or that's mistakes--this is the finger-pointing. 

- What ever happened to the buck stops here? 

Related, we have others that won't even admit what they've said or where they stand on the issues--first, they may just try to deny it and say they never said it, and perhaps later, they admit they said it, but they didn't mean it quite that way--like, it's a sound bit taken out of context. 

- Is this conviction or just playing to the audience? 

Finally, what are candidates even trying to sell us when they are electioneering--slogans, potshots, sleight-of-hands, political publicists or genuine direction for how to make this country great.

- Is it a person, a party, or a platform that we are even voting for and how does race, ethnicity, sex, religion and so forth factor in to the votes? 

Some commentators, like Peggy Noonan, have rightfully said (Wall Street Journal, 18-19 June 2012) that candidates must find a theme that people can sensibly grasp unto--something that gives a "sense of meaning" for their run.

Ultimately, we need to know who the candidates are as human beings--what is in their soul--what do they really think--and most important, what will they actually do, if they have the power. 

A few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial called "Four Words that Moved The World: 'Tear Down This Wall'"--those where the words uttered by then President Ronald Reagan on June 12, 1987 in a speech in front of the Berlin Wall. 

Reagan told his deputy chief of staff that even though some would be mad at him for saying it, "it's the right thing to do." 

Those six words are even more powerful than the four in his speech, because, especially as a leader, doing--not just saying--the right thing, is everything!

The hard part, as voters, is figuring out who will do what the right thing when they are called on. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Randy Robertson)

It's The Right Thing To Do

Democracy Built On More Than Hoya

There is a funny joke that is timely for election season, and it goes something like this...

"It was election time and the politician decided to go out to the local reservation and try to get the Native American vote. 

They were all assembled in the Council Hall to hear the speech. 

The politician had worked up to his finale, and the crowd was getting more and more excited.   

'I promise better education opportunities for Native Americans!' The crowd went wild, shouting 'Hoya! Hoya!'.   

The  politician was a bit puzzled by the native word, but was encouraged by their enthusiasm. 'I promise gambling reforms to allow a Casino on the Reservation!'  'Hoya! Hoya!' cried the crowd, stomping their feet.   

'I promise more social reforms and job opportunities for Native Americans!' The crowd reached a frenzied pitch shouting 'Hoya!  Hoya!  Hoya!'   

After the speech, the Politician was touring the Reservation, and saw a tremendous herd of cattle. Since he was raised on a ranch, and knew a bit about cattle, he asked the Chief if he could get closer to take a look at the cattle. 

'Sure,' the Chief said, 'but be careful not to step in the hoya.'"  :-)

So when candidates get on their soapboxes and promises are being made on the left and on the right, you can only but wonder what is a promise that is sincere and will be kept and what is a promise that is for garnering votes and will be ignored. 

When the mic is unknowingly on and you hear something you weren't meant to hear, it is hard not to wonder about true intentions. 

The New York Times calls these "moments of political candor," while the Wall Street Journal (30 March 2012) calls it "moment[s] of political contempt."  

The Journal asks why we would not be told the truth about intentions with the implication that it is something that the candidates do not want us to know or that we would not approve of. 

Who are these candidates really? Does anyone really know when words are but bargaining chips for winning elections, rather than true commitments of the heart. 

It is scary, when the truth is obscured by empty words that change with the audience, and then votes end up based on false promises, vagaries, and disappointments.

When it comes to elections--Is the truth out there? Does it exist? 

People deserve candor, sincerity, and to know where candidates really stand on the issues, so they can vote for what and whom they really believe in.

Democracy is built on more than rolling hills and valleys filled with hoya--the truth is it's foundation. 

(Source Joke: here and Source Photo: here)

Democracy Built On More Than Hoya

The Power of Marketing and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture is all about planning and governance to enable organizational success. But despite all the astute architectural planning and sound governance, why is it that the better product so frequently loses out to better marketing?

We’ve seen this happen with the more innovative and better functional Apple products losing out to Microsoft. We seen VCRs beat out Betamax, even though at the time Betamax was seen as the superior format. And again, we’ve seen CDMA become the dominant cellular network standard in the USA, despite GSM initially being the superior technology and had 73% worldwide market penetration.

Now once again, the superior product has lost in the market and is no longer being made, the Hydrox chocolate sandwich cookie made by Kellogg Company has lost out to the inferior Oreo cookies made by Kraft Foods Inc.

The Wall Street Journal, 19-20 2008 reports that ”The Hydrox Cookie is Dead, and Fans Won’t Get Over It.”

Hydrox enthusiasts “preferred Hydrox’s tangy, less-sweet filling. Many fans seem to remember that the cookies held together better than Oreos when dipped in a glass if cold milk. Some argue Hydrox cookies were more healthful than Oreos, since Oreos used to contain lard.” In fact, in a 1998 taste test by Advertising Age, 29 tasters voted for Hydrox and only 16 for Oreo. Yet despite these preferences, Hydrox lost out to “the dominant Oreos, one of the country’s best-selling snack foods.”

“For many years, the contest between Oreo and Hydrox was akin to that of Coke versus Pepsi, the Beatles again the Rolling Stones, dog people and cat people.”

In the end, Hydrox lost to Oreo; “Oreo had all the advertising, but those in the know ate Hydrox.” Over the years, Nabisco (now owned by Kraft Foods) had the far larger marketing budget, and Hydrox was discontinued in 2003.

Fans still hope that “Kellog changes its mind, especially since this year is the cookie’s 100^th anniversary.”

So is marketing stronger than product, like the pen is mightier than the sword?

This lesson seems pertinent in a presidential election year, where fund raising by candidates and advertising by them is seeing reaching astronomical levels. “After nine months of fundraising, the candidates for president in 2008 have already raised about $420 million. This presidential money chase seems to be on track to collect an unprecedented $1 billion total. By some predictions, the eventual nominees will need to raise $500 million apiece to compete--a record sum.” (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp)

So will the best candidate win to be the next president of the United States or simply the candidate with the deepest pockets and best marketers?

From a User-centric EA perspective, I find this contest of product versus marketing to be akin to content versus design in developing EA information products. For example, an EA program can have wonderful and valuable EA information content, but if it does not employ User-centric EA principles of design and communication (such as using profiles, models, and inventories or information visualization and so on), then the EA program will not reach its potential. Every consumer product has both content and design or product and marketing. The high-end luxury companies have learned this lesson well and often capitalize on this by offering products with superior design, flair, packaging, and marketing and are thus able to develop formidable brands and command superior prices. So a word to the wise, do not ignore the power of marketing, communications, and design as part of your EA or other product development endeavors.

The Power of Marketing and Enterprise Architecture