Adviser Soapbox
Professional Bailout No. Six
Ron Rowland, All Star Fund Trader 09.08.08, 2:49 PM ET
Austin, Texas -
Monday brought a sense of deja vu in the markets. How many financial sector bailouts can we have in one year? Quite a few, apparently. Six times in the last 13 months, the game has changed or appeared to change due to political intervention in the markets. Let's review:
August 2007: The Federal Reserve makes emergency cut in the discount rate
December 2007: Fed announces creation of special lending privileges for banks
January 2008: Another emergency 75 basis point rate cut
March 2008: Bear Stearns bailout
July 2008: First Fannie/Freddie rescue attempt
September 2008: Another Fannie/Freddie rescue attempt
The latest action effectively brings Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under governmental control. Existing shareholders in these institutions are not, to our surprise, being totally wiped out--yet. There is still plenty of time for that to happen.
There is an even bigger loser in this transaction: anyone who owns U.S. Treasury bonds. Interest rates spiked higher, leaving the principal value of government debt sharply lower than it was last week. This is perfectly logical. Having just taken on the massive obligations of Fannie and Freddie, the Treasury's own credit rating had to take a hit. There are no free lunches.
In the big picture, the government's goal is clear: drive down mortgage rates and, more important, convince bankers to actually lend money to people who want to buy houses. Wholesale mortgage rates dropped dramatically Monday morning, so by that standard we have to say the bailout is doing what it is supposed to do. Whether the new liquidity will trickle down to individual borrowers is not yet clear.
Will the sixth bailout be the charm? The record of the last year is not very encouraging. Each action brought a market rally, but the rallies have been getting progressively weaker and shorter each time. As noted above, there are no free lunches. Risk cannot be eliminated, but it can be moved around. What is happening now is that the losses in the mortgage market are being transferred to what may be the only larger fixed-income sector: U.S. Treasury securities.
Since other kinds of bonds take their cue from the Treasury market, the bottom line is that interest rates on all kinds of debt will rise so that those who lost money in mortgage debt can be saved from loss. Is this a good thing? Maybe. But whatever it is, it is not capitalism. It is not what happens when markets are allowed to operate freely and without interference.
In a free market economy, people bear the cost of their own decisions, for better or worse. With that principle out the window, who will be next? This precedent is now in place: If an industry proves that its continued functioning is crucial to the economy and its failure will bring widespread pain, it is entitled to be saved from its otherwise inevitable demise by the collective action of society. The automobile industry is already making noise along these lines. Other applicants will no doubt follow.
For now, stocks are rallying around the globe. Monday morning's opening surge faded with remarkable alacrity, though, suggesting that at least a few investors remain skeptical. We count ourselves among them.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Post No. 41b: Television Worth Viewing
Charlie Rose on PBS: A conversation with Thomas Friedman
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/09/09/1/a-conversation-with-thomas-l-friedman
No matter what you may think of Thomas Friedman’s politics or positions, he raises some very significant points about innovation, global competition, and the future position of the United States, about which we should all be thinking. Friedman discusses his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America )http://books.google.com/books?id=FMCxKQAACAAJ&dq=%22hot,+flat+and+crowded%22&ei=0VDHSOm9JpLkywS_q9DkAw.)
We can not simply continue to sit around, argue amongst ourselves, and think that terrorists are around every corner, while the world passes us by. This is a big picture discussion. We need to come up with solutions, and Friedman at least suggests some for our consideration.
Check your local listings. On the East Coast, it aired at 11:30 am on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/09/09/1/a-conversation-with-thomas-l-friedman
No matter what you may think of Thomas Friedman’s politics or positions, he raises some very significant points about innovation, global competition, and the future position of the United States, about which we should all be thinking. Friedman discusses his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America )http://books.google.com/books?id=FMCxKQAACAAJ&dq=%22hot,+flat+and+crowded%22&ei=0VDHSOm9JpLkywS_q9DkAw.)
We can not simply continue to sit around, argue amongst ourselves, and think that terrorists are around every corner, while the world passes us by. This is a big picture discussion. We need to come up with solutions, and Friedman at least suggests some for our consideration.
Check your local listings. On the East Coast, it aired at 11:30 am on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Post No. 41a: This is a Very Special Weekend on C-Span2 BookTV
We, at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, frequently make reference to books and their authors in our articles. For those of you interested in the presidential campaigns, and getting to know the candidates better, this weekend is for you. http://www.booktv.org/
Once you click on to the link, check out the entire page, particularly those things under the section, "What's New." At least four books about Sens. McCain and Obama will be discussed, and at least two of them, "In Depth." No one should be legitimately able to say they do not know the candidates after listening to these discussions.
Did Sen. McCain show his true colors, as we suggested in Post No. 40, during his acceptance speech last night?
Once you click on to the link, check out the entire page, particularly those things under the section, "What's New." At least four books about Sens. McCain and Obama will be discussed, and at least two of them, "In Depth." No one should be legitimately able to say they do not know the candidates after listening to these discussions.
Did Sen. McCain show his true colors, as we suggested in Post No. 40, during his acceptance speech last night?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Post No. 41: Do I Have Something to Sell You!
© 2008, The Institute of Applied Common Sense
It is clear that modern day politicians and campaigns use advertising and public relations consultants in crafting their message to potential voters. We asked the Laughingman, an advertising professional with more than 30 years of experience, for his thoughts about the practice. More specifically, we inquired as to whether the utilization of such consultants served some long-term, positive, societal interests. He responded as follows.
Do I Have Something to Sell You!
I fear the learning may be going the other way...to everyone's detriment.
When the vaunted Tuesday Team, authors of Ronald Reagan's famous "Morning in America" spot, was invited to meet with Ross Perot, they brought beautifully drawn storyboards of a series of spots revisiting the Morning in America theme.
Mr. Perot asked the not unreasonable question, "How much will this cost?"
After hearing the figure, Mr. Perot's response was, "Five Million Dollars? Whose Money Do You Think That You are Spending?"
Hence Mr. Perot's pencil pointer and cardboard chart campaign, which was so effective in communicating his position on economic issues, that the Clinton administration was forced to accumulate a government surplus for the next eight years, out of fear of Mr. Perot running again.
If Mr. Perot's campaign cost more than $50 large per spot to produce, I will eat my stop watch.
If he spent even 10% of what the Republicans and Democrats spent that year on media, I will eat my rabbit ears.
Unfortunately, when you take the message out of the hands of the creative group and hand it over to the pollsters and accountants, you are guaranteed to see negative advertising. They spend millions and millions of dollars dissecting the country by voter district. Since we all seem to want the same things, namely security, stability, honesty, and the wherewithal to pay our bills, most of this research is focused on perceived weaknesses in the competition's perceptions.
Is it any wonder what they find winds up in their ads?
The funny thing is that trying to define yourself by what you aren't seldom has any effect. At best you can throw so much money at the market that the consumer becomes confused, responds with "a pox on all your houses," and goes on doing what he was doing before you spent all that money.
This strategy is supposed to work to the advantage of the dominant brand in the category...or the front runner in a political race. If you look at those who were most strident in objecting to a ban on television advertising for cigarettes, it wasn't the tobacco companies...it was the networks and big ad agencies. Similarly, Miller and Budweiser would not mind at all seeing a ban on television beer promotion...assuming such a ban would roughly freeze market share at its current levels, and allow them to trouser the better than $1 billion annually they currently piss away on Super Bowl entertainment.
More importantly, it is very hard to find any relationship between all this public mud slinging and measurable results. In fact, I have yet to see a macro statistical analysis that demonstrates that advertising causes sales. Rather, the numbers indicate that sales cause advertising.The ad industry's promises, that they could turn this situation around, produced campaigns like the pet food sock puppet, with an advertising budget two and a half times current sales...and a well and justifiably burst dot.com investment bubble.
"Boys and Girls, you need to be very careful these days about how you write your marketing plan. Being cooler or more popular than your neighbors is not a marketing objective, or a company credit, which you can sell to a bank."
Interestingly, neither Obama nor McCain had front runner status, or any money to speak of, last year. They both stayed pretty much above the mud slinging pit...and look what happened. It may seem an odd time to change strategies, but the guys advising both campaigns now come from the old, politics of division and reward, school...and risk the loss of their very lucrative careers if a Ross Perot like, issues oriented, campaign carries the election.
In the mean time, brands like Mini and Red Bull should have proved to everyone's satisfaction that it is, in fact, the product, stupid. Carpet bombing media campaigns are still trumped by clever marketing executions while the same old ad strategies position the product (animal, mineral, or political) as more of the same...and therefore not really worthy of the time necessary to learn about it...let alone try it.
For what it is worth, the single most powerful word in the advertising man's quiver remains, "New," not "Free," but new.
The consumer is not an idiot, she is your accountant.
Mud slinging suggests that we have no idea how to grow the once great American pie, so we are promising to get you more than your fair share. This kind of thinking may work in the Lake Woebegone School District, where everybody ranks above average, but it is has no place in this economic environment. Furthermore, it is an unconscionable justification to send our boys and girls in uniform into harm’s way.
So it goes...
© 2008, The Institute of Applied Common Sense
It is clear that modern day politicians and campaigns use advertising and public relations consultants in crafting their message to potential voters. We asked the Laughingman, an advertising professional with more than 30 years of experience, for his thoughts about the practice. More specifically, we inquired as to whether the utilization of such consultants served some long-term, positive, societal interests. He responded as follows.
Do I Have Something to Sell You!
I fear the learning may be going the other way...to everyone's detriment.
When the vaunted Tuesday Team, authors of Ronald Reagan's famous "Morning in America" spot, was invited to meet with Ross Perot, they brought beautifully drawn storyboards of a series of spots revisiting the Morning in America theme.
Mr. Perot asked the not unreasonable question, "How much will this cost?"
After hearing the figure, Mr. Perot's response was, "Five Million Dollars? Whose Money Do You Think That You are Spending?"
Hence Mr. Perot's pencil pointer and cardboard chart campaign, which was so effective in communicating his position on economic issues, that the Clinton administration was forced to accumulate a government surplus for the next eight years, out of fear of Mr. Perot running again.
If Mr. Perot's campaign cost more than $50 large per spot to produce, I will eat my stop watch.
If he spent even 10% of what the Republicans and Democrats spent that year on media, I will eat my rabbit ears.
Unfortunately, when you take the message out of the hands of the creative group and hand it over to the pollsters and accountants, you are guaranteed to see negative advertising. They spend millions and millions of dollars dissecting the country by voter district. Since we all seem to want the same things, namely security, stability, honesty, and the wherewithal to pay our bills, most of this research is focused on perceived weaknesses in the competition's perceptions.
Is it any wonder what they find winds up in their ads?
The funny thing is that trying to define yourself by what you aren't seldom has any effect. At best you can throw so much money at the market that the consumer becomes confused, responds with "a pox on all your houses," and goes on doing what he was doing before you spent all that money.
This strategy is supposed to work to the advantage of the dominant brand in the category...or the front runner in a political race. If you look at those who were most strident in objecting to a ban on television advertising for cigarettes, it wasn't the tobacco companies...it was the networks and big ad agencies. Similarly, Miller and Budweiser would not mind at all seeing a ban on television beer promotion...assuming such a ban would roughly freeze market share at its current levels, and allow them to trouser the better than $1 billion annually they currently piss away on Super Bowl entertainment.
More importantly, it is very hard to find any relationship between all this public mud slinging and measurable results. In fact, I have yet to see a macro statistical analysis that demonstrates that advertising causes sales. Rather, the numbers indicate that sales cause advertising.The ad industry's promises, that they could turn this situation around, produced campaigns like the pet food sock puppet, with an advertising budget two and a half times current sales...and a well and justifiably burst dot.com investment bubble.
"Boys and Girls, you need to be very careful these days about how you write your marketing plan. Being cooler or more popular than your neighbors is not a marketing objective, or a company credit, which you can sell to a bank."
Interestingly, neither Obama nor McCain had front runner status, or any money to speak of, last year. They both stayed pretty much above the mud slinging pit...and look what happened. It may seem an odd time to change strategies, but the guys advising both campaigns now come from the old, politics of division and reward, school...and risk the loss of their very lucrative careers if a Ross Perot like, issues oriented, campaign carries the election.
In the mean time, brands like Mini and Red Bull should have proved to everyone's satisfaction that it is, in fact, the product, stupid. Carpet bombing media campaigns are still trumped by clever marketing executions while the same old ad strategies position the product (animal, mineral, or political) as more of the same...and therefore not really worthy of the time necessary to learn about it...let alone try it.
For what it is worth, the single most powerful word in the advertising man's quiver remains, "New," not "Free," but new.
The consumer is not an idiot, she is your accountant.
Mud slinging suggests that we have no idea how to grow the once great American pie, so we are promising to get you more than your fair share. This kind of thinking may work in the Lake Woebegone School District, where everybody ranks above average, but it is has no place in this economic environment. Furthermore, it is an unconscionable justification to send our boys and girls in uniform into harm’s way.
So it goes...
© 2008, The Institute of Applied Common Sense
Post No. 40: Should I Vote for McCain or Obama? Hmmm, Let Me Think about That a Nanosecond
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There are two things that immediately come to mind with respect to the current Presidential campaign.
The first is that I could handle either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama being our next President. It’s all the handlers and hanger-ons about whom I am concerned.
The second is that Bristol Palin has emerged as the poster child for much that is screwed up about our political climate, and perhaps our expectations of our leaders.
The problems are much larger than this 17 year old and her family; however, the recent events should make us question some of the demands we place on our leaders and their families, and the length to which those interested in advancing their personal agendas will go. And that’s not to mention the media’s daily assembly of screamers, haters, and pitchmen to denigrate each other.
Is this collateral damage to our collective psyche really worth it? (We previously addressed this concern in early May in Post No. 3, “Some Lessons to be Learned by Our Kids in the Current Political Climate” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/05/some-lessons-to-be-learned-by-our-kids.html).
Since the name Palin exemplifies the tragedy of the day, I’ll focus on Sen. McCain in this piece. Much has been made of his campaign’s purported failure to properly investigate the background of Sarah Palin and her family. Some have even suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection, which, out of necessity, includes her baggage, may have been consciously done for devious purposes.
Sure, it’s now very clear that the campaign dropped the ball with respect to the investigation. Quite frankly, I don’t think that John McCain is subject to political whims, and I do not read him as “spin oriented.” At some point one has to feel that there wouldn’t be any need to extensively investigate someone, about whom you feel instinctively good and who has three or four basic leadership qualities, were it not necessary to prepare for the scrutiny juggernaut consisting of dissecting our candidates to determine their positions on 38 different subjects.
I think that Sen. McCain is a pretty good guy. I also think that he has, reluctantly, chosen to appear like a Bush clone, pursuant to the advice of his handlers, and the demands of the Republican Party. I suspect that they have been pressuring him to appear to be more right wing than he really is, to please the religious right and ensure that they come out and vote in November.
I also suspect that Palin was HIS pick (the Washington establishment be damned), and a transitory expression of his “free will”, after the pro-life forces rejected his other choices. Mrs. McCain was a participant in the selection process, which probably made the men in the room squirm.
This guy has traditionally been a maverick and a pain in the ass to many Republicans. His new persona got him past the primary phase. The “real McCain” will return should he be elected.
Watch him speak. He’s so rehearsed and jerry rigged that he’s uncomfortable. You can see the distress in his face, and hear the tone of acquiescence in his voice. This is not the feisty, shoot-from-the-hip, John McCain we’ve known.
I am reasonably sure that he knew that the Palin girl was pregnant before the announcement. Knowing John McCain, he probably said, “Who gives a rat’s ____.”
It’s all the dissectors out there, who, by the way, have never had to run or manage anything of any size or importance in life, who care about all of this nit-picking over minutiae. And all in an effort to have him represent their squalid, selfish, hypocritical, and often contradictory interests.
This country needs a change in many respects. To those who opposed Sen. Obama’s campaign based on change by asking “change to what?” I respond “a change to anything that advances the long term interests of the majority of our citizens, and not just the fortunate, the privileged, the lucky, and the corporate.
Why not vote out ALL elected officials nationwide? This is supposed to be a country of, by, and for the people, not big money interests. And to think that these people, on both sides of the aisle, not only quietly fill their pockets while in office, but then become consultants in areas over which they previously had regulatory and oversight responsibilities.
I think that McCain is a solid citizen, genuinely interested in doing the best for his country, and not for his personal pocketbook or that of his buddies or supporters. I, like the majority of Americans based on long standing research, really don’t care what his qualifications are. He’ll be alright when he needs to be. It’s not like he’ll function alone, without a support system. Same with Obama. I could handle either one. Additionally, as George Will reminds us, there is the inertia that is Washington.
War, and time spent in a prisoner of war camp, make one view the world from a perspective not shared by the majority of voters. The vast majority of us have never had any real trying experience, beyond our personal issues, in life. There is something about having responsibility, either good or bad, for the lives and welfare of dozens of people under your command that transforms a person. That sense of responsibility increases exponentially as the number of people for whom you have charge increases arithmetically. That’s very different than just worrying about your immediate stuff.
The next time that we flip out over some personal crisis, stop and consider how our attitude would change if the precipitating event occurred just prior to a 7.5 earthquake, or a Category 5 hurricane, or a wild fire ravaging your neighborhood; I suspect that you might have a different sense of priorities.
John McCain has been to the edge of the earth, and barely avoided falling off. That’s good enough for me.
Everyday we should recite Bogart’s line to Bergman, in the movie Casablanca, each day when we wake up.
Its time for a new paradigm.
Either Obama or McCain will be just fine, but for entirely different reasons. We should be proud of the process this election year. That the two candidates are who they are speaks volumes about the zeitgeist.
As the Laughingman once said, “Why can’t we simply let McCain, be McCain, be McCain, and let Obama be Obama?
One last note on this pregnancy issue. I’m positive that none of my baby boomer friends had sex right out of high school during the 60s and 70s. Yeah. Some of you were just down right lucky that you, or your girlfriend, managed not to get pregnant during that period. So now it’s time to judge….
Leave this gal alone. She doesn’t deserve this, even if her Mother could have avoided it.
By the way, when it is revealed who the father of the child is, please restrain yourselves. It’s a can of worms which need not be opened right now.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There are two things that immediately come to mind with respect to the current Presidential campaign.
The first is that I could handle either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama being our next President. It’s all the handlers and hanger-ons about whom I am concerned.
The second is that Bristol Palin has emerged as the poster child for much that is screwed up about our political climate, and perhaps our expectations of our leaders.
The problems are much larger than this 17 year old and her family; however, the recent events should make us question some of the demands we place on our leaders and their families, and the length to which those interested in advancing their personal agendas will go. And that’s not to mention the media’s daily assembly of screamers, haters, and pitchmen to denigrate each other.
Is this collateral damage to our collective psyche really worth it? (We previously addressed this concern in early May in Post No. 3, “Some Lessons to be Learned by Our Kids in the Current Political Climate” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/05/some-lessons-to-be-learned-by-our-kids.html).
Since the name Palin exemplifies the tragedy of the day, I’ll focus on Sen. McCain in this piece. Much has been made of his campaign’s purported failure to properly investigate the background of Sarah Palin and her family. Some have even suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection, which, out of necessity, includes her baggage, may have been consciously done for devious purposes.
Sure, it’s now very clear that the campaign dropped the ball with respect to the investigation. Quite frankly, I don’t think that John McCain is subject to political whims, and I do not read him as “spin oriented.” At some point one has to feel that there wouldn’t be any need to extensively investigate someone, about whom you feel instinctively good and who has three or four basic leadership qualities, were it not necessary to prepare for the scrutiny juggernaut consisting of dissecting our candidates to determine their positions on 38 different subjects.
I think that Sen. McCain is a pretty good guy. I also think that he has, reluctantly, chosen to appear like a Bush clone, pursuant to the advice of his handlers, and the demands of the Republican Party. I suspect that they have been pressuring him to appear to be more right wing than he really is, to please the religious right and ensure that they come out and vote in November.
I also suspect that Palin was HIS pick (the Washington establishment be damned), and a transitory expression of his “free will”, after the pro-life forces rejected his other choices. Mrs. McCain was a participant in the selection process, which probably made the men in the room squirm.
This guy has traditionally been a maverick and a pain in the ass to many Republicans. His new persona got him past the primary phase. The “real McCain” will return should he be elected.
Watch him speak. He’s so rehearsed and jerry rigged that he’s uncomfortable. You can see the distress in his face, and hear the tone of acquiescence in his voice. This is not the feisty, shoot-from-the-hip, John McCain we’ve known.
I am reasonably sure that he knew that the Palin girl was pregnant before the announcement. Knowing John McCain, he probably said, “Who gives a rat’s ____.”
It’s all the dissectors out there, who, by the way, have never had to run or manage anything of any size or importance in life, who care about all of this nit-picking over minutiae. And all in an effort to have him represent their squalid, selfish, hypocritical, and often contradictory interests.
This country needs a change in many respects. To those who opposed Sen. Obama’s campaign based on change by asking “change to what?” I respond “a change to anything that advances the long term interests of the majority of our citizens, and not just the fortunate, the privileged, the lucky, and the corporate.
Why not vote out ALL elected officials nationwide? This is supposed to be a country of, by, and for the people, not big money interests. And to think that these people, on both sides of the aisle, not only quietly fill their pockets while in office, but then become consultants in areas over which they previously had regulatory and oversight responsibilities.
I think that McCain is a solid citizen, genuinely interested in doing the best for his country, and not for his personal pocketbook or that of his buddies or supporters. I, like the majority of Americans based on long standing research, really don’t care what his qualifications are. He’ll be alright when he needs to be. It’s not like he’ll function alone, without a support system. Same with Obama. I could handle either one. Additionally, as George Will reminds us, there is the inertia that is Washington.
War, and time spent in a prisoner of war camp, make one view the world from a perspective not shared by the majority of voters. The vast majority of us have never had any real trying experience, beyond our personal issues, in life. There is something about having responsibility, either good or bad, for the lives and welfare of dozens of people under your command that transforms a person. That sense of responsibility increases exponentially as the number of people for whom you have charge increases arithmetically. That’s very different than just worrying about your immediate stuff.
The next time that we flip out over some personal crisis, stop and consider how our attitude would change if the precipitating event occurred just prior to a 7.5 earthquake, or a Category 5 hurricane, or a wild fire ravaging your neighborhood; I suspect that you might have a different sense of priorities.
John McCain has been to the edge of the earth, and barely avoided falling off. That’s good enough for me.
Everyday we should recite Bogart’s line to Bergman, in the movie Casablanca, each day when we wake up.
Its time for a new paradigm.
Either Obama or McCain will be just fine, but for entirely different reasons. We should be proud of the process this election year. That the two candidates are who they are speaks volumes about the zeitgeist.
As the Laughingman once said, “Why can’t we simply let McCain, be McCain, be McCain, and let Obama be Obama?
One last note on this pregnancy issue. I’m positive that none of my baby boomer friends had sex right out of high school during the 60s and 70s. Yeah. Some of you were just down right lucky that you, or your girlfriend, managed not to get pregnant during that period. So now it’s time to judge….
Leave this gal alone. She doesn’t deserve this, even if her Mother could have avoided it.
By the way, when it is revealed who the father of the child is, please restrain yourselves. It’s a can of worms which need not be opened right now.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Post No. 39b: And So You Thought That America Only Had to Worry About China's Ability to Make Things
Article of Interest from the New York Times:
August 31, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Postcard From South China
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Guangzhou, China
I had the pleasure the other day of visiting the delightfully named Zhuhai Guohua Wonderful Wind Power Exploitation Co. in Zhuhai, on the southern coast of China. It’s a good news/bad news story.
Op-Ed Columnist
Postcard From South China
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Guangzhou, China
I had the pleasure the other day of visiting the delightfully named Zhuhai Guohua Wonderful Wind Power Exploitation Co. in Zhuhai, on the southern coast of China. It’s a good news/bad news story.
The good news was that the Chinese engineers showed me their control room, which has a giant glass window that looks out onto their 21 wind turbines that crown the peaks of a nearby mountain. “How nice,” I thought. “China’s really starting to go green.”
But as my eye drifted just to the left of that mountain, I saw Macau, with its rising skyline of casino skyscrapers. The Venetian Hotel in Macau alone has some 870 gaming tables and 3,400 slot machines. So, I did a quick calculation and figured that those 21 wind turbines together might power the Venetian’s army of one-armed bandits for a few hours of green gambling.
That dichotomy runs through a lot of what is going on here in Guangdong Province, where 30 years ago China began its economic opening. You’re starting to see the emergence of Chinese clean-tech companies — I also visited a solar panel start-up — and real environmental awareness among officials and students. But the momentum of this region’s growth, the sheer land-of-the-giants scale of the buildings, makes the renewable energy here literally a drop in the bucket.
As a result, there is a dawning awareness that if China is to break its own addiction to oil, it will take a much more fundamental shift from the growth model that powered its first 30 years.
That model was based on two linked ideas: 1) energy was inexhaustible, inexpensive and benign; and 2) China could count on raising its living standards by forever being the world’s low-cost manufacturing workshop, based on cheap energy.
In recent years, though, fossil-fuel energy has become expensive, exhaustible and toxic, and rising wages — to some extent because of rising environmental considerations and social security requirements — have meant that the workshops of southern China are no longer the low-cost producers in Asia. Vietnam and Western China now beckon.
The only way forward, say officials, is for China to gradually develop a cleaner, knowledge-based, service/finance economy. It has to move from “made in China” to “designed in China” to “imagined in China.”
In short, the economy here has to become greener and smarter. (Sound familiar?)
In 1992, China’s coastal economic powerhouses hit a similar wall when they found they could not grow further without the government loosening travel restrictions to attract workers from all over China. So, more personal freedom to move around China was unleashed then. Now, these same provinces need to allow more “mind movement” to get to the next level.
The problem for the ruling Communist Party is this: China can’t have a greener society without empowering citizens to become watchdogs and allowing them to sue local businesses and governments that pollute, and it can’t have a more knowledge-intensive innovation society without a freer flow of information and experimentation.
What surprised me is how much the party is thinking about all this. I actually came here at the invitation of Wang Yang, the Communist Party secretary, i.e. the boss of Guangdong Province. He had read one of my books on globalization in Chinese.
Wang is also a member of the Politburo in Beijing and is considered one of the most innovative thinkers in China’s leadership today. He has been given room to experiment and has begun advocating something he calls “mind liberation” — primarily an effort to change the culture of his bureaucracy and open it up to new ways of thinking. Right now he is focused on trying to shift dirty, low-wage manufacturing out of Guangzhou to the countryside, where jobs are still scarce.
And he is trying to attract clean industries and services to the city. His goal, he said, was a more “low-carbon economy.”
“Please put it in your column that Party Secretary Wang Yang welcomes [Western] clean energy technology companies to come to Guangdong Province and use it as a laboratory to develop their products,” he told me. “We will be most willing to participate in the innovation and provide the services they need.”
So my postcard from Guangzhou would read like this: “Dear Mom and Dad, this place is so much more interesting than it looks from abroad. I met wind and solar companies eager for Western investment and Chinese college students who were organizing a boycott of an Indonesian paper company for despoiling their forest. An ‘Institute of Civil Society’ has quietly opened at the local Sun Yat-sen University. The Communist Party is trying to break the old mold without breaking its hold. It’s quite a drama. Can’t wait to come back next summer and see how they’re doing ...”
Post 39a: Reposting of May 2008 Article in Light of Sarah and Bristol Palin Pregnancy Issue
A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR PARENTHOOD
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Being that I am 56 years of age, I am often asked whether I have ever been married and have a family. My response often surprises people, but it really is the truth. At some point between my late teens and early twenties, I had this vague notion of having a family with six or seven children. I formulated that notion due to the fact that both of my parents came from families of ten kids. I observed the close knit nature of their relationships, and all of the fun and craziness that took place during family reunions.
To further contribute to my desire to have a large family, I observed my high school girlfriend’s large family, and the manner in which the older kids worked to support and raise the younger ones. At an early age, I admired the values of team work and cooperation, and generally believed that the interests of the group or unit always outweighed the interests of the individual. To this day, that is a fundamental principle underlying many of my decisions.
However, at some point, I came to the realization that there were several prerequisites to having a family, no matter the size, including dating, finding the appropriate spouse, and then actually following through with marriage. At this point, folks usually laugh and inquire as to why these were stumbling blocks. Often times, they suggest that I was unwilling to “commit,” whatever that means. Quite frankly, it is far more complex than that, since I’ve been fully committed to lots of teams, units, causes, and issues in my life – just not to one individual.
In my early thirties, I still thought that it was theoretically possible that I might one day have a family, albeit with a smaller number of children. However, my whole approach to life began to fundamentally change once I began to travel to foreign countries. My whole sense of values, good and bad, right and wrong, rich and poor, began to take on more complexity. I became less rigid in my thinking, and perhaps far too curious about, and tolerant, of virtually everything. I often told my friends that my entire worldview appeared to change roughly every two years based on my new travels and experiences.
By my early forties, I was beginning to recognize the more “pragmatic “ aspects of having a family and all that it involves, particularly from a professional and career perspective. Additionally, more and more of my single friends were deserting the ranks. There was another development that ultimately led me to conclude that I would never be “qualified” to be a parent, and consequently I decided to avoid that venture. By this time, I had seen children at all levels of society in many countries, in virtually every imaginable condition, and I became confused as to the “proper” way to raise a child.
What plays over and over in my mind is the picture and sound of kids under the age of ten, working the streets of Rio de Janeiro in the wee hours of the morning, selling chewing gum, or offering to shine your shoes, for a few cruzados. In one sense, you were stunned by the youth of these kids, and the fact that their parents, assuming that they had parents, allowed them to be out, unescorted, at that hour of the night. On the other hand, they were always savvy, sharp, enterprising, witty, spunky, and far wiser than their ages would suggest.
I then began to question, which situation was better for the kid. It also reminded me of the dilemma which my Mother often posed. Having grown up on a farm in rural Alabama during the Depression, she saw lots of poor families living in shotgun houses. However, after visiting many of her family members and friends who lived in the tenements and projects of Chicago and Detroit, she often wondered which version of poverty was preferable.
At some point I began to intellectualize the issue. This was aided by the fact that some close friends of mine, who were not particularly religious, explained how they planned to provide religious or spiritual guidance for their newborn daughter, despite their uncertainties about the whole faith issue. Using their model, I initially thought that I could provide my kids with some conceptual construct, outline the various competing factors for them to take into consideration, and assist them through the thought and decision process, utilizing something vaguely akin to the Socratic Method used in some academic settings.
However, I very quickly disabused myself of that notion. Parents have to establish clear parameters and define limits. There has to be, at varying points in time, and to varying degrees, specific amounts of black and white, and a continuum of grey. But it’s all a crap shoot, involving doing your best (perhaps with a little assistance from child psychologists, books, spiritual advisors, and close family members and friends), and we all know that there is no specific “how to” manual.
In my last article, I raised some issues about the qualifications necessary for one to run for elected office, particularly focusing on the highest office in the land, the presidency. With Mother’s Day approaching, I knew that I was going to hear a familiar statement. Hillary Clinton did not disappoint me. After her daughter Chelsea introduced her on the Saturday before Mother’s Day, Senator Clinton mentioned that one of her supporters had noted that being a Mother is the most difficult job on earth. She followed by noting that since she had done such a good job performing her parental responsibilities, handling the second most difficult job in the world would be a breeze.
We all recognize this type of statement for what it really is; however, it got me a thinking. We’ve spent the last year and a half examining, testing, questioning, scrutinizing, and just about every other “…ing” in connection with these candidates - why don’t we conduct a similar examination of potential parents before they are “permitted” to have children? Should society have some criteria? Should the criteria take the form of requirements or recommendations? Should parents have to participate in parenting courses before they screw it up?
When you stop to think about it, at least with respect to the presidency, he or she has all sorts of advisors and staff members. Additionally, the President has two other branches of government to keep him or her in check. His or her actions are relatively transparent and constantly subject to public scrutiny. We even have an impeachment mechanism for dealing with serious breaches of trust and inappropriate conduct, not to mention the court of public opinion and the media.
But the influence or impact that a President has on the citizenry is filtered, moderated, vicarious, derivative, and relatively indirect at best. Additionally, we have an opportunity every four years to reconsider our choice. On the other hand, parents have a direct, significant, immediate impact on human lives right from the day one. Most of their conduct is in private. We can all recall points in time where various government regimes have tried to control the number of children born, or their sex, or impose other restrictions. However, from a practical perspective, the parents rule, and in the event that their rule is not in the best interests of the child, it takes quite a bit of time for society to recognize it, and then to deal with it. Furthermore, society generally only deals with the most egregious cases, not the subtle ones. So why should we subject presidential candidates to more intense scrutiny than we do for those seeking to be parents?
I’ve also thought about this parental responsibility thing from another perspective, that being the legal one. For years, I have questioned the appropriateness of allowing individuals to sue business employers for various forms of discrimination, or perceived discrimination, in the workplace. You mean to tell me that a sexist or racist person all of a sudden becomes that way once they become employed by the company? And you mean to tell me that business entities, the legal fictions that they are, have the capabilities and sophistication to prevent that type of conduct once their adult employees join the workforce? What about holding the parents responsible financially? And the churches? And the grade schools? No, you say. Too impractical. But what about fairness, or comparative fault or responsibility?
Quite frankly, we all know that it is a game and a fiction inartfully crafted to serve some societal purpose, that we just don’t seem capable of addressing, or have the political will to address, in some more direct and relevant manner. My concern is that, as a general rule, games and fictions don’t serve us well very long. Their functionality lasts for brief spurts, and then we have to pervert the construct to continue to make it work. Not only is this approach not particularly efficient or effective, it engenders disrespect, by our citizens, for the system.
Getting back to presidential candidates, perhaps we should have a presidential academy which all those individuals interested in becoming president should be required to attend. By establishing such an institution, we could ensure that all of our candidates are properly trained for the job, so that we can avoid engaging in this free-for-all during which they are dissected and demonized. Perhaps that will also make us have more respect for our elected officials.
But that’s only the second most difficult job in the universe. But what should we do about the most difficult? We’re intelligent beings. We ought to be able to come up with some approaches, and not just continue conducting business as usual. We constantly try to improve in virtually every area of technology and human endeavor. Can’t we improve on this election process, and the development of parents? Or do we just leave it up to the individual prospective candidates and parents to make the call themselves, and decide that they aren’t qualified before entering the arena? I honestly don’t know. Do you?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Being that I am 56 years of age, I am often asked whether I have ever been married and have a family. My response often surprises people, but it really is the truth. At some point between my late teens and early twenties, I had this vague notion of having a family with six or seven children. I formulated that notion due to the fact that both of my parents came from families of ten kids. I observed the close knit nature of their relationships, and all of the fun and craziness that took place during family reunions.
To further contribute to my desire to have a large family, I observed my high school girlfriend’s large family, and the manner in which the older kids worked to support and raise the younger ones. At an early age, I admired the values of team work and cooperation, and generally believed that the interests of the group or unit always outweighed the interests of the individual. To this day, that is a fundamental principle underlying many of my decisions.
However, at some point, I came to the realization that there were several prerequisites to having a family, no matter the size, including dating, finding the appropriate spouse, and then actually following through with marriage. At this point, folks usually laugh and inquire as to why these were stumbling blocks. Often times, they suggest that I was unwilling to “commit,” whatever that means. Quite frankly, it is far more complex than that, since I’ve been fully committed to lots of teams, units, causes, and issues in my life – just not to one individual.
In my early thirties, I still thought that it was theoretically possible that I might one day have a family, albeit with a smaller number of children. However, my whole approach to life began to fundamentally change once I began to travel to foreign countries. My whole sense of values, good and bad, right and wrong, rich and poor, began to take on more complexity. I became less rigid in my thinking, and perhaps far too curious about, and tolerant, of virtually everything. I often told my friends that my entire worldview appeared to change roughly every two years based on my new travels and experiences.
By my early forties, I was beginning to recognize the more “pragmatic “ aspects of having a family and all that it involves, particularly from a professional and career perspective. Additionally, more and more of my single friends were deserting the ranks. There was another development that ultimately led me to conclude that I would never be “qualified” to be a parent, and consequently I decided to avoid that venture. By this time, I had seen children at all levels of society in many countries, in virtually every imaginable condition, and I became confused as to the “proper” way to raise a child.
What plays over and over in my mind is the picture and sound of kids under the age of ten, working the streets of Rio de Janeiro in the wee hours of the morning, selling chewing gum, or offering to shine your shoes, for a few cruzados. In one sense, you were stunned by the youth of these kids, and the fact that their parents, assuming that they had parents, allowed them to be out, unescorted, at that hour of the night. On the other hand, they were always savvy, sharp, enterprising, witty, spunky, and far wiser than their ages would suggest.
I then began to question, which situation was better for the kid. It also reminded me of the dilemma which my Mother often posed. Having grown up on a farm in rural Alabama during the Depression, she saw lots of poor families living in shotgun houses. However, after visiting many of her family members and friends who lived in the tenements and projects of Chicago and Detroit, she often wondered which version of poverty was preferable.
At some point I began to intellectualize the issue. This was aided by the fact that some close friends of mine, who were not particularly religious, explained how they planned to provide religious or spiritual guidance for their newborn daughter, despite their uncertainties about the whole faith issue. Using their model, I initially thought that I could provide my kids with some conceptual construct, outline the various competing factors for them to take into consideration, and assist them through the thought and decision process, utilizing something vaguely akin to the Socratic Method used in some academic settings.
However, I very quickly disabused myself of that notion. Parents have to establish clear parameters and define limits. There has to be, at varying points in time, and to varying degrees, specific amounts of black and white, and a continuum of grey. But it’s all a crap shoot, involving doing your best (perhaps with a little assistance from child psychologists, books, spiritual advisors, and close family members and friends), and we all know that there is no specific “how to” manual.
In my last article, I raised some issues about the qualifications necessary for one to run for elected office, particularly focusing on the highest office in the land, the presidency. With Mother’s Day approaching, I knew that I was going to hear a familiar statement. Hillary Clinton did not disappoint me. After her daughter Chelsea introduced her on the Saturday before Mother’s Day, Senator Clinton mentioned that one of her supporters had noted that being a Mother is the most difficult job on earth. She followed by noting that since she had done such a good job performing her parental responsibilities, handling the second most difficult job in the world would be a breeze.
We all recognize this type of statement for what it really is; however, it got me a thinking. We’ve spent the last year and a half examining, testing, questioning, scrutinizing, and just about every other “…ing” in connection with these candidates - why don’t we conduct a similar examination of potential parents before they are “permitted” to have children? Should society have some criteria? Should the criteria take the form of requirements or recommendations? Should parents have to participate in parenting courses before they screw it up?
When you stop to think about it, at least with respect to the presidency, he or she has all sorts of advisors and staff members. Additionally, the President has two other branches of government to keep him or her in check. His or her actions are relatively transparent and constantly subject to public scrutiny. We even have an impeachment mechanism for dealing with serious breaches of trust and inappropriate conduct, not to mention the court of public opinion and the media.
But the influence or impact that a President has on the citizenry is filtered, moderated, vicarious, derivative, and relatively indirect at best. Additionally, we have an opportunity every four years to reconsider our choice. On the other hand, parents have a direct, significant, immediate impact on human lives right from the day one. Most of their conduct is in private. We can all recall points in time where various government regimes have tried to control the number of children born, or their sex, or impose other restrictions. However, from a practical perspective, the parents rule, and in the event that their rule is not in the best interests of the child, it takes quite a bit of time for society to recognize it, and then to deal with it. Furthermore, society generally only deals with the most egregious cases, not the subtle ones. So why should we subject presidential candidates to more intense scrutiny than we do for those seeking to be parents?
I’ve also thought about this parental responsibility thing from another perspective, that being the legal one. For years, I have questioned the appropriateness of allowing individuals to sue business employers for various forms of discrimination, or perceived discrimination, in the workplace. You mean to tell me that a sexist or racist person all of a sudden becomes that way once they become employed by the company? And you mean to tell me that business entities, the legal fictions that they are, have the capabilities and sophistication to prevent that type of conduct once their adult employees join the workforce? What about holding the parents responsible financially? And the churches? And the grade schools? No, you say. Too impractical. But what about fairness, or comparative fault or responsibility?
Quite frankly, we all know that it is a game and a fiction inartfully crafted to serve some societal purpose, that we just don’t seem capable of addressing, or have the political will to address, in some more direct and relevant manner. My concern is that, as a general rule, games and fictions don’t serve us well very long. Their functionality lasts for brief spurts, and then we have to pervert the construct to continue to make it work. Not only is this approach not particularly efficient or effective, it engenders disrespect, by our citizens, for the system.
Getting back to presidential candidates, perhaps we should have a presidential academy which all those individuals interested in becoming president should be required to attend. By establishing such an institution, we could ensure that all of our candidates are properly trained for the job, so that we can avoid engaging in this free-for-all during which they are dissected and demonized. Perhaps that will also make us have more respect for our elected officials.
But that’s only the second most difficult job in the universe. But what should we do about the most difficult? We’re intelligent beings. We ought to be able to come up with some approaches, and not just continue conducting business as usual. We constantly try to improve in virtually every area of technology and human endeavor. Can’t we improve on this election process, and the development of parents? Or do we just leave it up to the individual prospective candidates and parents to make the call themselves, and decide that they aren’t qualified before entering the arena? I honestly don’t know. Do you?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Post No. 39: I Can't Believe You Did That - Now That You Have
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
By Guest Author, The Laughingman
To my colleague, The Logistician, in response to your earlier post about “Why Men Cheat” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-no-37-why-men-cheat-definitive.html), and the much needed Addendum (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-no-37a-addendum-to-why-men-cheat.html), both of which were generated in the wake of the John Edwards scandal:
You are either a very brave man, or a man full of that substance that makes us all better drivers, to take this subject on. Blissful monogamy is a man-made myth, based on an economic system idea that went comatose just about the time we started fighting "World Wars."
When I first read your piece, the first thing that came to mind was that “everybody does everything with somebody sometime.” How we respond to questions in the public arena is a different thing. We are animals, and genetically hard wired to respond, sexually, to some pretty strange stuff. Promiscuity protects our gene pool from annihilation from any particularly pesky, gene targeted bug. Sex itself evolved as a defense against such nasty little beasties.
With the boy and the girl of our species now approaching parity in their ability to provide for their off spring, and with the help of a plethora of misanthropic government programs, the male is fast being relegated to freelancer status.
Remember Murphy Brown?
Unfortunately, public policy having now nearly eliminated the demand for cheap menial labor, we are stuck with a welfare system that fosters the increased production of such, and comes close to prohibiting the creation of low income, two parent, households.
Don't take my word for it...spend a couple of afternoons watching the pathetic representatives of our "lower middle class," taking each other to court over cell phone bills and utility sharing agreements, in order to reap their revenge publicly, and simultaneously collect their 15 minutes of fame on day-time TV.
Even worse, many of the participants see this public pageant of promiscuity as a modern day dating game.
I include Donald and Ivana Trump as examples of all the above.
And all of these people vote...although I'm not sure about Ivana.
Monogamy is no God given right. It is the product of a functional partnership, which can only exist in an atmosphere of genuine trust...the popularity of same being inversely proportional to the demand for lawyers.
Oddly enough, in this era of damn near universal visual surveillance, most of us still think we can get away with damn near anything, without getting caught.
Not. That a show such as “Cheaters” exists, and these purported “partners” continue to frolic and cavort, tells you something.
And when the bell tolls, men honestly defend all this as a harmless following of preternatural instincts.
Women see it as a betrayal of a basic (and financial) trust.
But on day-time TV, roughly half the woman can't accurately identify the father of their children.
And it is nobody's fault - but our own.
Since very few readers of your tome appeared to get your point, I’ll make it for you, my friend. If we spent a little more time talking to our partners about what we considered a partnership; if we better appreciated the breadth of the dynamics involved; if we were just a little more honest while talking; or even considered inviting one's spouse along, when an extramarital sexual opportunity presents itself, we could cut the divorce rate in half.
(Not likely to happen...we are also genetically hard wired to keep our own genes safe...and well fed...which is why Bears and Lions kill the cubs in their proximity they know are not their own.)
Unfortunately, we might also cut the marriage (and the progeny production rate as well) in half...too.
But, we are going to have to change something, and the genetic drive that spurs us on to survive as a species may not be the best place to start.Your piece certainly got the conversation going.
Thanks...
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
By Guest Author, The Laughingman
To my colleague, The Logistician, in response to your earlier post about “Why Men Cheat” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-no-37-why-men-cheat-definitive.html), and the much needed Addendum (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-no-37a-addendum-to-why-men-cheat.html), both of which were generated in the wake of the John Edwards scandal:
You are either a very brave man, or a man full of that substance that makes us all better drivers, to take this subject on. Blissful monogamy is a man-made myth, based on an economic system idea that went comatose just about the time we started fighting "World Wars."
When I first read your piece, the first thing that came to mind was that “everybody does everything with somebody sometime.” How we respond to questions in the public arena is a different thing. We are animals, and genetically hard wired to respond, sexually, to some pretty strange stuff. Promiscuity protects our gene pool from annihilation from any particularly pesky, gene targeted bug. Sex itself evolved as a defense against such nasty little beasties.
With the boy and the girl of our species now approaching parity in their ability to provide for their off spring, and with the help of a plethora of misanthropic government programs, the male is fast being relegated to freelancer status.
Remember Murphy Brown?
Unfortunately, public policy having now nearly eliminated the demand for cheap menial labor, we are stuck with a welfare system that fosters the increased production of such, and comes close to prohibiting the creation of low income, two parent, households.
Don't take my word for it...spend a couple of afternoons watching the pathetic representatives of our "lower middle class," taking each other to court over cell phone bills and utility sharing agreements, in order to reap their revenge publicly, and simultaneously collect their 15 minutes of fame on day-time TV.
Even worse, many of the participants see this public pageant of promiscuity as a modern day dating game.
I include Donald and Ivana Trump as examples of all the above.
And all of these people vote...although I'm not sure about Ivana.
Monogamy is no God given right. It is the product of a functional partnership, which can only exist in an atmosphere of genuine trust...the popularity of same being inversely proportional to the demand for lawyers.
Oddly enough, in this era of damn near universal visual surveillance, most of us still think we can get away with damn near anything, without getting caught.
Not. That a show such as “Cheaters” exists, and these purported “partners” continue to frolic and cavort, tells you something.
And when the bell tolls, men honestly defend all this as a harmless following of preternatural instincts.
Women see it as a betrayal of a basic (and financial) trust.
But on day-time TV, roughly half the woman can't accurately identify the father of their children.
And it is nobody's fault - but our own.
Since very few readers of your tome appeared to get your point, I’ll make it for you, my friend. If we spent a little more time talking to our partners about what we considered a partnership; if we better appreciated the breadth of the dynamics involved; if we were just a little more honest while talking; or even considered inviting one's spouse along, when an extramarital sexual opportunity presents itself, we could cut the divorce rate in half.
(Not likely to happen...we are also genetically hard wired to keep our own genes safe...and well fed...which is why Bears and Lions kill the cubs in their proximity they know are not their own.)
Unfortunately, we might also cut the marriage (and the progeny production rate as well) in half...too.
But, we are going to have to change something, and the genetic drive that spurs us on to survive as a species may not be the best place to start.Your piece certainly got the conversation going.
Thanks...
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Post No. 38: There is a Battle Waging between Conservatives and Liberals in the World of Photography – Why?
By Guest Author Paul Charette
http://www.cimagery.ca/
charettephoto.blogspot.com
I was recently invited to serve as a Guest Author here after my photography-related blog was discovered by those at “The View from Outside My Tiny Window.” Because my blog revolves around photography, I thought that I would write something related. That being said, here we go!
Though the title could possibly imply it, this post has nothing to do with politics; instead, when I say conservative, I am referring to the so-called “purist” photographers, who shoot (that is, take pictures) film or digital photographs, and who then refuse to edit their photos in any way, with the mindset that it is wrong, or in some way cheating. On the other side of the spectrum, the liberal photographers are those (likely digital) who have no problem whatsoever with loading up their photos into a wide array of computer programs (though likely an Adobe product) and editing to their heart’s content.
Quite often, the conservative photographers will choose to scoff at an image that they believe has been edited to appear in its final form (even if it may not have been), perhaps thinking that the liberal photographer lacks the necessary skill to complete their vision in-camera. The liberal photographers may even scoff at the conservatives for what may be seen as a lack of vision or creativity. I ask, however, why are both sides scoffing at and looking down on each other?
Excluding photojournalistic photographers, whose duty it is to record things as they are, are we not just trying to create a form of art, something that appeals to the mind’s eye, for any number of reasons? Photography is about painting with light. We record light, and the absence of it. While manipulating it afterwards, with the help of a computer, may indeed alter the captured light, why does this result in resentment in some? The final product, generated by a liberal photographer, is just as much a piece of art or the capture of a special moment in time, as that of the conservative photographer.
Could the conservatives not learn from the liberals, and the liberals from the conservatives? We are not dealing in the political arena here, or any arena where there potentially might be adverse consequences as viewed by those standing on the outside looking in – the outcome of our work is an image that hangs on a wall, or appears in a magazine, on a website, or maybe only in a family photo album.
What could be underlying this rift between the conservatives and the liberals? Perhaps some conservatives are technology challenged, or simply resistant to change. Perhaps some liberals do not understand the methods, skills, and sense of history embodied in the conservatives, and feel threatened in some way.
Let’s all forget about how it was created or edited (or not); why not collaborate and learn from each other. Let’s just make some nice pictures.
While not a topic that is in the mainstream news, I was invited to write about anything I chose. Though I chose photography, the counter-productive and unnecessary squabbling that is happening here can also be seen in many other areas of life. Don’t sweat the small stuff.
Paul Charette
http://www.cimagery.ca/
charettephoto.blogspot.ca
http://www.cimagery.ca/
charettephoto.blogspot.com
I was recently invited to serve as a Guest Author here after my photography-related blog was discovered by those at “The View from Outside My Tiny Window.” Because my blog revolves around photography, I thought that I would write something related. That being said, here we go!
Though the title could possibly imply it, this post has nothing to do with politics; instead, when I say conservative, I am referring to the so-called “purist” photographers, who shoot (that is, take pictures) film or digital photographs, and who then refuse to edit their photos in any way, with the mindset that it is wrong, or in some way cheating. On the other side of the spectrum, the liberal photographers are those (likely digital) who have no problem whatsoever with loading up their photos into a wide array of computer programs (though likely an Adobe product) and editing to their heart’s content.
Quite often, the conservative photographers will choose to scoff at an image that they believe has been edited to appear in its final form (even if it may not have been), perhaps thinking that the liberal photographer lacks the necessary skill to complete their vision in-camera. The liberal photographers may even scoff at the conservatives for what may be seen as a lack of vision or creativity. I ask, however, why are both sides scoffing at and looking down on each other?
Excluding photojournalistic photographers, whose duty it is to record things as they are, are we not just trying to create a form of art, something that appeals to the mind’s eye, for any number of reasons? Photography is about painting with light. We record light, and the absence of it. While manipulating it afterwards, with the help of a computer, may indeed alter the captured light, why does this result in resentment in some? The final product, generated by a liberal photographer, is just as much a piece of art or the capture of a special moment in time, as that of the conservative photographer.
Could the conservatives not learn from the liberals, and the liberals from the conservatives? We are not dealing in the political arena here, or any arena where there potentially might be adverse consequences as viewed by those standing on the outside looking in – the outcome of our work is an image that hangs on a wall, or appears in a magazine, on a website, or maybe only in a family photo album.
What could be underlying this rift between the conservatives and the liberals? Perhaps some conservatives are technology challenged, or simply resistant to change. Perhaps some liberals do not understand the methods, skills, and sense of history embodied in the conservatives, and feel threatened in some way.
Let’s all forget about how it was created or edited (or not); why not collaborate and learn from each other. Let’s just make some nice pictures.
While not a topic that is in the mainstream news, I was invited to write about anything I chose. Though I chose photography, the counter-productive and unnecessary squabbling that is happening here can also be seen in many other areas of life. Don’t sweat the small stuff.
Paul Charette
http://www.cimagery.ca/
charettephoto.blogspot.ca
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Post No. 37a: Addendum to "Why Men Cheat"
Many of you interpreted our analysis in “Why Men Cheat,” to suggest that a man can simply blame his behavior on biology. That is far, far, far from what we hoped to accomplish. The goal of our blog is to encourage personal responsibility by encouraging people to take 100% responsibility for all of their actions. To the extent that we poorly communicated our message, please accept our apologies. We realized that it was lengthy; however, we also consider infidelity to be a complex issues with many components.
Our point is simply this. Cheating is not as simple as someone saying, “I want to be selfish and cheat.” All decisions and everything processed through the brain is electrochemical in nature and there biological. However, there are lots of events that occur prior to the actual cheating event. Our goal was to identify and discuss those earlier events, and help folk recognize them, so that decisions and actions to avoid infidelity could take place at an earlier stage in the process, before the strong biological urge is at its peak. Our basic point is that all people, regardless of their sex, should take responsibility, at Stage 1, before finding themselves in a compromising situation at Stage 10.
Additionally, we were trying to develop a new construct by which couples might have conversations about things in the Universe far more important than sex, which we consider to be of very little significance in the grand scheme of our potential positive influence on the planet. There is no real reason to have sex at all, if people choose not to do so. If there is no biological component to the choice to have sex, then all of us can simply stop doing so. However, once we choose to do so, or are biologically driven to do so, depending on your view, there are potential negative and positive consequences. We were simply trying to reduce the negative ones by encouraging a dialogue before any sex occurs. Additionally, society makes no progress by simply doing the same thing, the same way, over and over.
To simply label the conduct as “selfish” does not advance any societal interests, if our conduct and the response thereto simply continue. How about having couples focus their energy and efforts on something beyond themselves and beyond their personal, selfish needs, so that the time spent on the sex issue is reduced, and the time spent on advancing larger more significant interests, like finding a cure for cancer, reducing violence, inventing a process for the inexpensive purification of water, etc. are increased. We apologize for so poorly stating our goal. How about one of you coming up with a suggestion or construct for reducing the incidence of marital infidelity other than simply calling it “selfishness.” Even assuming that it is simply “selfishness,” how do we reduce that, whatever it’s source. So many out there obviously think that there is no biological component. Contribute something affirmatively positive to this discussion, other than simply attack a suggested approach.
Our point is simply this. Cheating is not as simple as someone saying, “I want to be selfish and cheat.” All decisions and everything processed through the brain is electrochemical in nature and there biological. However, there are lots of events that occur prior to the actual cheating event. Our goal was to identify and discuss those earlier events, and help folk recognize them, so that decisions and actions to avoid infidelity could take place at an earlier stage in the process, before the strong biological urge is at its peak. Our basic point is that all people, regardless of their sex, should take responsibility, at Stage 1, before finding themselves in a compromising situation at Stage 10.
Additionally, we were trying to develop a new construct by which couples might have conversations about things in the Universe far more important than sex, which we consider to be of very little significance in the grand scheme of our potential positive influence on the planet. There is no real reason to have sex at all, if people choose not to do so. If there is no biological component to the choice to have sex, then all of us can simply stop doing so. However, once we choose to do so, or are biologically driven to do so, depending on your view, there are potential negative and positive consequences. We were simply trying to reduce the negative ones by encouraging a dialogue before any sex occurs. Additionally, society makes no progress by simply doing the same thing, the same way, over and over.
To simply label the conduct as “selfish” does not advance any societal interests, if our conduct and the response thereto simply continue. How about having couples focus their energy and efforts on something beyond themselves and beyond their personal, selfish needs, so that the time spent on the sex issue is reduced, and the time spent on advancing larger more significant interests, like finding a cure for cancer, reducing violence, inventing a process for the inexpensive purification of water, etc. are increased. We apologize for so poorly stating our goal. How about one of you coming up with a suggestion or construct for reducing the incidence of marital infidelity other than simply calling it “selfishness.” Even assuming that it is simply “selfishness,” how do we reduce that, whatever it’s source. So many out there obviously think that there is no biological component. Contribute something affirmatively positive to this discussion, other than simply attack a suggested approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)