Why I LIke Ike

“Moderation shall rule in all things except exact sciences and morality”                         

 Dwight David Eisenhower

A friend recently asked me which President during my life was my favorite. Easy, I said, I like Ike. I usually get a blank stare when I say this and this time was no exception. Many of my contemporaries, Baby Boomers, have little memory of Eisenhower’s administration other than nostalgia – egg crèmes, tail fins, pastel colors, hoop skirts and the like. Those are my memories too. However, I love history and the 50’s provide some interesting perspectives.

Many people think of Ike as a “do nothing” President. By the end of his second term, he was old and ill having survived a heart attack while in office. Energetic and thriving, the WW II generation (“… born in this century…” as JFK put it) were anxious to move on. JFK’s “vigor” (or, “vigah” as he famously said it with his Boston accent) seemed like just the ticket. Ike’s image wasn’t helped by the televised White House tour hosted by Jackie Kennedy in 1962 in which she pointed out the damage to the Oval Office floor from Ike’s golf cleats. He apparently liked to practice his putting from time to time.

Do-nothing? Well, one thing he didn’t do is get us into Vietnam after the French were defeated by the Viet Cong in 1954. Also, he didn’t send troops to Hungary in 1956 to fight the Soviets as many conservatives wanted him to do.

Eisenhower was motivated to run for President because he wanted to ensure that international institutions created after WW II were preserved – NATO, the United Nations. The conservative wing of his party, led by Robert Taft, was "non-interventionist". I don’t know if there were rumors of black helicopters but the sentiment springs from the same well.

Here are some things that do-nothing Ike did. He ended the armed conflict in Korea. He initiated the development of the interstate highway system, joined the space race through the establishment of NASA, paid down the extensive debt from WW II and ran a balanced budget. He eschewed party politics, leaving that burden to his Vice President. Absent politics, how did he decide the best course? In his own words:

“I have one yardstick by which I test every major problem - and that yardstick is: Is it good for America?”

I had the extraordinary privilege of attending a dinner last week at which the guest speaker was US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The event, arranged by good friend and colleague, Phil Bakes, and sponsored by The Strategic Forum was awe inspiring. Moreover, Justice Breyer gave us another reason to like Ike.

The Justice, who carries a copy of the US Constitution in his coat pocket, cited the Federalist Papers to provide context for the establishment of the Supreme Court. The framers were concerned about the court having too much power, it seems. They were finally persuaded that the Court represented no threat. After all, they had no power of the purse or to order military action.

The power of the Court was put to the test in 1830 when it found that the Cherokee Nation had rights to the land it occupied in Georgia. What did President Andrew Jackson do? He ignored the Court’s ruling and evicted the Cherokees anyway. Their journey west to Oklahoma along with other tribes, Creeks, Choctaw and Seminole, was called the Trail of Tears as roughly half the Native Americans didn’t survive the trip.

Now, I knew all that. What I didn’t know was that this was the first of many Court rulings that Presidents over the succeeding 125 years chose not to enforce. The Court having no military or financial authority was powerless. Until the 1954 Brown v. the Board of Education, that is.

The Court’s ruling led to the order to integrate the public schools in Little Rock. Governor Orval Faubus defied the Federal government. Southern congressman warned the President that if he sent in troops, he would have to “occupy” the entire South. Ike’s response? He sent in the 101st Airborne Division. Not only did he force the integration of schools, but he also firmly established the authority of the US Supreme Court by, finally, giving their rulings the force of law.

The Supreme Court is a lightning rod that attracts most of the electricity around emotional issues the Congress hasn’t the courage to address. Yet, that is the role envisioned by the framers. Someone needs to look at laws objectively with the objective of deciding if those laws comply with the intent of the Constitution. Eisenhower’s LEADERSHIP defied the politically expedient course.

Justice Breyer held the audience in the palm of his hand for about an hour. I think everyone took something different away from the evening. The history lesson for me was that it was Ike’s LEADERSHIP that gave the US Supreme Court the force of law.

Eisenhower was a conservative at heart. A reading of history informs us that he saw government’s role as limited to national security, assuring equal justice under the law and responsibility for the basic prosperity of our country. That said, he refused to follow the reactionary course encouraged by some members of his party. He, also, worked against fellow Republican, Joseph McCarthy.

And, that’s why I LIKE IKE.

Which modern President is your favorite? I would love to hear from you. Please scroll down to leave your comments.

Time to Call the Plumber?

Loose lips sink ships.


 Advice given to service men and women during WW II



It’s kind of amazing to think about it but prior to World War II, there were no rules provided to members of our military on what they could and couldn’t communicate to people outside their unit.  I assume it was a little easier to be a spy before that time.

Espionage has been around for centuries, of course. There is evidence that the ancient Egyptians used agents to assess enemy forces. And, the very quotable Sun Tzu said, “It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you…. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used”.

Leaking is different than spying. Pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, famously published (leaked?) information about a secret alliance between the Americans and the French, which was news to the British at the time. He was forced to resign as secretary to a committee of Congress.

French revolutionary, Joseph Fouche, is often credited with establishing the first government institutions dedicated to espionage. He was a popular guy by the time Napoleon began his campaign.

During the Civil War, the Confederacy developed an extensive network of spies who were managed from an office in Richmond down the hall from Jefferson Davis. One agent brought a copy of the Philadelphia Enquirer to General Robert E. Lee outlining troop movements by Union General McClellan. Lee cancelled his battle plans and moved his own forces to counter the moves.

The CIA is perhaps more famous for its failures than its successes. (How would we know about their successes?) There was the Bay of Pigs, of course. And, the CIA missed important developments leading to India getting the bomb in 1974, the collapse of the USSR and the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

While the Iraq war continues to have daily impact on the United States, those other events of the last 50 years are now part of history. It is unlikely that a Wikileaks event would have changed the outcome. There are inexorable forces at work that will affect our security long after this controversy becomes part of the history books. So, it strikes me that we need to take a long term view of Wikileaks.

It is important that we pay careful attention to the interests of Russia in Eastern Europe. During the Cold War, the Iron Curtain represented the western most boundary of the Russian sphere of influence in their entire history. Conversely, the current western border of Russia is set more to the east than it has ever been. Noting that Vladimir Putin is an “alpha dog” should surprise no one, least of all Vlad. What he might do next could surprise us all.

China’s economic growth rate is unsustainable in the long term. The cracks are already starting to show. Yet, they continue to be the single most important influencer in Asia. Are we prepared to deal with both the short term and long term developments?

The Arab world has been unstable for decades. Their only economic asset is oil. They have no middle class to speak of and the ongoing Jihad makes even our best allies suspect over the long term.

And, then there’s Korea……

Nothing that Wiki leaked will have a serious impact on these inexorable trends.

At the end of the day, it reminds me of when your high school teacher intercepted a note being passed around the class and read it out loud. A little bit of name calling and characterizations that are embarrassing to hear out in the open but no real harm done in the long term. (I suppose kids send text messages now. What’s a school teacher to do?)

There were two things that really struck me during the airing of all this gossip. When I was a young military officer, I had a Top Secret clearance. It was granted to me because I had access to encrypted messages. However, during my brief career in uniform, I never once saw any Top Secret information. Why? Because I didn’t have a “need to know”.

So, how is it that a private first class in the US Army had access to all this information? Did he really need to know what was being said between the Ambassador to Pakistan and the Secretary of State? What possible purpose could that serve?

My second observation has to do with LEADERSHIP. Despite our hyper partisan political environment, the opposition Republicans refrained from attacking the administration’s policies. It was a rare display of LEADERSHIP on their part.

“You don't lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not leadership.”
                                          ----  Dwight D. Eisenhower

Little Brother is Running Things Now

The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun.

-- George Orwell, British author

Boy, did this guy get it wrong! (Other than the part about the earth and the sun) Those of us who grew up in the 50's, 60's or 70's read Orwell's famous novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, with fascination. It was intended as an attack on totalitarian regimes and was a cautionary tale. However, its depiction of post-WW III life was often taken as commentary on modern society.

And, we can find ample evidence of its ironies everywhere. We need go further than Jon Stewart's or Steven Colbert's nightly TV shows for a catalogue of the day’s "Doublethink" and "Newspeak". Many of the invented terms from the novel were adopted in popular speech. Indeed, the term Orwellian is often used to describe subjugation by the "Thought Police". Moreover, Orwell's home city of London is intensely surveilled by cameras in every public place. Big Brother is, indeed, watching us.

However, Orwell's core theme -- that technology would permit the state to control the actions of its citizens -- has proven to be the opposite of our current condition.

Technology -- specifically, the Internet -- has enabled the masses to effect leadership from the grassroots level. Examples abound.

CEO's for Cities is a web-based community of people driving change in urban environments. Their bottoms up approach has achieved results in Portland, OR, Chicago, IL and New York. So far.

Maryland based Kapston Corporation, a marketing company, has started a non-profit Internet initiative to support green business.

Cancer.im has as its mission "to empower every cancer patient regardless of their ability to pay, with the ability to research their disease and assist in finding, organizing and managing their own cancer support network".

Last June, Think Social, a NY based non-profit, hosted a one day conference the goal of which was to “explore how social & mobile media are empowering corporate citizenship to create social & environmental change.

None of these efforts rely upon support from taxpayer dollars. There is no hierarchy imposing control of the process. The success of each is based upon the initiative of its participants. The technology enables their success rather than hindering it.

Can you think of any examples of LEADERSHIP emanating from the Internet? If so, I would like to hear from you. Please scroll down to post your comments.

Who's Steering the Boat?

Help one another for we are all in the same boat.


Chinese Proverb



In 1405, Chinese Admiral Zheng began the first of seven voyages of exploration and conquest in the western Pacific and South Seas. Eighty-seven years later, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. He had to “pitch” his idea to Queen Isabella who granted him enough money to build four ships to cross the ocean on a westerly route to India. Admiral Zheng had a fleet of over 300 ships and a crew totaling 28,000. Columbus had a crew of about 150 on all four ships.

The largest of Columbus’ ships was about 100 feet long. Zheng’s longest ship was over 400 feet, slightly smaller than a modern US Navy frigate. It functioned like a small city, carried an Army, horses and provided relative luxury. Columbus Spartan ships provided an atmosphere that led to near mutiny.

Never heard of Admiral Zheng? Well, maybe that’s because the new emperor decided the venture was too expensive to continue in 1433. He decreed that anyone who built a ship with more than two masts would be executed. Just as Europe was beginning to expand its influence through colonization of North and South America, Africa and Australia; the Chinese shut out the rest of the world.

British economist, Angus Maddison, estimated that in the mid-14th Century, GDP per capita in Europe and China were about the same – around $600 in today’s dollars. Over the next six centuries (to about 1950), China’s GDP per capita remained about the same. During the same period, Western Europe increased by 600 percent. Such is the impact of free trade, liberal institutions and openness to innovation. China, by remaining closed to the rest of the world, missed the industrial revolution and failed to grow. Even today, the majority of Chinese live in poverty.

The U.S. has engaged the nations of the world in international trade to our benefit and theirs. While we continue to lead the world in pharmaceuticals, technology, food production and financial services, Europe and the developing world have benefited from U.S. consumers purchasing everything from Japanese electronics to French wine to Italian shoes.

President Obama’s trip to Asia has been widely covered by the press. There was lots of discussion about the weaker dollar, Chinese currency manipulation, quantitative easing, etc. I suggest you do not let all the noise detract from the President’s core message: The world’s exporting nations cannot continue to rely upon US consumer spending to support their economies.

This is not a blog about economics. However, I would like to offer an arithmetic lesson. GDP is the sum of government and consumer spending plus private investment plus net exports. So, if you live in a net exporting country (Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Korea), your GDP can grow with less government and consumer spending than a net importing country (the US and the rest of Europe). Got that? Exports good!  Imports bad!

So, when the President mentions “global imbalances” that’s what he is talking about. We have been “imbalanced” on this score for about 30 years.

Our trading partners complain that the Fed’s policy will weaken the U.S. dollar making their exports less competitive. While the weaker dollar will, over the long term, increase our total exports, it will also be painful for U.S. consumers. Commodities – primarily food and fuel – will increase in price. Other impacts are less well understood. The Fed’s program has never been tried before; so, there are bound to be some unintended consequences.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, we are going through our own balancing act. Households have become net savers again. Burned by the recession and scared to death of losing our homes and livelihoods, we are paying off credit card debt and saving for retirement. That reversal has benefits for individuals, families and the financial stability of our economy. But, it does little to pull us out of the doldrums.

The final – and biggest – balancing act is the responsibility of government. Will the new Congress get our house in order? Will the President tack to the middle? Who knows? The President’s commission chartered to balance the budget has some ideas. Some very painful ideas. The pundits pronounced their plan dead on arrival. But no serious economist or budget expert thinks we can get on track without lots of pain. The politicians all promise to balance the budget, reduce taxes and leave entitlements alone all while we are fighting two wars overseas. But, it simply can’t be done.

So, the long and short of it is that we are in for a lot of pain. Higher taxes, reduced entitlements, reduction or elimination of popular government programs, lower defense spending and on and on.

But, you knew all that, right? Why am I telling you this? Well, it’s because there’s something missing.

Politicians warn that our profligate spending will result in a massive debt burden for our children and grandchildren. But, no one has laid out a vision of the future for the generations that succeed us. Why go through all the pain if we can’t see a better world on the other side of this crisis? Someone (gee, maybe a President) needs to provide us a believable picture of what life in the United States of America will be like in 2030 or 2040.

Moreover, we need more than a vision, we need a plan. To be competitive in the global economy, we need better educated children, less reliance on foreign energy, investment in R&D and a business environment that encourages innovation.

How do we get there? What are the key elements? What’s the plan? How much will it cost? Where will we get the money?

Or, to put it another way, WHO WILL LEAD?

The Rise of the Comedians

        “Should Jon Stewart Have Called the President ‘Dude’?”

                       
                    Question posed by WSJ.com, the website of the Wall Street Journal

It was extraordinary. With only six days left till the mid-term elections, the President of the United States, POTUS to his friends, appeared live on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. The “Fake News” program has risen in the ranks of media to this lofty position. And, Stewart did, indeed, call the President “dude”. Personally, I think “His Dudeness” would have been more appropriate. But, that title was taken by the Big Lebowski and I would hate to have the image of Jeff Bridges in his boxers and robe in my head when thinking of the President.

But, the grand finale of his week of live TV in DC was not his chat with the President; it was the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” held on the Washington Mall on Saturday. The event was also broadcast live on the Comedy Channel. It was mostly music and typical Comedy Channel stuff – a few laugh out loud jokes interspersed with a few hundred not funny jokes. But, Stewart had a serious intent as well. Not wanting to take sides in the culture war, he went after the press.

“The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic.”

That was one of the LOL moments. It’s funnier when you hear it than when you read it.

That 200,000 people showed up is not just a measure of Stewart’s impact as a comedian but rather a measure of how he has become an arbiter of, well, sanity.

It wasn’t always this way. Mark Twain is often given credit for being America’s first “humorist”. He had a way with a one liner. But, his comments were not personal in nature. In a sense, his lines were simply proverbs with a barb. Proverbs have been around for centuries. “A fool and his money are soon parted” was written by Thomas Tusser in the 16th Century.

In the century before Twain, Ben Franklin was prolific in the same form:

“Well done is better than well said.”

So, while Twain added politics to the form, he didn’t change the form itself:

“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”

Even Will Rogers, who sounds funnier to our more modern ears, didn’t really get personal:

“A fool and his money are soon elected.”

It wasn’t until after WW II that things started to turn personal. Here’s Bob Hope:

“I don’t know what people have against Jimmy Carter. He’s done nothing.”

More contemporary is Jay Leno:

“According to New York publishers, Bill Clinton will get more money for his book than Hillary Clinton got for hers. Well, duh. At least his book has some sex in it.”

But, Stewart has taken the form to a whole new level. His event, in some part, might have been called a “Rally from the Back of the Classroom”. All that was missing was the spitballs. However, the underlying thrust was quite serious. The country has serious problems and the numbskulls in government enabled by the media are not addressing those problems.

“Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers or real bigots and Juan Williams… is an insult, not only to those people but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate…”

Post event, Stewart and his partner in crime, Steven Colbert, denied any intent besides pure entertainment. Smart move! If they had expressed a grander goal, they would no doubt be excoriated for their ambition. The better tactic is to sit back and let the message sink in. We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. But, to maintain our own sanity, we know you have to laugh or you’d cry.

In a sense, Stewart has become a LEADER. By filling an obvious void, he has demonstrated that there is an appetite for something other than the insanity that our political parties – or the Tea Party – offer us. He has shown us an opportunity. Who will step into the breach? Or to put it another way, WHO WILL LEAD?

An Election Weekend Special Edition

“It’s time for a center right party that is truly fiscally conservative, truly believes in limited government and is truly socially liberal. A party that is interested in reaching the Center as much as it is in reaching the Right.”

• Dennis Sanders, blogger at www.bigtentrevue.org

Anyone who reads this blog from time to time knows that I don’t lack for opinions. Or as my third grade teacher put it to me, “you have an answer for everything”. I thought that was the idea.

However, this weekend I am stumped on one big issue. So, I am posting this a bit off schedule. Why? Because I need your answers to a question to inform me before I go to the polls.

By way of background, I should tell you that most of my friends and colleagues are Republicans. I am a businessman and that’s who I hang around with. So, over these last few weeks, I have asked many of them this question:

The pollsters have been telling us that the nation’s voters are center-right. Specifically, they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. So, why is it that Tea Party, right wing conservative Republican candidate, Marco Rubio, is leading independent, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, Charlie Crist, in the polls in one of the biggest swing states in the country?

Most of the answers I get are incomprehensible. Not that I don’t understand what the responder is saying. Just that the responses make no sense.

Got a clue? If so, I want to hear from you. Please scan down to Comments to leave your reply.

And, no matter what you think, please vote on Tuesday, November 2.

It Doesn't Sound So Loonie to Me.....

"Both Parties seem to be infected with, among other maladies, an acute case of Not Invented Here-itis…."

 David Hay, Chief Investment Officer of Evergreen Capital Management

I have endeavored to bring a new twist to each topic as I write this almost weekly blog. However, this week I feel compelled to bring you the writings of other bloggers more famous than I (which is almost everyone).

Among my readings is a weekly newsletter published by John Mauldin. He is a conservative economist with a compelling writing style, making complex concepts digestible for the lay reader. Last week’s letter from Mr. Mauldin incorporated a letter from his colleague, the Chief Investment Officer of Evergreen Capital Management, David Hay. My blog today will provide you with a link to Mauldin’s letter. So, technically we have a blog within a blog within a blog. To read it, click HERE.

Here are a few teasers. Did you know that our northern neighbor, Canada, was in worse fiscal shape than we are in the mid-1990’s? Did you know that they have now produced 11 years of balanced budgets? Neither did I. What was I doing in 1995 when the Wall Street Journal declared that Canada had become “an honorary member of the Third World in the unmanageability of its debt problem”? Who knows? I only know I wasn’t watching when they began a remarkable turnaround. How bad was it?

 The Canadian dollar was known as either the “Loonie” after the bird on its dollar coin or the “Northern Peso”.
 The government accounted for 53% of the country’s GDP.
 Government debt was 120% of GDP or about twice the level of the US today.

The Canadian turnaround is perhaps the most remarkable economic achievement of any industrial economy since WWII. The new Canadian budget reduced spending by 8.8% over two years while reducing federal employment by 14%. Corporate tax rates were reduced by roughly 30%. Personal income and capital gains taxes were cut and a Value Added Tax (VAT) was implemented to cover the revenue lost by other tax reductions.

What were the results? Drum roll please…. The federal budget was balanced within three years and federal debt dropped to 45% of GDP.

Admittedly, there a few salient points missing from Hay’s summary. Canada fixed its problems during a booming decade for the global economy. And, they were aided by the passage of NAFTA which resulted in US car companies moving much of their production to Canada. They did so because the Canadian taxpayer picked up the tab for healthcare. They are still the country from whom we import the most goods and services (not China). Exporting economies have much less to worry about than importers like the US.

Still, when you look at what they have accomplished compared to our own domestic quagmire, you have to ask, WHO WILL LEAD?

Let’s Put the Washington Back in D.C.

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”                               

                                                    -- George Washington

Most people know that our first President, George Washington, played a critical role in keeping the union from splitting apart. He was well respected by both the industrial north and the agrarian south. Were it not for his leadership, the United States may not have survived as a single country.

What few remember from their history lessons was Washington’s support of a treaty which made a truce with the British in the first decade of our republic. It was controversial because following the Revolutionary War, the British continued to attack our commercial shipping and occupied posts in the Northwest Territory.

Nevertheless, our first president knew that the flood of immigrants from Europe would continue to press our borders westward. The British presence there would eventually lead to another war. He also knew that, with the treasury weakened by debts owed to foreign governments from the country’s recent victory, the U.S. could not win another war with the Brits.

The treaty called for reduced maritime commerce by U.S. merchant ships; however, the British would abandon their western forts. It was highly unpopular. Many in Congress called for a declaration of war. The public was outraged. The treaty’s author, John Jay, was stoned in public. Protests spread throughout the land. Pamphleteers, the cable news pundits of their day, urged “a speedy death to General Washington!”

President Washington was resolute. The treaty opened up the western territories and their economic possibilities and gave the U.S. time to build up its treasury to prepare for the British war that he knew was inevitable. When it happened in 1812, we were ready.

Washington’s courage and leadership was missing when the House passed the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act last week. It seems that we have entered the silly season on Capitol Hill. It’s only a month before the election and who would run the risk of not voting for a bill that penalizes the Chinese for their unfair practices. No one involved really believes that passage of this bill will bring jobs back from China. When China allows its currency to appreciate (yes, I said when not if), low skill manufacturing jobs will go to other low wage countries like Vietnam and Indonesia. They will not come back to the U.S.

But, the public needs a villain and better a foreign power than a politician running for reelection. The bill, if enacted, would have the effect of a tariff on Chinese goods. (All this talk of tariffs and balanced budgets reminds me of Herbert Hoover!!)

The U.S. is still the world’s largest economy, most powerful military player and influential society. This won’t last if we continue to behave as though it’s still the Twentieth Century. It’s time to start looking forward and plan according to our current reality.

It is fairly well known that the Chinese treasury holds more than seven times the dollar reserves of our own Federal Reserve Bank. China invests those dollars in US Treasuries, its infrastructure and enterprises around the world. They seek to advance their own economy but not to destroy the U.S., the largest market for its goods. Despite their growing wealth, they still have deep systemic problems, the solutions to which are difficult to develop in a closed society. The key to remaining competitive is not for the U.S. to hamper trade but to embrace it.

Historically, our economic success has resulted from openness to immigration and trade, superior education and extraordinary innovation, all of which led to the most productive economy in the world. Our economic power is projected throughout the world by global corporations – GE, Microsoft, and McDonald’s. Yet, we seem consumed by fear -- fear of terrorists, rogue nations, foreign investment, free trade, immigrants and the U.N. Why do we see ourselves as threatened by forces beyond our control? Because politicians and their willing accomplices in the media have convinced us we should be afraid.

The 1990’s provided an historic opportunity for both major parties to forge a path to the future. In the wake of the Cold War, the Republican revolution of 1994 was founded in Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America. It built upon Reagan’s legacy and provided a construct for governing in the 21st Century. Similarly, Bill Clinton transformed the old liberal agenda by declaring that with rights come responsibilities. The philosophy of communitarianism was one of his hallmarks. He championed free trade and forged new agreements that enabled it.

So, why this bill at this time? Because politicians get elected by telling us what to be afraid of and who to blame.

America doesn’t succeed because of laws that hamper commerce; we succeed because of the historic vitality of our society. We thrive because of our openness to the world – to immigration, to innovation and to other cultures.

So, if you are looking for the answer to our question, “WHO WILL LEAD?” when you go to the polls this year, you might want to start with the list of Congressmen who voted against the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. You can find them by clicking right here.

Every Dogma Has Its Day

It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.   Franklin D. Roosevelt

If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again.   Ronald Reagan

MONEY DOESN'T CARE

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good!


 Gordon Gekko (as played by Michael Douglas in the movie Wall Street)

This now famous line from the movie Wall Street is on the minds of lots of people these days. For some, it’s because of the release of its sequel this weekend; for others, it’s because of the popular feeling that Wall Street is the cause of our current difficulties. I once heard the film’s producer, director and playwright, Oliver Stone, express his dismay that so many people (presumable people who work on Wall Street) had taken the Gordon Gekko soliloquy as a mantra for their business philosophy.

Yet, it’s not unlike other movie lines or speeches that have entered the popular culture. I once heard a senior sales guy at major software company recite the entire Alec Baldwin speech from Glengarry Glen Ross. He obviously delighted in the cadence, the words and the delivery of it. It was also obvious that he embraced its philosophy. You can catch it on YouTube if you missed it on Broadway or in theatres.

Movies love to create villains that reflect popular feeling. Taken out of context, the Gekko quote is reprehensible. But, the central theme of the speech was that in a free enterprise system, companies that don’t continually reinvent themselves go out of business.

So, let me get this out of my system, just to set the stage. Capitalism, by definition, is driven by the motivation to make money. If greed is a human emotion defined as the desire to have more money, then capitalism is about greed.

Yet, capitalism is also the driver of our economic success. It enables entrepreneurs to become billionaires and it provides employment for millions. It has also permitted the citizens of this country to enjoy the most comfortable lifestyle in the world. Capitalism is not about being humanitarian.

Yet, we don’t – and shouldn’t – define our culture as greedy or even capitalist. We define it more holistically. Our most successful capitalist, Bill Gates, has given most of his fortune to his foundation which by all reports does lots of good work. His foundation is not a capitalist enterprise, it is a humanitarian one.

So, is Bill Gates the country’s greediest person or the most generous?

Most of the successful people I know are involved in charitable activities ranging from volunteering in their community to donating their hard earned cash to their favorite cause. Personally, I have served on the board of Aid to Victims of Domestic Abuse (AVDA), www.avdaonline.org and currently serve on the board of Operation Homefront of Florida, www.operationhomefront.net/florida. I don’t get paid to do it. I do it because I want to.

Alec Baldwin’s character was in the real estate business and my colleague, his disciple, was in the software business yet we are not negatively disposed toward those industries. Yet, these days we are all pissed off at Wall Street’s “fat cat bankers”.

Why? Because they are greedy? Or, is it because “we” bailed them out and they show no remorse for what has happened to the economy as a result of the overindulgence of an entire industry?

Whatever the reason, it’s time to get over it. We need Wall Street. Furthermore, we need Wall Street to be successful. In addition to providing capital to our economy, it is among the few industries where the United States is still a world leader. That leadership brings new money into our economy from foreign investors and provides jobs for many thousands of people.

Apple Computer went public 30 years ago with the help of Morgan Stanley. Would it be the company it is today without Wall Street? In 2006, Morgan Stanley was also lead underwriter of the IPO of First Solar, the Ohio company which is the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. The company used the funds to expand its manufacturing facilities in Maryland, adding jobs in the process.

So, am I saying that greed really is good? Let me express it a bit differently. When I haven’t worked on Wall Street, I have worked for Wall Street money. And, I am here to tell you that “money doesn’t care”. It doesn’t care about people or the environment or the local church. It only cares about making more money. And, that’s the way it should be. That’s what makes our economy so resilient and, ultimately, that is what will pull us out of this mess we’re in.

And, before you let yourself off the hook, ask yourself if your money cares. Do you read every prospectus from every mutual fund or 401K in which you are invested? Do you take your money out of any investment that isn’t friendly to the environment or fair to its employees? Probably not. Why? Because your money just wants to make more money too. That's why, in our busy lives, most of us just check our monthly brokerage statements to see if we made more money last month.

Oh, and by the way, it’s Wall Street that is working hard to make you that money.

Just like Bill Gates, the desire to make more money is part of us but it’s not all of us.

But, it’s election season and conflict creates drama. Politicians and the media need conflict to get your attention.  Casting Wall Street as the enemy is a great way to get votes.

The role of a leader who wants to change the current paradigm isn’t to feed the media the conflict it seeks; it is, rather, to rise above it and provide a vision of how we work together to solve the crisis.

It leaves me wondering, as usual, WHO WILL LEAD?

Is That What Jesus Would Do? Really?

• History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
 Thomas Jefferson

Reluctant though I am to wade into the subject of religion, last week’s news from Gainesville, FL cannot be ignored in the context of leadership. I found it remarkable that opinion makers throughout the civilized world are unanimous on the subject of burning the Koran. President Obama, Anne Coulter, General Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Michael Bloomberg and Glenn Beck can all agree that Rev. Jones publicity stunt is well over the line. So, the answer to the question “WHO WILL LEAD?” is “nearly everyone”. Everyone, that is, except the Reverend Jones.

I can only imagine that Jones himself never thought he would cause such uproar. And, ultimately he backed off. But, the impact of the now cancelled event is extraordinary nonetheless. Perhaps the most insightful remark came from the Secretary of State who said, in part, “It is regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Florida, with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and . . . disgraceful plan and get the world’s attention, but that’s the world we live in right now.” (Maybe the Reverend was just trying to get his attendance up to 100.)

She was talking about the global reach of media and communications and, of course, she was right. But in other respects, the current controversy has a familiar ring to it. Americans have attached their worst instincts to their belief in God and their membership in their church throughout our history. Our attackers use the Koran as the justification for their actions; therefore, our tribal instincts cause an unthinking rejection of Islam.

A few years ago, it was popular for Christians to ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” It’s a good question for all of us to ask ourselves from time to time whether we are Christian or not. The answers define our values but not necessarily our conduct.

Some fundamentalist Christians rejected the candidacy of Mitt Romney because of his Mormonism. In 1960, those same elements rejected JFK because he was a Catholic?

Is that what Jesus would do? Really?

In the 1840’s, the Bible Riots in Philadelphia resulted from a reaction to a wave of Irish Catholic immigrants. Nativists spread rumors that Catholics were trying to have the Bible removed from the public schools. A local Catholic Church armed itself for its own defense only to provoke the local citizenry and bring both the police and the Army into the fray. Indeed, the priests had acquired 5 muskets. The locals, in turn, seized a military cannon and fired upon the church.

Is that what Jesus would do? Really?

The history of the world is rife with examples of wars fought on behalf of God. The Crusades in the twelfth century, the British vs. the Spanish in the 16th and the French civil wars (Protestants against Catholics) of that same era were all fought in the name of God.

Is that what Jesus would do? Really?

Northern Ireland found itself in turmoil for a generation during the 20th century because Protestants and Catholics still can’t seem to coexist. Sadat and Rabin were both assassinated by fundamentalists among their own citizenry because they dared to make peace. Fundamentalist Christian, Eric Rudolph, planted a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics and murdered a doctor who performed abortions.

Is that what Jesus would do? Really?

The Muslim concept of jihad is echoed in the theory of Just War advanced by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. It was the Popes who granted the Divine Right of Kings to sovereigns of the Middle Ages. Perhaps they figured, “well, they’re gonna fight their wars anyway so I better give them cover”.

Is that what Jesus would do? Really?

So, the Reverend Jones gets to have his 15 minutes of fame and we are left wondering about the significance of it all. I am happy to see that government leaders and media personalities alike rose to stand against his actions. I am hopeful that we will look back on this uproar in 10 or 20 years and recognize it as a turning point.

After all, it has taken about 9 centuries to get to arrive at this juncture in history. Violence in the name of God has evolved from sovereign nations fighting wars in the middle ages to civil wars in the 16th Century to civil disturbance in the 19th and 20th to acts of terrorism in the 21st. Terrorism, after all, is a desperate act by the disenfranchised.

The opinion leaders, elected or otherwise, have echoed Jefferson’s concept of a secular society and freedom of religious thought and worship. This rare display of leadership should be celebrated.

By the way, if you or Reverend Jones ever wants to see Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Koran, you need to go no further than Washington, DC. It’s in the Smithsonian Museum.

TO LEAVE A COMMENT, CLICK THE “COMMENTS” LINK BELOW

ANGELS IN COMFORTABLE SHOES

Bound by paperwork, short on hands, sleep, and energy... nurses are rarely short on caring. ~Sharon Hudacek, "A Daybook for Nurses"


It struck me as I stood there in my shorts, sneakers and polo shirt that I had entered a new phase in my life. I was in pre-op as I have been many times before. Only this time, it wasn’t one of my parents lying in bed in a hospital gown. It was my best friend and companion of literally half my life. My most ardent protagonist and most formidable antagonist, the love of my life, my beautiful wife, Suzanne.

It was only outpatient surgery and no one seemed too worried. Everything turned out just fine. Yet, I was left wondering, as they rolled her out of the room towards the O.R., was this the beginning of that time of life where we take turns, she and I, chauffeuring, waiting and watching worriedly?

On that day, last Friday, the nurses of the Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center went about their business without wasting any time. They were constantly in motion, making sure that everyone was prepped for their surgery, knew what to expect and when it should happen. Yet, all the while they maintained a connection to the human beings in the room – their patients and the hand wringing spouses. There was never a moment when our needs were not met whether clinical or emotional. They dealt with us with a blend of compassion and gallows humor that seemed just right.

What a contrast to the experience of a few days ago when I “fired” a doctor I have been seeing for over a dozen years. I think he finally got his “practice model” on track. He sees 10 to 12 patients per hour leaving little time for questions or discussion. He has invested in some equipment so he can perform procedures that generate high income per event. So, of course, he must steer you toward those procedures to earn enough revenue to achieve his return on investment target. Somehow, the fact that his patients are human beings got lost in the shuffle.

Florence Nightingale observed that nursing is an art that “requires an exclusive devotion”. She compared her art, nursing, to those of sculptors and painters. Theirs deals with “dead canvas or dead marble”. Hers deals with the “living body, the temple of God’s spirit”.

I have an insatiable appetite for history, economics and public policy. My focus for this blog is Leadership with a capital L. But, this week it struck me that Leadership takes many forms. It isn’t always about big institutions and big societal initiatives. It can be about doing the right thing one on one.

So, this week, my answer to the question “WHO WILL LEAD?” are the good nurses of the Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center.

IT'S NOT ONE OR THE OTHER -- IT'S BOTH!

“To control our own destiny, America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it. And this is not a challenge for government alone -- it's a challenge for all of us."
--- President Barack Obama

“Drill, baby, drill.”
--- Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska

My old friend Richard came to town and joined me for lunch in West Palm Beach last week. Back in the day, Richard was a “playah” in South Florida. In the 90’s, he had his fingers in aviation, timeshares and technology and we were briefly business partners in an Internet venture.

Now that he has moved to Houston, he has gone into -- what else? The oil business. The higher price of oil has made it economically viable to take oil out of the ground in the Great Plains again. And, Richard’s Tulsa based company is doing just that.

Richard grew up in Birmingham and I grew up in New York. As you might imagine, we wear different political stripes. But, on the topic of a national energy policy, we agree. Democrats want the government to invest in green tech and eschew domestic opportunities to drill for oil. Republicans want to drill, baby, drill and let the free market decide what green technologies are viable.

And, they are both wrong. It’s not one or the other, it’s both!

A good friend of mine, who began his career as a manufacturing executive in Germany, is fond of saying that the American economy is based upon cheap energy. Coal is dirt cheap (no pun intended) and Pennsylvania and West Virginia are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We don’t tax gas at the pump to the extent the Europeans do which is why we drive Yukons and F-150’s and they drive Minis and Fiestas.

It has served us well for the last 100 years. So, why change the current paradigm?

My answer does not come from concern about global climate change. My concerns are based in economics and foreign policy.

US oil production peaked in 1970 while demand has continued to rise. Unless something changes, we will continue to import a greater percentage. Meanwhile, the global demand for oil is expected to increase by 60% over the next 20 years, largely driven by the economic development of China. The economic implications to us are obvious. Higher energy costs, more imported oil (larger trade deficits) and a less competitive economy. To continue on the current course will only lead to economic disaster.

We read a lot about alternative energy every day. Wind, Solar, nuclear and natural gas all have viable applications. But, we don’t know how all this will scale up or what the unintended consequences may be. We do know that any major transition will be expensive and is likely to take decades. Yet, it needs to be done if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Our political quagmire prevents us from doing what we have done throughout our history, namely invest. By that I mean government investment.
Our infrastructure – roads, seaports, railroads, airports, the electric grid and telecommunications – is absolutely critical to our economy and much of it was developed with the help of the US Government. Land grants, government funded R&D, loan guarantees and tax breaks were the impetus for getting much of it started.

Technology? The silicon chip was developed by NASA. GPS systems and the Internet itself were developed by the Department of Defense. The US Government funds research at universities and private companies that have resulted in pharmaceuticals, carbon fiber and countless other products.

So, why not alternative energy? Our economic future relies upon it.
Complicating matters are the implications of our dependence upon unstable governments in the Middle East, Africa (Nigeria) and South America (Venezuela). Do we really want to bet our future on those relationships? If one of their leaders passes gas, the price of a barrel of oil jumps 5 bucks.

While I am on the topic of foreign relations, do you ever think about how much of our Defense budget goes to protecting the supply chain that delivers oil to our shores? Ever think about the connection between Middle East oil money and the terrorists that took down the World Trade Center?

How about the amount of turmoil in which we have found ourselves in the Middle East over the past 60 years? American soldiers have spilled their blood and lost their lives in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and, of course, Afghanistan.

Wouldn’t it be nice if imported oil was not so important? Remember how our economy was humming along in the 90’s with low taxes, low Defense expenditures and budget surpluses?

A British historian, Paul Kennedy, wrote a book in 1987 called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. He analyzed the great empires throughout history from the ancient Egyptians to the British Empire and used the data to predict the eventual fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China. Key factor: the percentage of GDP consumed by military expenditures. While the Soviets and the US were escalating, the Chinese were de-emphasizing.

If that’s too esoteric for you, think of it this way: in 25 years time, do we still want to be spending 5% of GDP to defend the supply chain of our enemies? If you don’t think so, you have to be supportive of any effort to become more energy independent.

So, to return to the beginning, what should we expect from our political leaders in Washington? Will the Democrats recognize that we must continue to develop domestic oil sources to maintain a viable economic platform? Will the Republicans support the development of alternatives to fossil fuels even if it means increased government spending and intervention in the free market?

Or, to put it another way: WHO WILL LEAD?

IS YOUR KID'S TEACHER AN IVY LEAGUER?

“My education was dismal. I went to a series of schools for mentally disturbed teachers.”

 Woody Allen

In the great debate about the deteriorating quality of American public school education, the quality and talent of America’s educators is often questioned. The answer to the headline question – is your kid’s teacher an ivy leaguer – is likely NO. Ivy Leaguers are meant for more prosperous careers. They are not only the best and brightest but also among the nation’s wealthiest college students. Many go on to top business and law schools, become captains of industry and our leading politicians.

Teachers more typically come from state colleges and universities. They are underpaid, overworked and much maligned. The quality of their training is questioned; as is their effectiveness.

I recently was introduced to a contemporary who had just retired from a 30 year teaching career. What an eye opener. Imagine, if you will, heading out for work every day with an absolute requirement that you be “ON” at 7:30. By ON, I mean ready for anything. Forget that long walk with your dog. Skip the trip to the gym. That third cup of coffee will have to wait until after 3rd period.

No matter if you are just too tired, too bored or just fed up. There is an honor student wanting to show her prowess; a malcontent disrupting your class; or, worse, a physical threat that must be contained.

Meanwhile, we read news reports almost daily that tell us about deteriorating student performance and Washington’s plans to reverse that course. Billions have been spent but the news keeps getting worse anyway.

A career in teaching is both physically and emotionally challenging. Why would an Ivy Leaguer want that job when a more luxurious future awaits elsewhere?

Teach for America.

Ignoring the national debate and foregoing government funding, a non-profit organization called Teach for America (TFA) has been working for the last 20 years to solve to improve education from the front lines.

Recently, the NY Times published an article about how difficult it is for graduates of Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth to be accepted by Teach for America. With only 4500 openings, less than 10% of applicants are admitted. Imagine if you will, America’s best and brightest college grads going into the teaching profession.

TFA doesn’t just drop these young recruits into the classroom. It provides a five week summer course in classroom practices before assigning its graduates to teach in inner city and rural schools. The organization sets goals for its teachers and assigns Program Directors to follow up and monitor the members of its “corps”. According to Education Week magazine, each of TFA’s corps members is expected to achieve at least one of the following goals: “…move student learning forward at least 1 ½ grade levels, close achievement gaps by 20 percent, or ensure that 80 percent of students have met grade-level standards.”

But, this blog is not about education; it’s about leadership. What struck me about the Times article was the number of Ivy League grads who applied. Eighteen percent of Yale and Harvard undergrads applied. Those rejected had to settle for alternatives like becoming a Fulbright Scholar, attending University of Virginia Law School or teaching at their alma mater.

TFA’s founder is Wendy Kopp who proposed the creation of Teach for America in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton – and then followed through upon graduation!!

So, when we ask the question that serves as the theme of this blog – Who Will Lead? – we need look no further than Wendy Kopp and the 4500 college grads who, this year, will dedicate their considerable intellect and energy to the task of improving student achievement throughout the United States.

Each sacrificed other opportunities to become teachers. Each dedicated themselves to making a contribution. Each of them will lead.

CAPTAIN BILLY AND THE BOUNDARYLESS ORGANIZATION

An organization's ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage.

---Jack Welch


Long time GE Chairman, CEO and visionary, Jack Welch, coined the term “boundaryless organization”. When he began his tenure as GE’s top dog, he began to define a new culture to break down GE’s bureaucracy. In his alternative universe, GE would be boundaryless, an organization that is not defined by, or limited to, the horizontal, vertical, or external boundaries imposed by a predefined structure.

It’s a wonderful concept and many a corporate leader has striven to achieve it. Few have truly succeeded.

I never had the privilege of working for Neutron Jack. I learned about the boundaryless organization from Captain Billy.

At the ripe old age of 23, I was Chief Engineer of the USS Alacrity, a Navy minesweeper based in Charleston, SC. Our Commanding Officer (CO) was a Mustang Lieutenant named Billy G. Taylor. Captain Billy, as he was called when he wasn’t in the room, was from Waco, TX and brought all bluntness and country wisdom that origin implies to the job of being the CO.

During a minesweeping exercise off the Atlantic coast one sunny afternoon, we experienced a bearing failure on the minesweeping cable reel. I won’t bore you with a technical explanation. Suffice it to say that it was a big honkin’ reel that let out and (theoretically) retrieved a cable that was about 6 inches in diameter and several hundred feet long. When a bearing fails, it’s not very easy to retrieve that cable. When we opened up the gearbox, it was clear that salt water had fouled the oil that kept this machinery working right.

It was also clear that the planned maintenance for the equipment hadn’t been done. As you can imagine, it wasn’t long before a young sailor appeared at my side to tell me the Captain wanted to see me.

Climbing the ladder to the Captain’s quarters, I got my all my arguments (some would say excuses) straight in my head. “What happened?” said Capt. Billy.
“Well, I don’t know, sir,” I started. “That equipment is the responsibility of the deck department and…” I didn’t get to finish.

“You’re the Chief F___ing Engineer. Anything on this F___ing ship with more than two moving parts is your F___ing responsibility.”

A boundaryless organization.

Six months later, we won the squadron award for engineering efficiency. I got the message!

About 20 years ago, global corporations began to eliminate layers of management. Information technology had enabled senior managers to get quantitative information about the performance of their companies. They no longer needed (or desired to have) qualitative information from their middle managers. It was the beginning of the evolution of the “big box” model. The term is more often applied to retail stores – as in Big Box Retail. However, it applies to many industries that pursue a similar management model.

Over a generation, sophisticated systems have allowed multi-billion dollar corporations to wring out much of the cost that used to be required to run a large enterprise. That same trend has reduced the level of service.

We can no longer go to a bank and expect branch personnel to serve all of our needs. They now refer us to the call center and the dreaded voicemail tree. Retailers staff their stores with people who can tell you where the products are located but rarely offer qualitative advice. Flight attendants deliver standardized service. Their authority to make the customer happy is limited by the cost structure that is imposed on them by their corporate masters.

Customers complain but they have only themselves to blame. As a nation of consumers we have consistently stated a preference for low price over good services.

For the 21st Century Corporation, what this inexorable trend has meant is that fewer and fewer managers understand the concept of the boundaryless organization. Ever wonder why there are so many choices on the voicemail tree? Because functional specialization drives down costs. You can talk with someone in customer service about the mistake the bank made. But, to get the credit to your account, you need to talk to someone in another department. No judgment allowed.

My point of reference is generational. I am a baby boomer. We grew up in a world where we were coached by our mentors to develop business acumen and good decision making skills. I wonder how the next generation will develop those skills. How will it be possible for them to run a global enterprise when their perspective is limited to the narrow function they have learned to manage?

Let me put it this way……
WHO WILL LEAD?

TO POST A COMMENT, CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW.

Our Mission

Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.

Peter Drucker (1909 - 2005)

I went to the “Un-college”. At least that was our joke at the time. It was a play on words from the popular 7-Up commercial. 7-Up, the Un-cola was an alternative to Coke and Pepsi. And the US Naval Academy was an alternative to a real college, it was the Un-college. So, despite my pursuit of a business career, I never studied finance, marketing or industrial engineering. In fact, I never even studied management.

At the Un-college, we studied Leadership. I don’t mean by observation or inference; we took college courses on the topic. That formative era in my life has provided me with a perspective I often find lacking in our institutions, in our sense of civic duty and, indeed, our approach to solving the multitude of strategic challenges we face today.

If I sound a bit pious or arrogant, I am sorry. But, the anger felt by Main Street for Wall Street, by Republicans for Democrats (and vice versa) or by labor for management has resulted from a lack of leadership in our institutions. At the core of this anger is the faith the citizenry placed in our so-called leaders.

Throughout our history, the little guy has always known that rich guys make the rules. American institutions have always attracted people and capital because the rules made it possible for everyone to have success and for many to become rich guys. How long can this continue? Will global investors continue to have faith in US investments in the face of a rising debt burden and a lack of transparency? Will America continue to thrive when its high tech manufacturers can’t find enough workers with the math skills to operate complicated machinery? Will we continue to lead the world in innovation while our grad schools are populated largely by foreign nationals?

Millions of Americans, who have done the right things, have been wronged. People who have worked hard and trusted government and their corporate bosses have been betrayed. Their jobs have been shipped overseas, our schools are deteriorating and our financial underpinnings have been undermined.

Last week was my inaugural of this blog, “Who Will Lead?” My mission is to look at the issues of the day, the contradictions and hypocrisy and ask that question – who will lead?

I hope to keep you entertained and perhaps to enjoin you in a dialog. I would also like to expand the audience. So, if you find something interesting or provocative, please click the button to “Follow” this discussion and tell your friends.

And, as you follow current events, ask yourself that question:

“Who Will Lead?”

STOP WATCHING CABLE NEWS NOW!

The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.

Oscar Wilde
-- Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900)

This quote from the great Oscar Wilde tells us not much has changed in the last 100 years. Not much except the capacity of the pipeline delivering journalistic content and the financial investment at stake.

Pundits have declared the print media to be on its death bed and, indeed, one might have predicted it 25 years ago when industry consolidation began in earnest. Today, content is more often delivered to us by 24 hour cable news channels. The mega corporations behind it all – Time Warner, GE and News Corp -- are not in the game to win the Pulitzer. They are in it to make money.

When I was a kid, TV journalism was viewed by their corporate parents as a public service. Was that really the case or is just my nostalgic imagination? Would Wilde have said the same thing if he were alive mid-20th Century? I can’t be sure but it seemed to me that when the Greatest Generation was in charge of those institutions, they felt more responsible for the quality and accuracy of the content. They were among the leaders of our society and knew they had an obligation to its citizens. Perhaps that’s why we remember Cronkite, Huntley, Morrow and Sevareid so fondly.

Overwhelmed as we are by a constant barrage of infotainment, purveyors of cable news must attract viewers by being outrageous. Journalism is no longer about providing information for viewers to make intelligent decisions about issues that affect them. It’s about the battle – Republicans vs. Democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, red states vs. blue.

There is an essential laziness to this approach. Covering politics is easy. You just report what people say. What we want, what we need, what we are desperate for is reporting on policy not politics. But, that would be hard work. Imagine how difficult it would be for a reporter to research his or her topic, consult with experts reflecting a variety of opinions and provide a concise report on that topic. Why bother? It’s much easier to report what the politicians are saying about the issue.

This weekend, Fox News reports about Elena Kagan’s “unabashed liberalism” while MSNBC describes her as “Confident but still cautious. Smart and then some. Disarming. Knowing. Wicked funny.” Which of these comments informs us about her qualifications or her likely predispositions on matters that are important to us? Neither!

I could provide hundreds of examples but that’s not the point. I am here to report that I stopped watching all of them – Fox, MSNBC, CNN – about two months ago and I have not suffered from a news deficit. Indeed, I have used the time I normally devote to watching the news to finding the news. My Yahoo home page is now flooded with feeds from a variety of news sources. When you find one you like, you can get it delivered to your email or your cell phone. For me it’s the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, Marketwatch and Barron’s plus newsletters from John Maudlin, Jeff Nichols, Dan Primack, McKinsey and PIMCO. For you, who knows? The Washington Post, USA Today, ESPN.com, People magazine. It’s easy to find something that suits.

So, take my advice and give up cable news. I guarantee you will be better informed and enjoy it more.