Old Problem Example

In RealClearPolitics - Commentary - How GM Failed to Meet the Challenge Robert Samuelson gives a perfect example of the old problem.

"In 1921, Ford had 60 percent of U.S. car sales. GM overtook Ford because ``the old master (Henry Ford) had failed to master change,'' Sloan wrote. Ford stuck too long with the Model T, conceived as cheap transportation for everyman. But the advent of used car sales satisfied consumers wanting ``basic transportation,'' while new-car buyers demanded more comfort and performance. GM offered a full line of cars (Chevrolets, Buicks and Cadillacs) at different prices."

The Old Problem

Young organizations with younger people tend to be more innovative, quicker to change and adapt, and more prone to quick failure. Old organizations with older people tend to be more stable, slower to change and adapt, and more prone to slow failure. This is true of political organizations, business organizations, and church organizations. Young organizations have problems assessing the risk associated with specific actions or policies. Risk ignorance sometimes results in great success and sometimes results in great failure. Old organizations have problems taking an action involving any risk. Risk knowledge sometimes results in avoiding mistakes, but often results in missing opportunities.

The United States has always enjoyed an advantage over Europe because we have been a younger country with a higher percentage of younger people and a greater willingness to take calculated risks. However, as more and more baby boomers in America reach retirement and start to prefer stability to innovation, the American advantage over Europe will start to erode. Also, as more and more of India’s, Brazil’s, and China’s younger population start to realize opportunity and achieve success without migrating to America, the United States will cease to be the country of innovation and leadership.

The best hope for the United States would be for our government to allow more legal immigration. America has vast amounts of unused land, resources, infrastructure, and laws, that would allow the process to be transparent to the daily lives of most Americans, but beneficial to the long term prospects of both the immigrants and current Americans. Imagine all of the opportunities if we were to build new schools, hospitals, businesses, churches, parks, sport and activity centers, and communities all with wireless internet access.

There is a big problem though. Our government, our political parties, many of our people, and a lot of our ideas have become old and risk averse. At a time when we need new people, new ideas, and new organizations, the old people in old organizations with old ideas want to slow down and stop immigration.

Wouldn’t it be better for America if new jobs were done by new Americans in America than by Chinese in China? Wouldn’t it be better for democracy and freedom if new businesses were created in America by new Americans than by Socialists in China? Wouldn’t it be better for the Gospel if new Churches were formed in America by new Americans than by Chinese who face imprisonment for conducting a Church service? Wouldn’t it be better for America if a new political party with new ideas gained a little traction?

As much as I like President Bush, and as much as I think the only realistic hope for positive progress in America is with the Republican Party, I sure wish there was another alternative that wasn’t so old.

Quitting Too Soon

I once heard a statement declaring that many people deny themselves a chance for success because they give up too soon. In contrast, there is a contemporary belief that to continue to do what you have always done and expect different results is a sign of idiocy. Both concepts seem to be true on first thought. However, both concepts can’t be completely true because of the conflict between the two. One of these concepts could be mostly true and the other concept mostly false or both concepts could be partially true and partially false.

There seems to be many people who give up before achieving a goal, but there are also many people who die before accomplishing their plans. There are also many people who work and sacrifice most of their life in order to realize a small success while others seem to luck into wealth, success, and achievement early in life without much effort at all.

The conflict in Iraq has attracted the attention of the proponents of the “don’t give up too soon” and the “it’s lunacy to continue” ideas. While the conflict in Iraq is of supreme national and historic importance, it still becomes a decision based on the price America is willing to pay to achieve the results we desire. As long as the results are adequate for the price we are paying, the national consensus will be to continue. When there does not appear to be any results or the results are minimal, the national consensus will be to end the lunacy.

As someone who rarely quits once I establish a goal, I am thankful for the recent good news concerning Abu Musab al Zarqawi. We could use more good news like this because I would hate for the American military to leave Iraq too soon.

Mixed Messages

My little girls aren’t so little anymore. They don’t just hear the things my wife and I tell them anymore, they also interpret what we tell them. One of my themes for them is the importance of being appropriately kind to everyone, not just their friends. On the drive to school a few weeks ago, I was reminding my oldest daughter to remember to consider the feelings of everyone who will be affected by one of her decisions before making a the final decision. Her reply to me was that her mommy told her to quit worrying so much about others. Oh boy, talk about mixed messages.

My wife was trying to teach her to be independent, which is also of extreme importance to me, but the message came across to her as an encouragement to be selfish. My girls can jabber until my ears hurt. Yet, this was a good lesson and a reminder for me to always listen to what they are saying when they are talking. It’s not enough for us to teach our children morals. We need feedback to understand all that we are teaching them, so we can correct our mistakes before a wrong lesson becomes permanent.

Why The Morning-After Pill Is Pro-Life

In RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Why The Morning-After Pill Is Pro-Life Steve Chapman makes a Pro-Life case for why Plan B should be approved by the FDA.

Is Wal-Mart a Problem?

John Stossel is one of the few clear thinkers in Big Media.

In "RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Is Wal-Mart a Problem? by John Stossel" he makes the case for Wal-Mart and simple economics.

Individuals

It seems to me that there are many Christian writers and leaders who use the words “community” and “relationships” interchangeably. I don’t think the meanings of the words are the same. The more I hear and read the word “relationship”, the more I am convinced it is a word that doesn’t have a meaning, or at least a clear meaning. I have a relationship with God, a relationship with my wife, and a relationship with the chair I am sitting on, but the three have very little in common and how I relate to each of the three is very different. If I had my way, the word “relationship” would be stricken from the Christian vocabulary along with the word “just”.

Communities are groups of individuals and organizations who voluntarily cooperate in a way that is mutually beneficial. When an individual chooses to purchase bread from a baker instead of baking his or her own bread, the baker and the buyer are both rewarded; the buyer saves time and usually money, and the baker earns additional income. The baker and the buyers form a community of dependence, where both are giving and both are getting. Healthy Churches are very similar. In a healthy Church community, there is a balance between giving and getting.

Unfortunately, many Churches struggle to achieve a balance between giving and getting. These Churches usually have a small percentage of givers trying to serve a larger percentage of getters. Eventually, some form of temporary balance is achieved, but the constant struggle to maintain the balance always remains. Churches with the highest percentage of independent individuals will have less trouble achieving the balance because of the lower percentage of needy individuals who are a burden to others. One of the goals of ministry should be to minister in a way that moves individuals from a position of dependence on others to a position of independence so they will no longer be a burden, but become a servant and a contributing member of a community.

Each of us have a different quotient for how much individuality we can sustain, just as we each have a different quotient for how much compromise and cooperation we can sustain. Within a healthy Church community there is room for those with high individuality quotient, a low individuality quotient, a high cooperation quotient, and a low cooperation quotient. Those with no individuality quotient or no cooperation quotient are the burdens to a healthy Church community. I know there are many today who look at Church and society and see too much individualism. I’m not one of them. I look at Church and society today and see way too much dependence on others in ways that are unnecessarily burdensome. In my view, this is an unhealthy trend.

Culture

Most Christians consider fundamentalism to be a slightly warped or extreme form of Christian belief. However, fifty years ago the fundamentalists were mainstream American Christians. Nowadays, they seem odd because they have diligently preserved the cultural Christianity of 1950 and refused to adapt to an evolving culture. By holding on to a fading culture, fundamentalists have almost completely lost the ability to influence our present culture.

Every Church in America has it’s own culture. Churches that experience growth in early years are usually able to appeal to a cultural segment of seekers and believers who are not being served by traditional Churches. However, as Churches age, they tend to preserve their original culture, sometimes becoming mainstream and then eventually passé. The fundamentalists are an obvious example of this process, but the process is not limited to the fundamentalists; all Churches go through these stages. Churches that invest in timeless architecture might be a slight exception, but it is still rare to find a thriving older Church even when the Church buildings are able to attract new members.

Christian principles and beliefs are timeless truths that are not dependent upon a cultural setting. Sacrifice, charity, forgiveness, prayer, worship, discipleship, discipline, faithfulness, honesty, love, study, thought, and maybe a few others will be important to a Christian in any culture. Music, clothes, expressions, activities, and accessories are always changing and have nothing to do with Christianity. Hate, murder, thievery, lust, selfishness, cruelty, deceit, bitterness, prejudice, sloth, and maybe a few others are the eternal enemies of the Christian regardless of the culture.

There have always been and there will always be believers and non-believers including myself who mistake culture for principle. I try to get it right, but I also realize I am a product of my genes, my upbringing, my experiences, and my God. There are also some beliefs that aren’t quite culture and aren’t quite Biblical principle. I have written before about how over done and over emphasized relationships have become in our Churches. Relationships with God and others is important, but the over-emphasis on relationships is more cultural than Biblical.

Another aspect of relationships that may be more cultural than Biblical is the claim that God created us to be dependent upon each other and that individualism is sinful. Paul White at reluctant but faithful claims, “Independence leads to unaccountability, and unaccountability leads to all manner of sin, and sin, as C.S. Lewis wrote, causes us to curve inward upon ourselves, eventually, independently, dying.” Hammer left a comment stating, “The American cultural image of rugged individualism is not supposed to fit into the church.”

While there is some truth to both of these statements, neither is completely true. Dependence and conformity can also lead to sin and often do lead to sin. It is selfish to be dependent to a point of being an unnecessary burden on someone else and it is lazy for Church members to conform to an arbitrary or even negotiated standard. I have no doubt, God created us to have a dependent relationship with him. I also believe we serve best as part of a Church community. However, the best community is not a group of dependent conformists; the best community is a Church comprised of individual and independent believers.

Senate Hair Rule

Is there some type of Senate rule that all Senators have to wear a hairpiece or color their hair? Isn’t a gray and thinning hair line a sign of wisdom?

We do get the leadership we deserve.

Why Men Would Rather Stay Home on Sunday

Mike at Eternal Perspectives has written a great post named The Emasculated Church with excerpts from a book by Robert Hicks titled Uneasy Manhood.

As much as I love being contrarian, sometimes I need to know I am not completely alone in my observations and views. This post made my day because it gives me hope that other men recognize the problem and are starting to do something about it. (HT:Blogotional)

Start With Transparency

The Harriet Miers affair is another good example of how privacy hurts our ability to be appropriately informed. We should know, but don’t:

1. The real reason Ms. Miers was nominated by the President.
2. The real reason her nomination was withdrawn.
3. The sources of money who backed her nomination.
4. The sources of money who opposed her confirmation.
5. The elected officials who supported her confirmation.
6. The elected officials who opposed her confirmation.
7. The real views of Ms. Miers.

Democracy doesn’t work when the people we elect, the people appointed by the people we elect, and the people lining the pockets of the people we elect can all act in secret.

It is time to quit demanding privacy and start demanding transparency if we are going to have any chance of fixing the government mess.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

”You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run”

First the good:

1. Harriet Miers didn’t have enough fight in her; she didn’t deserve confirmation.
2. Harriet Miers didn’t articulate her views clearly enough to dispel doubts about her views; she didn’t deserve confirmation.
3. There were many conservatives who stood on principle in opposing her confirmation; Republicans are not a party of lemmings.

Then the bad:

1. President Bush has had 5 years to determine and refine a list of excellent nominees; it was careless of him to go with a last minute gut feeling about Harriet Miers. He may be a man of his word, but he also needs to be prepared for practically every possibility. He is starting to appear lazy and unprepared.
2. We don’t know how a single Senator felt about the confirmation of Ms. Miers; Senators need to go on record. Government and the people are not served when decisions are made through whispers. There should have been an up or down vote for her confirmation, just like Conservatives have been arguing for the last four years.
3. It has now become exceedingly more difficult to get a good conservative nominee approved; Republicans will pay a political price for the type of nominee most conservatives want and who may not even get confirmed.
4. The next nominee may be more like Souter or Kennedy than Sandra Day O’Connor; a track record of conservative decisions is not as important as a track record of impeccable character.

And the ugly:

1. Not a majority, but many conservative pundits sounded more like Air America than reasonable representatives of a noble cause; this will embolden those who lack civility.
2. Liberals didn’t spend a dime in borking Ms. Miers. Their war chest will be spent on the next nominee. It will get very ugly then.

He Means What He Says

I support the Miers nomination.

President Bush is doing exactly what he said he would do while campaigning for a second term. He has proven time and time again that he means what he says and he says what he means. Ms. Miers can be expected to rule on the law and not make law because that is what President Bush promised.

Stewards of Conservatism

Hugh Hewitt has been taking a hammering from many in the conservative blogshpere for his defense of Harriet Miers and his desire for temperance in the Republican Party. I think Mr. Hewitt has really distinguished himself since the Miers nomination; not that he wasn’t already quite distinguished, but since the Miers nomination, he has persuasively argued for supporting President Bush’s nominee even if disappointed by the nomination. My entry today is an attempt to conceptualize Mr. Hewitt’s and my beliefs regarding the Republican Party.

The Republican Party is the vehicle or method for applying conservative principles to government decisions and actions. The conservative members and leaders of the Republican Party are the stewards of the conservative movement. Without the Republican Party, there is no conservative voice in government.

Ideologues need to understand the difference between advocating a cause, and the implications of advancing the cause in our form of government. There is nothing wrong with a conservative being hard core in their beliefs, but pragmatic in advancing those beliefs inch by inch.

Therefore, we need to care just as much about our vehicle that advances our beliefs, as we do about our beliefs. We need to be stewards of our party, not just ideologues.

Privacy and Freedom

Most Americans believe in the right to behave privately in ways that may not meet the approval of others. All of us have something to hide. We each have our own reasons for keeping certain aspects of our life hidden from our government, or our family, or our friends, or solicitors, or criminals, or our enemies, or just plain old busy bodies. We all have an emotional need for privacy to go along with many practical reasons for keeping some parts of our life and our past hidden from others.

Privacy is so central to who we are as Americans, the Supreme Court has ruled we have a constitutional right to privacy even though the verbiage for such a right is nowhere to be found anywhere in our U.S. CONSTITUTION. Privacy is so important to most Americans that we consider it to be an integrated attribute of our freedom.

Perhaps some of our thinking about privacy needs to change. We will always have an emotional need and some practical reasons for wanting privacy, but the real truth about privacy and freedom is the exact opposite of what most people believe. Freedom and privacy actually have an inverse relationship. As privacy goes up, freedom goes down and as privacy goes down, freedom goes up.

The more information we have, the more we are able to make decisions that reduce our risk of being able to achieve our goals and purposes. The opposite is also true, the less information we have, the greater our risk of not being able to achieve our goals and purposes. The internet has been a big boost in our ability to live freely due to the increase in good information that can be easily accessed.

As much as I like my privacy, there is nothing I value more than freedom. Perhaps all of us need to relinquish a little privacy in order to increase our freedom.

A Conservative Penumbra?

Pundits and politicians who use the word “crony” to describe Harriet Miers and who use the word “cronyism” to describe the nomination of Ms. Miers to the Supreme Court by President Bush are revealing much more about themselves, their sloppy use of language, and possibly their sloppy thinking, than they are revealing about our President or his nominee.

Most of these slanderers who use slur words to describe the nominator and the nominee claim to be die-hard advocates of protecting the original intent of the U. S. Constitution. However, the U.S. CONSTITUTION is silent as to the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice other than that he or she must be nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Ms. Miers has fulfilled the first half of her qualifications the moment she was nominated. By definition, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and every other Justice remained unqualified right up until the point they were confirmed by the Senate. By definition, Ms. Miers will remain unqualified up until the point she is confirmed, but once she is confirmed, if she is confirmed, she will be just as qualified as any other Justice who has ever served on the Bench. Therefore, everyone who has not been confirmed, including Robert Bork, you, me, and Ms. Miers, is unqualified, and every confirmed Justice is qualified, by definition.

It is fair to accuse President Bush of nominating Ms. Miers primarily because of the close working relationship they have had for over ten years. However, it is not fair to claim that because of the close relationship between President Bush and Ms. Miers, she is therefore not suited to even be considered for nomination. Our President can either surround himself with the best and brightest and then move those people into other positions and roles as higher responsibilities in government need filling or alternatively he can leave the best and brightest outside of his inner circle waiting for better positions to become available. The former is much preferable to the latter in my view.

Condi Rice was considered by many conservatives to be too lightweight for the position of National Security Advisor. President Bush knew her well enough to know she could handle the job of NSA and once the position of Secretary of State became available, she was the perfect nominee to replace Colin Powell. Was Ms. Rice a crony or did the President do what we pay him to do?

Do these slanderers not believe in our constitution, do they think they know more about qualifications for the bench than the framers of our country, or are they like the penumbra crowd who read what they want into our constitution? Perhaps the divide between conservative and liberal is not so wide when it comes to applying the Constitution and I don’t mean that in a good way.

Conservatives can trust in Miers

I think Newt Gingrich makes the most compelling and simple case for why conservatives can trust in Ms. Miers and President Bush here.

A Little Bit Drunk

It wasn’t easy being enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Two weeks pay never lasted two weeks. The Saturday evenings before payday were like the movie Groundhog Day. Every Saturday evening before payday was a repeat of the previous Saturday evening before payday.

Marines back then would scrape together their last few pennies and head over to the base club to hang with other depressed Marines and sip the cheapest beer on the planet. The base club never managed to stay open until closing time because the beer money didn’t last that long. As the last remnants of the paychecks were handed over to the bartender and as the brews took effect, the frustration of the Marines grew, and as the frustration grew, the Marines needed to fight. The last person in the world a Marine wants to fight is another Marine. However, if the only person available to fight is another Marine, the other Marine will have to do.

Republicans this week have been acting like frustrated and depressed Marines, the Saturday before payday, and a little bit drunk. Some conservative Republicans were so ready for a fight with the Democrats that when no Democrat's showed up to fight, they had to take out their frustration on other Republicans. They are frustrated by the fact they have labored so hard to acquire some power and they are depressed by the fact they are not able to have all of the power. Just like a Marine wanting more beer, these conservatives wanted more power.

Marines who woke up on a Sunday morning in 1980 with a black eye, a swollen jaw, and various bruises knew that payday was just around the corner and good times were on the way. It is amazing how men trained to do serious bodily injury to others with their bare hands are able to restrain their aggression when fighting another Marine. Perhaps it is a sixth sense or perhaps it is just the honor of a serious fight to a draw with a comrade.

The Marine Corps Private, the Saturday before payday, after a beer or two, seems to have more honor than some of the conservative commentators this week. It is one thing to disagree with the decision of President Bush. Maybe our President deserves a bruise or two. It is an entirely different matter to try to take him out completely. Claiming that President Bush has lost the right to be trusted due to one bad decision is wrong and completely over the top. A person does not lose the right to be trusted for being wrong. A person does lose the right to be trusted for not keeping their word, or breaking a promise, or telling a lie. President Bush can not possibly be right all of the time, but he has done nothing to forfeit our trust.

As crazy as it sounds, the fights on base between Marines are good for the Marine Corps. It is good to know the guys you are going to battle with have what it takes and are willing to do whatever it takes to win the battle. The guy with the courage to fight, and the control to know when to stop fighting, is the guy I want next to me in any battle.

There are many Republicans this week who need to develop a little control to go along with their rhetoric. If they are able to develop control, the conservative movement will strengthen and good times will be on the way. However, if conservatives are not able to develop control, all of the hard work will have been in vain.

Blankley Wisdom

Tony Blankley has a thoughtful, funny, and profound take ending with this:

"Consider, in the alternative, the deeper disappointment that liberals contemplate in this dreary autumn of their aspirations. The last remaining champions of their principles sit aged and infirm on the high bench -- their former brilliance now brittle and susceptible to being chiseled and crumbled by even the most modest conservative laborers.

Victory may not be heroic, but it will be ours. "

More Blabber

There sure are a lot of commentators who worship at the church of Saint Ronald Reagan [the Ronald Reagan who nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to sit on the Supreme Court; the Sandra Day O’Connor who has been just as likely to legislate from the bench in favor of the liberal position as judge the law from the bench according the intent of the legislators who wrote the law] who are now outraged that a mere mortal like President Bush would have the audacity to nominate anyone who does not have a proven track record of conservative activism. I wonder if being a conservative means having a very selective memory of the accomplishments and failures of the patron saints.

I have to include President Bush as a Blabberer today also. It doesn’t ring true to me that Ms. Miers is the best possible person to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. If President Bush would claim that she is the surest bet to judge the law and not make law, it would sound more believable. However, there are many more judges and lawyers who are more accomplished and have more of a proven track record than Ms. Miers.

It is also a bit troubling that President Bush is asking everyone who voted for him to trust his judgment in the nomination of Ms. Miers. I do trust his judgment, but I also wonder why he didn’t have a wider circle of advisors who he trusted in order to choose a nominee who would uphold his campaign promise and be more popular with the conservative establishment.