Of course not!

Remember the Ford Edsel?  A really spiffy new car with a two-tone paint job, lots of chrome and an unfortunate distraction in front? The Edsel in no manner resembles either the Republican party of today or its favored candidate; perish all such heretical conservative thoughts lest you be deemed a Tea Party Terrorist.

The Edsel was introduced amid considerable publicity on “E Day”—September 4, 1957. It was also promoted by a top-rated television special, The Edsel Show, on October 13, but the promotional effort was not enough to counter the adverse initial public reaction to the car’s styling and conventional build. For months, Ford had been circulating rumors that led people to expect an entirely new kind of car, when in reality, the Edsel shared its engineering and bodywork with other Ford models.

Governor Romney, who (we have been assured, repeatedly) will be the Republican presidential nominee this year, can not realistically even be presented as new, different and more exciting than President Obama.  He is just not quite Obama; merely Obama Lite.

Perhaps the Edsel would have been better received had its advertisements merely claimed “It’s not a Studebaker.” In all of his mundane glory Governor Romney, like the Edsel, has been offered to a disappointed public hoping for something new, different and better — a big change from the dull and boring cars of the past.  Sold only in 1958 (68,045), 1959 (47,396) and 1960 (2,846), the Edsel flopped (I have seen no reports, however, of it having frequently flipped).

Historians have advanced several theories in an effort to explain the Edsel’s failure. Popular culture often faults the car’s styling. Consumer Reports has alleged that poor workmanship was the Edsel’s chief problem. Marketing experts hold the Edsel up as a supreme example of the corporate culture’s failure to understand American consumers. Business analysts cite the weak internal support for the product inside Ford’s executive offices. According to author and Edsel scholar Jan Deutsch, the Edsel was “the wrong car at the wrong time.”

Governor Romney had the best advertising money could buy in Florida. Have the Republican (as distinguished, if such a distinction is credible, from Governor Romney’s) marketing experts failed to understand consumers or have the foolish consumers failed to understand that what’s best for the party leaders is also best for the rest of us?  Have the denizens of the Republican executive offices failed to understand what Republicans want and can vote for with enthusiasm? Not that enthusiasm is important, of course, but still….  Poor workmanship, such as “I’m not concerned about the very poor?”  Nah, those were only ill-chosen words spoken in the heat of the Florida victory and besides he didn’t say (again) that he likes to eat fire people.  True, as the linked article observes, headlines will take his words out of the context in which they made at least some sense (mainly to those who hope to continue and expand the welfare state, a great post-partisan talking point); however, as a mere Washington outsider and not even a career politician, Governor Romney could not possibly have anticipated that sort of reporting. It’s already happening, all over the place.  Couldn’t he at least have claimed that he considered the very poor interesting?

In 2007, the Edsel had the honor of being named the twelfth worst car in American history.

That’s why we’re all here, right? To celebrate E Day, the date 50 years ago when Ford took one of the autodom’s most hilarious pratfalls. But why? It really wasn’t that bad a car. True, the car was kind of homely, fuel thirsty and too expensive, particularly at the outset of the late ’50s recession. But what else? It was the first victim of Madison Avenue hyper-hype. Ford’s marketing mavens had led the public to expect some plutonium-powered, pancake-making wondercar; what they got was a Mercury. Cultural critics speculated that the car was a flop because the vertical grill looked like a vagina. Maybe. America in the ’50s was certainly phobic about the female business. How did the Edsel come to be synonymous with failure? All of the above, consolidated into an irrational groupthink and pressurized by a joyously catty media.

I remember an old joke about the least lucky person in modern times: a pregnant prostitute driving an Edsel with a Nixon sticker.  Is Governor Romney an Edsel? Of course not.  He is not an automobile and has not yet claimed to be one.  Beyond that, he does not claim to be an exciting new model or even The One® we’ve been waiting for.  Moreover, his marketing has been different from that used in the Edsel introduction.

The slick marketing campaign built a lot of anticipation around the Edsel’s release by only showing the car through unfocused lenses and thin, gauzy sheets. Buuuut, again, like above, no one knew what the hell the Edsel was supposed to be.  Also the name is ugly as sin.

There have been no “unfocused lenses and thin, gauzy sheets” to build up excitement for Governor Romney; they have been used only to obfuscate his conflicting positions.  While his inconsistencies have blurred what he stands for to the point that no one (maybe not even Governor Romney himself) knows who or what the real Governor Romney is, there has been something for nearly everyone so everyone should be pleased with him. Right? He resembles RomneyCare ObamaCare — we have to pass it elect him to find out what’s in it him, away from the fog of controversy; controversy is terribly confusing and therefore bad and so are those who create it.

That may work. We will probably nominate and maybe even elect him. I guess I will vote for him if there is no viable option because he was the choice of my betters. Then, perhaps we will learn, through his actions rather than his words, what’s in him and what’s in store for the rest of us.

Some of us may enjoy being caged on top of the Romney Mobile and treated to lots of hot fresh air.  It might well be an improvement over the present stuffy but chilly atmosphere in Washington.

Leading the way

In any event, the views on top will be breathtaking and Former First Dog Bo may become insanely jealous when President Romney’s dog gets to ride in a crate atop Air Force One.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

In my first post in this exploration of how we can produce meaningful and last life change, I described the four obstacles that prevent change. In my last post on this topic, I introduced you to the five building blocks of change. These steps I just described set the stage for change, but the real work lies ahead. Change can be scary, tiring, frustrating, and repetitious. And change takes time. How much?, you might ask. It depends on your ability to remove the four obstacles to change and embrace the five building blocks I discussed above. It also relies on your ability to commit to the minute-to-minute process of change. But I have found that when someone makes a deep commitment to change, they can expect to see a positive shift in 3-6 months.

With the foundation for positive life change now in place, it’s time to take action. Here are the five steps you must take to turn possibility and hope into real change.

Explore Your Inner World

Perhaps the most difficult part of changing your life involves exploring your inner world. True change cannot just occur on the surface or outside of you. Change means not only understanding who you are, but also why you are who you are, in other words, what makes you tick. The first step you must take is to identify the obstacles that are preventing you from changing. You need to “look in the mirror” and specify what the baggage, habits, emotions, and environment are that are keeping you from your goals. Understanding these obstacles takes the mystery out of who you are and what has been holding you back. It also gives you clarity on what you need to change and gives you an initial direction in your path of change.

These explorations of your inner world can enable you to finally understand why you have been the way you have been and done things you have done even when neither have worked for you (“So that’s why I’ve been this way all of my life!”). This process will also help you to remove the obstacles that have stood in your path to change. These insights also, at a deep level, liberate you to move from your current path to another that will take you where you really want to go. Most importantly, truly understanding your inner world will allow you to finally put the past behind you—when most of your life you have been putting your past in front of you.

Change Goals

Once the path to your goals has been cleared, you still need to have a clear idea about your final destination. Think of its like GPS; you can’t get directions unless you input where you want to go.

When you establish clear objectives of the changes you want to make, you are able to better focus your efforts and direct your energy toward those changes. These goals should identify what areas you want to change, how you will change them, and the ultimate outcome you want to achieve. Moreover, the goals should be specific, objective, and time defined.

Action Steps

So far, everything you have done to change has been talk. Now it’s time to actually make change happen. Action steps describe the particular actions you will take to achieve your change goals. They may range from adhering to an exercise regimen to maintaining emotional control in a crisis situation to staying focused when surrounded by distractions. Action steps give you the specific tools you need to act on the world in the present and to give you alternative actions that counter your old baggage, habits, emotions, and environment.

Forks in the Road

Taking the action steps and achieving your change goals depends on recognizing important forks in the road. I make the distinction between the bad road and the good road (there can actually be multiple bad and good roads, but let’s keep things simple). The bad road is the one that you’ve been on for so long driven by the four obstacles I described above; it’s a “feel bad, do bad” road. In contrast, the good road is the one you want to be on; it’s a “feel good, do good” road.

This fork in the road is simple, but not easy. It’s simple because you would, of course, want to be on the good road. It’s not easy because you have years of baggage, habits, emotions, and environment continuing to propel you down the bad road.

A key to the change process involves recognizing the forks in the road when they appear because without seeing the forks in the road, you obviously can’t take the good road, that is, makes positive changes. This awareness isn’t as easy as it seems because all those years of obstacles has created a myopia that can limit your field of vision causing you to miss the forks when you come upon them.

In all likelihood, you will initially only recognize the forks when you are long past them (“Darn it, I wish I had seen that fork earlier!”). But, with time and vigilance, you will see those forks earlier and earlier until one day an amazing thing will happen; you will see the fork when you arrive at it.

Unfortunately, because of the Sirens’ call of the four obstacles, you will still probably take the bad road at first. But, one day, another amazing thing will happen. You will recognize that fork in the road as you approach it and, yes, you will take it! And you will never be the same person again.

Don’t get me wrong; you don’t have it made yet. You’ll have setbacks and struggles because you will still go down the bad road sometimes; those obstacles take time to dismantle. But every time you take the good road, you’ll see what a great road it is to be on and it will encourage you to continue to resist your baggage, habits, emotions, and environment and to take the good road at the many forks that lay ahead.

Three Ps

One of the most difficult aspects of change is the need to make a day-to-day, hour-to-hour, and minute-to-minute commitment to change (Every time you miss an opportunity for change, you further ingrain your old obstacles). A helpful reminder of this necessity is what I call the Three Ps.

The first P, patience, is a constant reminder that change takes time and that if you maintain your commitment, you have a good chance to make the changes you want long lasting.

The second P, persistence, means you must keep vigilant and, as the saying goes, “keep on keeping on” in your journey to change.

The third P, perseverance, refers to your ability to overcome setbacks and maintain your motivation and confidence in the face of periodic failures and disappointment.

The Payoff

There is an immense payoff for your commitment and efforts at change: A life-altering shift in who you are and how you think, feel, and behave. A new direction that your life will take. And finally moving toward achieving your life goals. As a former client told me so poignantly: “I realized that I would never have to go back to the way I used to live my life, and I have never been so happy!”

(This article was also posted at Dr. Jim Taylor’s Blog.)

U.S warmongers who urinate on dead Taliban heroes are war criminals.

According to this article,

Palestinian television aired an interview with the relatives of the Fogel family murderers earlier this month, praising the two cousins convicted with the brutal attack as “heroes.”

The broadcast was aired as part of a weekly show on the Palestinian state-run station called “For You,” which focuses on Palestinian prisoners incarcerated in Israel.

Two adults and three children of the Fogel family were murdered in Itmar,  an insignificant bit of land claimed by the terrorist state Israel.  As I noted here,

Very lightly reported in the principal media, several heroes of Palestine “broke into the house of Udi and Ruth Fogel (36 and 35 years old, respectively), and stabbed them to death along with their 3-month-old daughter, Hadas, and two sons, Elad (3 years old) and Yoav (11).” YouTube promptly removed a video – not of the actual murders (there apparently was none to remove) but showing still photos of the dead Israelis. As all left thinking people know, YouTube did the right thing.

And, as noted here by Roger Kimball,

I first heard about this disgusting act of barbarism from a headline on the Drudge Report. The New York Times, which really never disappoints, today carries a piece under the title “Israel Approves Settlement Construction.” Five members of  “an Israeli family” — antiseptically left unnamed by the Times — were knifed to death in their sleep but the gravamen of the story was that the Israelis responded by deciding to build more settlements on the West Bank, a decision, our former paper of record sniffed, that “the attack and the government response threatened to drive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking even further out of reach.”

What’s wrong with this picture? The dwindling prospects of “Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking” is not equally the fault of that butchery and Israel’s decision to build more settlements, as the Times implies. That sort of moral equivalence is in fact a moral outrage. But it is standard operating procedure for the New York Times and indeed for much Western media who occasionally leave off playing “blame America first” only to indulge in an inning or two of “blame Israel first.”

Wicked Israeli Imperialist

Here’s a photo of one of the rabid Israeli imperialist youth righteously euthanized by the brave Palestinians. It takes a brave hero to kill a vile Israel imperialist like that! Praise be to Allah.

Here’s a YouTube video (for as long as it remains available):

But it’s all OK!  That’s what heroes do when fighting against oppression, for freedom, democracy and other humanitarian good stuff.  The surviving family members deserve to be taunted. And for all we know, the heroes who dealt with them did not urinate on their corpses as would have savages from the U.S. who deserve to be tarred, feathered and convicted of war crimes at the very least.  Since the Palestinian heroes apparently did not desecrate the bodies, they are our kind of guys!  Three cheers for Palestine and three yucks for the wicked Israelis who irritate them so maliciously. Peace is at hand, if only the Israel would negotiate in good faith.

These heroes of Palestinian liberation clearly deserve to be freed from durance vile and permitted to continue their good work.

Vermin? Of course not. That would unjustly disparage vermin.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

By Tom Carter

There has long been speculation about the actions of the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII in regard to the Holocaust during World War II. Some feel that the Church did more than it got credit for; others condemn the Church’s reluctance to criticize Germany and its wholesale slaughter of millions of Jews and others. Still others point to the staunch anti-communism of Pius XII and other factors as indicators that the Church traded official silence on fascist excesses for protection of the Church and in furtherance of its political objectives.

It would be too simple to say that the Vatican struck a deal with the Germans and Italians. The Church had dealings with both governments, and the Vatican tried to maintain an essentially neutral position during the war. No doubt, there was a justifiable element of concern for the very survival of the Church. However, Hitler and the Nazi leadership were wary of the Vatican and always considered it an enemy, and no conciliatory gestures the Church made changed that perception.

The role of the Church during WWII is very controversial, and even researching it requires great caution. There is a broad range of seemingly authoritative history that can be used to substantiate virtually any position.

Pope Pius XII, like Pius XI before him, made statements and took actions that were not favorable to the Nazis or their treatment of Jews and others. However, those actions were not very effective, partly because the Pope didn’t throw the full weight of his papacy behind them. There were many other Catholics, including priests, nuns, monks, brothers, and lay people, who courageously defied the Nazis and tried to protect Jews, and many of them paid with their lives. In Italy, where the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust was generally better than in some countries but worse than others, there’s no doubt that the influence of the Church saved the lives of many.

There were other actions by senior Catholic leaders that were reprehensible. For example, Theodor Cardinal Innitzer, in Austria, openly supported the Anschluss and personally went to meet Hitler when he arrived in Vienna. August Cardinal Hlond, who was then Primate of Poland and openly anti-Semitic, wrote a pastoral letter urging Polish Catholics to boycott Jewish businesses. And perhaps worst is the role of Archbishop (later Cardinal) Aloysius Stepinac in Croatia, a fascist state during World War II that allied itself with the Nazis. Archbishop Stepinac was a supporter of the Holocaust in Croatia which resulted in the murders of perhaps as many as 600,000 Serbs, Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and others. Even today, Stepinac is seen as a hero by some in Croatia, the Vatican still supports him, and a Catholic school in New York is named for him.

Perhaps the best summary is this: The Catholic Church, especially at lower levels, made some effort to save Jews and others during the Holocaust, but it didn’t do enough. If ever there was a time for the Pope and his Church to put it all on the line in forceful opposition to evil, this was it. In that respect, the Church failed. As a result, many died who might not have. Remember that Hitler and the Nazis were very conscious of public opinion, they took great pains to justify their actions, and they attempted to hide their worst acts. If the Pope had repeatedly stood up to the Nazis and announced, firmly and unequivocally before the world, “In the name of God, you may not do this!” there is a good chance they would have been more circumspect and as a result would not have been able to kill so many.

Additional reading:

Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust, Jewish Virtual Library
Pope defends wartime predecessor of anti-semitism charge, Telegraph
The Holocaust and the Catholic Church, James Carroll, The Atlantic
Hitler’s Pope, John Cornwell

(Other articles in this series: Remembering the Holocaust, Auschwitz and the Holocaust)

By Tom Carter

The Auschwitz complex consisted of three camps. One was mostly administrative, another was a slave labor camp supporting an I.G. Farben industrial enterprise, and Auschwitz-Birkenau was the death camp. Well over a million people were murdered at Auschwitz, about 90 percent of them Jews. Some Nazi victims at Auschwitz were from Poland, but many were deported to Auschwitz from other countries, including Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Yugoslavia.

The experience of the Jews of Hungary was particularly tragic. Earlier in the war, Hungarian authorities, while generally cooperating with the Nazis, resisted attempts to deport Hungary’s approximately 750,000 Jews. After the Nazis seized control of Hungary, about 430,000 Hungarian Jews, some of whom are pictured at left, were deported to Auschwitz during April-June 1944, where almost all of them died. In just these few months, the Hungarian Jews assembly-lined through the death machine at Auschwitz accounted for about one-third of all Jews killed there.

SS Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann, the administrative mastermind of the Final Solution, the Nazi plan to eliminate the Jews of Europe, arrived in Budapest in 1944. His mission — his passion — was to finally deal with the Hungarian Jews. In a bizarre turn of events, Eichmann contacted an influential leader of the Jewish community and offered to ransom one million Jews, more than there were in all of Hungary, for ten thousand trucks. This offer was carried to the Allies and, after extensive deliberations, was declined because of a reluctance to pay ransom, especially in a form that could help the German war effort.

Eichmann accomplished his mission, even to the point of exceeding his orders, with the full and willing support of the Hungarian regime in power.

The killing machine that was Auschwitz was darkly impressive in its efficiency. SS Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Höss, former Commandant of Auschwitz, testifying at Nuremberg:

The way we selected our victims was as follows: We had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under their clothes, but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated. We were required to carry out these exterminations in secrecy but of course the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz.

Those selected for death upon arrival were quickly murdered, most by gassing but some by other means when the gas chambers were overworked. Some, especially children, were selected for medical experiments that were cruel and inhumane beyond description. Dr. Josef Mengele, an SS physician, was in charge of most selections of those who would live, die, or be subjected to experiments. He was particularly curious about twins, conducting experiments on twin children that were truly vile. He injected dye into their unanesthetized eyeballs to see if he could change the color of their eyes; he murdered the survivors of twins who had been experimented on to conduct comparative autopsies; he even killed sets of twins to settle disagreements with his co-workers.

In this photo, Dr. Mengele is second from left. SS Obersturmbannführer Höss, who commanded Auschwitz for much of the time it operated, is in the center foreground. They appear to be normal human beings, passing a pleasant moment among friends. But don’t be deceived. They were as evil as any creatures that ever trod upon this earth.

Höss met a fitting end. He was convicted of murder in Poland and hanged at Auschwitz in April 1947, near a crematorium. Unfortunately, Mengele escaped the justice he so richly deserved, despite a decades-long manhunt. He ran to South America when the war ended and lived there for 34 years before his death.

Could anything have been done to stop or at least slow the killing at Auschwitz? Reports of what was going on dribbled out during the war. Toward the end of the war, the Allies had a pretty good idea of what was happening. But Auschwitz was deep inside Poland, inaccessible to Allied military power. Near the end of the war, when some of the late, frantic killing was happening at Auschwitz, the Allies could have bombed the camps or perhaps the rail lines servicing them. Some fault the Allies for not bombing Auschwitz. But in the context of their times, it’s difficult to judge them too harshly because of the limits of their knowledge and the pressure of prosecuting the larger war. Beyond that, the inaccuracy of high-level bombardment and the ease of repairing rail lines meant that bombing would have likely killed very many prisoners and accomplished little of substance.

Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly in 2005 during the UN commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz:

…the tragedy of the Jewish people was unique. An entire civilization, which had contributed far beyond its numbers to the cultural and intellectual riches of Europe and the world, was uprooted, destroyed, laid waste.

Elie Wiesel, an Auschwitz survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, speaking before the UN General Assembly during the 2005 commemoration, said:

Had the Western nations intervened when Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia and Austria; had America accepted more refugees from Europe; had Britain accepted more refugees from Europe; had Britain allowed more Jews to return to their ancestral land; had the Allies bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, our tragedy might have been avoided, its scope surely diminished. This shameful indifference we must remember.

Mr. Wiesel delivered the first major speech the United Nations had ever agreed to hear in commemoration of the deaths of six million Jews. However, the room was only half full. Among Muslim countries, Jordan and Afghanistan were prominently visible, but most were absent.

In a near future not hard to imagine, will we have to repeat Elie Wiesel’s lament against “shameful indifference?” The time to help the Jews of Europe avoid the horrors of the Holocaust was in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The time to support and defend Israel is now.

(Other articles in this series: Remembering the Holocaust, The Church and the Holocaust)

By Tom Carter

The Auschwitz concentration camp was formally liberated by Soviet forces on January 27, 1945 (video). In the 67 years since, Auschwitz has come to symbolize the Holocaust. However, Auschwitz (where about 1,200,000 people died) was only one, albeit the most efficient, of six specialized “death camps,” all of them in Poland. The other five were Treblinka (800,000), Belzec (600,000), Majdanek (360,000), Sobibor (250,000), and Chelmno (250,000). Other camps, mostly devoted to slave-labor industries, were not specialized death camps, although millions died in them from disease, maltreatment, and execution.

The numbers (source and source) of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, military prisoners of various allied countries, and others who died can only be approximated. It’s generally accepted that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust is about 6,000,000, including about 1,500,000 children. The precise numbers will never be known.

Even those Nazis intimately involved in the killing give different numbers, and the much-vaunted precision of German record-keeping is, at least in this case, a myth. For example, this from the Nuremberg testimony of SS Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to the military rank of lieutenant colonel) Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz:

I commanded Auschwitz [from 1 May 1940] until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70 or 80 percent of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries; included among the executed and burned were approximately 20,000 Russian prisoners of war (previously screened out of prisoner-of-war cages by the Gestapo) who were delivered at Auschwitz in Wehrmacht transports operated by regular Wehrmacht officers and men. The remainder of the total number of victims included about 100,000 German Jews, and great numbers of citizens, mostly Jewish, from Holland, France, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Greece, or other countries. We executed about 400,000 Hungarian Jews alone at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944.

Although sometimes quoted, some of these numbers are almost certainly wrong. Most serious researchers and historians put the number of dead at Auschwitz in the range of 1,100,000 to 1,600,000, about 90 percent of them Jews. Why would the commandant of the camp himself be wrong? Höss gave strange numbers in both his autobiographical book, written while a prisoner in Poland, and his Nuremberg testimony. Perhaps he just didn’t know, or perhaps he was using numbers obtained from others, when he went from Auschwitz to the SS camp inspectorate office and worked with the administrators of many camps. Some believe Höss may have written the book under pressure from his Polish captors.

One doesn’t have to be a Jew to consider the holocaust the most disturbing event in Western history. I’ve spent a lot of time, both academic and personal, studying it and the historical period in which it occurred. This has included reading a large number of books and academic studies, participating in discussions and seminars, and studying informally with a rabbi who himself survived two camps in France and was a legitimate expert.

I’ve only been to only one concentration camp, Bergen-Belsen in Germany, which was razed by the British after it was liberated to stop a typhus epidemic. All that’s there now is a small memorial center, a monument, and large, low mounds beneath which the remains of human victims are interred. Row upon row upon row of mounds, thousands and thousands of people. I’ve studied the einsatzgruppen, SS killer formations which, along with their associated reserve police battalions, roamed through Poland, Russia, and other regions. I also know that some countries, and their people, tried and largely succeeded in protecting their Jewish citizens; the people of Denmark and Bulgaria were heroic indeed. Other countries chose instead to hand over their Jewish countrymen to the Nazis or, in some cases, to kill them themselves. France, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, and Poland come to mind. Countries allied in the war against fascism knew enough, at some point, to have saved many lives, but they largely did nothing. And the Vatican knew enough early on to have saved possibly millions, had they but wished to. This profound failure calls into question the belief of the Church in the most fundamental principles upon which it exists.

I’ve pondered the questions everyone else grapples with. Why did the Nazis consider less than one percent of their citizens (about 580,000 of 62,000,000) to be such a serious threat? The answers can only lie in centuries of anti-semitism, certainly from the time of the Crusades, and the need for a revolutionary movement to have scapegoats. How did a country of cultured refinement descend to such unspeakable depths? Did the German people really know what was happening? Perhaps not all knew, at least not the details, but there were literally hundreds of thousands of Germans directly involved in and helping manage the killings. They knew, and through them so did millions of other Germans. And why did so many in other countries, themselves at war with Germany, willingly surrender Jews to the certainty of death? To simply say “anti-semitism” is accurate but far from sufficient.

And perhaps the most irritating question, often heard from Holocaust-deniers and others who question the overwhelming burden of historical evidence, is this: Why did the Jews permit themselves to be slaughtered? Why did they march off to their deaths like so many docile sheep? There are several answers, none of them very comforting. Any subset of any people can be systematically slaughtered if those in charge wish to do it and the vast majority of their followers support it or at least acquiesce. When the sheer power of the state is applied against a relatively small number of civilians, it cannot be resisted. A few trained and armed soldiers and policemen can control a large number of average people, especially people who consider themselves full-fledged citizens of their country and who cannot bring themselves to believe such a monstrous crime could be instigated by their state. Until it’s too late. Of course, there were some who saw it coming and got themselves and their families out of danger, and there were others who resisted as much as they could. But generally, it was too few and too late.

There are many reasons why the Holocaust should never be forgotten, but one may be more important than all others. It’s true, of course, that there have been other examples of the horror of large-scale genocide, and there will be others. But there is a critical difference. This genocide was carried out against an accomplished people, a people who have contributed more to humanity than any other, by another people, meaning much of Europe, to whom the world looks for leadership and example in culture, achievement, and humanitarian impulse. If humanity could so seriously fail in that case, who is ever safe, anywhere?

The anniversaries of various events in the history of the Holocaust are useful for remembering, which is a fundamental obligation we owe to all those who perished. And it’s an obligation of every fortunate beneficiary of Western culture, Jews and non-Jews alike. The state of Israel is the homeland created by and for Jews all over the world in the aftermath of the Holocaust. As the citizens of that small country of a few million struggle daily to defend their very lives against hundreds of millions, many of whom would see them perish in yet another Holocaust, the rest of us cannot lose sight of the simple fact that history can repeat itself. And if all of us are not vigilant, it almost certainly will. For the benefit of all humanity, the civilized people of the world must draw a line beyond which we will permit no transgression. For the sake of us all, we must embrace as a guiding principle the solemn obligation not only to remember but to ensure that it never happens again. Never again.

(Other articles in this series: Auschwitz and the Holocaust, The Church and the Holocaust)

Now, more than ever, the corporate world is in a state of constant change. Whether increasing global competition, the emergence of new technologies, or the high turnover of company staffs, life in the business world is constantly in flux.

Despite this reality, companies themselves don’t always adapt quickly or well to these ongoing tectonic shifts. This inability to evolve with the changing corporate landscape means that companies may be operating under paradigms that are outdated or not optimally productive. The result? A company that is not on the leading edge of their market and a company that, rather than riding the next paradigmatic wave, will be playing a perhaps-never-ending game of catch-up.

It is not a question of whether or not your company will change in this ever-shifting marketplace. It is whether it will change and survive or it won’t change and it will die.

I’m going to assume that you want your company (and, by extension, your job) to be one of the survivors. So the question is how can you help your company to change in ways that will ensure that it not only survives, but thrives in these uncertain economic times?

Why Corporate Change?

The first question that a company needs to ask is: why should it change? There are a number of reasons. Perhaps the single biggest reason for change is that the current approach is no longer working. Whether the continued use of outmoded processes or the development of new technologies that reshape an industry, not being willing to change means violating the Law of Insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. The simple reality of the current marketplace is that if something doesn’t work, you better change it.

As I mentioned above, change is necessary to adapt to the ever-changing corporate world. Has there ever been a time of greater uncertainty and instability in the business world? I don’t think so. Could there be more incentive to change than the need to bend to shifting corporate winds? Well, it’s definitely better to bend than break.

Another reason is simply to stay fresh and vibrant. It’s too easy for a company, particularly one that is old and well established to get stuck in its ways of doing business. Change ensures that the company stays energized and focused on its mission.

A fundamental component of a strong and resilient company is its ability to be constantly searching for ways to improve and maximize performance. In a marketplace with more competition than ever before, the constant pursuit of improvement ensures that it never falls behind.

A company can’t just focus on the present if it hopes to still be alive and well into the future. As a result, it must be looking and planning ahead regularly. Key questions to ask include: What is the next big thing in our industry?, What are the challenges that we might be facing in the near future?, And What changes can we expect—and adapt to now—before they become an imperative in the near future? If you can answer and plan for these questions, you will have a leg up on your competition.

Three Obstacles to Corporate Change

Of course, if change was easy, every company would do it and every company would be successful. But the fact is that there are some substantial obstacles to corporate change.

Especially when a company has been successful and it is led by a management team with significant tenure, it is easy to be lulled into a sense of comfort and complacency. People feel better when their world is familiar, predictable, and controllable, in other words, when it continues the way it always has. Change disrupts that comfort and that makes people, well, uncomfortable, not a very desirable state for most.

For these reasons, people don’t like to change and, unfortunately, may do whatever they can resist it. So, even if the leadership of a company wants to change, there may be resistance at various levels of the corporate structure to that change. As long as there is substantial opposition to change, it is likely that it won’t be able to take hold within a company.

Lastly, a company can develop an inertia in which it doesn’t change simply because it would take too much effort to change. Think of a company as an asteroid hurdling through space. That asteroid has probably been traveling on its current trajectory since its creation and it will continue to follow that path unless a significant force is exerted on it. The same holds true for companies.

Four Building Blocks of Corporate Change

Before a company can begin the process of change, it has to lay the foundation of change with four essential building blocks.

First, a company must see the value of change. This value can be based on two possible incentives to change. The company can want to change because it views the change as beneficial. Or the company sees the need for change, for example, change is the only way it will survive. It is often necessary for the head of the company to “sell” the need for change to their team by providing a compelling rationale.

Second, once the company sees the value of change, there must be top-to-bottom consensus for change. As I noted above, if there isn’t complete “buy-in” by everyone involved in the potential changes, then there will resistance that will sabotage the efforts at change.

Third, once the value and consensus has been established, the company must have absolute clarity of the specific changes that will be made. This understanding will ensure that everyone is on the same page about the changes and it is clear to all of the why, what, when, where, and how of the changes.

Finally, there must be significant commitment to change from the top to the bottom of the company. As we’ve learned here, change is very difficult. Without dedication to the change by everyone involved, a critical mass will not be mustered to initiate and maintain the efforts at change.

Returning to my “company as asteroid” metaphor I used above, for an asteroid to be moved from its current path, one of two types of forces must be exerted on it. The only ways that asteroid—or your company—can be moved is either by one massive force that knocks the asteroid off its course or a series of smaller, but consistent blows that incrementally shift it away from its present route. These four building blocks act as those forces that are needed to dislodge the asteroid from its current trajectory.

Six Steps to Corporate Change

The reality is that no change will occur if obstacles exist. So, the first step is to identify what the obstacles are and then systematically remove them. Obstacles can be team related (e.g., resistance to change), financial (e.g., costs of change), structural (e.g., change can’t fit into the current organizational framework), or procedural (e.g., no clear process).

Second, a company needs to identify and implement best practices related to the changes. Recognizing that your company isn’t the first to make changes to adapt to shifts in an industry, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel when there may already be effective practices that will foster the mandated change. Researching and selecting those best practices then enable your company to customize them to best fit your own needs and goals.

Third, the very idea of substantial change to an organization can be overwhelming; there is so much that needs to be done at so many levels of a company to implement meaningful change. Change goals help break down the monolith of change into more manageable pieces by giving everyone within the company clear guidelines and timelines to accomplish their specific responsibilities. Change goals enable a company to more easily “wrap its arms around” the enormity of change that lies ahead.

Fourth, the motivation to change has little value without a framework and process to implement those changes. Think of it this way. Say you wanted to drive to Denver, but you didn’t know how to get there. You, of course, wouldn’t be able to get the Mile High City. The process for change is like your road map (or GPS directions) to Denver; you know your destination and your way there. This step is probably the most important in the change process because it must be both comprehensive and detailed in terms of how the change will be implemented. This process provides the company with the leadership, support, resources, and time it needs to make the change goals a reality.

Fifth, even when there is buy-in and a clear path to change,  you still may need to encourage your team to confront the challenges and endure the struggles that are inevitable when you initiate change. You can support the change process by offering incentives that will continue to motivate your people from start to completion of the change goals. These inducements can range from simple recognition of their efforts to celebrations as change goals are achieved to more tangible incentives such as promotions or raises.

Lastly, your company should put into place a set of metrics that will provide for assessing progress in the change process as well as demonstrating the benefits of the changes that have been implemented. These data will offer the company clear evidence of what is and is not working, thereby offering feedback on the effectiveness of change, the need to recalibrate, the progress in fulfilling the change goals, and the ultimate value of the changes once they are in place.

In sum, change is hard, yet change is necessary. Only by taking a deliberate and committed approach to corporate change will your company have a chance of actually producing the change that it wants or needs. And, if there is any more motivation needed these days in this crazy new global business world, the motivation to survive should push you to make the changes you need to remain an influential and vital player in your industry.

(This article was also posted at Dr. Jim Taylor’s Blog.)

An almost unavoidable part of parenting – unless, I suppose, you have a cadre of full-time nannies – is exhaustion, both physical and mental. Too little sleep, too few respites, and too little time dedicated to your own needs can all contribute to a state of deep fatigue that leaves you, at best, lethargic and unmotivated and, at worst, depressed or physically ill.  And exhaustion leaves you without the energy to send healthy messages to your children to boot.

Even worse, fatigue leads to expediency – one of the most harmful words in parenting – which means acting in your self-interest rather than what is best for your children. Unfortunately, “self-interest” and “good parenting” don’t play well together. If you’re exhausted, you’re naturally drawn to doing what requires the least amount of effort and energy. If you’re being expedient, you have probably given up on sending healthy messages to your children. So, for example, you give your daughter the cookie before dinner to stop her from whining even though it will ruin her appetite or you buy your son that toy in the supermarket checkout line because you don’t want him to make a scene. Easiest short-term solution? Definitely. Best long-term message? Definitely not.

A real test for all parents in communicating messages to their children is whether they are able to send healthy messages when they don’t want to, when they’re tired, stressed, or rushed. You don’t want to be a “fair-weather messenger,” meaning you only send healthy messages when it’s convenient. A fair-weather meta-message (my word for the messages that underlie the overt messages) is that you only stick to what you believe in and only do the right thing when it’s easy or opportune. That’s certainly not a message you want your children to get. A recent survey of 1600 parents showed that about 17% describe themselves as “Softies” in which they say that “I’m sometimes too tired to be firm with my child even when I know I should,” “I sometimes let too many things go,” and “I sometimes give in too quickly.” The result of being a softie, 54% say their children waste money shopping, 48% believe they are overindulging their children, 81% bribe their children, and 53% worry that they are raising rude children.

Another meta-message when you are exhausted and being expedient is that your needs are more important than those of your children. Children pick up on that meta-message like a bloodhound on a scent because at a deep level they feel unvalued and neglected. Still another meta-message your children may get when you act expediently is that when life gets difficult, it’s okay to take the path of least resistance.

There is no easy answer to how to reduce your fatigue. The unfortunate reality is that you have been and will continue to be very tired for the foreseeable future; it’s called being a parent. At the same time, you can’t possibly be a good parent if you are in an constant state of exhaustion; a dog-tired parent makes for unhappy children. As a result, you must find ways to recharge your batteries; Whether it involves your spouse letting you sleep in once a week or getting some exercise or quiet time or an evening out with friends, such “selfish” pursuits (in quotes because it is actually very unselfish; you’re doing it to be a better parent) can keep total exhaustion at bay (plus the hope that you will some day get a decent night’s sleep; perhaps when your children go off to college!).

When you’re really tired, it’s difficult to think clearly, weigh options, and make good choices. In other words, it’s just too hard to think, so you will likely fall back to your knee-jerk reactions. When you’re exhausted, you’re more likely to be emotionally hypersensitive and reactive, which leads to frustration and anger very quickly.

If you don’t have a clear idea of what messages you want to communicate or have a strong commitment to those messages, then your default will be to not send the positive messages at all when you’re exhausted. But if you have given considerable thought to the messages you want to convey to your children, have established a steadfast resolve to those messages, and you’ve sent the messages so often that they are second nature, then sending those healthy messages will be your default. Doing what is expedient will actually require more thought and effort on your part. And, hopefully, when you know what is right, you will have a healthy dose of guilt for even thinking about acting in your own self-interest and a healthy dose of resolve to send the right messages no matter how tired you are.

I’m not saying that you have to send the right messages to your children 100% of the time. That is a burden that no parent could ever shoulder. Sometimes doing what is expedient is necessary for your own health and sanity (if you don’t have those, there’s no way you can be a good parent), as long as it’s the exception and not the rule. So don’t feel guilty if you slip up periodically; welcome to parenthood! In fact, a key meta-message that your children need to get is that you have needs too and that they can’t always be the center of the universe. As long as the preponderance of messages you send to your children are healthy ones, they will get the messages and meta-messages they need to get, even when you just want to close your eyes and go to sleep.

(This article was also posted at Dr. Jim Taylor’s Blog.)

I had three good reasons: there wasn’t enough rum, it was past my bedtime and our dogs, fearing for what little remains of my sanity, wouldn’t let me.

However, I have read much of the commentary and based on that will provide a post-partisan analysis in keeping with the spirit of the occasion.  It was an excitingly dull non-political campaign speech passionately proclaiming with little vigor the urgency of rebuilding the consensus American Dream — fair poverty redistribution by taxing rich capitalist leeches and a robust, growing economy without further obstruction by the Republicans who infest the Congress.

It was observed here that

With no record of accomplishment to his credit, other than the unpopular Obamacare and stimulus, Obama put forward a limited agenda of government intervention in the economy and the tax code in a laundry list of initiatives that did little to break new ground on any issue and was bereft of the passion and vision that drove his 2008 campaign for the presidency. All in all, it was 65 minutes that ought to worry Democrats more than it annoyed Republicans.

We can’t wait for more of what President Obama so successfully promised –  all of it fair, smart and propelled in post-partisan fashion by clean, efficient energy.  We must stoutly reject Republican crony capitalism that distorts the economy as we subsidize to the utmost green initiatives regardless of their economic viability. We must help President Obama to go boldly forth where no Republican has ever gone before, bringing the dawn of the glorious new age we rightly deserve and desperately need.  He will cause the sun to shine warmly upon us, global warming to cease, the seas once again to halt their rise (and then to recede) as the winds of change freshen.

Under any fair analysis, as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) so devotedly put it,

this president has reached out as seriously and sincerely as any president with whom I’ve served over the last 30 years, to work together in a bipartisan fashion.”

“No president with whom I’ve served over those last 30 years has spent as much time working with Republicans and Democrats in the room, exchanging ideas, evidencing a willingness to compromise as President Obama has,” said Hoyer.

Trying to divide the country even further?  Impossible Republican nonsense!  President Obama must force the obstructionist Republican Congress to hit the reset button and to climb aboard our powerful, vital and growing ship of state.  Even with Captain Obama at the helm, we must pull steady, all together, on our oars

as he humbly requests.  All aboard!  “I intend to fight obstruction with action,” he said. ”With or without this Congress, I will keep taking campaign contributions actions that help the economy groan grow. But I can do a whole lot more campaigning with your help.”

Delivered by our confident and successful president, the most profound intellect ever to attain that office, it was an easy speech to understand because it was written at an eighth grade level and therefore candidly commensurate with his enlightened worldview.  The full text is available here.  Evasive, irresponsible and full of cliches? That’s absurd. He was speaking for we the people!

Although no Styrofoam Greek columns were visible during the SOTU, scenes of happy and peaceful Greece came immediately to mind.  So did the enduring beauty and strength of Styrofoam, upon which he must rebuild the crumbling foundations of our once Great Nation.  Has the United States become weak and irresolute under his enlightened leadership?  No!  Sound as the dollar, she is stronger than ever and her prospects are the best in history. Yes, “America is back.”

Citing “stronger” alliances in Europe and Asia, “deeper” ties in the Western hemisphere, the “closest military cooperation” ever between the U.S. and Israel, and the new focus on the Asia-Pacific, Obama declared that “the renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe.”

“From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back,” he said.

An e-mail sent today by Jim Messina, Campaign Manager, Obama for America, clearly summarized the bipartisan flavor of President Obama’s SOTU.

The President will be busy doing everything he can to demand action from a Congress that cares more about making a political point than governing. And when they refuse to act, he will. Election year or not, that is his job, and he is going to be getting things done these next couple months.

The campaigning is left up to us.

It’s refreshing that President Obama has cast aside crass political ambition for the good of the nation and will therefore leave campaigning to others — so that he can continue, without interruption, his great work as our President.

There may be a few bits and pieces left out in this summary, but they don’t matter.  It’s the spirit that counts and besides even more will soon be revealed.

Obama will follow up Tuesday night’s address with a three-day tour of five states key to his re-election bid. On Wednesday he’ll visit Iowa and Arizona to promote ideas to boost American manufacturing; on Thursday in Nevada and Colorado he’ll discuss energy, and in Michigan on Friday he’ll talk about college affordability, education and training.

Ten excellent reasons to support and vote for President Obama are provided here.  Each is more persuasive than any of the others and we must take them all to heart.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

As I watched the President’s State of the Union address last night, this question was rattling around in my mind:  Who can defeat Obama?  Based on performance quality in delivering a prepared speech, the answer is that none of the current Republican contenders is up to the task.  That highlights a defining characteristic of the Obama presidency — rhetoric and visuals mostly unencumbered by substance.

I found myself completely wrapped up in the speech, only now and then flinching at a baseless claim.  I fleetingly noted that there was little mention of the Affordable Care Act — the hallmark of his presidency to date — or of anything else even slightly controversial for which he must accept blame instead of credit.  Of course, he did take credit for everything under the sun that’s been even remotely positive, even if he had little to do with it.  But that’s in the nature of State of the Union addresses.  They’re all mostly political speeches, even in non-election years.

Lucky for us, the campaign won’t be conducted as a series of telepromptered speeches, with the best performer winning.  The only direct confrontations between the candidates will be a few debates, maybe up to three for the presidential candidates and a couple for the vice-presidential candidates.  But these debates won’t resemble the Republican primary debates in the most important ways.  The rules will be decided by negotiations between the campaigns, and that will result in a pretty controlled process in which there’s a minimum of poo-poo chunking between the candidates.

These kinds of debates would be a significant problem for Newt Gingrich, if the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate him.  No highly partisan crowds to hoot and holler their approval of his often inane ideas, no standing ovations for his cheap-shot attacks on the moderators.  Mitt Romney would do significantly better with his cool bearing, command of facts, and extemporaneous speaking skill, as opposed to Obama’s frequently flustered performances in unscripted settings.

So who can defeat Barack Obama?  Santorum would have a better chance than Gingrich, but both would be likely to lose.  Romney is the most likely candidate to get it done, assuming that Gingrich’s scurrilous attacks from the left haven’t too severely damaged him.  One thing is for sure — if Romney is nominated, we haven’t heard the last of Gingrich’s charges against him.  They’ll be gleefully repeated by the Democrats throughout the general election.  For that, if nothing else, Gingrich should be forever discredited as a Republican.

*  *  *

Speaking of the State of the Union address, the Washington Post fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, did a pretty good job of deconstructing some of Obama’s claims:

A State of the Union address is often difficult to fact-check, no matter who is president. The speech is a product of many hands and is carefully vetted, so major errors of fact are so relatively rare that they sometimes can become big news (think of George W. Bush’s “sixteen little words” about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger). At the same time, State of the Union addresses are very political speeches, an argument for the president’s policies, so context (or the perspective of opponents) is often missing.

Here is a guide through some of President Obama’s more fact-challenged claims, in the order in which he made them.  [italics added]

While the column is very good, it’s hard to miss the irrelevant but obligatory negative media reference to George W. Bush.  I wouldn’t be surprised to read a weather report in one of these slowly dying media outlets that details a recent snowstorm, followed by the fact that there was also snow during the Bush Administration.

To fact-check the fact-checker just a bit, here’s what Bush actually said in his 2003 State of the Union address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”  The statement was accurate, but calling it a lie has since become a permanent arrow in the media’s quiver.  Never mind that Bush accurately cited it as a British report, even though U.S. intelligence and many others believed it to be true.  Apparently Iraq never closed the deal, maybe … whatever … it wasn’t a lie and has no place in a media analysis of an unrelated speech nine years later.

There are excellent reasons!
Trust me — Obama supporters told me and they must know.

Sadly, our appreciation of President and Mrs. Obama has not kept pace with reality and we have disappointed them.

As Michelle said to Oprah in an interview she did with the president last May: “I always told the voters, the question isn’t whether Barack Obama is ready to be president. The question is whether we’re ready.  And that continues to be the question we have to ask ourselves.”

They still believed, as their friend Valerie Jarrett once said, that Obama was “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.” (Emphasis in original)

Far from “ordinary,” President Obama’s talents truly surpass mere human understanding and, if there is to be hope for our once great nation, we must recognize this and get ready, finally, to give him our full support. It may well be true that President Obama “could get 70 or 80 percent of the vote anywhere but the U.S.”  If so, that is very sad and must diminish us even further in their estimation.

Striving to be post-partisan, post-racial and post-divisive, this article provides ten reasons to vote for President Obama this year.  It is conceivable that there may be others but I haven’t been able to find them.

1. He sings beautifully.

Barack Obama is the most accomplished vocalist ever to become the President of the United States. It would not unduly twist this article by Maureen Dowd, also cited above, to suggest that singing has been his greatest accomplishment.  Not one of the few remaining Republican aspirants could hope even to approach his spellbinding rendition at the Apollo Theater of  “I, I’m so in love with you.”  It has even become a ringtone.

[P]resident Obama earned high marks for his singing voice from “American Idol” associate music director and vocal coach Michael Orland, who told MTV News, “I swear to you, if he auditioned for me in the big stadium [rounds], I would have put him through to the producers immediately. I think he was really charming and had a great voice, and that’s all you can really tell in the a cappella rounds anyway. … I thought his phrasing was great, how he broke it up and really worked the room while he was doing it.”

How could anyone deny him the praise to which he justly entitled?

It was truly amazing and there is no truth to any rumor that President Obama gazed soulfully in a mirror as he sang of and to his true love; that was his teleprompter.

Music can bring innocent joy to the otherwise drab and miserable lives of us all, even the unfortunates in fly-over country who cling wrongly but tenaciously to their guns and Bibles.  We need a president willing to soothe us with inspirational songs and who will devote his next term as President to doing only that. Enrico Caruso, you have finally lost your place in our hearts and therefore in history.

2. Through his words and deeds, President Obama has taught our enemies to fear us no more; additional work remains that only he can do.

President Obama made a great start during his “apology” tours early in his first term but then had to limit his noble efforts.  He had no choice, because of the regrettable need to deal with unreasonable Republicans, cheered on by Tea Party Patriots Terrorists, who have as their only guiding principles obstructing, weakening and delaying his munificent initiatives.

Due to his early but incredible efforts, all fears our enemies once had of us have vanished.  Only their hatred of the United States remains.  President Obama must finish his job by making our imperialist warmongering and offensively affluent lifestyles end, as he has striven mightily to do.  When he succeeds, our enemies’ righteous jealousy and hatred will also cease.  Although “Kumbaya” may have become passe, all will unite in rewarding us by singing  “I, I’m so in love with you” and finally we will all be able, humbly and honestly, to sing the same song to them.

3. All remaining Republican candidates are certifiably insane or at least immature.

Every sane voter knows that Dr. Ron Paul is mindbogglingly nuts. During his rare lucid moments even he may recognize this.  Former Speaker Gingrich? Perhaps as brilliant as an exploding star, he is damaged goods. Even at the advanced age of sixty-eight, he is as immature as the young teenage girl who insanely aspired to sail solo around the world. She succeeded but we must deny success to Former Speaker Gingrich.  He is a mean old cuss.  His meanness is disgusting if not clearly racist and people don’t want that or him.

Even if the country is more jaded after the past few years and indeed, as Sarah Palin has said, is getting past “that hopey, changey stuff,” I still think your average voter wouldn’t put “mean” on their list of leadership qualities. They expect a certain level of consistency in their leaders. And most people still want leaders who talk more about their vision for a brighter tomorrow—albeit grounded in the realities of our world—than their disgust and fright about the state of things today.

Just remember, never smile at former Speaker Gingrich a crocodile.

Former Governor Romney? He’s a Mormon for Pete’s sake, not a Methodist or Black Liberationist like sane people.  Who remains? I forget but so have most others so they don’t matter.

President Obama does live in a nightmare dream world of fantasy but, far from insanity, it’s beyond merely good that he has found his own laughing place there.  It may not be ours, but it’s his and that’s important.

President Obama’s laughing place is by no means a manifestation of insanity or immaturity; it works very well for him and a happy president is a good president, even though his actions often displease the lunatics among us.  Besides, unicorns and Tinker Bell are real so it’s insane not to recognize that we need only believe in change (and of course vote for President Obama) to make it happen.  If we don’t believe in fairies President Obama, then Tinker Bell will die and Captain Hook Captain Republican will have won; no good and thoughtful person wants that to happen, ever.

4. We need fewer, not more, private sector jobs and President Obama has been massively successful.

Former Speaker Gingrich wants

to go into every neighborhood of every ethnic background in every part of the country and say to people very simply, if you want your children to have a life of dependency and food stamps, then you have a candidate as Barack Obama. If you want your children to have a life of independency and pay checks, you have a candidate that’s Newt Gingrich.

President Obama is infinitely better, in every conceivable and even inconceivable way. See also Number 8.

5. Unions are good for us, see also Number 4.

Private sector jobs may be OK for those who want them, provided they are union members.  Non-union members who fantasize that they want jobs probably could not even perform them correctly because they lack proper union guidance. President Obama and his enlightened administration have devoted remarkable efforts to ensuring that only good union members find jobs and equally remarkable efforts to ensuring that there are plentiful jobs in government for those who want pay checks but don’t feel compelled to work excessively.

6.  Republicans have maliciously blocked President Obama’s valiant efforts.

President Obama’s mighty efforts to close the prison camp at Guantanamo in the otherwise happy country of Cuba have been blocked at every twist and turn by Republicans.  His efforts must succeed if we are to gain the respect and love of other countries.  The unknown but nevertheless unspeakable horrors experienced there by our falsely accused peace loving victims must cease and only President Obama can and will do it.  He needs strong Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress and every vote for him brings that idyllic prospect closer to reality.  When we finally abolish the U.S. military and reeducate all of its merciless, baby-killing, knuckle dragging cretins even Republicans will be unable to argue that there is a need for such barbarisms. Ho. Ho. Ho!  Republicans gotta go! See also Number 2.

7. We need to destroy national disunity, partisanship and racism, creatively.

President Obama, true to his campaign promises, has given us new multicultural sensitivities and new levels of post-disunity, post-partisanship and post-racism to enjoy.  Continuing his work is crucial to the future happiness, prosperity and general welfare of all of us — even of dead people who cherish more than anything else their right to vote — and only President Obama can destroy the evils that hamper us. Only he can do so in necessarily creative ways.

8. Climate change is bad!

Conservatives, qua conservatives, should oppose all change.  Inconsistently, they refuse to do so.  That climate change is occurring because of the harm that Republicans do is an indisputable scientific fact on which all reputable climate scientists agree; only we can make it stop. Yet conservatives demand, impiously, that we remove oil, coal and other yucky black stuff from deep in the ground where Allah in Her infinite wisdom put them; that’s where all must remain.  Infidel Republicans continue to burn as much as they can while demanding more.  In consequence, the entire planet is heating more than ever before.  Soon, we will have no cool, clean air to breathe and predictably will be overcome by heat, cold, flood and drought.

President Obama has wisely made every effort to halt this travesty but the greedy Republicans have blocked his every move — most recently by demanding that he approve with precipitous speed the Keystone Pipeline project and then trying to take the matter out of his wise hands.  They have done this even though they know that building the pipeline will result, as have all major construction projects in the past, in the death and injury of countless hardworking Americans.  That will deprive us of the resources necessary adequately to provide others, less harmfully engaged, the welfare benefits they amply deserve.  Should the environmentally disastrous pipeline ever become operational, many more deaths and injuries will result from the noxious fumes spewed by all non-green sources of energy.  Solyndra, one of President Obama’s most successful clean energy initiatives, has caused no such problems.  The prices we pay for non-green sources of energy are far too high to pay in our endless attempts to satisfy the insatiable greed of the Republicans and their corporate puppet-masters.

9. Being fairly taxed is good for the soul.

The undeserving rich have long suffered from lack of self-esteem; paying unfairly low taxes has also made them feel guilty, rejected and dejected.  Anxieties, neuroses and other mental illnesses have resulted (see also Number 3).  Only by paying their fair shares of taxes to support our government can they again enjoy useful happiness and thereby rejoin the human race.  It is necessary, for their own good as well as ours, to tax billionaires, millionaires, owners of jet aircraft, and other rich leaches much more heavily than at present. Following President Obama’s true post-partisan principles, this will start with Republicans because they are the richest and therefore the most in need of such governmental assistance. There is no need whatever to tax the forty-seven percent who pay no federal taxes because they are already very happy.

10. It will please President and Mrs. Obama and irritate Republicans.

Finally, and these are the clinchers, President and Mrs. Obama will once again be proud of us.  Of only slightly less importance, every vote cast for President Obama’s reelection will bring tears of joy to Tinker Bell and tears of grief to the grimmest of evil Republicans.  Even Speaker Boehner may get misty-eyed.  They deserve all of the pain we can cause them and may become better citizens because of it.

We must all do what is best for the United States and, for the reasons set forth above if for none other, we must reelect President Obama to at least one more term in office.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

In my last post, I described how difficult changing your life can be and the four obstacles that you must overcome to achieve meaningful and long-lasting change. Yes, change is difficult, despite the “quick and without any effort” claims of motivational speakers and self-help books.

The reality is that nothing of value in life, including life change, is easy or fast. In attempting to change, you are swimming against the tide of many years of those four obstacles: baggage, habits, emotions, and environment. But if you can dismantle those obstacles (no small task, admittedly) and commit yourself to a new direction in your life, amazing things can happen and positive change can actually occur.

But even before you can begin the process of change (to be discussed in my next post), there are five building blocks that you must put into place as the foundation of positive life change.

Epiphany. Because change is so difficult, it can’t be elicited from the outside (that’s why so-called inspirational talks don’t work), but rather it must come from a very deep and personal place inside of you. Change starts with a simple, yet powerful, epiphany: “I just can’t continue down this same road any longer.” When you experience this realization in the most visceral and overwhelming way, then you have taken the first step toward positive life change.

Emotions. Just as emotions can act as obstacles to change, they can also provide a powerful force for change. Positive emotions that catalyze change can include hope, inspiration, and pride. Interestingly, so-called negative emotions, such as fear (e.g., of losing a job), frustration (e.g., at feeling stuck in life), anger (e.g., at being mistreated by a spouse), or sadness (e.g., at being estranged from family) can all be potent motivators for change. In either case, these strong emotions act as the impetus that drives you to initiate the process of change your life.

Courage. Courage may be the single most important characteristic for changing your life because change is frightening. Why, you ask? Because deep change means letting go of old ways of living that, though obviously not serving you well, are familiar, predictable, and, in an odd sort of way, comfortable. It involves heading down a road that you have never been down before, the destination of which isn’t clear.

Change also requires risk and risk is scary because you may fail (of course, the other side of the coin is that only by taking risks can you truly succeed.). Courage to change doesn’t mean not being afraid of what might happen; fear is natural because change takes you out of your comfort zone. Change is about your ability to confront and push through your fear rather than being paralyzed by it.

Courage means the willingness to acknowledge aspects of yourself that you may not know about or may not like, and to experience “bad” emotions you may feel as you learn about yourself. It enables you to accept that you might fail in your attempts at change while, at the same time, realizing that not trying will be much worse.

Change is much like jumping into cold water. It will be a shock at first, and you will initially regret having taken the plunge. But, after you are in the water for a short while, you begin to adapt to the coldness. What was then intimidating is now approachable. What had been unknown is now familiar. What was then painful is now invigorating.

Leap of Faith. Unfortunately, there is no certainty in change. You don’t know if, when, or how you might change. And you don’t know how the changes you make will impact your life. That lack of certainty can be truly terrifying. Yet, you must be willing to accept that uncertainty if you want to change. The only way to overcome your fears is to take a leap of faith. A great philosopher once said, “You do or you do not. There is no try.” No, it wasn’t Aristotle or Socrates who spoke those simple, yet profound words; the great thinker was…Yoda, the Jedi Master of Star Wars.

This leap of faith involves having a basic belief in yourself and a fundamental trust in the vision of who, what, and where you want to be in the future. The leap of faith involves your commitment to creating a new and healthy life and the belief that good things will happen if you stay committed to this new path and when you do make that change.

Determination. The above building blocks of change result in determination to change. This determination expresses itself in an unwavering commitment to pursue change, resist the obstacles, and take active steps to change your life. This resolve will motivate you to engage in the moment-to-moment process of change even when you are discouraged, frustrated, and uncertain about whether you can achieve the positive change in your life.

In the final post of this series, which will be published next week, I will describe the Five Steps to Positive Life Change.

(This article was also posted at Dr. Jim Taylor’s Blog.)

Why an oil refinery in the U.S. Virgin Islands will shut down by mid-February.

An oil refinery in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, will shut down by mid-February. It is owned by Hovensa, a joint venture of U.S.-based Hess Corp. and Venezuela’s state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

Losses at Hovensa … have totaled $1.3 billion over the past three years and were projected to continue due to reduced demand caused by the global economic slowdown and increased refining capacity in emerging markets, said Brian K. Lever, president and chief operating officer of Hovensa LLC.

There are various other causes for the shutdown and this may be among them:

In January, Hovensa entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department in which the company agreed to invest $700 million on pollution controls after a series of chemical releases affected people living downwind from the refinery. Hovensa also agreed to pay a $5.4 million penalty for violating the Clean Air Act.

Under current market conditions and having experienced substantial losses during the past three years, investing an amount equal to 53.85 percent of those losses as required by the EPA could be quite burdensome.

Closure of the St. Croix refinery may well effect U.S. domestic gasoline prices adversely, particularly on the East Coast:

[T]he coming loss of gasoline supply shocked markets for gasoline futures, which are likely to be soon reflected at the pump. Gasoline for February delivery rose 5.41 cents to $2.8254 a gallon on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Thursday, settling at the highest point since Sept. 8.

In St. Croix, the refinery employs about 1,200 people in addition to about 900 contractors. In 2010, the population of the island was 50,601, so the loss of about 2,100 jobs will have a substantial direct economic impact plus a significant multiplier effect. Food stamps and other welfare benefits are available there and the U.S. federal government contributes. There will also be significant long-term impacts on the tax revenues of the U.S. Virgin Islands, reducing them by at least $60 million per year through diminished real property taxes and employee income taxes.

U.S. mainland-based refineries

Existing U.S. mainland-based refineries have difficulty competing with new refineries in developing countries such as India and China as well as in the Middle East (where the tentacles of U.S. environmental restrictions don’t reach) and we rarely build new ones. Environmental groups have asked a state judge in South Dakota “to strike down a state permit that would allow … the first new U.S. oil refinery built since 1976.” It would “process 400,000 barrels of Canadian tar sands crude oil each day into low-sulfur gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and liquid petroleum gas.”

Construction had been delayed because securing financing had been difficult due to the recession and because of a previous appeal from grant of an original state permit.

The board issued the revised permit in September, approving changes to reflect updated national air quality standards and new pollution-control technology. The revised permit also gives Hyperion until March 2013 to start construction.

After the hearing, Hyperion Vice President Preston Phillips said efforts are progressing to secure financing and an oil supply for the project. “We have to perfect this air permit before we can finalize those aspects,” he said.

In Thursday’s hearing, Graham [counsel for the environmental groups] also argued that the board was wrong to extend the deadline for construction to begin. The original permit expired last February, and Hyperion should wait to seek a new permit based on the latest standards and technology when it is ready to begin construction, he said.

The tactic of delaying regulatory approval for as long as possible, then attacking the approval in court and demanding that the regulatory process begin anew has unfortunately been effective. It doubtless accommodates desires for long and profitable legal careers.

Refineries in the U.S. with capacities of 949,000 BPD recently closed or are for sale while others have curtailed production due to “economics.” Meanwhile,

U.S. oil companies are bracing for a potential strike by refinery workers and have plans to keep plants operating if negotiations which began this week for a new labor deal break down.

Representatives of the United Steelworkers union and oil companies began meeting to hammer out a new three-year national contract before current contract expires at 12 a.m. on Feb 1.

In September, the head of the USW negotiating team, union International Vice President Gary Beevers, said without improvements in health and safety protections in the new contract, USW members would walk off their jobs.

Continue reading this article at Pajamas Media »

If at first the jerks try to stop you, try again.

Laura Dekker, a then thirteen year old young lady from the Netherlands, had long wanted to sail solo around the world in her twenty-six foot sailboat Guppy.  Although delayed by Dutch officials she didn’t yield and was eventually able to do it. Now sixteen, she is scheduled to arrive today back at the Dutch island of St. Martin, from whence she finally was able to start her voyage on January 20, 2011.

I wrote about her rocky and governmentally impaired start here.  I then observed,

The teenager, born on a yacht in New Zealand waters, spent the first four years of her life at sea and had hoped to start a two-year solo circumnavigation in September when she was still 13.

Her separated parents disagreed over the ambition. Her mother, Babs Muller, said her daughter was technically capable but worried about her loneliness at sea and safety in ports. Her father, Dick Dekker, a keen sailor with whom she lived, was in favor.

According to news reports, Laura evaded authorities in December and made her way by air to the Dutch island territory of St. Martin in the Caribbean, where she was found and returned to Holland.

Sailing solo around the world in a small boat is a big and potentially dangerous deal. However, many have done it, though probably none that young. Among other things, help is generally a long way off if needed while far offshore in open ocean, and it is physically impossible to have someone stand watch twenty-four hours per day.

Many other teens, only slightly older than Laura, have done it. They found it an exciting, difficult, and fulfilling voyage.

Ms. Dekker is now at home with her father, and the Dutch court now seems to be more sympathetic:

According to earlier media reports, Laura ran away from home [to begin her voyage from St. Martin] because she feels the court is frustrating her attempt to become the youngest person to sail solo around the world. Child protection officers are concerned about her safety and the court has said it wants to be sure Laura can cope with the two-year trip.

During Wednesday’s hearing, the judges laid down concrete conditions for allowing the trip. … They said that she should see these conditions as a chance to prove herself rather than as restrictions. For example, Laura must follow a first aid course and make a number of sailing trips abroad to prepare for her proposed round-the-world journey.

According to her lawyer, the judges want to help Laura so that she can make her world trip in three months time.

Bloody good for them! The Dutch have long been a seafaring nation, and it is refreshing to see some of that heritage evidence itself in a judicial decision.

And now she has succeeded! Many of the things we want to do are difficult, dangerous, uncommon and even unprecedented.  If they don’t harm others, we really want to do them and have the ability we should.  Ms. Deckker’s solo voyage met those requirements and, even though I have never met her, I’m very, very proud of her and of what she did.  Perhaps not unique in the strict and literal sense of the word, she is a far more than a merely “special” person.

(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)

Six reasonable Democrats in the House (please excuse the redundancy) want a Reasonable Profits Board (RPB) to impose additional taxes on sellers of oil and gas.

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

This is an excellent idea whose time has come and which will be far more effective than price controls, so successful in delightful and prosperous Venezuela. Unfortunately, it is only one small step and does not go far enough.

“Reasonable” is universally good, just as “unreasonable” is universally bad. That’s why we need instead a Reasonable Everything Board (REB). Unreasonable (i.e., all) opposition to our beloved savior President Obama and therefore to his policies is bad, unreasonable, irreligious, racist and must therefore be eliminated. Reasonable (i.e., all) support for him is good, reasonable, religious, post-racial, necessary for our national survival and must therefore become obligatory. No statutory guidance is needed to define “reasonable” because all reasonable people know what it means and President Obama, as has been his consistent practice, will appoint only reasonable members to the REB.

The REB will decide which ideas, policies, statements, groups, blogs, other news and entertainment sources, opinions, political organizations, religions, foods, sexual practices, financial practices, pets, clothing, jewelry, nations, household expenditures and everything else are reasonable (good) and which are unreasonable (bad). These decisions will not be reviewable by any court because courts can be unreasonable. It will enforce its decisions by reasonable taxes of between fifty and one hundred percent or more as the REB see fit, also not reviewable by any court. This is necessary because the Federal Government, fettered by unreasonable voters and the unreasonable opposition members they sent, unreasonably, to Congress has been thwarted in its reasonable attempts make life in the world at large and even in the United States reasonable; it’s a hard job and therefore only the Federal Government can do it to for us.

As with the proposed but minuscule RPB, the far bigger and more powerful — as befits our great and powerful nation — REB will have complete latitude (as well as longitude) to decide what is “reasonable” without statutory guidance from an obstructionist and therefore unreasonable Congress. This is necessary in order to achieve its unquestionably reasonable goals. It will, of course, create and save money as well as jobs by consolidating countless federal agencies and departments including the EPA, SEC, FDA, FCC, DOD, DOT and many others. Determining which agencies will be consolidated, and therefore the resultant financial savings and jobs created or saved, will be within the province of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (PCEA) and it is therefore premature to speculate about the tremendous savings and creations certain to result.

This proposal will be opposed, unreasonably, but we must fight all the way for it.

(This article was first published at The PJ Tatler.)