The Center Strikes Back

David Sirota: The Senate's Lesson about Democracy

Larry Bradley — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:38:00 GMT

David's most recent column has a number of excellent points. Consider this quote.

"The best kind of politician is a nervous politician" – and the trouble is that gerrymandering, extended terms, incumbent fundraising advantages, obsequious media coverage, lame duck-ness and other travesties make sure few politicians are ever nervous about keeping their jobs."

Read the rest of the article here.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/03/the_senates_lesson_about_democ.html

Do You Own Any of These Tools?

Larry Bradley — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:28:00 GMT

I had a friend send me this in an email and I can't resist giving you something humorous once in a while.

Subject: Anyone own any of these tools?

Tools Explained

DRILL PRESS:
A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, denting the freshly-painted project which you had carefully set in the corner where nothing could get to it.

WIRE WHEEL:
Cleans paint off bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench with the speed of light. Also removes fingerprints and hard-earned calluses from fingers in about the time it takes you to say, "Oh, sh*t!"

SKIL SAW:
A portable cutting tool used to make studs too short.

PLIERS:
Used to round off bolt heads. Sometimes used in the creation of blood-blisters.

BELT SANDER:
An electric sanding tool commonly used to convert minor touch-up jobs into major refinishing jobs.

HACKSAW:
One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle ... It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.

VISE-GRIPS:
Generally used after pliers to completely round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.

OXYACETYLENE TORCH:
Used almost entirely for lighting various flammable objects in your shop on fire. Also handy for igniting the grease inside the wheel hub out of which you want to remove a bearing race.

TABLE SAW:
A large stationary power tool commonly used to launch wood projectiles for testing wall integrity.

HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK:
Used for lowering an automobile to the ground after you have installed your new brake shoes, trapping the jack handle firmly under the bumper.

BAND SAW:
A large stationary power saw primarily used by most shops to cut good aluminum sheet into smaller pieces that more easily fit into the trash can after you cut on the inside of the line instead of the outside edge.

TWO-TON ENGINE HOIST:
A tool for testing the maximum tensile strength of everything you forgot to disconnect.

PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER:
Normally used to stab the vacuum seals under lids or for opening old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splashing oil on your shirt; but can also be used, as the name implies, to strip out Phillips screw heads.

STRAIGHT SCREWDRIVER:
A tool for opening paint cans. Sometimes used to convert common slotted screws into non-removable screws and butchering your palms.

PRY BAR:
A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.

HOSE CUTTER:
A tool used to make hoses too short.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent to the object we are trying to hit usually smashing the thumb that is holding the object that you are trying to pound into whatever it is that you are working on effectively eliminating the need for manicure care on that thumbnail for weeks. See: Son of a b*tch TOOL

UTILITY KNIFE:
Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on contents such as seats, vinyl records, liquids in plastic bottles, collector magazines, refund checks, and rubber or plastic parts. Especially useful for slicing work clothes, but only while in use.

Son of a b*tch TOOL:
Any handy tool that you grab and throw across the garage while yelling, "Son of a b*tch" at the top of your lungs. It is also, most often, the next tool that you will need

Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #104 Acknowledging the Constraints

Larry Bradley — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:40:00 GMT

1. The Oscars and Ranked Choice Voting
2. Acknowledging the Constraints

1. The Oscars and Ranked Choice Voting

We have long advocated here the transformation from plurality or winner take all voting to Instant Runoff or Ranked Choice Voting (IRV or RCV). This is the best way to overcome the limitations of Polarized Politics. Term limits will have little or no effect on our polarization. The same play will continue with a substitute player spouting the same lines as before.

The Academy Awards this year (better known, of course, as the Oscars) not only have doubled the number of films up for best motion picture. The Academy is using RCV to determine the award winners.

FairVote.org notified me FairVoteMinnesota has provided a sample ballot for the Oscars so you can have a clearer idea of how IRV/RCV would work. Check it out at this link.

http://www.fairvotemn.org/

Please share this with your friends. I encourage you to make your comments at my Blog at www.TheCenterStrikesBack.com, rather than simply replying to my email. I want you all to discover one another and (unfortunately) the software I use to distribute this Ezine does not allow everyone to see an individual reply. Your subscription to my Blog is also encouraged.

2. Acknowledging the Constraints

One of the annoyances I have listening to political discussions nowadays is the seeming inability to acknowledge the reality of constraints in the proposing of solutions to the nation’s problems. I don’t have a problem with a point of view being expressed, but at some point it seems to me advocates need to realize (and explain to their constituents) they simply cannot get to where they want to go from where they are now.

Let’s talk about an historical real world non-political example to illustrate the point.

In the early 1980’s, the US Army began to introduce a new combat vehicle to its inventory. The M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System came in two basic configurations. The M2 was an Infantry Carrier, while the M3 was designed for Cavalry. The exterior differences between the two were minor. The primary difference was in the internal configuration. The two prime reasons for the similarities externally are these.

First, one of the purposes of Cavalry is . . .

To be able to read the rest of the Ezine, please email customerservice@KindredMindsEnt.com and subscribe to our free weekly Ezine by providing your first and last name, an email address and your zip code. We will forward a copy of the complete text of this Ezine to you and you will receive all future editions in your in-box. We do not share our list of subscribers for any reason, You may unsubscribe at any time (as noted in the Administrative Instructions included with each Ezine) by replying to the Ezine with the word UNSUBSCRIBE anywhere in the subject line.

Once you have subscribed, we suggest you check your spam file in your email account to make sure you’re receiving your copy of our weekly Ezine.

Thank you in advance for becoming a member of our community seeking pragmatic solutions for our political problems by overcoming polarized politics.

Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #103 Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 7

Larry Bradley — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:33:00 GMT

1. Consistency in Health Care Proposals
2. Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 7

1. Consistency in Health Care Proposals

I had the pleasure yesterday of listening to Dr. Richard L. O’Brien make a presentation on the current health care proposals before Congress. Dr. O’Brien is with the Creighton University Medical Center’s Center for Health Policy and Ethics.

His presentation first focused on why health care reform is an issue. The reasons include skyrocketing costs in comparison to GDP and income and the fact we have worse outcomes than other countries despite the fact we spend more per capita on our care.

He summarized what was in the current House Bill, the Senate Bill and in the compromise proposal from the White House. He then showed a summary slide with the key provisions favored in the bill, such as mandates.

Dr. O’Brien next showed a summary slide comparing what was in the current bills with a Senate Republican proposal from 1993. Six of the Senators from 1993 are still in the Senate. Guess what—an exact match, including mandatory health care coverage.

Dr. O’Brien was asked if he thought a "let’s take reform a step at a time" approach would work. Basically, the Doctor’s answer was no. If you take only one step without a counter balancing step, then the effort would fail.

Dr. O’Brien also recommended a web site to compare the three proposals side by side put up by the Kaiser Foundation. It’s not light reading, but it is thorough. Here’s a link.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf

I hope to have Dr. O’Brien on Car Concerns this week or next. I’ll post on my Blog if we’re able to schedule him.

By the way, if you would like to comment on my Ezines, then please do so by going to my blog at www.TheCenterStrikesBack.com. That way others will see what you wrote and have a chance to comment.

2. Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 7

We’ve been discussing how psychological prejudices voters don’t even know they have influence their voting choices and cause them to vote against their own self interest.

As part of this, you’ve been shown how people have been persuaded to vote for candidates based on what the candidates say are their values, but then reveal themselves to have different values by what they do.

This is a probable cause of the Tea Party movement and even a cause of frustration among other dissatisfied voters. Given their distrust of one party and their feeling of betrayal by the other party, what is a voter to do? No true third party option exists. It’s not like buying cars. If you don’t like Ford or Chrysler, then you can turn to GM (or Toyota, or Honda or whatever.) The point is you have better options as a consumer than you do as a voter. You have better options because the consumer marketplace has not been restricted like the political by rules on ballot access and procedures.

By the way, there are a lot more examples of how the "Niagara Falls" psychological prejudice is used to influence voters. Here are a few being used currently.

Health care insurance reform is government takeover of health care

ACORN enables illegitimate candidates to win elections

Government workers are not worthy of the pay they receive and/or are overpaid.

We can do without government and programs like Medicare and Social Security.

I won’t go into detail now about how these are forms of psychological prejudice. I may come back to them later. I will say, however, that if you can’t recognize . . .

Once you have subscribed, we suggest you check your spam file in your email account to make sure you’re receiving your copy of our weekly Ezine.

Thank you in advance for becoming a member of our community seeking pragmatic solutions for our political problems by overcoming polarized politics.

Expectations from the Health Care Conference

Larry Bradley — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:56:00 GMT

The link provides a NY Times describing the likely tactics of both sides and outcomes of the White House Conference on Health Care/Insurance Reform.

I think interesting the fact my own Congressman uses a Wall Street Journal editorial to express his feelings on the legislation. The WSJ is, of course, the mouthpiece of business. Is that an indication my Congressman is more in tune with business interests who fund his campaigns than he is with the interests of the people who actually vote for him?

Think about that one.

Here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/economy/24leonhardt.html?th&emc=th

Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #102 Thoughts from The Blind Side Part 6

Larry Bradley — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:29:00 GMT

Interview of Authors Baumer and Gold

Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 6

Interview of Authors Baumer and Gold

Thursday I had fun interviewing authors Donald C. Baumer and Howard J. Gold. They were on Car Concerns with me today. I interviewed them about their book, Parties, Polarization and Democracy in the United States.

Harry Truman used to say there was nothing new in the world. There’s only all the history you don’t know. These guys’ book will make sure you know your American political history. We also talked about what’s likely to happen if Tea Party candidates get elected to Congress.

You can listen at the following link of the show archives. Go to hour 2 for Feb 18, 2010.

http://www.lifestyletalkradio.com/weekday_hosts/archives/carc.shtml

Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 6

Last week I talked about a common belief in some segments of American society. The belief is "poor people are poor because they choose to be." While we readily agree this may be true in some cases, what "The Blind Side" clearly shows us is this is not true in all cases. And, as almost always happens with this kind of flawed logic, if you begin with a flawed premise, then you will get a flawed conclusion.

"Poor people are poor because they choose to be" leads to another thought for use in politics. Poor people refuse to work, (the thought goes) but they can be organized to vote for politicians who promise poor people money for doing nothing. According to conservatives, if a conservative candidate loses an election, the reason for the loss is the fact that all those lazy, good for nothing poor people were promised lots of money for doing nothing by voting against the conservative candidate. And where is that money going to come from? According to conservatives, that money will come from hard working middle class Americans.

So, the conservative message is intended to appeal to those who have been psychologically programmed to believe . . .

Once you have subscribed, we suggest you check your spam file in your email account to make sure you’re receiving your copy of our weekly Ezine.

Thank you in advance for becoming a member of our community seeking pragmatic solutions for our political problems by overcoming polarized politics.

Stratcom: The Meaning of Marjah

Larry Bradley — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:06:00 GMT

This is probably one of the most unbiased assessments of what we are attempting to do in Afghanistan you are ever going to read. You will find out why we are doing an assault in Marjah, how this supports our national defense efforts, and gives you the realities of the terrain and the battle calculus politics is unlikely to give you.

Read it for yourself at this link.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100216_meaning_marjah?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100216&utm_content=readmore&elq=d24a3b48f72f4a7ba3f5be1bf9f37166

NY Times: Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on the Right

Larry Bradley — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:19:00 GMT

As I have been writing in my weekly Ezines, plenty of reason exists for people to be upset with the economy and the actions of government. The difficulty is the blame is being assigned to people and organizations who do not deserve blame.

Part of the reason I feel the Tea Party is emerging is people are casting about to find a replacement for the political party they traditionally associate with. The difficulty is there is no third alternative on a par with the two major parties.

Think of football as if you were a fan disgusted by both conferences of the National Football League and wondering if the Arena Leage might be a better alternative. That's the disgusted voter today looking at Democrats and Republicans.

This article is long, but thorough.

Here is the link

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?th&emc=th

Frank Rich on Palin and the Tea Parties

Larry Bradley — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:14:00 GMT

Frank Rich's article in the NY Times about Sarah Palin, Tea Parties, Democrats and Republicans is informative and well written.

Read the article (Palin's Cunning Sleight of Hand) at this link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14rich.html?th&emc=th

Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #101 Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 5

Larry Bradley — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:13:00 GMT

1. Supporting Thoughts
2. Thoughts From "The Blind Side" Part 5

1. Supporting Thoughts

Today I heard some supporting thoughts for this week’s essay from an unlikely source. I was listening to a legislative briefing from two of my state’s representative. One of them is decidedly known as a "conservative". The "conservative" one made this statement, which I’ll paraphrase.

"I campaigned that government should be run like a business. I still feel that way, but I’ve discovered it’s very hard to do. For example, in business you don’t have to allow for everyone being your customer. In government you do. Every kid that walks through the schoolhouse door you have a responsibility to educate, like it or not."

What I further found remarkable about these two officials is their reality based thinking. At State and Local levels, elected officials know how much money they have coming in and they are forced to adjust their spending based on what they have. There is no expanding money supply or Fed to back them up. They might get some Federal monies or use a cash reserve, but no one is coming to the rescue.

As a result, their discussion was respectful, realistic and pragmatic. Interesting to consider what might be required to bring that about on the Federal level.

2. Thoughts From "The Blind Side" Part 5

So far I have used this story to write about what a difference a relatively minor change in the rules can make to how much better a game can be played and enjoyed. This applies to the game of life, business and politics, not just sports.

Shifting emphasis somewhat, this writing will use examples from the story to illustrate some of the psychological prejudices used in politics.

To recap for those yet to read the book or see the movie, The Blind Side is about how Michael Oher, a poor black teenage boy from Memphis, TN is taken in by a white family and given new opportunities. Oher comes from incredible poverty and has been living in a virtually homeless situation. His truancy means he is largely uneducated, because the school system has passed him from one grade to another, regardless of demonstrated skill.

Oher has one thing going for him. Nature has given him a huge body coupled with incredible nimbleness and speed. As a result of his athletic potential, Oher is granted admission to a private religious school. Through the efforts of his adopted family, Oher is given the support he needs to succeed both academically and athletically. He is able to attend college on a football scholarship and currently plays for the Baltimore Ravens.

The amount of support needed for these achievements was considerable. For example, a full time private tutor was hired for him during his senior year in high school and accompanied him to college.

The story as portrayed in the film has resulted in a Best Picture Oscar nomination for the film and a Best Actress nomination for its star, Sandra Bullock. The book raises a whole host of questions about the meaning of this story and our society at large. . . .

Once you have subscribed, we suggest you check your spam file in your email account to make sure you’re receiving your copy of our weekly Ezine.

Thank you in advance for becoming a member of our community seeking pragmatic solutions for our political problems by overcoming polarized politics.

Warren Buffett Interviews Henry Paulson

Larry Bradley — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:55:00 GMT

The annual meeting of the Omaha, Nebraska Chamber of Commerce featured Warren Buttett and Henry Paulson, the former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. Buffett, in effect, interviewed Paulson about Paulson's book, On the Brink, which is about the financial meltdown in the Fall of 2008.

I'm including a link to the complete interview. Among the revelations is the threat Paulson says he made to John McCain during the crisis and how then candidate Obama "got it" while McCain did not.

Here's the link.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100210/MONEY/702109950/0/AP05

Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #100 Noting an Anniversary

Larry Bradley — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:06:00 GMT

1. Welcome to Ezine 100
2. Noting an Anniversary

1. Welcome to Ezine 100

Welcome to Ezine 100. I appreciate you being part of my audience. My intention with this effort over the past two years (four years overall) has been not simply to report what is politically, but to offer an irreverent and pragmatic assessment of why. Further, I intended to offer ideas on changes to our political system to make both our system and our government function better.

While I would like to think I am achieving those objectives, ideas don’t matter much if they don’t get spread and implemented. For that, I need your help. If you’re intrigued by what I write (you don’t have to agree 100%), then please forward my offerings not only to your friends and family, but also to your local newspaper editor, talk show host or blogger.

Lately, I’ve been focused on showing how relatively minor changes to the rules of how things are done can have enormous benefits. Starting next week, I’m going to be focused on how flawed assumptions can also be responsible for holding back progress.

To that end, a number of people have brought a real world example of that to my attention. The example is the Blog of the author Steven Pressfield and his entry entitled, "Tribal Engagement Tutorials: Mental Models". Here’s a link to the posting. Look for the title. The link may lead you to the latest posting instead. blog.stevenpressfield.com/2010/01/tribal-engagement-tutorial-mental-models/

I especially like the first entry in the posting, "Having your head in the game requires accepting that your perception of reality might not be correct." I fear many of our issues come from a distorted perception of reality.

2. Noting an Anniversary

Because of several significant personal anniversaries this week, I’m going to interrupt my lessons from "The Blind Side" to offer a summary of my discoveries over the last four years and where I intend to go from here.

My project to overcome polarized politics began because I saw a government ineffective and inefficient. Today more and more people seem to share that opinion, especially after the 2008 election and deservedly so. Unfortunately, too often the people, organizations and political theories blamed for those conditions are, in my opinion, the wrong ones. (Are you listening, Tea Partiers?) In fact, my opinion is those who are most active in blaming others for conditions are themselves responsible for creating the conditions in the first place.

Why is the blame misplaced? Blame is misplaced because too many people have never developed a political philosophy enabling them to think rationally about topics like the following. Too many people--

Think about politics as if it were a detestable sport they don’t understand but are forced to participate in; which they do in ignorance to their own detriment.

Don’t understand the "Monkey Head" theory of analyzing political issues.

Have never thought through how to resolve their personal beliefs with their political beliefs and reconcile those beliefs with those of differing opinions.

Have no concept of how to reconcile the rights of individuals to make their own choices with the needs for government to regulate behavior for the common good.

Have never considered how setting proper government policy can be likened to setting the navigation buoys at the entrance of a harbor.

Are unwilling, unable, or just plain afraid to confront and resolve three latter day equivalents of Prohibition that continue to divide us socially and politically.

As a result of the lack of these philosophical skills, if determining political self interest and position were a mathematical exercise like calculating a mortgage payment and comparing it to one’s household budget, then lots of people would be unable to calculate the proper answer and apply it to current circumstances.

How can it be people allow themselves to be so misled politically? Because . . .

Once you have subscribed, we suggest you check your spam file in your email account to make sure you’re receiving your copy of our weekly Ezine.

Thank you in advance for becoming a member of our community seeking pragmatic solutions for our political problems by overcoming polarized politics.

Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #99 Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 4

Larry Bradley — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:30:00 GMT

1. Cause and Effect Applied to Politics
2. Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 4

1. Cause and Effect Applied to Politics

One of the prime lessons I’ve learned from the success masters like Brian Tracy is the law of cause and effect, sometimes also called the law of sewing and reaping. The law says if you study success, learn its causes, and apply those causes to what you’re doing, then you can have success, too. Likewise, if you study failure and emulate what failures do, then you can be a failure.

Not only is this a law for personal success. The law of cause and effect applies to all other endeavors as well, such as business, sports, governing and economics. The law is also a prime factor in managing and investing.

If you manage someone or invest your money with someone, then you have expectations of performance at work and/or with the return on the money. When you don’t get the performance you expect, then you start searching for the reasons why. When you discover the reasons lie in the flawed philosophy they use, then you should be leery of continuing with them and their philosophy.

Accordingly, I thought President Obama’s summary of events from the year 2000 forward in the State of the Union speech was useful for those with long term memory issues. Now, I wish he had gone back two years further to 1998. That’s the year both parties and both Houses of Congress revoked the Glass-Steagall Act and enabled the speculation that led to the disaster we have today. Nevertheless, the reality is not Obama was elected and the economy collapsed. The reality is the policies and management of the leadership (predominately Republican) from the last 8 years have given us what we have today. The assertion Republican policies from the last 8 years have nothing to with current circumstances is an insult to even average intelligence.

So, as much as my own Congressman wants to whine that he wishes the President would focus on the future instead of reminding us of the past, I refuse to do that. I do remember how he voted in lockstep with that Republican leadership, that his philosophy is flawed, and (since I refuse to reward failure) I want to see him gone after this coming November.

2. Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 4

You’re probably expecting direct commentary on the recent special US Senate election in Massachusetts won by Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley.

Actually, the election result illustrates many of the points being made here for some time. Accordingly, I’m going to continue with the theme I’ve had the last few weeks. The topics are building sequentially and I’ll comment more directly in about two weeks.

This week I want to continue to discuss simple and beneficial rules changes to our political process. One of the reasons I feel the feelings of frustration exist over our political process is the perception by certain groups the electoral process is rigged against them. Last week I suggested one solution to overcoming that feeling would be instituting Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). The other source of frustration is the workings of the Electoral College. Here are my suggestions for making the Electoral College better.

I realize strong feelings exist for doing away with the Electoral College altogether. I disagree. I think the writers of the Constitution . . .

Once you have subscribed, we suggest you check your spam file in your email account to make sure you’re receiving your copy of our weekly Ezine.

Thank you in advance for becoming a member of our community seeking pragmatic solutions for our political problems by overcoming polarized politics.

Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #98 Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 3

Larry Bradley — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:43:00 GMT

1. The Mud Will Fly Like a Blizzard This Time
2. Thoughts From "The Blind Side" Part 3

1. The Mud Will Fly Like a Blizzard This Time

Are you upset by negative ads and campaigning? Well, you literally ain’t seen nothin’ yet. What you will see in the future will make past efforts seem tame and sane in comparison.

I’m talking about the highly likely result of this week’s Supreme Court decision allowing business and their specially created interest groups the unfettered right to spend money on the candidates and issues of their choice.

I had a friend forward me an email exchange he was having with someone else. The question he raised was, "Why should an entity that cannot vote be allowed to participate in influencing elections?"

One counter to that thought might be that businesses are taxed. If businesses are taxed, then shouldn’t they have a voice in the process? But what is the proper balance between the deep pockets and organization of some businesses vs. the interest of the individual citizens?

Here’s a link to a news report of the Supreme Court Decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?th&emc=th

2. Thoughts from "The Blind Side" Part 3

What an appropriate time to be writing about comparisons between rule changes in pro football and their positive impact the game in comparison to what might be possible with similar changes in politics and society.

I refer specifically to 8 playoff games played so far following the National Football League’s 2009 season. The Wild Card playoff game between the Cardinals and the Packers was not only the highest scoring game in League playoff history. The game was also one of the most exciting. This was a game where both teams went back and forth, each seemingly unable to stop the other. Then in a great twist to the theme, the game is decided in overtime by a defensive play coming from the "seeing" side. Not only was the game highly enjoyable to the partisan fans in the stadium, but to the viewers on television. In fact, the playoffs are the highest watched programs so far this year.

This record, this excitement and these ratings are all made possible by some simple changes balancing the power between the contestants on the field in a new and dynamic way pleasing to the people who matter most—the people who enjoy watching the game.

So, the question I propose to you again this week is one I have been proposing for some time. Could it be a few moderate rule changes could break many of the political and social logjams we have in our country and restore our peace and prosperity both for our country and the majority of its citizens? I think so. That’s why I’m writing about it.

What are those few moderate rule changes for your industry? What are they for banking? For energy production? For the environment? For the economy? I certainly don’t claim to know the answers to those questions. I simply believe there are those among us who do know what those moderate rule changes are. The difficulty is we have a political system (aided and abetted by the nature of what passes for news today) suppressing the emergence of those new rules. What I do claim to know is . . .

Once you have subscribed, we suggest you check your spam file in your email account to make sure you’re receiving your copy of our weekly Ezine.

Thank you in advance for becoming a member of our community seeking pragmatic solutions for our political problems by overcoming polarized politics.

NY Times: Thriving Military Recruitment Program Blocked

Larry Bradley — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:26:00 GMT

Here is, in my opinion, one more example of how we no longer look at the wars we fight as do-it-yourself projects.

Instead of using a draft to find and train the language and medical specialists we need among our own population, we make deals with foreigners instead.

The article is straight forward news reporting. Read it now with my point of view and tell me what you think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22recruit.html?th&emc=th

NY Times Analysis--How the GOP Won in Massachusetts

Larry Bradley — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:01:00 GMT

The NY Times has an even handed analysis of the events leading to the GOP success in the US Senate Election in Massachusetts. That election saw GOP candidate Scott Brown defeat Democratic candidate Martha Coakley. The role of Tea Party movement in the election result is detailed.

Read the article at the following link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/politics/21reconstruct.html?th&emc=th

David Sirota on US Senate Election in Massachusetts

Larry Bradley — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:45:00 GMT

The election results for the US Senate election in Massachusetts and the victory by Scott Brown is a political explosion. I have a couple of articles to post about it.

One thing's for sure. You may on paper outnumber your opponents' supports by a large number. But if only 10% of your side shows up at the polls and (thorough superior motivation) the other side shows up at a much higher rate, then the chances are you're going to lose.

The question is, what are you doing that keeps your side from being motivated to show up?

David Sirota offers the thought the superior motivation of the Republicans was due to the resurection of the ghost of Ronald Reagan made possible by the failings of the Democrats governing actions.

Read the article for yourself at the link.

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20100122/COLUMNISTS91/1220317/1014

Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #97 Lessons from "The Blind Side" Part 2

Larry Bradley — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:31:00 GMT

1. A Word to the Paranoid
2. Thoughts from the Blind Side—Part 2

1. A Word to the Paranoid

Watching the early stages of the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake may offer some lessons for the paranoid among us. In my time on the radio and in various speaking engagements I have frequently encountered Americans who believe their government is planning to subjugate them. They offer as evidence press releases about contingency operations plans for potential disasters in our country which include the military. I have some knowledge of those plans, given not only my background but the fact one of my old units is a key component of those plans.

The fact is when a disaster strikes, be it natural or man made, the time has long past to ask, "What should we do in those circumstances?" Those plans must already be in place and equipment and supplies stockpiled so the various agencies can react immediately.

What you see moving towards Haiti is a result of that sort of contingency planning and the capability of the military to move into a situation and bring order to chaos. I pray that unlike Katrina, those in charge of those plans have been both competent and thorough and the resources allocated to them are equal to the task.

Let’s hope the planning, execution and resource allocations are equally robust should there be a natural or man made disaster in our own country. Should one of those disasters occur, we will be exceedingly glad those contingency plans exist if they work—and mad as hell if they don’t.

Finally, let’s all offer our prayers and support to help those in need.

2. Thoughts from the Blind Side—Part 2

Last week I wrote about the book and movie The Blind Side. My belief is this story of how football evolved to be a better game is a metaphor for how our politics can be better, too. I want to continue that discussion with you.

During my work life in the military and private industry at all levels I have seen numerous examples (at both low and high levels) of how relatively minor changes to the rules for how things are done can have a huge impact on the improvement of an organization’s functions and results. The Blind Side is one of the best documented examples I’ve ever seen of this phenomenon.

Usually those changes involve overcoming the objections of traditionalists who have a vested interest in seeing things remain as they are. What usually happens is a few clear eyed seers come into a position of authority with a vision for change and take the actions needed. Once people see the results, the attitude becomes, "Why didn’t we do it this way sooner?" The answer is obstinate people with turf to protect fail to appreciate what could be in favor of what is and delay the change for as long as they can.

My hope is if you can appreciate the story of The Blind Side then you can appreciate the parallels applied to other situations, as well.

Last week I noted two changes to the rules for pro football that profoundly changed the game. People have a variety of reasons for watching football. Some watch for the violence. Others watch for the acrobatic athleticism. Some watch for the matching of wits via strategy, the X’s and O’s, if you will. Others watch for a combination of these and other factors. When allowing blockers to use their hands and not allowing contact with receivers five yards beyond the line of scrimmage was proposed, the purists who only watched the game for the macho violence objected. The purists wanted defense to retain superiority over the offense. But those with vision in a position of authority saw a larger audience was needed to make more money and they approved the new rules.

But one other change was needed to really change the pro football marketplace. That change was the coming of free agency for players. Suddenly players were no longer locked into playing for just one team throughout their career. Applying the rules of economics, when the need for a product is high, but the availability of that product is scarce, the price for that product goes up. And so, the price (salary offers) to left tackles who could and would protect the blind side of a quarterback went up and up and up.

Compare the teachings of The Blind Side to our recent and continuing health care debate. Realize that, at its core, . . .

Once you have subscribed, we suggest you check your spam file in your email account to make sure you’re receiving your copy of our weekly Ezine.

Thank you in advance for becoming a member of our community seeking pragmatic solutions for our political problems by overcoming polarized politics.

Max Skidmore's Comments on Weekly Ezine #96

Larry Bradley — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:00:00 GMT

One of my Ezine subscribers, Max Skidmore, sent me an excellent commentary on my last Ezine.

Max rightly points out Independents come from all kinds of poltical persuasions and are Independents for a large variety of reasons.

Here are Max's comments.

Hi Larry,

Interesting blog, as usual.

Here are some thoughts on independent voters. The tendency is to assume that they are a defined group, possibly between Republicans and Democrats, who will pick and choose issues from either party. Some, of course, are, but many are not. Libertarians see themselves this way: they say they choose the fiscal conservativism of the Republicans and the social liberalism of the Democrats to keep government out of everyone’s life. In practice, though, they tend to line up more with Republicans (although the arch conservative Bob Barr, the man who introduced an impeachment resolution against Clinton in the House long before anyone had heard of Monica Lewinsky), became fed up with Bush authoritarianism and pre-emptive war, and after his defeat for re-election threw his lot in with the ACLU!). Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Independents don’t fit easily into a specific category, because there are many, many, reasons behind their political choices. Here are just some possibilities: Some are disgusted with Democrats or Republicans because they are too liberal or too conservative. However, others reject them because they consider them wishy-washy—ie, the Republicans are insufficiently right-wing, the Democrats not far enough left. Others simply know little about politics, and thus don’t affiliate. In other words, they are outside the system, true, but not for ideological reasons.

The assumption too often is the same as that in support of a third party. That is, they are a group that would support everything I want, and oppose everything I oppose. Let’s assume that’s true—and of course, it assumes that all thoughtful people of good will naturally would agree with me—just how long would it be before an independent movement, or third party, if it ever came to power, simply assumed the mantle of either Republicans or Democrats?

For better or worse, the entire system is geared to respond to a two-party structure. In practice, a strong third party movement (or an organized independent movement) nearly always works to defeat the side closest to its own interests, ensuring victory for the ones they most oppose.

In 1992, Perot seems to have appealed most to disaffected Republicans, and helped ensure Clinton’s victory—the very thing that the disaffected Republicans wanted least. Recentlly in New York’s 20th congressional district (or was it the 23rd?), a strong right-wing challenge to the conservative Republican candidate brought victory to the Democrat in a district that had not gone Democratic for over a century. In New Mexico a few years ago, a strong Green challenge in a Democratic district helped ensure a congressional victory for a Republican, and we all are familiar with 2000, in which Ralph Nader’s showing in Florida made a Bush victory possible nationwide, and saddled the country with eight years of a president who ultimately even Nader conceded was worse than Gore would have been. Shortly after 2000, I attended a talk by Michael Moore, who had supported Nader, and even he said, "Ralph should have stayed away from Florida!"

The religious right some decades ago demonstrated enormous political skill. Their conservative activists noted that they got nowhere when they acted independently, when they supported whichever candidate seemed closest to their interests. Thus, they decided to concentrate all their activities in one of the existing parties. It could have been either one, but they chose the Republicans, and we all can see how effective they became. They didn’t completely take over the GOP, but they became so powerful that they controlled it to a considerable extent.

From a purely political point of view, Nader should have worked within the Democratic Party. He might have failed, or he might have succeeded. If he had failed, however, the consequences from his point of view would have been comparatively inconsequential. The independent path he chose, though, resulted in the worst possible outcome—from the standpoint of his values. He has never admitted this—and could never admit it. To do so would admit that he, single-handedly, energized those outside the system to engineer the election of the single administration most opposed to his own values. He couldn’t live with himself if he were to recognize what he did.

Just some thoughts. Things rarely are so simple as them seem.

Keep up the good work,

Max

Interviews with Coloradans about Health Care Reform

Larry Bradley — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:56:00 GMT

I especially like this quote from the article, as well as the stats about Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

"Ron Vaughn, who provides health insurance to his 60 employees at Argonaut Wine and Liquor near the state Capitol, said: “I’m a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom. The one word I would use for what’s going on in Washington is embarrassing. "

Read the full NY Times article here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/health/policy/11health.html?th&emc=th