Tag Archives: politics
We participated in a polite act of revolution this morning. Mary and I attended the “illegal” ordination of a woman as a Catholic priest. She’s our neighbor so we would be disposed to be nice about it, but more importantly, we wholeheartedly believe in the rightness of the act. God blessed it and approves, even if the church can’t get there yet. Continue reading
Whether or not you are a Christian, this author’s view makes ethical sense to me. I’ve become upset many times by the views of people parroting the old propaganda about how killing those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki “saved more American lives”, “shortened the war” etc. We don’t know that. We can’t know that. Some believe it to be true. Some don’t.
Killing innocent people is not justified, and can’t be (in my view) by unprovable hypotheses about the positive effect the killers ASSUME the killings will have (or did have) upon future events. There were tens of thousands of children under age five killed in the two atomic bombings. There were hospitals in both cities that were obliterated. Even if you subscribe to the idea that Japan had ordered “every man, woman and child to fight to the death”, it seems insane to assume infants, toddlers and hospital patients could ever have been a threat.
Historians are on both sides of this issue. Some say the documentary evidence makes it crystal clear that once Russia declared war on Japan between the two bombings, Japanese high command sued for peace, believing they would get better terms from the Americans – thus making the bombing of Nagasaki completely unnecessary (i.e. mass murder). Other historians downplay the influence of Russia’s military actions on the outcome of the war with Japan.
I’m not a historical expert. I’m examining the question from a philosophical position of pacifism, one that rejects the theory of “just wars”.
I have admit, I haven’t followed American news much at all since being here. It’s pretty much what shows up on my MSN homepage and Facebook feed. But something, other than the horror that is the presidential campaigns for both parties, caught my eye the last few days. Not from a lot of people, not the headline by far, but just enough to sadden me once again at the state of the American Church.
A few of my friends have posted at how appalled they are that President Obama dared to apologize to the people of Japan for dropping the atomic bomb on them in WWII. They point to how it saved hundreds if not thousands of lives which would have been lost in battle. They argue that Japan deserved it after attacking Pearl Harbor. They shout that in war, you do what you have to do and make no…
View original post 798 more words
Since I’m not an attorney, my opinion about Trump not suffering a loss of “free speech” even when protested, is unqualified. Here’s a more qualified explanation of what is and isn’t covered by the First Amendment, for the enlightenment of general readers.
First, a disclaimer. Although your Mulligan is an attorney licensed to practice in the district courts of the United States, nothing in here should be taken as legal advise, and is presented for educational purposes only.
Second, we need to talk about candidate speeches and protests. Candidates from all sides of the aisle have seen their political rallies interrupted this election season. Some of these candidates have reacted better than others.
So what are the legalities of this situation? Have a primer.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Very few people actually understand what the First Amendment and “free speech” or “free expression” mean. The first, and most important, lesson here is that the First Amendment only applies to government action. That is, no private entity, be it corporation or person, can violate your free speech rights. If your neighbor kicks you out of his backyard barbecue because your speech offends him…
View original post 943 more words
It’s an interesting primary season in the USA. There’s nothing unique about it if you have a decent education in our history, or world history. But people want their own lives to be momentous and unique, and they will cling to that illusion in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. That’s the problem with logic. It doesn’t provide as much adrenaline as emotion does. Trade, the process of buying and selling, is what emotionally engages most people.
I’m an odd duck, by my nature, training, and experience. When I complete an exam and end up with superior diagnostic views of a difficult patient, the doctor and I trade “high fives”. I get the same rush as if my home team won the Super Bowl. But before and during the actual exam, I’m in a logical headspace, calculating radiation dosage, distance, part thickness, tissue composition and photographic factors needed to produce the best images. Because I’m hyper-focused on the math and science, things like a wounded patient’s cries, or the wiggliness of a five year old with pneumonia don’t distract me. I do the job. It’s a kind of meditation exercise.
I tend to employ similar methods when I vote. I do research, read and watch interviews, carefully go over candidate web sites, trying to extract facts from the sales pitches. I’m not immune to appeals to my emotions, but they had better be smart, backed by facts, and honest. When candidates employ half-truths, I hold the behavior against them, like a grudge. I don’t like feeling like I got “sold” a candidate. I want it to be my unfettered choice to support or oppose them. But I think I’m atypical. I believe most people enjoy it when candidates give them attention. And it affects their vote choices.
Political campaigns are not run like scientific professions. They try to employ some science, internal polling, demographic strategies and such, but most of the money and effort go into persuasion, marketing, branding and affirmations of allegiance – all ways to appeal to emotion. In sales, this is the IQPC Model: Intro, Qualify, Pitch and Close. These are “Four Steps to a Sale” practiced by millions each day. There are other versions of this concept, but this is the one I learned working in retail sales many years ago:
1.) INTRO – You manage and control the first impression, greet the customer (voter) warmly with a word or two about yourself, establishing your desire to be helpful while inviting them to engage further.
2.) QUALIFY – Through questions, you (the seller) gain a quick understanding of the customer’s (voter’s) desires, needs and their budget. This allows the seller to separate those most likely to buy from “looky-loos” (uncommitted browsers).
3.) PITCH – The seller presents the product in a way that most closely matches the goals of the prospective buyer (determined by the qualifying questions).
4.) CLOSE – The seller asks the prospective customer to commit to the sale. Closing is the most important step, and there are different styles and methods for closes.
There are lots of ways to derail a successful sale. The seller may offer a poor INTRO, after which all efforts will be more difficult. The QUALIFY may be mismanaged by asking questions that do not provide enough information about what the customer needs, wants, and if they are willing and able to buy. The PITCH will not be persuasive if it ignores the customer’s goals, or can’t fulfill them. More sellers fail when CLOSING than at any other point in the process, because asking for the sale is harder than chatting and getting to know each other.
There are lots of ways to analyze political candidates. You can view them through the IQPC lens too, since voting is a type of transaction, a sale. Here are my short performance reviews of some recent and current presidential candidates, according to the Four Steps model:
Carly Fiorina, businessperson, former candidate for Senate
INTRO = 50/50. Good backstory that was partly deceptive.
QUALIFY = Poor. Failure to judge customer needs.
PITCH = Poor. Misjudged voters interests based on poor Q.
CLOSE = Could not close after two previous missteps
Ben Carson, retired Neurosurgeon
INTRO = 70/30 Excellent backstory marred by probable deception.
QUALIFY = Poor estimation of customer goals and desires
PITCH = Worst of entire field of candidates
CLOSE = Unable to close due to previous mistakes
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
I = Poor. Entered transaction with reputation as a bully/RINO
Q = 50/50 Misjudgment of customer interest in aggressive policy approach
P = 50/50 Adept in debates but off-putting behavior soured the sale
C = Passed customer off to another salesperson
Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
I = 70/30 Good resume impacted by co-worker dislike
Q = 70/30 Good rapport, but over-focus on select clientele
P = 70/30 Good pitch for target clients, bad for general custom
C = Making the sale is possible, but not probable
Donald Trump, Real Estate tycoon, TV performer
I = 50/50 A mix of obvious virtues and obvious flaws
Q = 70/30 Good customer evaluation, mistreatment of browsers
P = 50/50 Oversimplification, only convincing to some
C = Best closer of any GOP candidate. Sale (nomination) likely.
Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont
I = Good intro. Consistent
Q = Good qualifying questions
P = 70/30 Overly narrow focus on some customer needs, not all
C = Possible sale, if able to broaden appeal of product.
Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, former Senator
I = 50/50 Lots of positives and negatives (see Trump).
Q = Encyclopedic understanding of customer needs and desires
P = 80/20 Tendency to oversell, diminishing effectiveness of message
C = Probable sale, definite if able to refine pitch
These are my perceptions, but my readers are “above average”. I know you don’t see everything exactly as I do, and I celebrate those differences. Nothing would please me more than if you offer your own opinions of how these or other candidates have done, according to the Four Steps model. (That was a quick pitch and close.)