Politics: if you're "fighting," you're doing it wrong.

Perhaps it's a sign of decreasing civility, an increased interest in popularism, or perhaps it's compensation for the fact that once in office, lobbyists and SIGs will really dictate the agenda, but the "fighting" metaphor has become widespread among all political parties.

I'm tired of political candidates who boast how much they're going to "fight" for me - are you? I appreciate the intent of the metaphor, but think that in general "fighting" candidates are showing that they will be wholly ineffective as a leader as their fighting demeanor will eliminate opportunities to advance via compromise. Pols who use the fighting metaphor just don't get it.

(I, and many Virginians may be ahead of the curve on being sick of the 'fighting' metaphor, as the most recent Senate campaign was won by the candidate with the slogan "Born Fighting.")

The truth is, good politics has very little to do with fighting. As indicated by the politicians with the greatest longevity, the best politicians on both sides of the aisle are persuaders and compromisers, not fighters. Think of Daniel Moynihan, John Warner, Newt Gingrich or Robert Byrd. These guys - while principled - are distinguished by their effectiveness, not their combativeness.

Leaving aside his political agenda for a moment, consider Newt Gingrich's leadership of the House, earned via the Contract With America. If change is the best measure of effectiveness, Newt and his party were the most effective group in Congress in my lifetime, and their route to power had less to do with "fighting" Clinton, and much more to do with selling a positive, specific agenda.

In contrast, I'd say that the "fighting" metaphor generally indicates a lack of new ideas on behalf of the candidate, and a critical lack of understanding of how things get done. I also think that "fighters" aren't constructive, positive, or likely effective. I may be taking this point a bit far, but whenever I hear that a candidate wants to fight for me, I have the additional reaction of wondering why the candidate thinks I am so helpless that I need my Senator or President to 'fight' for me. Simply put, if you're 'fighting," you're doing it wrong.

While all of this year's candidates are guilty of wearing out the fighting metaphor, the worst offender is John Edwards. In one article (linked above), Edwards or his p.r. person made 28 different fighting references, from being a candidate who will "fight and stand up to these corporate interests," to the fact that his his "fighting attitude would allow him to better take on health care interests than his competitors." He's also wrapping himself in the 'fight' metaphor in his online campaign videos

C'mon, John, drop the fighting metaphor, and instead promote a specific, positive agenda.

Your Brazilian Soccer Player Name

Know how great Brazilian soccer players go by one name? (Pele, Ronaldinho, etc.) Well, visit this site to find out how your name would translate into Brazilian soccer.

Anybody got other silly but fun web-apps?

Asian sojourn highlights are up.....

Check out the highlights of my trip to Asia here.

Thru this link you can also find a few other photo galleries of mine thru the "My gallery tab" at the top of the Asian picture page, or here.

"I am not afraid"- viewing the terrorist threat in the right perspective

I think many people would agree that while the events of 9/11 were tragic, the resulting government expansion and expansion of powers represent overkill, inefficiency, a grab for power, and worse still, a sharp detour from the American way.

The DownsizeDC blog advocates an interesting campaign in response: "I am not afraid," a campaign to tell American leaders to stop being afraid, and stop acting out of fear.

To make the point, the campaign compares US loses to terror (~3,000) to US losses in motor vehicle accidents (~800,000 in the last 20 years), with a plea for proportionate response by the government.

(I don't buy this specific argument, as the possibility of terror losses far greater in just one event far outweighs likely traffic deaths in the future, but I think the point of telling Congress to get some perspective is very worthy.)

As DownsizeDC says, a more realistic response "does not require large armies, invasions, illegal spying, torture, detention camps, Kangaroo courts, or multi-billion dollar Congressional appropriations. Neither does it require us to shred the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Conventions. All it requires is a little backbone. And a little common sense."

I completely agree! Take a look at the post at DownsizeDC to learn more, and to pass this message along to your political leaders.


Thanks to Cato for pointing this out.

Funny vid reflecting on today's tech environment

Hat tip to Businesspundit