Go and Do the Right Thing - VOTE

You are on the Board of Directors of a large enterprise in severe financial trouble. Will you vote to stick with the current executive team or hire a new one?

THE CURRENT EXECUTIVE TEAM

The current team admittedly inherited a tough situation four years ago, but all they have done is spend more than they could ever take in on schemes that are not economically viable. They wasted our money rewarding their cronies with “stimulus” schemes that have not panned out.

The leader of the current team is a charming and engaging speaker who had no leadership or economic experience when he took office, and does not seem to have learned anything in those departments in the past four years. He has sold us a bill of goods of “hope and change” and all he can promise is four more years of the same.

His sidekick has no visible qualifications except having fed at the political table for decades (which explains his “gravitas”). He seems to stick his foot in his mouth whenever he opens it (which explains his clean feet and dirty mouth).
 

THE ALTERNATIVE NEW TEAM

The new team under consideration offers an alternative vision based on solid business principles and demonstrated leadership and achievement.

Sadly, when it comes to campaigning, the leader of the new team  is a bit lacking in the charm department. He sometimes gets into trouble for speaking the plain truth directly and in clear language. However, he is an experienced executive with tremendous business and leadership knowledge and a sterling record of success in turning troubled enterprises around.

His sidekick is a bit of a “policy wonk” with a great deal of legislative experience. He may be the only lawmaker who has actually read and understood most of the bills he supported or opposed. He has detailed knowledge of the budget but also the ability to explain it in plain language we ordinary people can understand.

The new team has an economic plan that is admittedly a bit painful, but it is the only hope (short of Divine Intervention) of getting our enterprise out of the ditch and back on the highway to progress towards economic viability.

It is your choice. Now, go and do the right thing! VOTE!

Ira Glickstein

PS: If you liked the above, you may also be interested in:
The Problem with High Intellect Twits (HITwits)
Affordable Food Care Act
Uncle Sam's Illness
Once I was Young and a Democrat
VP Candidate Paul Ryan Talks Medicare at The Villages, FL
 

The Problem with High-Intellect Twits (HITwits)

[Added 05 Nov 2014] The posting below, from 2012, may help to explain President Obama's fall from popularity, and the GOP gains in their majority in the US House of Representatives, and newfound majority in the Senate.]

There are four kinds of people in the world:

• High-Intellect Twit - A HITwit is a smart person who excels at some intellectual pursuit and foolishly thinks that makes him or her an expert on everything, despite pitiful lack of experience. These are the most dangerous people to have around, particularly if they use their intellect to rise to high positions and impose their foolish ideas on the rest of us. (Two prime examples of HITwits are sketched above).
• High-Intellect Wise - A HIWise is a smart person who excels in a range of practical pursuits and is serious in his or her outlook on their place in society. These are the best people to have around because they are responsible for most of the great ideas and advances in science, technology, and business, helping to create jobs and the wealth of nations. We need HIWise leaders but, unfortunately, they are often criticized by the main-stream press for telling us painful truths, and they sometimes lack the personal celebrity and warm charm people find attractive.
• Limited-Intellect Wise - A LIWise is a person of average intelligence who is serious about doing the best they can for themselves, their families, and their communities. These dutifully do nearly all the necessary work of the world, are good neighbors and friends, and add tremendous value to the lives of all around them.
• Limited-Intellect Twit - A LITwit is a person of average intelligence who is also foolish. These are pretty much useless in terms of accomplishing anything, but at least they do not cause any trouble beyond requiring public assistance and charity, which they accept gracefully.

Fans of the hilarious Big Bang Theory sitcom will recognize the Dr. Sheldon Cooper character who is portrayed as a brilliant theoretical physicist with an eidetic (photographic) memory. This nearly ideal example of a HITwit knows everything about everything he deems to be important, and continually spouts little known, true but useless information to prove his high opinion of himself. Of course, Sheldon is incapable of actually accomplishing anything of use to human civilization. When he makes what he thinks is a clever joke, he cries "Bazinga!" and when the other characters suggest he may be out of his mind, he says "I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested!"

The second example of a HITwit is a brilliant public speaker who excels at inspirational rationalizations for his failure to deliver on his promise of "Hope and Change". He is so clever and lacking in any real experience in business that he actually believes his own foolish retoric. Despite the failure of trillions of dollars borrowed from the Chinese and wasted by his political allies in big business and big labor and big government to stimulate the economy, he has doubled down on more of the same. His major accomplishment and goal in life is taking money from those who have earned it by hard work and inspired enterprise and doling it out to those who, for whatever reason, have not. If a politician takes money from Peter to pay Paul, he can depend upon Paul's vote. Sadly, many of our fellow citizens are mesmerized by this HITwit's warm and charming personality and mislead by his shameless cheerleaders in the major media. They appear to be buying another four-year boatload of the same old "Hope" hokum he sold them in 2008. When will we ever learn?

That's the problem with HITwits!

Ira Glickstein

The TED Talks - Five Channels of Morality

Howard linked to this TED Talk in a Comment on a previous Topic. I think it is worthy of being a new Topic so I am copying it here, along with Joel's positive Comment as well as my favorable take on it.

Jonathan Haidt's views on the five channels of morality were previously posted by Stu. Howard also posted a previous link to a TED talk on memes. If Howard, Joel, Stu, and Ira agree on the importance of a concept, and the value of TED talks, we can't all be wrong, can we? ("Great minds think alike" but "fools seldom differ" or something like that :^)

Please view the 19-minute TED video because it is definitely worth your time.

Here is my short version, using screen captures from the video with some annotation I added.

The image above shows what Haidt posits are the five channels or tools or foundations of traditional morality: 1) Harm-Care, 2) Fairness-Reciprocity, 3) Authority-Respect, 4) Ingroup Loyalty, and 5) Purity-Sanctity.

The graph shows the result of over 23,000 US respondants who took the online test at http://www.yourmorals.org/

You may want to take the test and report your personal results here as a Comment.

Haidt points out that self-described liberals rate Harm and Fairness very high.

They rate Authority, Ingroup, and Purity very low.

Conservatives rate all nearly equally, with Harm at the top and Fairness at the bottom, but all in a tight range.

Moderates score between the extremes.

The final image indicates why liberals reject three of the five tools of traditional morality, in Haidt's view:


LIBERALS REJECT> Ingroup Loyalty (they CELEBRATE DIVERSITY)

LIBERALS REJECT> Authority-Respect (they QUESTION AUTHORITY)

LIBERALS REJECT> Purity-Sanctity (they say KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY)





HOWARD'S COMMENT
Ira exhibits another C- vs. L-mind difference that...
November 12, 2008, 9:46:00 PM(Howard Pattee)

Ira exhibits another C- vs. L-mind difference that I think makes sense. C-minds make judgments based on the past performance over a lifetime.

L-minds make judgments based on the potential of youth for the future. If I judged my students on C-mind criteria, I would fail as a teacher.

Here is a TED talk about C- and L-minds that I think pretty much covers the conclusions of our own discussions, except that it does appear liberally biased to some conservatives. Remember, he is speaking to an audience that is mostly liberal. The comments are also interesting.

In this post-US-election week, TED is passionately discussing Jonathan Haidt's talk on the difference between liberals and conservatives.


JOEL'S COMMENT
Howard said:If I judged my students on C-mind crit...
November 13, 2008 (joel)

Howard said: If I judged my students on C-mind criteria, I would fail as a teacher. Here is a TED talk about C- and L-minds that I think pretty much covers the conclusions of our own discussions, except that it does appear liberally biased to some conservatives. Remember, he is speaking to an audience that is mostly liberal. The comments are also interesting.

Joel responds: Thanks for the citation. I think it was an excellent presentation. I especially liked the fact that he tied the prewired part of morality to evolution. Although he and the audience (or his expectation of the audience) appear to be L-minds, the theory itself seems pretty free of bias to me.As for judging students, it seems to me that you aren't making allowances for ALL of Haidt's five criteria.

A C-mind would also be concerned with fairness and therefore judge based upon the current course only.

I've seen teachers (both L-minds and C-minds) make allowances, based upon excellent performance in previous courses. I condemn such a practice (although frankly I've occasionally been a beneficiary as a student).

On the other hand, the grade point average is cumulative. It's the appropriate measure for recruiters and graduate school admission. I must say that I've seen recruiters give somewhat more weight to the last year. I've also seen a recruiter overlook lackluster academic achievement based upon a candidate's impressive performance at the interview. Is the latter situation comparable to the selection of Obama over McCain?

With respect -Joel

Ira Glickstein


NOTE: See the : Morality profiles of the participants in this cross-discussion.

Our Three Minutes of FAME

Vi and I are the "stars" of a three-minute Associated Press video and a number of AP still photos. Please click on this video link and hold tight for the unavoidable commercial that comes before our grand debut on national TV. The photo above is one of those taken by the AP photographer. IN THE LIMELIGHT We spent part of Monday and most of Tuesday morning with an AP videographer and a photographer. The story line was that we were on opposite sides in the recent Presidential election. How did the press find us? Well, about a month ago, Vi's name was given to a Miami AP reporter (by a friend at The Villages Democratic Party) as a former Republican now supporting Sen. Obama. Vi was interviewed by phone and her name appeared in one paragraph of a story that ran in the Miami Herald and many other newspapers (To get links please Google: "Violet Glickstein" Obama). About a week and a half ago we were asked if we'd like to be interviewed prior to the election for a more detailed version of her story. We agreed enthusiastically. Lynne, from AP Miami, came to our home Monday afternoon. She wired us up and video-interviewed us in a very professional manner. The last scene of the AP video shows us behind our house, arm-in-arm, gazing at the pond, as I wonder where I'll sleep if the McCain-Palin ticket wins :^) Lynne came back early Tuesday morning, along with John, an AP Orlando photographer. We had our morning coffee and some discussions as he and she took some more video and photos. We then headed, by golf cart, to vote at the Mulberry Recreation Center. Lynne took more video at Mulberry and then departed because she had to compose her video report by a 2PM deadline. John stayed with us and composed captions and uploaded his photos from his laptop to the AP from our living room. Both Lynne and John were delightful to have in our home and very professional. We are very pleased with the results of our experience with a national press organization. THIS ELECTION AS CULMINATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE Of course, Vi is more pleased with our new President-Elect Obama than I am :^) In the photo above she is wearing a button with "Barack Obama" in Hebrew letters. She remembers the civil rights struggle with great emotion, as do I. It was a heroic effort by many people, black and white - not a few Jewish - to achieve racial equality. In Martin Luther King's stirring words from 1963, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." As a young child I had an aunt who lived in Washington DC. I remember taking the Greyhound bus from New York City to DC with my parents to visit her. When the bus was about to cross the state border into Maryland it pulled over and the driver announced that "negroes" had to move to the rear because the State Troopers would stop the bus otherwise. They all complied without any fuss. I remember being angry but powerless to do anything about it. In DC we took public transportation and observed as blacks moved obediently to the rear. At that time, blacks could buy food at the snack bar at Peoples Drug Stores and most other restaurants in our Nation's Capitol, but they were not allowed to sit at the tables to eat it. How far we've come in our lifetimes! Although I was on the other political side in this election - hoping to elect our first female VP - I am very happy we have finally elected a black man to the highest office in the land. It is an historic event to have witnessed. President-Elect Obama is a wonderful speaker and writer and clearly a very smart guy who ran a brilliant campaign. I wish him the best and hope he has a very successful Presidency. On the other hand, if you look closely at the photo above, I am wearing a "Sarah Palin 2012" button! I can hardly wait for the elections four years from now. We saw the appointment of a Republican as the first female Supreme Court Justice and as the first black Secretay of State. How historic it will be to see a female President, and I hope she will be a Republican!

Ira Glickstein PS: In a previous posting to this Blog, I complained that the major media often show their bias by doing extreme close-ups of conservatives, making them look bald and more angry than necessary, while they generally show liberals full-face. Well, if you look at the AP video, sure enough, Vi is always shown full-face while the close-ups of me are extreme.

Here is part of what I wrote: "... have you noticed how conservatives are often shown on TV with tight focus on their eyes, mouths, and chins, making them look mean and even bald? Liberals seem to get a much kinder camera." [Guardians at the Gates are Gone See my Comment posted 14 Aug 2008]