Nontrivial Pursuits

Well, it appears that the time I invested in the Since Sliced Bread ‘new idea contest’ was all for naught. I rather expected that none of my ideas would be among the final 21 chosen—they’re a little too complex for most people to handle—-but I did not expect that the SEIU would handle the whole thing in a way that would end up tarnishing its reputation. When the 21 semi-finalists were announced last week, the public response—as expressed through the SSB blog—-was overwhelmingly negative.

I’d estimate that at least 90% of those who had been regularly expressing their interest and enthusiasm for the contest in the SSB blog were bitterly disappointed by the results. Not just disappointed, outraged. Yes, a certain amount of ‘sour grapes’ grumbling and nit-picking from the losers was expected, but not the nearly universal outcry that exploded onto the SSB blog. Instead of being the public relations winner that the SEIU had hoped it would be, it has turned out to be a disaster, instead.

About a month ago, the contest’s Official Voice on the blog asked visitors to make suggestions on what could be done to maximize the popular appeal of the contest. What the contest’s organizers apparently did not realize back then is just how important it would be for them to go the extra mile to persuade the losers that they had lost fairly. Now, because they didn’t, they have an outcome where the very people they were counting on to help popularize the contest have become the contest’s most vociferous public critics.

The single most compelling argument voiced by critics was that virtually all of the final 21 ideas were stunningly lacking in originality. Why should this be such a big deal to them? Well, perhaps it’s because the name the SEIU picked for their contest—-”Since Sliced Bread”—-loudly implied that, above all else, they were interested in ‘new’, ‘fresh’, ‘outside-of-the-box’ ideas. Very few of the finalist ideas possessed this quality.

Other complaints about rule violations were also expressed, but I somehow think that if the final 21 had at least shared the quality of being truly original, most of those now complaining would have been able to accept them as legitimate, even if they judged most of them to be ‘wildly impractical.’ At least then attention would have naturally focused on which of the final 21 original ideas ‘had the best chance of practical success.’

In spite of the magnitude of the outcry, the contest sponsors have remained almost utterly unresponsive. They have made no attempt to fix what was perceived to be wrong with the contest, or to even try to explain and justify the outcome they produced. This only seems to feed the sense of outrage that people are feeling. One articulate critic raised the possibility that some soul out there could end up winning $100,000 for simply writing down an idea that they had heard mentioned before. How could the contest sponsors tolerate such an injustice?

It really saddens me when unions do things like this because I am a ‘natural cheerleader’ for the working class and for those who invest themselves in the effort to advance the interests of the working class. I just wish they’d ‘smarten up’ and get a better grasp of what they are dealing with in the world of public relations. Who is advising these people, anyway?

James Kroeger<—4f9994879317256b65c857332c09c9e1—>

Nontrivial Pursuits links of interest:
Republican Nemesis
Economic Justice

What do I think about Bin Laden’s latest taped message?

I think it has been misinterpreted.

Yes, on the surface it sounds as though Bin Laden is trying to get the attention of the American people. His purpose seems to be to persuade them to stop supporting Bush’s war. Of course, the Bush administration is promoting this interpretation in order to portray any who might oppose the war (e.g., Michael Moore) as allies of Bin Laden.

I think something far more sophisticated is going on.

Let’s remember that we Americans have underestimated Bin Laden and his cohort before. We did not think them capable of sophisticated thought, of being able to plan out and execute the Nine Eleven attack. I think we are still a little too eager to believe that Bin Laden is just a foolish Arab murderer who can’t possibly have a good grasp of motivational psychology.

We laugh at the mad man’s foolish attempts to terrorize the American people with words and scare them into submission, but I submit that Bin Laden’s message was constructed with one audience in particular in mind, and that audience was not the American people. Rather, I think his message was intended for (A) his followers, and for (B) those whom he is trying to recruit to his cause.

I’ll grant that he might have held out a little bit of hope that his message might somehow inspire a few dim-witted soccer moms (his perception) to rally to his cause, but I don’t read the man as being quite that incredibly stupid. I would suggest, instead, that his real purpose was simply to produce a public statement that would serve to fortify the morale of his “troops in the field.” If you’ve read the text of Bin Laden’s message, read it again with this possibility in mind.

Notice that throughout his message, he is defining the holy warriors of Al-Qaeda as not only virtuous [in their eyes], but also as reasonable and willing to call an end to the fighting on ‘just terms.’ Such words may not be persuasive to Americans, but they are likely to be effective in encouraging Bin Laden’s ‘mujahideen’ to perceive their actions and sacrifices as supremely noble.

Bin Laden’s primary target audience is his devoted followers, and then also those whom he hopes to recruit to his cause. Young Arab males who are feeling incensed by the injustice they perceive could conceivably be persuaded by Bin Laden’s words to see the Al-Qaeda cause as both virtuous and reasonable instead of just driven by blood lust and xenophobic hatred, as the American-backed government in Baghdad portrays them.

Perhaps that is the main purpose of this latest Bin Laden tape, to answer the criticism of Al-Qaeda that has been expressed in certain quarters of the Arab world lately. Achieving that purpose through a speech supposedly directed at the American people is not an inspiration that requires cleverness as much as it does intuition.

I would like to suggest that we try not to underestimate this man’s methods and purposes again.

James Kroeger<—c19e0291e7f2b970bd981d591f4433bf—>

Well, if it wasn’t for the deadly seriousness of everything that’s going on in the Middle East, it would almost be funny. George Bush, the world’s most notable champion of Democracy, got his wish this week. He had been pressuring the Palestinian people to embrace democracy for years and they have finally responded by giving a great electoral victory to Hamas, a political group that our government has identified as a terrorist organization.

So instead of seeing Democracy transform the Middle East into a land of helpful allies who might be eager to assist us in our war on terror, it has instead helped to legitimize the stature of Islamist militants in the region. Like it or not, it is now far more believable that Iran’s current ‘radical’ President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was elected in a fair and democratic manner.

Bringing democracy to Muslim nations has simply served to add greater legitimacy to their complaints about us. What kind of foreign policy is that? Please help me to understand, George. I’m having difficulty grasping why a policy (the ‘Bush Doctrine‘) that ends up enhancing the stature and reputation of radical Islamic militants is supposed to be helpful to us in our efforts to protect ourselves from the actions of Islamic militants?

(Some would say your actions are those of a traitor. I’m simply accusing you of the kind of incompetence that gets people killed unnecessarily.)

So tell me again, George, why it is so important for us to sacrifice American lives and treasure to bring Democracy to the people of the Middle East? Was it to help the Muslim nations in the region to become democratically united in expressing their contempt for the role we have played in their affairs? This was to help further American interests how? If your magic elixir ‘Democracy’ doesn’t work, then why are we letting you continue to embarrass us before the world?

Except for his early strike into Afghanistan, almost every foreign [Middle East] policy decision George Bush has made has served only to help the recruiting efforts of Al Qaeda. His idiotic regime-change war in Iraq was supposed to ‘send a message’ to states like Iran that they’d better help us in our fight against terrorism, or we’re coming in to impose our will on them. Sadly, the message they received was quite the opposite.

In bogging us down in Iraq, Bush has sent an unintended message to ‘our enemies’ that our current military resources are stretched so thin, the only way the Americans could successfully pull off a regime-change invasion of Iran is if the American people consented to a military draft. Thanks, George. You were supposed to be scaring them into submission, weren’t you? Instead—-because you and your cohort are incompetent—-you have given them encouragement to ignore our threats. Your actions are what made us vulnerable in this way.

Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Iranians do not need a crystal ball to see that the American people are quite unlikely to support a military draft for the invasion of Iran. All they have to do is read the poll numbers that show that around 70% of the American people are opposed to a military draft. It would take an attack worse than Nine Eleven to get the American people to support a draft now. Why worse? Because after Nine Eleven, George Bush got the benefit-of-the-doubt from the press. He had not yet had a chance to display his incompetence in defending our nation from terrorism.

Now time has revealed to us that his reasons for invading Iraq were not just illegitimate, which is bad enough, but they were also catastrophically foolish and damaging to America’s interests. The sad truth is that, instead of speaking for us in a way that earns the world’s respect and gratitude, George Bush has done more to damage America’s reputation than any other President in modern history. His incompetence is killing us…literally.

James Kroeger

Nontrivial Pursuits links of interest:
Republican Nemesis
Economic Justice

In my previous blog entry, I ranted at length re: President Bush’s incompetence in developing and executing Foreign Policy. I don’t think any honest individual can deny that Bush’s Middle East policy is a miserable failure. But politically, it’s usually not enough to simply express biting criticism of the President’s failures. Inevitably, Bush apologists would begin to ask: What would you have done differently? What do you say the answer is? If you’re so smart, tell us how you would deal with Iran’s attempts to produce nuclear weapons?

Here’s my answer: Solve the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That’s how you bring an end to the threat of nuclear war between Israel and the Muslim nations. I know, I know…generations of negotiators have tried and tried to resolve that conflict, and all have failed. Just ask Bill Clinton. But you know what? There is one approach that our leaders have not yet tried: Extreme Generosity.

Instead of endlessly hoping that Being Tough will eventually persuade the Palestinians to give up their dream of one day getting their land back from the foreign invaders, we could use an approach that the United States once followed in the 19th Century when our leaders decided to force the Mexicans to give us their land at gunpoint. You can offer the victims of your exploitation money in compensation for their loss.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Palestinians would happily give up the fight and embrace Israel’s existence if they were (1) given an extremely generous cash settlement for their loss of land, and if (2) the United States were to officially recognize that the Palestinians had been victims of a great injustice for all of these years. Today I just want to focus on #1.

How generous an offer could we put together? Well, how about if we start by giving back to the Palestinians all of the land that was taken from them during the 1967 war? Remember, the goal is to come up with as generous an offer as you can think of. The Israelis need to ask themselves: if it would enable us to enjoy an enduring peace with our Arab neighbors wouldn’t it be worth it to simply accept borders that were accepted by most Israelis prior to 1967? Some land-swapping could be negotiated, but only if the swap offers were perceived to be generous by the Palestinians.

Jerusalem would probably have to be established as an International City (what’s wrong with that?) that is supported by the city’s inhabitants and the international community. If the Israelis ended up with an equal voice in the decisions that are made in Jerusalem, then what would they have to complain about? Remember, we’re trying to put together as attractive a package as we can in order to win the good will of the Palestinian people.

Seriously, if it would bring about an enduring peace within the region, wouldn’t it be worth it to take all of the money that both the Israelis and the American people have been spending on the protection of Israel in recent years (and that would include the cost of the Iraq War and all of our Homeland Security spending since Nine Eleven) and simply give it to the Palestinian people instead as part of a comprehensive settlement?

Extreme Generosity. Offer the Palestinians a settlement so generous, they’d all feel like they had won the lottery. Perhaps $30,000 per Palestinian family would be generous enough to win their good will if a massive amount was also spent on the construction of job-creating businesses and on creating a modern infrastructure. That’s how you can end the animosity, so long as commitments are made by the Israelis to continuously help the Palestinians to become a prosperous people.

Contrast this approach with the approach that successive Israeli governments have pursued in peace talks that the United States has sponsored over the decades. In brief, their negotiating posture has been essentially this: We’ve got your land. We’re not going to give it back. Resistance is futile. You can’t do anything about it so you might as well give up the fight and simply accept any deal that we feel like offering you. The Palestinians feel as though they are being asked to sign a deal with a gun at their heads that promises only to make them feel humiliated. Such humiliation does not seem to be an option for them.

The Israeli people have to decide whether they want to continue to fight forever, perhaps even with nuclear weapons some day, or come to the peace table with an earnest desire to live in true peace with their Arab neighbors. I’m quite sure that most of the Western world would be willing to help contribute to an Extreme Generosity Peace Settlement, if for no other reason than to see if enlightened expressions of good will might not have a chance to bring an end to the suffering.

In my next blog entry, I’ll explain why I think it would be a good idea for the U.S. to ‘officially recognize that the Palestinians had been victims of a great injustice for all of these years.’

James Kroeger