By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Dec 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Take me out to the ball game. Take me out to the crowd. Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack. I don’t care if I never get back.
The immortal words of the time honored “7th Inning Stretch” –a moment of pause to stretch, relax, refocus and retool for the final two innings of the game.
And it’s for the fans more than the players.
So….I propose the healthful benefits of the few minute long 7th Inning Stretch be extended to Corporate America.
Of course, we’ll need a catchy tune with easy to remember lyrics. But I’ve already thought about that. Every weekday at 3:15 I propose everyone in every business organization, profit and non-profit, be encouraged to stand, stretch, peel away that glaze over their eyes as they get ready to bring the day home. And the anthem should be “Boogie Nights” by Heatwave.
This could work. And insurance companies can even sponsor personal service announcements encouraging participation.
I mean, c’mon, who doesn’t like the song “Boogie Nights,” and knows the words, and feels a little bit more hopeful and energized after hearing?
Jeff Smith spent a year in prison. But what he discovered inside wasn’t what he expected — he saw in his fellow inmates boundless ingenuity and business savvy. He asks: Why don’t we tap this entrepreneurial potential to help ex-prisoners contribute to society once they’re back outside? (From the TED Talent Search event TED@NewYork.)
Many have written eloquently about Jesse Jackson Jr.’s sad fall. But now it’s time for Jackson to focus on minimizing his penalty and reputational damage in order to preserve future opportunities for himself and his family.
In his letter of resignation from Congress, Jackson eschewed the defiance of Rod Blagojevich, suggesting a guilty plea is likely. Jackson also said he is cooperating with investigators.
But cooperation has a legal meaning far stronger than its common meaning; a defendant can be “cooperative” without cooperating in the legal sense. That is, a defendant may promptly fulfill most of a prosecutor’s specific pre-indictment requests — detailing his crime(s), resigning from office, declining interviews, etc — but that won’t be enough to receive an elusive 5K-1 letter, the government’s reward for defendants who help them make cases against others. A 5K-1 letter is the best way to persuade a judge to depart downward from federal sentencing guidelines.
The public typically associates politicians with ambition. But many investigators are similarly motivated. Law enforcement officials know that people who prosecute Joe Sixpacks aren’t first in line for promotions. The chosen — and those who write books, appear on TV, or even seek office themselves — are investigators who pursue the biggest scalps. (See Congressman-elect George Holding, the prosecutor who indicted John Edwards and then resigned to seek office before the trial.)
Therein lies Jackson’s problem/opportunity. He is surrounded by possible high-value targets: his dad, the famed civil-rights leader who runs Operation PUSH; his wife, Sandi, a prominent Chicago alderwoman; his brothers Jonathan and Yusef, businessmen/activists who own a lucrative beer distributorship purchased after their father had organized a boycott of the brewery’s products; dozens of high-level public officials with whom he mingles.
Sun-Times columnist Mike Sneed reported Friday that Jackson is, in fact, “singing with the voice of an anxious canary” and that the feds are interested in all he knows about a “powerful dem femme” who is not an alderman.
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: Should Jesse Jr. Cooperate with the Feds?
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Dec 5, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
“Oh my gosh. That is such a heterosexual thing to say.”
No one has said that to me yet. But I think one day it will be commonplace phrase in our culture if we heteros don’t get it together. And quickly.
I just walked out of a coffee shop where four well groomed, physically fit , articulate and nice looking men were sitting having a serious and substantive discussion. And I was envious. I thought to myself, “Part of me is jealous and wishes I was one of them.” Not a practicing gay, of course…but just gay in the other ways that my sexual orientation seem to be falling so far behind.
Oh, you are probably thinking to yourself “John is stereotyping gays by ‘assuming’ this group of men are gay because of the way they look and talk.” No. Not really. Think about it for a minute. When was the last time you saw four well-groomed, physically fit, articulate, nice looking heterosexual men having a substantive conversation about anything?
Oh sure, we heteros were represented at the coffee shop, too, alright. Don’t worry about that. Two of us were spread out at a table bitching about politics and why they couldn’t catch a break, in work or in romance. I couldn’t hear specifics because I was only in line for a few minutes. But it appeared they had a lot of misfortunes to cover today because it looked like they had been there most of the morning. And had enjoyed breakfast and a follow up snack. Put it this way, if the average male waistline is 34- 36, my two hetero colleagues were doing their job of balancing out the 4 other men’s trim waistline in the coffee shop (with a little help from me, size 38).
I was so embarrassed I almost wanted to say, “Hey guys. At least fix your hair and speak in complete sentences. You’re giving us heterosexuals a bad name.” But, of course, I didn’t. My hair was unkempt too. And I was eating a cake pop with my coffee.
As I walked out I remembered kids when I was younger saying things like, “That’s such a ‘gay’ thing to say” and meaning it as a put down. Heck, I am sure I said it myself. But today, if someone said to me, “That is so gay of you, John.” Well, I think it would be about the nicest thing anybody said to me all day.
And I wouldn’t even correct the person offering the compliment by telling them I was really heterosexual. I would just let them think I would not be out of place in a group like the one I saw today at the coffee shop –and most everywhere else for that matter.
And that’s when I worried about the next step after that. When someone accuses me of sounding hetero for the first time, and meaning it as a put down making the point that I am overweight, lazy and unimaginative or have no taste in clothes or don’t understand movies. As in, “That is such a heterosexual thing to say.” It could happen. And these days, when we heteros can’t seem to stay fit, keep married, stop complaining or come up with anything interesting to say outside of rattling off some sports scores, asking if there will be a Porkies III, and deciding when the next game of fantasy baseball will be, well, them are darn near fighting words, if you ask me.
And the worst part is, we heteros aren’t even very tough any more. I’m afraid we’d lack the energy to even fight back or have the cleverness to come up with an adequate “retort.”
The more I thought about it the more I thought of this video clip, imagining what our retort to the hetero put down might look like.
Then again, uhhhh, well, that’s just my opinion, man.
The notion that a reelected Barack Obama would revert to the centrist, bipartisan sounding Obama of the 2008 campaign trail was a fantasy from its conception, and the White House officially punctured it with its release of a deficit plan that resembles a Democratic wish list: the death of the Bush era tax rates for upper income earners; a bump in the estate tax; for top brackets, a return to pre 2003 treatment of dividends as ordinary income rather than capital gains; a few carve-outs from 2011’s mini stimulus bill; and amorphous, undefined cuts to farm price supports, a rare spending reduction that enthuses the Democratic base. Entitlements are virtually left alone, save for a mystery round of “savings” in Medicare, with details to be named later.
It has the aesthetics of a maneuver rather than a genuine negotiating stance. And as maneuvers go, it is a skilled one. Offer a package thick enough with proposals to keep the high ground, but make it one-sided enough that Republicans will dismiss it, while counting on the GOP congressional base to keep unraveling to the point that sometime around Christmas Eve, Republicans yield on the two points that Democrats genuinely want from this exercise: a continuation of the Bush cuts for earners below $250,000, and another short-gap extension in jobless benefits. Of course, there aren’t a lunchtable’s worth of congressmen who seriously believe that once the White House has spared Democrats the vulnerability of defending seats in 2014 in the aftermath of a middle income tax hike, that Obama will return to the table to re-open the viability of the Bush top bracket cuts.
There are all manner of reasons to wonder why congressional Republicans saddled themselves with a dead-end that was so thoroughly predictable: from overconfidence about winning in 2012, to a momentary infatuation with the notion that the all but forgotten deficit super-committee would develop a deal-making prowess Washington has not seen in several generations, to an under appreciation of how much raising upper income taxes has become a politically cost-free goal for Democrats.
The last blunder is worth dwelling on. To a degree Republicans were much too slow to realize, the political consequences around advocating for higher taxes have steadily declined over the last decade, to the point that three successive Democratic presidential campaigns have overtly favored a hike in upper income taxes. While Republicans have gamely protested that tax increases threaten job growth, Democrats have proved far more successful in fending off those claims with their own arguments that the tax code is too tilted toward the interests of top bracket earners. While the polling on the subject is partly a creature of a sample’s wording (exit polls showed a broad public preference for raising the tax burden on the “wealthy” coinciding with even stronger support for reducing the deficit primarily through spending cuts), there is virtually no evidence that a viewpoint exceedingly popular with the Democratic base has taken any electoral toll with swing voters.
Republicans are partly to blame for their own much less confident position. The closest Republicans have come to a comprehensive deficit strategy, Paul Ryan’s budget, has been only occasionally defended and its particulars remain obscure to most Americans who don’t frequent policy salons or Heritage Foundation online seminars. In fact, in an eerie echo of the Democratic play on health care reform in 2010, Republicans have invariably touted the Ryan Plan as a bold-hearted act of political courage while spending little energy on articulating its fine points. Nor have Republicans shown the strategic wherewithal to prioritize a single policy objective as dramatically and neatly defined as the Democratic aim of “making the rich pay their fair share.” Lastly, with their own rhetorical embrace of deficit reduction without the benefit of specificity, and by showing their own penchant for symbolic, but insubstantial gestures, Republicans paved the way for Democrats to wage their own disingenuous maneuver by overstating the impact of tax hikes that would only put a minor dent in the deficit.
So, what is a party to do, when it has been so constrained by its own miscalculations that it has almost no bargaining power? Assuming the administration does not have an outbreak of authentic compromise, congressional Republicans would do well to remember that their non-existent leverage will be enhanced the day sequestration takes effect and the mandatory cuts and revenue increases become a market and economic reality. With a newly strengthened hand, the onus would shift to Republicans to craft a detailed round of spending cuts, to become serious about downsizing corporate deductions, and to proffer a serious set of entitlement reforms, from partial means testing to restraining Medicare growth through a premium support based alternative. It would become an imperative for Republicans to conquer their own squeamishness about entitlements with the same nerve that has liberated Democrats from their fears about taxes.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: The Case for Republicans Walking Away from the Budget Talks
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Dec 4, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Polygamy vs Monogamy.
An ordinary married couple discusses the pros and cons. And realities.
I love laughing with my wife about about bizarre speculative situations….Like just now. My wife and I are talking about Muslim culture, women’s roles, and polygamy. Rebecca asked if I would practice polygamy if I had been born into Muslim culture. And smiled anticipating my answer….Kind of put me on the spot… a little bit.
I said, “Look honey, you know me. I’m not…..I’m not really the martyr type. I wouldn’t want to marry other women, of course. But would do it to, you know, so people wouldn’t talk bad about you. Because, like, if I was the only monogamist in a polygamist culture people start talking and assuming things about me and, you know, maybe think you were the cause. I could never allow that perception of you to happen and so would marry other women just to preserve your reputation in the community. Again, not that I’d want to. You know, When in Rome….”
We were both laughing hysterically at this riff….and then it was Rebecca’s turn.
“You’d be an awful polygamist. You know how I get upset when you are late or or don’t give me your full attention when talking sometimes? Or if you text me instead of call me? Well, multiply that 5 times! Those 5 wives would be so angry and fed up with you.
“Where is he?” “Are you kidding?” “He’s a mess.” “We know he’ll never take the garbage out.”
“They would be talking about you all the time and you’d be miserable. And begging for a monogamous relationships. ”
Laughing even harder….as I have to completely agree. I’d be a dismal polygamist.
It’s good to laugh with your spouse. And I’m grateful to live in a monogamous culture. And to have a mate who keeps me always on my toes…and laughs with me (as often as at me).
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Dec 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Idiot proofing and the decline of Microsoft?
In my old job when we were about to introduce a new online service to the public, it had to pass one final test (after all the technical specifications were met). It had to be what I called, “Idiot Proof.”
And we had one simple test for whether or not something passed the critical “Idiot Proof” test.
I had to be able to figure it out how to use it quickly and easily (intuitively) without reading the directions.
My rationale was that I’m a pretty ordinary consumer and, like many (maybe most) consumers, I have a short attention span and short frustration-tolerance level (before giving up and moving to the next product). And– this is key–I don’t ever read directions first.
So….if I could figure out quickly how to use a new service successfully —it was ready to “Go live.” (And I remember literally sitting with my tech team trying out something new. For them it was probably like watching a child tinker with a new toy. But it was a good threshold test then…and I still think it still is today.)
Which brings me to Microsoft Windows 8. I am now into week 4 (or maybe its week 7 or 8), and I still don’t know what it is that has improved from the previous Windows version. It is not “Idiot Proof” It is not —to me anyway–intuitive. It is confusing and cute and clever and hip-looking but for all the wrong reasons. Namely, because Microsoft wanted it to look cute and clever and hip-looking to cover up any real substantive improvements. And that is —after 4 weeks (or maybe 7 or 8 weeks) confusing. Not to mention disappointing and frustrating.
At least that’s one Idiot’s opinion. But an Idiot who has been a loyal Microsoft user for many years.
Maybe Microsoft is trying too hard to be like Apple (but without seeming like it’s trying to be like Apple). And that doesn’t work. Remember when Al Gore kept trying to reinvent himself in the 2000 presidential campaign? He wasn’t an Apple. He was a PC. Bill Clinton was an Apple using open source code on a wireless and virtual mini tablet. Al would have been much better off just being good ole trusty un-cool and un-hip but smart and reliable dorky Al.
Al was a first rate Al Gore but a 3rd rate Bill Clinton wanna-be.
Some people just can’t dress up in the latest cool fashions and pull it off.
Some companies can’t ever be dressed up like the cool kid either.
But remember, for the cool kid to be the cool kid, there has to be a lot of ordinary (PC students) who begrudgingly admire and aspire to be him/her. The PC kids, so to speak.
But from a market share standpoint, cool kids only make up about 3-5% of the market share. Which means the PC kids make up 95% of the student market. And that’s a much bigger (albeit different) market to sell to. Unless you forget who you are —and who they are (your customer base).
What point am I trying to make with all the gobbledygook rigamarole? I think it is this.
Microsoft can either be a first rate Microsoft or it can keep trying to be a third rate Apple poser.
Microsoft needs to embrace its ordinariness. The world actually needs more ordinariness to function successfully that it does coolness. A lot more. And embrace it before they embarrass themselves. Windows 8 reminds me of the prolonged kiss with Tipper Gore at the convention to demonstrate Al was a passionate, hip and cool guy. (Note: Al and Tipper are split today).
If Microsoft doesn’t learn that lesson soon the entire company may start looking like the Zune. On eBay. Because who wants the Zune when you can have an iPod.
And what the heck is Microsoft doing pretending to be like Apple anyway? They are Microsoft for goodness sakes!
That was a good question a few years ago during the Zune debacle. And it’s an even more pertinent question today.
And it doesn’t take an idiot to see the source code writing on the wall, so to speak.
But I thought I’d offer one idiot’s opinion anyway.
By Krystal Ball, on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET
Krystal Ball’s rant this week from MSNBC’s “The Cycle”:
Krystal’s daughter Ella
Just listen to that good old-fashioned common sense. You know, really breaks our government problems down for the common man in that classically patronizing yet wholly inaccurate way that politicians seem to excel at. There are a lot of lame talking points out there, but this one probably drives me the most nuts. And while I mostly hear it from Republicans, far too many of my own have fallen for its folksy kitchen table appeal. Here’s the problem.
First off, how much like the federal government is your household really? Granted, things may be a bit different in your home than mine but we haven’t had a whole lot a luck getting anyone to accept our family currency. And the international markets? They’ve turned their nose up at buying our bonds. When we have borrowed money, it sure wasn’t at 1.5% like US Treasuries. I will say, sometimes our neighbors do get a bit out of hand but I think a drone strike might be a bit over the top. In fairness, my daughter did attempt a Mitch McConnell style filibuster but it didn’t really work out for her.
And actually, even if you did pretend that your household worked exactly like the largest most complex government in the world, the analogy still doesn’t make any sense! You may not have noticed but our families buy things on credit all the time. Especially at this time of year. Plenty of families take on long term debt for things like, I don’t know, a house? Or an education? In other words, investments for the future. Hey! That does actually sound like something the federal government should do. Businesses borrow too! So don’t give me this nonsense about how for families and business owners the revenues and expenses have to add up every year. They don’t. My family and many others have yet to pass a balanced budget amendment.
Finally, come on y’all. Have a little bit of creativity!!! I know you’re trying to break things down in a way that regular folk can relate to, I get it. But every time I hear a politician or pundit use this tired hokey worn-out analogy it’s like they think they’re the one who birthed this brilliant thing. Certainly everyone will be won over by their winning wit and creativity. Guys. The gig’s up. We’ve heard this patronizing, illogical, trope about 1 million times. I’m begging you. Please stop. Time to come up with some new material. Or better yet, actually have enough respect and faith in the American people that we can wrap our little minds around the big problems facing the country. Trust me. If y’all can understand it, we can too.
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
The truth about attorneys.
Lawyers aren’t always as smart as they want you to think they are.
(Email exchange today with my law firm doing a conflict check for a potential new client.)
Me: No conflict….
Partner: John, Why the ellipsis?
Me: Smart people use ellipses and I never knew why. I thought it would make me look smart if I used one during the conflict check after “No.” So, that’s why I used the ellipsis.
By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Every month I have dinner with a wonderful group of guys. We usually each pay for our own dinner but every few months someone feels a call to pick up the ticket for everyone. I felt the call about three months ago but didn’t pick up the check at the time but did announce to the group I would be doing so sometime in the near future .
Tonight was to be that night.
Sort of, anyway.
As we were finishing dinner, I furtively slipped by the cashier and asked how much our table’s dinner would be because I “may” be picking up the check. The cashier pointed to a much higher figure than I had imagined and explained that a 15 % gratuity was automatically added since there were over 7 of us. I told her I would not be picking up the check this time after all but maybe would buy dessert for the table.
The dessert menu was described to the table and no one ordered anything.
Hmmmm. Now what ?
And like a brilliant thunderbolt crashing through my brain, I suddenly had an ingenious and novel idea!
I went back to the cashier and said, “Look, how about I pay for 25% of the bill? Can you work that out for me?”
The cashier politely said it shouldn’t be a problem but added that no one had ever made that request before. “How would that work ? ” she asked.
“Well,” I said, “Just take 25% off the top and charge everyone else only 75% of their meal.” I looked at her incredulously like this is something that is requested all the time in large groups where the big shot is also fiscally prudent.
A few minutes later she came by the time and whispered in my ear, “Does that 25% off the top include the tip?”
“Yes,” I said. “Look, just charge me one-quarter of the total price and divide up the remainder evenly–including the tip.”
At this point the person next to me said , “Just give me the check. I’ll cover it.”
I insisted I pay 25% and a small big shot verbal scuffle over the bill ensued. “Oh, are you serious about getting 25% of the tab? I thought you were joking.”
“I am completely serious,” I exclaimed, hoping someone else at the table would notice. “Why don’t you pick up the remainder, whatever that is, like….oh, 75%?” And he did.
I announced to the table that although I wasn’t picking up the entire tab (because it was too expensive) that I I was covering 25% –which was worth noting. And added that I was glad one person who was supposed to attend had cancelled. “That’s 25% of one meal I didn’t have to cover.” I then added I would be picking up 10% of a meal this summer and up to 20% of a meal in the fall so that I would incrementally pick up 100% of one of our group dinners…but was going to stretch it out over an 18 month period of time.
But as we shook hands and said goodbye until next month’s dinner everyone was thanking my friend for dinner and not giving me an honorable mention but instead a quizzical or bemused look when I explained again how we had divided things up.
Finally, with the last friend to say goodnight I simplified it by explaining the situation more concretely. “You know those au gratin potatoes you had tonight? Well, I paid for them. The entree, drink, and salad was picked up by someone else. So just thank me for the au gratin potatoes.”
And that was that. I spent more than I had planned to appear to be a big shot and looked cheaper than ever.
But learned a valuable lesson. When trying to impress by offering to pay for dinner it never works to try to do it a la carte. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Like most things in life.
So….I propose the healthful benefits of the few minute long 7th Inning Stretch be extended to Corporate America.
