In an effort to stretch the monthly budget, I allowed my 10 year old to pick out any two 5 pound bags of breakfast cereal from the off-brand cereal section. I already have a general rule about not spending more than $2.50 on a box of cereal; as there are always on-sale options in that range among the ubiquitous staples: Cheerios, Rice Crispies, etc.
This morning I had a bowl of one of the items Clark picked out – “something-er-other Malteys”, aka “Lucky Charms”. Yummy! As is the tradition, I read the packaging while consuming the packages’ contents. What do you know! The “off brand” was Malt-O-Meal. I know Malt-O-Meal!! What ever happened to Malt-O-Meal? You know - that chocolate hot breakfast stuff. Now they make huge bags of knock off cereal!?
In large print, following the “Malt-O-Meal” moniker is the marketing slogan, “Family Run for Four Generations”. After reading this morning that Castro has resigned and his brother is officially now the leader of Cuba – but no substantial changes are expected - the family-run marketing slogan seems dubious. “Cuba! Family Owned and Operated since 1959!!” Buy Cuban bonds!
There are many examples of companies turning the reigns over to immediate family members, or the next generation, with mixed results. On the plus side I would say Marriott did it pretty well, although I think there are issues finding a third generation member with enough brains or initiative to keep that one going. Hugh Heffner has turned Playboy over to his daughter. Ewe. Didn’t see THAT one coming. And Tommy Boy – well, Dan Akroyd, Rob Low and Bo Derick tried to stop that one, but it ended OK.
But back to questionable marketing slogans: “Developed by a 3rd Grade Teacher!!” This is one of my favorites. Since Airborne is a product ostensibly produced for my health, it is curious to me that they by-passed medical or technical expertise for “Developed by a 3rd Grade Teacher!!” Am I supposed to feel good about that? Does it have Ritalin in it?
And going back to the family run thing – makes sense if the company is family oriented. “Reunions R’US – family run since 1950!” I guess cereal is sort of family-like - at least at my house. Now, “The Divorce Store – Family Run since November!” See – it doesn’t work well there. But really, how often do you see generation after generation step up, being visionary and effective like their predecessors. Look at the Hilton family. Yikes! And the Bush’s and Clinton’s. When did it become a good idea for political nepotism? OK, most of world history – but I think we all agree now that it is not necessarily a good succession of leadership in a democracy. At the very least, it’s confusing.
It is true, however, that we need a marketing campaign for the our proud country since the world is really annoyed with us. If Hillary were to win, we could try:
“United States of America – Family Owned and Operated since 1989!”
Not as impressive as Cuba. But give us some time.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Heart, Mind and Trust
I have a history of throwing my vote away in presidential elections. I like to stick to my origional candidate, even if they don't win their primary. "Go Gary Anderson!!" So during the first few presidential elections I was able to participate in, I exercised my free will and voted for the best candidate! Wether or not they stuck with their party.
This changed after moving to Washington D.C.. A few years in the beltway is a sobering electoral and democratic experience. Getting the Washington Post thrown on your driveway each morning is both joyess and depressing; depending on the day and which section of the paper you are reading. I really miss that paper, though. Great paper.
And this uber-journalistic paper provided a great day-to-day view of our federal government in action; providing equal parts insight, awe, and disgust.
So, after preparing myself to be inspired by a better understanding of our two party system, I found myself, instead, dissillussioned by it. An unrealistic idealist such as myself had always wanted to beieve the best candidate is the best person running for office. The most honest, credible, and moral candidate. "Atticus Finch for President!!" But what did I learn? Hey, I lived in D.C. during the Clinton administration. What do YOU think I learned?
Well, after begrudgingly admitting the two party system really does create a unifying plurality that is better than other systems (see "France" and the jokes about 5 guys in a phone booth - new party - blah blah blah), I turned my learning insight to a newfound respect for the structure of our three branches of government. The system that minimizes the damage any one Bush president can inflict on the planet. (Oops! Did that thought come out of my mouth?)
It is the manipulation of this system that often makes a great president. And it tends to get done in one of two ways - but rarely in both. One way is to be charasmatic enough to sway public opinion with such inertia toward your goals that the public itself pressures all three branches to enact change. (In recent history - see "Reagan" and "Clinton". Bill, that is. Swimming pools. Movie stars.) Obama has the potential to be this guy.
The other way is by working the system from the inside. Knowing the players - having the credibility and experience to get what is needed from the inside. Hillary and McCain both could be effective presidents from this perspective.
Finally, though, there is a factor that is more ellusive; and that generally becomes apparent only in retrospect. I'll call it the "Right Guy At The Right Time" factor. (See Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt - either one - JFK, and Gerald Ford - maybe even Bill Clinton - to site just a few.)
So with this splintered frame work, let's look at the race today - Hillary, Obama and McCain. Not at the issues - that's too easy and there are already web sites for matching your concerns with the right candidates. (Who, by the way, have mostly dropped out of the race by now) But with the factors people actually tend to take into account when they vote for a Presidential candidate. Emotional, personality-type, looks, photographic images - you know - People magazine factors.
Hillary - Hillary has the potential to be the most effective of the three candidates from the inside. Knows how to work the system. Cold, calculating bitc@ that I think will go after many issues I believe need to be gone after, and will kick as# and take names along the way. I just hope my name is never on her list. The "ewe" factor may not be something she can overcome, however, and I don't think she has the ability to win over the hearts and trust of the American people. Allthough, interestingly, she would probably be more popular across the rest of the globe. (Allthough I can't remember why I have that impression. Probably read it in people magazine.) I believe she can capture the "minds" of americans - yes. Intillectually, she seems a good choice. Heart and trust, no. Being female has no negative connotation associated with any of the things I've pointed out - in fact, we're so far overdue on the female and minority fronts that there is a guilt vote to be had by either democratic candidate.
Supposition - Hillary could be an effective president; unlikely to be popular, and the candidate I would least like to meet in a dark alley if they are pissed at me.
Obama - Obama is the guy that could win the hearts of americans, and maybe the world. And then again, so was Jimmy Carter. And Obama seems very smart and very moral. And then again, so was Jimmy Carter. We have heard other potential comparisons, however, to give much more hope. Chiefly among them, Reagan and JFK. Heady stuff! There is both a heartfelt following and the potential of the "Right Guy At The Right Time". But Obama's candidacy also seems a little fuzzy and unsure. Which kind of makes it all the more exciting!!
Supposition - bigger risk than Hillary - with potential for bigger reward - or bigger loss. Feels a little like gambling. And the guy I least want to have around me in a dark alley, because I'd have to stick up for him and I'd probably get my as@ kicked defending him. But my friend, non-the-less.
McCain - "Hutt hutt!!" Since I live in Arizona, I have a pretty good impression of this guy, and I trust him. I trust him right now; and I don't wonder so much if I will still trust him next year. The problem is I don't always agree with him. But of the three candidates, I trust him to cross party lines to do the "right" things when push comes to shove. And given our current international presence and state of war, there is a strong feeling of the "Right Guy At The Right Time". He's not that polished and get's caught in it at times, (economics is not his strong suit??) but that sort of reminds me of someone else who was the "Right Guy At The Right Time" who I admired greatly - Gerald Ford. Hardly some big, dynamic presidency - but a guy that knew how to prioritize.
Supposition - McCain doesn't always have the same priorities I do, but maybe has the best potential to improve and stabalize our country and the globe - and global politics are quickly becoming a priority - though you can't tell that from our current presidents' priorities. The rest of this planet HATES us right now. And, McCain is the guy I most want in a dark alley, by my side.
Conclussion - unlike past presidential elections of my life, I don't feel we can lose. They all are actually good candidates. It is quite refreshing. To summarize this blog's observations:
Hillary -Mind
Obama - Heart
McCain - Trust
This changed after moving to Washington D.C.. A few years in the beltway is a sobering electoral and democratic experience. Getting the Washington Post thrown on your driveway each morning is both joyess and depressing; depending on the day and which section of the paper you are reading. I really miss that paper, though. Great paper.
And this uber-journalistic paper provided a great day-to-day view of our federal government in action; providing equal parts insight, awe, and disgust.
So, after preparing myself to be inspired by a better understanding of our two party system, I found myself, instead, dissillussioned by it. An unrealistic idealist such as myself had always wanted to beieve the best candidate is the best person running for office. The most honest, credible, and moral candidate. "Atticus Finch for President!!" But what did I learn? Hey, I lived in D.C. during the Clinton administration. What do YOU think I learned?
Well, after begrudgingly admitting the two party system really does create a unifying plurality that is better than other systems (see "France" and the jokes about 5 guys in a phone booth - new party - blah blah blah), I turned my learning insight to a newfound respect for the structure of our three branches of government. The system that minimizes the damage any one Bush president can inflict on the planet. (Oops! Did that thought come out of my mouth?)
It is the manipulation of this system that often makes a great president. And it tends to get done in one of two ways - but rarely in both. One way is to be charasmatic enough to sway public opinion with such inertia toward your goals that the public itself pressures all three branches to enact change. (In recent history - see "Reagan" and "Clinton". Bill, that is. Swimming pools. Movie stars.) Obama has the potential to be this guy.
The other way is by working the system from the inside. Knowing the players - having the credibility and experience to get what is needed from the inside. Hillary and McCain both could be effective presidents from this perspective.
Finally, though, there is a factor that is more ellusive; and that generally becomes apparent only in retrospect. I'll call it the "Right Guy At The Right Time" factor. (See Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt - either one - JFK, and Gerald Ford - maybe even Bill Clinton - to site just a few.)
So with this splintered frame work, let's look at the race today - Hillary, Obama and McCain. Not at the issues - that's too easy and there are already web sites for matching your concerns with the right candidates. (Who, by the way, have mostly dropped out of the race by now) But with the factors people actually tend to take into account when they vote for a Presidential candidate. Emotional, personality-type, looks, photographic images - you know - People magazine factors.
Hillary - Hillary has the potential to be the most effective of the three candidates from the inside. Knows how to work the system. Cold, calculating bitc@ that I think will go after many issues I believe need to be gone after, and will kick as# and take names along the way. I just hope my name is never on her list. The "ewe" factor may not be something she can overcome, however, and I don't think she has the ability to win over the hearts and trust of the American people. Allthough, interestingly, she would probably be more popular across the rest of the globe. (Allthough I can't remember why I have that impression. Probably read it in people magazine.) I believe she can capture the "minds" of americans - yes. Intillectually, she seems a good choice. Heart and trust, no. Being female has no negative connotation associated with any of the things I've pointed out - in fact, we're so far overdue on the female and minority fronts that there is a guilt vote to be had by either democratic candidate.
Supposition - Hillary could be an effective president; unlikely to be popular, and the candidate I would least like to meet in a dark alley if they are pissed at me.
Obama - Obama is the guy that could win the hearts of americans, and maybe the world. And then again, so was Jimmy Carter. And Obama seems very smart and very moral. And then again, so was Jimmy Carter. We have heard other potential comparisons, however, to give much more hope. Chiefly among them, Reagan and JFK. Heady stuff! There is both a heartfelt following and the potential of the "Right Guy At The Right Time". But Obama's candidacy also seems a little fuzzy and unsure. Which kind of makes it all the more exciting!!
Supposition - bigger risk than Hillary - with potential for bigger reward - or bigger loss. Feels a little like gambling. And the guy I least want to have around me in a dark alley, because I'd have to stick up for him and I'd probably get my as@ kicked defending him. But my friend, non-the-less.
McCain - "Hutt hutt!!" Since I live in Arizona, I have a pretty good impression of this guy, and I trust him. I trust him right now; and I don't wonder so much if I will still trust him next year. The problem is I don't always agree with him. But of the three candidates, I trust him to cross party lines to do the "right" things when push comes to shove. And given our current international presence and state of war, there is a strong feeling of the "Right Guy At The Right Time". He's not that polished and get's caught in it at times, (economics is not his strong suit??) but that sort of reminds me of someone else who was the "Right Guy At The Right Time" who I admired greatly - Gerald Ford. Hardly some big, dynamic presidency - but a guy that knew how to prioritize.
Supposition - McCain doesn't always have the same priorities I do, but maybe has the best potential to improve and stabalize our country and the globe - and global politics are quickly becoming a priority - though you can't tell that from our current presidents' priorities. The rest of this planet HATES us right now. And, McCain is the guy I most want in a dark alley, by my side.
Conclussion - unlike past presidential elections of my life, I don't feel we can lose. They all are actually good candidates. It is quite refreshing. To summarize this blog's observations:
Hillary -Mind
Obama - Heart
McCain - Trust
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
