Southwest Virginia Blogs

On this rainy afternoon, I happen to read my Good Morning Silicon Valley newsletter for the first time in several weeks.  I came across their "Quoted section."  It included a suggestion from Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, that Bill Gates should be our next President.  This is an absolutely great quote from Scott's post.

For my president I want a mixture of Mother Teresa, Carl Sagan, Warren Buffet, and Darth Vader. Bill has all of their good stuff. His foundation will save more lives than Mother Teresa ever did. He’s got the Carl Sagan intelligence and rational mind. He’s a hugely successful businessman. And I have every reason to believe he can choke people just by concentrating in their general direction. You can’t tell me that wouldn’t be useful at a summit.

Well I am sold.  I already kind of like Bill now that he has mellowed out and is giving away his billions.  He certainly a much more likable guy than Steve Jobs.  If Bill is going to be the President of the US, maybe Steve can snag Cuba.  I think he would make a great replacement for Castro.

You can find more about Bill Gates for President at billgatesforpresident.net.  Bill Gates has my vote.  We can all contribute to the campaign by purchasing new Vista machines.  There is probably enough digital rights management stuff in Vista to satisfy even the NSA.

Seriously maybe it is time for a geek in the White House.  We could fight the war on game consoles and no one would get hurt.  Obviously this idea merits some thought.

On this rainy afternoon, I happen to read my Good Morning Silicon Valley newsletter for the first time in several weeks.  I came across their "Quoted section."  It included a suggestion from Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, that Bill Gates should be our next President.  This is an absolutely great quote from Scott's post.

For my president I want a mixture of Mother Teresa, Carl Sagan, Warren Buffet, and Darth Vader. Bill has all of their good stuff. His foundation will save more lives than Mother Teresa ever did. He’s got the Carl Sagan intelligence and rational mind. He’s a hugely successful businessman. And I have every reason to believe he can choke people just by concentrating in their general direction. You can’t tell me that wouldn’t be useful at a summit.

Well I am sold.  I already kind of like Bill now that he has mellowed out and is giving away his billions.  He certainly a much more likable guy than Steve Jobs.  If Bill is going to be the President of the US, maybe Steve can snag Cuba.  I think he would make a great replacement for Castro.

You can find more about Bill Gates for President at billgatesforpresident.net.  Bill Gates has my vote.  We can all contribute to the campaign by purchasing new Vista machines.  There is probably enough digital rights management stuff in Vista to satisfy even the NSA.

Seriously maybe it is time for a geek in the White House.  We could fight the war on game consoles and no one would get hurt.  Obviously this idea merits some thought.

One of the legitimate and needed functions of government is the protection of our environment.  As individuals we have little leverage in stopping pollution that comes from beyond our own lots.  We can recycle , drive energy efficient cars, turn our thermostats down, and buy more energy efficient appliances.  Yet all that does not fix the problem of pollution that comes from beyond state borders.

I will join with the Raleigh News and Observer in congratulating NC's Attorney General Roy Cooper in his efforts to get the Tennessee Valley Authority to behave more responsibly.

While the biggest impact of TVA pollution is in the North Carolina mountains, we should not get complacent here on the Crystal Coast, because I am sure some of the pollution makes ti to us.   I have spent many years in Roanoke, Virginia.  There from on the side of our mountain, I have watched as the increasing traffic on Interstate 81 has often brought an ugly haze with it.  As the Roanoke Times reported in "Heading home ... slowly" traffic counts of 80,000 vehicles per day will be seen during the holidays.

One of the reasons I was attracted to the Crystal Coast was the brilliant blue skies that are so clear that you have to wonder if your eyes are tricking you and someone has used Photoshop to clean it up.

I hope we can keep those blue skies and blue waters.  They add an immeasurable amount of comfort to those of us who once had our heads stuck in smog banks like Washington, DC or Northern Virginia.

Living a life without trust would be a huge challenge.  I don't think even the most wired and connected individual can survive without trusting a few real people. 

Still finding a real person to trust is a lot harder now that families are scattered around the world.  I've never thought of trust as a national trend, but Sebastian Mallaby's article, "The Decline Of Trust," in today's  Washington Post makes some interesting points about the decline of trust in today society, in both business and government.

And the absence of trust can feed on itself. Leaders function under stifling oversight; this causes them to perform sluggishly, so trust continues to stagnate. But occasionally there is a chance to escape this trap: A shock causes trust to rise, leaders have a chance to lead and there's an opportunity to boost trust still further.

We've recently had a double opportunity. The boom of the 1990s boosted trust in business; the 2001 terrorist attacks boosted trust in government. But CEOs and politicians abused these gifts with scandals and incompetence. Such is the cost of corporate malfeasance and the Iraq war: Precious social capital is destroyed by leaders' avarice and hubris.

I often found it strange that my former employer, Apple Computer, would bring in high level management people from outside the company and trust their opinion far more than employees who had been working for the company.    I don't know if the  steadily declining trust that Apple showed it employees is mirrored at other companies, but I am sure that the lack of trust hindered productivity in Apple field teams.

Mallaby also talks about the Internet encouraging "acerbic negativity."  On the one hand Mallaby might be right if you let yourself listen to only certain parts of the Internet.

However, I would make the argument that new communication techniques arising from the Internet actually encourage building new webs of trust.  While there are parts of the Internet, like anncoulter.com, that I'll likely avoid, there are lots of other communities where I can find kindred spirits.

As someone who doesn't like large government, but believes that if we are going to have government it should be good government, there aren't any political parties locally where I really feel at home.  Yet through contact established from my Internet presences, I've met a number of people with similar beliefs.

Most of us who regularly post have communities of readers who have self selected to the point that  our audience cares about many of the same things that we do.  I trust  the opinions of many of my regular blog friends more than I do any politician.  I value their opinions as highly as I do some well known pundits.

So while Sebastian Mallaby might be right to indict part of the modern world, there are many on line communities where modern technologies are driving new levels of trust and cooperation.  Besides blogs, you cannot  discount the social changes happening through instant messaging and on line communities.

Technology hasn't created a virtual southern village yet, but I have a confidence in new ways of communicating that will bring us closer together rather than drive us farther apart. 

I don't believe we'll end up a nation of people listening only to their individual iPods or screaming at the rest of the world from our blogs.

Living a life without trust would be a huge challenge.  I don't think even the most wired and connected individual can survive without trusting a few real people. 

Still finding a real person to trust is a lot harder now that families are scattered around the world.  I've never thought of trust as a national trend, but Sebastian Mallaby's article, "The Decline Of Trust," in today's  Washington Post makes some interesting points about the decline of trust in today society, in both business and government.

And the absence of trust can feed on itself. Leaders function under stifling oversight; this causes them to perform sluggishly, so trust continues to stagnate. But occasionally there is a chance to escape this trap: A shock causes trust to rise, leaders have a chance to lead and there's an opportunity to boost trust still further.

We've recently had a double opportunity. The boom of the 1990s boosted trust in business; the 2001 terrorist attacks boosted trust in government. But CEOs and politicians abused these gifts with scandals and incompetence. Such is the cost of corporate malfeasance and the Iraq war: Precious social capital is destroyed by leaders' avarice and hubris.

I often found it strange that my former employer, Apple Computer, would bring in high level management people from outside the company and trust their opinion far more than employees who had been working for the company.    I don't know if the  steadily declining trust that Apple showed it employees is mirrored at other companies, but I am sure that the lack of trust hindered productivity in Apple field teams.

Mallaby also talks about the Internet encouraging "acerbic negativity."  On the one hand Mallaby might be right if you let yourself listen to only certain parts of the Internet.

However, I would make the argument that new communication techniques arising from the Internet actually encourage building new webs of trust.  While there are parts of the Internet, like anncoulter.com, that I'll likely avoid, there are lots of other communities where I can find kindred spirits.

As someone who doesn't like large government, but believes that if we are going to have government it should be good government, there aren't any political parties locally where I really feel at home.  Yet through contact established from my Internet presences, I've met a number of people with similar beliefs.

Most of us who regularly post have communities of readers who have self selected to the point that  our audience cares about many of the same things that we do.  I trust  the opinions of many of my regular blog friends more than I do any politician.  I value their opinions as highly as I do some well known pundits.

So while Sebastian Mallaby might be right to indict part of the modern world, there are many on line communities where modern technologies are driving new levels of trust and cooperation.  Besides blogs, you cannot  discount the social changes happening through instant messaging and on line communities.

Technology hasn't created a virtual southern village yet, but I have a confidence in new ways of communicating that will bring us closer together rather than drive us farther apart. 

I don't believe we'll end up a nation of people listening only to their individual iPods or screaming at the rest of the world from our blogs.

Living a life without trust would be a huge challenge.  I don't think even the most wired and connected individual can survive without trusting a few real people. 

Still finding a real person to trust is a lot harder now that families are scattered around the world.  I've never thought of trust as a national trend, but Sebastian Mallaby's article, "The Decline Of Trust," in today's  Washington Post makes some interesting points about the decline of trust in today society, in both business and government.

And the absence of trust can feed on itself. Leaders function under stifling oversight; this causes them to perform sluggishly, so trust continues to stagnate. But occasionally there is a chance to escape this trap: A shock causes trust to rise, leaders have a chance to lead and there's an opportunity to boost trust still further.

We've recently had a double opportunity. The boom of the 1990s boosted trust in business; the 2001 terrorist attacks boosted trust in government. But CEOs and politicians abused these gifts with scandals and incompetence. Such is the cost of corporate malfeasance and the Iraq war: Precious social capital is destroyed by leaders' avarice and hubris.

I often found it strange that my former employer, Apple Computer, would bring in high level management people from outside the company and trust their opinion far more than employees who had been working for the company.    I don't know if the  steadily declining trust that Apple showed it employees is mirrored at other companies, but I am sure that the lack of trust hindered productivity in Apple field teams.

Mallaby also talks about the Internet encouraging "acerbic negativity."  On the one hand Mallaby might be right if you let yourself listen to only certain parts of the Internet.

However, I would make the argument that new communication techniques arising from the Internet actually encourage building new webs of trust.  While there are parts of the Internet, like anncoulter.com, that I'll likely avoid, there are lots of other communities where I can find kindred spirits.

As someone who doesn't like large government, but believes that if we are going to have government it should be good government, there aren't any political parties locally where I really feel at home.  Yet through contact established from my Internet presences, I've met a number of people with similar beliefs.

Most of us who regularly post have communities of readers who have self selected to the point that  our audience cares about many of the same things that we do.  I trust  the opinions of many of my regular blog friends more than I do any politician.  I value their opinions as highly as I do some well known pundits.

So while Sebastian Mallaby might be right to indict part of the modern world, there are many on line communities where modern technologies are driving new levels of trust and cooperation.  Besides blogs, you cannot  discount the social changes happening through instant messaging and on line communities.

Technology hasn't created a virtual southern village yet, but I have a confidence in new ways of communicating that will bring us closer together rather than drive us farther apart. 

I don't believe we'll end up a nation of people listening only to their individual iPods or screaming at the rest of the world from our blogs.

When things are going great, there's little pressure to do things differently.  We've all seen it.  Great results in business or politics can hide some really serious problems.  Usually by the time the hidden problems are uncovered, things have unraveled to the point that disaster can be just around the corner.

I've been in companies during great times and bad times.  The truth is that companies, like governments or even individual operate a little better when everything isn't going their way.  They become more open to exploring alternatives or looking at things from a different perspective.

We gotten to be a society where it's hard to admit you're wrong without supposedly losing face. Yet I believe failure only counts against you if you don't learn from it.  In the post, "On being an observer," I said the following.

The great who have never failed are probably not so great...

Not owning up to your failures or mistakes is not part of the recipe for success that a leader should follow.

Of course we all know far too well the example of the current administration in Washington which has refused to admit any mistakes in the Iraq war.  If appears that "Stay the course" has finally been retired, not because of any willingness to admit mistakes, but because it appears the Republican majority is in danger of disappearing.  This was in the Washington Post this morning.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

Businesses are no different.  They often blindly follow strategies because there is more ego involved than business savvy.  It's easy for a CEO to cruise along with business strategies whose only tests are the current quarter.  Yet businesses are different from government in one important distinction. 

Businesses, even large ones, sometimes change strategies like individuals change clothing.  Government, however,  is like a huge container ship.  Change is really hard in government.  Once the ship of state is going in one direction, getting it moving in another direction takes some serious pressure, something on the order of a disappearing majority.

As individuals, we often face the need to change without the resources to accomplish that change.

No matter what the situation, those who accept their own fallibility are much more likely to implement successful change.  It will be interesting to see how much change the coming election can bring to our government. 

We certainly have plenty of American companies who desperately need to change. 

Personally I'm hoping to change careers during the next year. So far it hasn't been easy, but my hope is that I'll respond as I have in previous pressure situations.  After all, the change from being a cattle breeder to a technology sales manager was not exactly an easy one.

I know one thing, I'm approaching my new career, chronicled in "You can teach an old dog new tricks," knowing that I have a lot to learn.  I've seen enough folks pretending to have all the answers to understand that it's a road to failure, even if it takes a long time to show up.

When things are going great, there's little pressure to do things differently.  We've all seen it.  Great results in business or politics can hide some really serious problems.  Usually by the time the hidden problems are uncovered, things have unraveled to the point that disaster can be just around the corner.

I've been in companies during great times and bad times.  The truth is that companies, like governments or even individual operate a little better when everything isn't going their way.  They become more open to exploring alternatives or looking at things from a different perspective.

We gotten to be a society where it's hard to admit you're wrong without supposedly losing face. Yet I believe failure only counts against you if you don't learn from it.  In the post, "On being an observer," I said the following.

The great who have never failed are probably not so great...

Not owning up to your failures or mistakes is not part of the recipe for success that a leader should follow.

Of course we all know far too well the example of the current administration in Washington which has refused to admit any mistakes in the Iraq war.  If appears that "Stay the course" has finally been retired, not because of any willingness to admit mistakes, but because it appears the Republican majority is in danger of disappearing.  This was in the Washington Post this morning.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

Businesses are no different.  They often blindly follow strategies because there is more ego involved than business savvy.  It's easy for a CEO to cruise along with business strategies whose only tests are the current quarter.  Yet businesses are different from government in one important distinction. 

Businesses, even large ones, sometimes change strategies like individuals change clothing.  Government, however,  is like a huge container ship.  Change is really hard in government.  Once the ship of state is going in one direction, getting it moving in another direction takes some serious pressure, something on the order of a disappearing majority.

As individuals, we often face the need to change without the resources to accomplish that change.

No matter what the situation, those who accept their own fallibility are much more likely to implement successful change.  It will be interesting to see how much change the coming election can bring to our government. 

We certainly have plenty of American companies who desperately need to change. 

Personally I'm hoping to change careers during the next year. So far it hasn't been easy, but my hope is that I'll respond as I have in previous pressure situations.  After all, the change from being a cattle breeder to a technology sales manager was not exactly an easy one.

I know one thing, I'm approaching my new career, chronicled in "You can teach an old dog new tricks," knowing that I have a lot to learn.  I've seen enough folks pretending to have all the answers to understand that it's a road to failure, even if it takes a long time to show up.

When things are going great, there's little pressure to do things differently.  We've all seen it.  Great results in business or politics can hide some really serious problems.  Usually by the time the hidden problems are uncovered, things have unraveled to the point that disaster can be just around the corner.

I've been in companies during great times and bad times.  The truth is that companies, like governments or even individual operate a little better when everything isn't going their way.  They become more open to exploring alternatives or looking at things from a different perspective.

We gotten to be a society where it's hard to admit you're wrong without supposedly losing face. Yet I believe failure only counts against you if you don't learn from it.  In the post, "On being an observer," I said the following.

The great who have never failed are probably not so great...

Not owning up to your failures or mistakes is not part of the recipe for success that a leader should follow.

Of course we all know far too well the example of the current administration in Washington which has refused to admit any mistakes in the Iraq war.  If appears that "Stay the course" has finally been retired, not because of any willingness to admit mistakes, but because it appears the Republican majority is in danger of disappearing.  This was in the Washington Post this morning.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

Businesses are no different.  They often blindly follow strategies because there is more ego involved than business savvy.  It's easy for a CEO to cruise along with business strategies whose only tests are the current quarter.  Yet businesses are different from government in one important distinction. 

Businesses, even large ones, sometimes change strategies like individuals change clothing.  Government, however,  is like a huge container ship.  Change is really hard in government.  Once the ship of state is going in one direction, getting it moving in another direction takes some serious pressure, something on the order of a disappearing majority.

As individuals, we often face the need to change without the resources to accomplish that change.

No matter what the situation, those who accept their own fallibility are much more likely to implement successful change.  It will be interesting to see how much change the coming election can bring to our government. 

We certainly have plenty of American companies who desperately need to change. 

Personally I'm hoping to change careers during the next year. So far it hasn't been easy, but my hope is that I'll respond as I have in previous pressure situations.  After all, the change from being a cattle breeder to a technology sales manager was not exactly an easy one.

I know one thing, I'm approaching my new career, chronicled in "You can teach an old dog new tricks," knowing that I have a lot to learn.  I've seen enough folks pretending to have all the answers to understand that it's a road to failure, even if it takes a long time to show up.

Those who are willing to endorse torture supposedly to protect our way of life are without any doubt the worst kind of cowards.  If we descend to the level of those willing to torture in a misguided attempt to gain information, then we have become exactly what we sought to defeat.

Anyone who studies colonial history knows that our country was founded not to take away rights but to protect rights.  I really have a hard time believing that we are even having this debate.

Have we as people become such cowards that we are willing to destroy the rights of others for a false sense of security?  Perhaps most people don't understand the simple fact that when you destroy the rights of others, you are in effect destroying your own rights.  If you give government the power to do whatever it wants including torturing others, then government can decide to torture you if they so chose.  It's only a small step once we're justified and legalized torture.

I'm proud of those GOP Senators who are willing to put what is right above party allegiance.  I know that I will vote against any politician who votes to authorize torture.  I'll continue voting against them the rest of my life because torture is wrong. Legalizing torture will be a stain on our country that won't be easily washed away.  Nothing makes torture right.  If our fear mongering politicians can't figure that out, then they don't deserve to represent us in government. 

Paul Krugman has a well thought out piece, "King of Pain,"  on this issue in today's NY Times.  I encourage you to read it and to write to your politicians.

The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president’s power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it’s a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they’re asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary...

Mr. Bush would have us believe that the difference between him and those opposing him on this issue is that he’s willing to do what’s necessary to protect America, and they aren’t. But the record says otherwise.

The fact is that for all his talk of being a “war president,” Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause...

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.

It's time the American people distanced themselves from torture.  Even the discussion of legalizing torture doesn't belong in our houses of government.  If the current politicians don't have the courage to stand up to the administration on torture, we need to find some who do.

Update-

Another article on the subject, "Torture Is Torture," by Eugene Robinson in the September 19 Washington Post.

It is not possible for our elected representatives to hold any sort of honorable "debate" over torture. Bush says he is waging a "struggle for civilization," but civilized nations do not debate slavery or genocide, and they don't debate torture, either. This spectacle insults and dishonors every American.

There is one ray of encouragement: the crystal-clear evidence that the men and women of our armed forces want no part of torturing anybody.

We live in an incredibly wide open country.  Aside from the miles upon miles of relatively open ocean shoreline, we have our border Canada which is practically wide open.  Given all this opportunity on one hand and the difficulty of flying these days, you end up wondering whether we're safer or someone is just trying to give us the illusion of safety.

John Tierney has an interesting piece in the NY Times this morning.  It's called, "Waiting for Al Qaeda," and in the article he quotes John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University who has recently written an article for  Foreign Affairs.

There are plenty of fighters willing to use terrorist tactics locally during civil wars and insurrections, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya or Kashmir. But it’s harder to recruit competent warriors to fight abroad, and harder for them to operate in orderly countries where the citizenry and the authorities both want to stop them.

“Outside of Afghanistan and Iraq,” Mueller says, “the number of people killed around the world since Sept. 11 by groups in sympathy with Al Qaeda is not that high. These are horrible and disgusting deaths, but they’re not a sign of a diabolically effective organization. The total is less than the number of Americans who drowned in bathtubs during this period.”

It's interesting to look at terrorism from this perspective.  I guess if we didn't need to be protected quite as much we wouldn't need all the illegal wiretapping and secret prisons.  Weak leaders always need something to rally people against. 

It's the great leaders that can take people beyonds their fears  and help them achieve something great.  The idea that we turn our society into one great bunker doesn't appeal a whole lot to me.  I like Tierney's final closing points.

Compared with past threats — like Communist sociopaths with nuclear arsenals — Al Qaeda’s terrorists are a minor problem. They certainly don’t justify the hyperbolic warnings that America’s “existence” or “way of life” is in jeopardy, or that America must transform the Middle East in order to survive.

There undoubtedly will be more terrorist attacks, either from Al Qaeda or others, just as there were before 2001. Terrorists might strike Monday. There will always be homicidal zealots like Mohamed Atta or Timothy McVeigh, and some of them will succeed, terribly. But this is not a new era. The terrorist threat is still small. It’s the terrorism industry that got big.

Terrorism is also a great way to distract voters from issues where our politicians just can't seem to figure out what to do, like health care and social security.  We all know there are terrorist threats, but they shouldn't be the only thing on our minds.  Of course our politicians have one other main concern, their re-election.