If you’re a longtime reader of my blog, you may have noticed I don’t usually use this as a personal forum to send out cryptic messages. This blog entry is an exception to that rule. A cryptic message will now follow:

This is my response: You need help. That’s all I’m going to say.

This concludes Joe’s cryptic message in his blog.

The new Jane Jacobs book Dark Age Ahead is so far very persuasive and interesting. It’s the second book I’ve read this year on the decline of Western values/civilization (the first being The Cheating Culture). Both books so far have a very similar problem. It’s not that I don’t buy into their arguments: I do. While they make great arguments, both of the authors don’t seem to do a very good job at backing up their arguments with relevant facts. I wouldn’t fault them too much for this problem, though. They both have a similar challenge: to make a very broad statement about the state of our culture. That’s difficult to do from an objective standpoint primarily because the viewpoint presented is very subjective.

In any case, all that out of the way, while the Democratic convention is starting I think it’s worth mentioning the main point of Dark Age Ahead. I’ve read articles several times over the past year (if not more than a year) about the inability of liberals to get a consistent and compelling message out to the public — hence, the neo-conservative dis(r)evolution we’ve seen take place over the course of my lifetime. Jane Jacobs, in making her case that we’re heading to a time where we’ve forgotten what we forgot as a society and civilization, claims:

In the five chapters that follow, I single out five pillars of our culture that we depend on to stand firm, and discuss what seem to me ominous signs of their decay. They are in process of becoming irrelevant, and so are dangerously close to the brink of lost memory and cultural uselessness. These five jeopardized pillars are

• community and family (the two are so tightly connected they cannot be considered separately)
• higher education
• the effective practice of science and science-based technology (again, so tightly connected they cannot be considered separately)
• taxes and governmental powers directly in touch with needs and possibilities
• self-policing by the learned professions.

It may seem surprising that I do not single out such failings as racism, profligate environmental destruction, crime, voters’ distrust of politicians and thus low turnouts for elections, and the enlarging gulf between rich and poor along with attrition of the middle class. Why not those five, rather than the five I have selected to concentrate upon? Surely the second five indicate serious cultural dysfunction. Perhaps my judgment is wrong, but I think these second five are symptoms of breakdown in the five I have chosen to discuss. Furthermore, many North Americans are already aware of them as dangerous flaws and are trying to focus on intelligent corrections.

The five pillars: a starting point. Imagine if the Democrats could bring Jacobs’ five pillars to light over the course of the convention. There’s no advocacy for specific policies, but instead a direction for where public policy should be headed. Imagine if the Democrats could get that vision thing down pat in a way that would energize the non-voting public in addition to the base. Could the five pillars be a start?

On Community and Family: Families are too often torn apart by divorce and are left without adequate social networks, especially for the children. Republicans are not addressing the problem: they merely use scapegoats. (Insert broader vision here. Keep in mind, I’m no crafty political messenger)

On Higher Education: Our education system is failing us. Republicans have put too much emphasis on credentialing, and not enough on education. Our education system should not only teach our children how to take tests, but also how to think critically. We need to invest more in higher education to invest more in our futures.

On Taxes: It’s time for a real, meaningful overhaul of government bureaucracy. Republicans have a goal of slash and burn. We have a goal to make the government meaningful and relevant to the lives of the citizens. The government is not the enemy because we the people are the government.

And so on. Yeah, it’s a very rough draft and it’s poorly worded for a mass audience — very poorly worded. But to me, it’s still compelling. In my own head, at least, I’d like to think Jane Jacobs is on to something, and it would be worth it for the Democrats to take that message and run with it.

During the Maymester I took a class called “Human Resource Selection” with Prof. Todd Maurer. It was for that class that I was getting some research together for a presentation on tacit knowledge.

When we went through a lesson on interviewing, Dr. Maurer took us through an effective method on preparing for a job interview. When getting interviewed, the one thing that would impress the interviewer is stories about situations you have gone through in the past. After all, past behavior is an indication of future behavior. So, Dr. Maurer has done some research on the subject of the effectiveness of what he calls the STAR Technique. That’s STAR for:

• Situation or Task: Explains the circumstance you were in.
• Action: Describes what you did.
• Result: Describes the outcome of what you did.

That’s how you tell the story. Talk about the situation you were in, what you did, and the result of your action. To prepare for an interview, take some time to write down the STAR answers to the following questions:

On Achievement:

• Tell me about a time when you were primarily responsible for completing an important task, project or assignment.
• Describe a time when you went “above and beyond the call of duty” in order to get something accomplished.

On Conscientiousness:

• Describe a project or task on which you had to work extra hard to deliver the work on time and with high quality or accuracy.
• Describe a time when you were working on something and you realized that there was an error in the work which had a potentially serious implication.

On Teamwork:

• Describe a time when you had to work closely with other people in order to complete a project or task. Describe the situation, your actions and the results of your actions.
• Tell me about a time when you needed to work with others in order to complete a project or task, and you did not get along with another person or people. Describe the situation, your actions and the results of your actions.

On Communication:

• Tell me about a time when you had to explain a complicated issue to another person or group of people. Describe the situation, your actions and the results of your actions.
• Describe a time when you had to formally present information to a group of people. Describe the situation, your actions and the results of your actions.

On Leadership:

• Tell me about a time when you had to persuade others to work together in pursuit of a common cause or objective. Describe the situation, your actions and the results of your actions.
• Tell me about a time when you guided others toward achieving a goal. Describe the situation, your actions and the results of your actions.

On Problem Solving:

• Describe a situation where there were several options for handling a particular situation or problem and describe how you went about choosing an alternative. Describe the situation, your actions and the results of your actions.
• Tell me about a time when you were faced with a difficult decision and describe how it turned out. Describe the situation, your actions and the results of your actions.

Hopefully these things will help. Of course, in order to have experiences to talk about, it’s important to obtain high-quality experiences. So Dr. Maurer also recommends getting involved in many activities.

Update (1/4/2006): Not quite as specific, but still useful, is this guide on developing a personal elevator pitch.

After reading a story about the changing demographics of religion in America, I decided to check out the website for the General Social Survey to see if there were any other interesting survey results I could find there. As it turns out, it costs moolah moolah to get a copy of the GSS data, but upon browsing around a little more, I found a section of the Roper Center website entitled “Public Opinion Matters.” Among the questions asked is a curious one. I took their answers and compiled the results on this here chart:

The most confidence displayed in “big government” came around the late ’60s. Labor, over the years, is viewed as less of a threat with nearly each subsequent poll. But notice the startling fall in confidence in big business. This came in July 2002, almost immediately following the rise in corporate scandals. It all makes me wonder how the poll results would look if it were conducted again today.

This Quote speaks for itself.

“I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldnÕt do my job.”

– President Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, during a private meeting with an Amish group.

Thanks to Political Wire.

Here’s a story that could mushroom, should Accenture handle the matter improperly (from CNET):

Technology services giant Accenture said Friday that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission plans an informal investigation of an incident involving the company. In a public filing, Accenture said the probe concerns “an incident of possible noncompliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and/or with Accenture’s internal controls in connection with certain of Accenture’s operations in the Middle East.”

This may prove to be nothing, or it may show a lack of organizational learning within the company. Accenture, once known as Andersen Consulting, has a long history of poor judgment. Most recently, many of us are probably aware of Andersen’s role in the collapse of Enron: when Andersen’s auditors tried to give a correct assessment and set of recommendations to Enron for public knowledge, Enron was able to convince Andersen’s senior partners to overrule the auditors’ advice. Andersen’s partners, in complying with Enron’s request for a favorable audit, compromised the integrity of the company, leaving the rest for history.

Those with a longer-term memory, however, may remember Andersen’s role in the collapse of DeLorean. When Andersen auditors discovered that DeLorean was charging many personal expenses to the company, they accepted the CEO’s explanations of the expenses rather than expose them. DeLorean collapsed, the British government sued Andersen for vouching for DeLorean and Andersen settled out of court. But that’s not all. The Andersen representative in charge of the DeLorean account got promoted and became the head of Andersen’s U.S. audit division in 1987. In 1989 he became the head of Andersen’s worldwide audit and tax practice. These promotions sent a signal to the company’s employees: selling accounts for short-term profits mattered more than producing auditing reports with integrity.

Similar patterns appeared when Andersen’s audits failed to uncover problems in other companies before Enron. These companies included Linconln Savings and Loan, which collapsed in 1992, and Waste Management Inc., which encountered allegations of fraud in 1999.

Now that Andersen’s consulting business (now known as Accenture) split away from the auditing firm, the CNET story now makes me wonder whether the change really made any difference. Or, is it really the case that the company’s split-up was just a disingenuous attempt to give the appearance of a newfound integrity?

We shall see …

A few links to some of the interesting news and partisan politicking of the day:

• The New Republic is reporting that the Bush Administration is pushing for a July surprise. The administration’s greatest hope? It happens during the Democratic National Convention. (Thanks, Pandagon)

• NARAL Pro-Choice America created an online video trailer portraying a take-off of the Stepford Wives, called the Crawford Wives. It’s hillarious! (Thanks, Blog for Democracy)
• Governor Sonny Perdue has appointed a Task Force on Local Transportation Strategies that is so stacked with asphalt interests that they will have no chance of coming up with any reasonable long-term solutions.
• According to The Story, Selig has signed on Wal Mart to move into their mixed-use redevelopment of what was once the Castlegate Hotel. Pity.
• GDOT has added a new anti-pedestrian requirement for most land developments to add a deceleration lane. (Chapter 4)
• Under current conditions, Government Consumption as a percentage of GDP is expected to rise over the next five years. How would it be different if, say, we took a more efficient approach to defense?

That’s all for today. Tune in next time when Joe takes a few more wild-eyed looks at politics.

The Pew Center released another interesting poll today. The findings of the report could possibly bode well for the Kerry campaign for several reasons.

The poll came to several interesting conclusions. First:

In a similar vein, while most (79%) say the 2004 election is important, roughly half of Americans are already voicing unhappiness with the campaign, saying it is too long (52%), uninformative (48%) and too negative (45%). And swing voters — those who are undecided or still may change their mind — do not view this election as particularly consequential. Only about four-in-ten swing voters (39%) think it really matters who wins in the fall, barely half the number of committed Bush voters (75%) and Kerry voters (74%) who say the election outcome really matters.

The poll also showed that most Americans think this campaign is dull. Given Kerry’s choice of a running mate, these numbers may now begin to change. If Edwards is anything, he’s certainly not dull or negative.

But here’s a real kicker:

You’re reading this right (no pun intended): Conservative Republicans are much happier with their choices than they were four years ago. But Moderate and Liberal Republicans are much less happy. This leaves a gaping hole within the party. It shows the possibility that we may have new evidence of the true effect of the use of wedge issues among conservatives to gain some short-term political advantage. By galvinizing the energetic and wild-eyed, they may have alienated their true base. Put another way, as John McCain bluntly put it back in May, “I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. Apparently those days are long gone for some in our party.”

Today’s Marketplace contained a report on political groups known as 527’s, which are independent political groups that can raise and spend unlimited funds right up to an election.

While several progressive 527’s such as MoveOn have been in the news a bit lately, one major (and very influential) conservative 527 has stayed out of the limelight: the Club for Growth. In the Marketplace report, listeners were introduced to the club at a cocktail party they were hosting:

On a recent evening in New York a few dozen men and women sipped white wine and munched on shrimp cocktail on the twentieth floor of a midtown office building. They belong to the Club for Growth, and on this night they raised about $100,000 for Richard Burr, a North Carolina congressman running for U.S. Senate … The Club for Growth’s soul aim is to elect pro-business anti-tax candidates like Burr to public office, then lobby them.

Now if I recall correctly, it was the liberals — especially Howard Dean supporters — who were supposed to be the elite, or something like that. You know … Volvo-driving, sushi-eating, latte-sipping, Birkenstock-wearing, blah-blah-blahing people.

So while MoveOn’s home page is full of links to ideas of ways to make the organization more inclusive, the Club for Growth’s home page is rife with exclusivity to the point that they even have a special place for those who are “Republicans in Name Only:” somewhere else. While the Club for Growth wants only for you to shell out money to join their … ahem … club, MoveOn just wants you to get active.

Now pardon me for asking, but I have to wonder who the real elitists are here.

Every now and then I hear of or see commercials that are so patently misleading that I have to wonder about the very sanity of the advertisers. For example, a coal industry commercial a few years ago made the assertion that coal is clean energy. Get it!?! Coal is clean!?!

A more local firm financed by the asphalt industry makes the equally ridiculous claim that when our only option for transportation is the car, it means we have more transportation options. Okay, so it’s more than just patently misleading. It’s a lie. They’re assuming that when I see messages like this, I must be stupid enough to even think of believing this.

I’m sorry, but post-modern thought has its boundaries. Just because everything is left up for question doesn’t mean you can make ridiculous assertions and get away with it.

All of this leads me to yet another campaign of ridiculous assertions I recently heard about.

BP’s latest commercial campaign is just sick. In it they ask the question: “What would you rather have a car or a cleaner environment?”

And the answer: “I would love to have a clean environment but thatÕs like asking someone to give up chocolate. To give up their car, itÕs, itÕs just not going to happen. I love my car.” - Cynthia Browning

Yikes!

Apart from the grammatical error, BP is asking the public to believe that it is impossible to live without a car. Miss Cynthia here loves her car so much — poor baby. It’s so unfortunate that organizations like Citizens for Progressive Transit have such a long way to go before the message could get out: many more people than you think would be willing to drive less. While I, personally, would be willing to give up driving completely, I understand that others feel that a car gives them more freedom — I have nothing against that.

But let’s not kid ourselves here. If we want a cleaner environment (not to mention, lower fuel prices) we would have to drive less. We would have to lower our demand for oil.