speak for america

September 4, 2008 at 7:36 pm (america, communication, people, persuasion, politics, public speaking, the world, writing)

I haven’t warmed up to Obama yet, even though I am for the most part fine with his politics. Even so, I resonated with Clinton even less, and was relieved when Obama was the one nominated.

I watched his speech at the Democratic National Convention a few days ago and was not as moved as some of my friends in the US. (Of course, I do not currently reside there, and maybe that partially affects how I received it.) See I thought that while he was good, his speech lacked a real power to motivate the listener. He was too composed and his demeanor was aloof. His words had integrity but lacked drama, an aspect necessary to win this election. Where did his gifted speaking skills go?

In contrast, Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention was way more dynamic. It drew the audience in with its conviction, humor, and strategy. Kudos to her speechwriters. Don’t get me wrong – it made me continually livid. (For example, when she alluded to the “fact” that even though America is still under catastrophic threat from Al Qaeda terrorists, Obama wants to read them their rights!) The same anger that I felt when I lived in the States not too long ago – at the warmongering that is condoned.

But an impassioned speech or two is imperative to swinging this election! I heard both speeches with a sinking feeling. From a persuasion perspective, I have a strong sense that it is the McCain-Palin ticket that will win this election of ambivalence.

All I can say is: PLEASE VOTE.

Permalink 20 Comments

link?

August 4, 2008 at 4:36 am (globalization, inspiration, politics, psychology, religion, social phenomena, the world, trends)

I’ve been meaning to write about social psychologist Muzafer Sherif’s fascinating research on intergroup conflict and cooperation for a while – especially so after coming across this quote by economic historian Arnold Toynbee.

“The 20th century will be remembered by future generations not as an era of political conflicts or technological inventions, but as an age in which human society dared to think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practical objective.”

Maybe Toynbee got the century wrong, but could his prediction have the power to transform itself in to something close to reality in the 21st century? Consider this, just for a lark.

In 1954, Sherif took a bunch of 12-year old boy scouts to a camping location called Robber’s Cave in Oklahoma. 24 boys were divided in to 2 groups and encouraged to bond as teams.

Over an initial 5-6 day FIRST STAGE, one group spontaneously took the name “The Rattlers” and the other similarly adopted the name “The Eagles.” Even though the 2 groups had never met, they knew of each others’ existence at the location, and they called the other group derogatory names. Supervisors reported that each group insisted on meeting the other for a “competitive sport.”

This led to the SECOND STAGE, which lasted another 5-6 days. A series of competitive activities were arranged with a trophy (on the basis of accumulated team score) and also individual prizes (a medal and a multi-bladed pocket knife) which were to be presented to each of the “winning” group with no consolation prizes being allowed to the “losers.” When the two competing groups were brought together for the first time in the mess hall, there was considerable name-calling (“stinkers”, “braggers’, “sissies”, etc.). They even held their noses when members of the other team were in the vicinity! Before supper that evening, they expressed the desire not to eat with one another.

The THIRD STAGE was one of integration where Sherif tried to bring the groups together to watch a movie, light firecrackers together and such, but there was no appreciable lessening of tensions and interaction often culminated in a food fight. That was until the introduction of a “common enemy” – a superordinate goal that transcended low-level groupism. Sherif arranged for a number of problems which could not be easily ignored by members of the two antagonistic groups, and the attainment of which needed cooperation. He cut off the drinking water supply, for example. He also rigged the bus that was to carry the boys home to appear as if it was stuck in the mud. Both resulted in the Rattlers and Eagles coming together, united to achieve a common goal – survival.

At breakfast and lunch on the last day of camp, it was found that seating arrangements were not along group lines – there was much mingling and voluntarily so. The majority of the boys agreed by the last day that it would be a good thing to return to Oklahoma City all together on one bus!

I fell in love with this research when I first read about in Introduction to Psychology. And stumbling upon Toynbee’s wonderful quote many years later somehow brought it vividly to mind. Question is: could the world, so awfully divided as of now, come together in treating global warming as the “common enemy” it is? Could it possibly lead to us working together to alleviate the terrible impact we have had on our environment so far? It would certainly help in our survival as a species.

One might, of course, easily dismiss this as excessive optimism. But it seems to me, at the very least, worthy of consideration.

Permalink Leave a Comment

beware

June 6, 2008 at 4:01 pm (politics, the media, the world, trends)

In an unmissable TED talk lasting just 4 minutes, Alisa Miller, head of Public Radio International, tells us how the US media tells the news. Her message – no matter how amusingly delivered – is disturbing, especially considering how journalism is one of THE most influential and important ways in which world-views are shaped. Yet another question that springs to mind: is it time the world reevaluated its misguided enchantment with Americanism or not?

Permalink Leave a Comment

quote

May 7, 2008 at 1:47 pm (culture, persuasion, politics, psychology, trends)

“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”

Interesting thought, especially when you consider the role of the music or movie industries or even advertising in popular culture. I often find people in the biz that consider others – especially consumers – as fools. Then they deliver mediocrity of a kind that is really unacceptable, but it is often lapped up!

Unfortunate that those words are Hitler’s and we still see his vision play out day after day around us. Isn’t it time that people became less naive to the phenomenon? It might be wise to heighten awareness and learn how to see through sugar-coated manipulations. But more than anything else, I wish we would all pay just a little heed to to our intuition.

Permalink 2 Comments

unbelievable

April 24, 2008 at 6:48 pm (people, politics, public speaking, the world)

Hillary Clinton said a couple of days ago: I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally OBLITERATE them. This DEMOCRATIC candidate’s willingness to be perceived as the next war-president of the US is both sickening and scary. What exactly is going on?!?!

Permalink 2 Comments

who would jesus vote for?

February 16, 2008 at 11:01 am (market research, politics, religion)

.

As part of a recent poll, Relevant magazine – which caters to young evangelicals in America – asked the following.

Who would be voted Best to Bring Home to Meet the Parents?

Barack Obama 18.4%
Dennis Kucinich 2.1%
Mike Gravel 0.5%
John Edwards 24.9%
Joe Biden 0.9%
Hillary Clinton 2.6%
Mike Huckabee 16.6%
Rudy Giuliani 4.1%
Fred Thompson 4.8%
Ron Paul 5.4%
Mitt Romney 13.2%
John McCain 6.6%

Who would be voted Most Likely to Be a Preacher?

Barack Obama 19.8%
Dennis Kucinich 0.8%
Mike Gravel 1.3%
John Edwards 7.5%
Joe Biden 1.0%
Hillary Clinton 0.9%
Mike Huckabee 37.3%
Rudy Giuliani 1.2%
Fred Thompson 6.5%
Ron Paul 4.8%
Mitt Romney 12.9%
John McCain 5.8%

Who would Jesus vote for?

Barack Obama 28.7%
Dennis Kucinich 2.8%
Mike Gravel 0.2%
John Edwards 4.7%
Joe Biden 1.4%
Hillary Clinton 1.8%
Mike Huckabee 24.2%
Rudy Giuliani 4.3%
Fred Thompson 6.0%
Ron Paul 15.6%
Mitt Romney 3.7%
John McCain 6.6%
.
No matter how much the need for these questions makes me balk, this ex-market researcher has to commend Relevant’s ingenious way of getting at some, well, relevant answers.

 

Permalink 20 Comments

ra ra rall?

January 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm (india, people, politics, religion, the world)

Sunday’s cartoon responds to the generally respectful tone accorded Mike Huckabee, who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.

- Ted Rall

Permalink 2 Comments

away with words

December 26, 2007 at 12:10 pm (branding, communication, politics, public speaking, the world)

 

Condoleeza Rice at a press conference on Friday: “The United States doesn’t have permanent enemies; we’re too great a country for that.”

No-permanent-enemies is obviously semantic strategy to clarify that North Korea and Iran are indeed enemies until they comply with nuclear demands. It makes little diplomatic sense to refer to enemies – however temporary – as enemies out loud. Okay, so it’s a clumsily put statement, but at least it is honest. 

Now the too-great-a-country bit. It brings to mind instantaneously the fact that truly great countries – if there are indeed such things – should have no enemies! Particularly in the unctuous way the US currently does. What were her speechwriters thinking when they churned that out?

Permalink Leave a Comment

the origin of wealth

November 12, 2007 at 1:28 am (books, culture, politics, sociology, the world)

I am excited about this book. I read excerpts from it at a bookstore today and did something I don’t usually - bought it without reading any reviews. The title brought to mind two classic books: The Origin of Species (Charles Darwin) and The Wealth of Nations (Adam Smith). Intuition served me well; the book by Eric Beinhocker (2006) combines evolution with economics. I’m not sure if it will hold up to expectations (reviews are mixed – I have since looked!) but here are some of the reasons I picked it up.

  • The writing is compelling and nuanced
  • An entire chapter is devoted to how stark right-left politics will soon have to blur (phew!)
  • He seems to argue for the importance of corporate policies that favor many small risks over a few big ones and challenges the omnipotence of the “bottomline” in business (and I think I agree)
  • I want to know more about this term called “punctuated equilibrium” that evolutionists throw about freely
  • His approach seems holistic (it combines sociology, evolution, psychology, math, anthropology, economics…)
  • He digs deep and gets at the historical and philosophical core of his subject matter of “complexity economics”
  • Beinhocker’s a nice name. (It also brings beer to mind somehow.)

So I’ll be off now and will try and update this after I finish reading (or give up on) the book. Good night! In a jetlagged kinda way.

 

Permalink 1 Comment

pill bill

October 11, 2007 at 8:24 pm (politics, public speaking, religion, television, the world)

Help!

I am addicted to (gulp) TBN.

Today, I watched Bill O’Reilly in earnest conversation with James Robison. The latter is a regular on the evangelical channel I have become so intrigued by. They were discussing O’Reilly’s latest book called ‘Culture Warrior’  where he talks about some stark divide between America’s “Traditionalists” (Ts) and its “Secular-Progressives” (SPs).

I have watched him on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’, and often been impressed by his ability to think rationally and articulate quickly and succinctly his point of view. What he sorely lacks however is the ability to discern the shades of grey of any issue and therein lies his (fortunate) unpopularity with more than just the “SPs”. I saw the same trend play out in this interview, where Robison asked him to tell “people of faith” in the TBN audience about his book.

O’Reilly spoke of how, in polls, 65% of America was found to be of the “T “variety and how, unfortunately, a liberal media represents the 35% “SP” minority. He went on to beckon viewers of TBN to be a “T warrior” and help to preserve the Judeo-Christian foundation on which the nation has prospered so far. He pointed out how there exists a clear distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, and how this line is sadly made blurry by people who think secularly and progressively.

He claimed to be against the removal of Christian prayers from public school, espoused his clearly anti-gay-marriage view, and spoke passionately about how Ts need to fight SPs from causing furthur deterioration of this nation’s values. “Too many Americans,” he told Robison, “are sitting this one out, when in fact, we need them to go out there and be warriors!” What he means by that is “boycott liberal media” and other things in that vein, but the language is incendiary, to say the least.

Needless to say, Robison was lapping all this up. It seems to me that this “T” state of mind is the internal war – which in turn fuels the external wars – that America is embroiled in. And the same issue seems  to exist worldwide. That Shilpa Shetty would be given such a tough time in India (wasn’t the Shiv Sena involved?), for a little kiss in public from Richard Gere, reeks of the same misguided and arrogant sort of “traditionalism”. 

Well, I’m going to have to avoid getting my daily fix of TBN drivel tomorrow. But I’m afraid that The Bold and The Beautiful will toss me in to the throes of withdrawal.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »