Does Diversity Matter?

A speech given to the graduating class of Bright School, May 28, 2009.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Good Morning Cannon.

I was frankly a little shocked when Mr. Morgan asked me to speak to you this morning, as I don't think of myself as serious enough- or old enough-to give this sort of speech. You expect a person giving a commencement address to say something you'll look back on years from now and remember as profound, and I am just not sure I am there yet. Dr. Barks, who was my headmaster at Baylor, gave this address two years ago when my son Jack graduated, and I was thoroughly impressed. In short, I am not sure I can provide that- but I will do my best. Conventional wisdom would have me tell a joke now to warm you up, but most of the jokes I know I cannot tell you. I do know some good lawyer jokes, but a lot of your parents are lawyers, and they would not think they were funny- and the rest of us don't think they're jokes- so I'll just skip that. I do feel strongly about my topic today, so perhaps I will at least manage to entertain you.

I know most of you graduates, having watched you grow up and progress through Bright School with my son Cannon, and let me first say this: Congratulations, you made it! I myself am a graduate of Bright school- and am a current member of the board of Trustees at Bright, as well as a Bright school parent (which ends today, sadly). So needless to say, I believe very deeply in everything Bright School stands for and represents, and you can now say that you have one of the finest educational starts to life that you could ever hope for. Now I know you some of you are probably coming out of your skin to put this place behind you about now- and I understand that- I felt the same way when I was sitting there 30 years ago- but I wanted to take a moment to guarantee you that you will appreciate this place in later life- and your teachers, and shop- and art- and the playgrounds- and even the food in the cafeteria- in ways that you cannot even conceive of now, and you will- believe it or not- appreciate your parents for caring enough about you to send you here. Here's a newsflash: It wasn't free, you know. If you've been here since kindergarten, your parents have spent more to send you here than it costs to get a college diploma at some pretty decent universities, and they did so because they saw tremendous potential in you. You will later look back- as will your parents, hopefully- and realize that it was well worth it, if not a bargain. OK- enough of the guilt trip- and on to my attempt at profundity.

I want to talk to you this morning about diversity. Now before you kids- and you parents- start groaning under your breath and rolling your eyes, relax. I am fully aware that that word has been so overused and misused in sensitivity training and in the name of political correctness that we almost don't hear it for what it represents anymore. It has all sorts of baggage attached to it and all sorts of sing-songy, do-goody connotations that I am not going to burden you with. No, rather, I want to put it in context for you, and explain why I think it IS so important- not for its own sake, but for what it does for us as Americans, and why the discomfort of diversity is well worth enduring. So relax- we won't be singing Kum-ba-ya today.

The fact is that diversity sometimes makes us uncomfortable. We lie to ourselves a lot about this, because we feel guilty about it, but we shouldn't. I personally believe that that there's something buried deep in our brains that would really rather just be around people who look like us, think like us, and eat the same food we like to eat. Unlike a lot of people, I don't think that makes you a bad person, or a reactionary, or some sort of fascist- I just think it's the starting point for the human condition, and is, in fact, how most of the rest of the world operates. I will never forget the first time I travelled abroad- to Germany- as a teenager. Having studied a good bit about German culture, I was sort of amazed and impressed and a little frightened at just how efficient Germans could be- for all the good and bad that entailed, and thought less of American culture for being so much messier. When I got there, it suddenly hit me- and it's never left me- that Germans, and in fact most Europeans, have a much easier time agreeing on things than we Americans do, because they are, for the most part, on the same page of the hymn book, so to speak. There's not a lot of diversity there, frankly. Reaching consensus, on any number of issues- like how the railroads should run, for example- is relatively simple because their culture- relative to American culture, anyway- is pretty homogenous. Lots of sameness, in other words. The same can certainly be said of most cultures whose nations evolved around a specific ethnic group or language: which is almost every other country on the globe. And from sameness of language and culture very often comes sameness of opinion.

I'll give you another good example- I read recently that in China, it takes only 100 surnames to cover 85% of the population. They actually have a name for the huge chunk of population those family names cover- the Laobaixing- which is colloquial Chinese for "the masses". That's pretty amazing when you think about it. Folks, there are probably more than 100 family names represented in this auditorium, and certainly more than 100 enrolled at Bright School. In fact to cover a similar percentage of the US population, you'll need 70,000 last names. And that just the family names. In America, you can also name your children anything you want for first names. Like Cannon, Or Elvis, or Boofie, or Fluff, or Indy IROC Nascar, or Urhines Kendall Icy Eight Special K (that's all one name, folks, and yes, it's a real name). Or you can have twins and name them Winner and Loser (also real). Winner, by the way, wound up in prison and Loser became a successful police detective, but that's another speech entirely. Now all that's pretty strange, and can be uncomfortable and even embarrassing, but in most other countries, by contrast, there are literally laws against naming your kids whatever you want. You have to name your children "normal" names, and that's because everyone pretty much agrees what normal MEANS, what normal IS. That is not the case in America, thank goodness.

Which brings me to my main point: this is where American culture is different- radically and profoundly different- and I would submit to you today, better, as uncomfortable and confusing as it can sometimes be. Ours is an utterly heterogeneous culture (sorry for the big word, yes I am trying to impress you, this is a commencement speech, remember)- and it is so in every respect; it is a literal patchwork, ethnically, culturally, and ideologically. You've read many times in your textbooks about the "melting pot"- you may have heard it so often that it does not mean anything to you- but what it means is that true diversity- of people and cultures and, therefore of ideas and opinions- is at the very foundation of our culture. And for those of you sometimes tempted to wall this country off from newcomers (like Cannon) it's worth a reminder that the source of most of our diversity comes from immigrants- people who come here from the four corners of the world because they share our desire for freedom and opportunity, just as all of us did. Yes, it's messy, it's inconvenient, it's uncomfortable, it's sometimes amusing, but it's America, and it's actually what makes America great.

You see, America has always been the great Innovator. Americans became Americans by inventing constitutional democracy, and went on to invent the light bulb, the personal computer, the iPod, and, yes, the chia pet. Why is that? Well, from a great melting pot of people comes a great melting pot of cultures, of food, of perspectives, and ideas. We are like an ideological compost pit- a lot of crazy, smelly stuff goes in, but what comes out is very rich soil for growing new ideas. While other nations have tended to specialize in refining existing processes and concepts, what our unique culture of diversity produces is the very best minds for problem solving and innovation, and you guys are the fortunate heirs to that legacy. Innovation is what we as Americans do better than anybody else in the world, and diversity is the soil from which it grows.

Honestly, kids, your future is going to be challenging. Our government is currently borrowing tremendous amounts of money in an effort to pull us out of our current severe financial crisis- a good portion of which we are borrowing from our friends in China the Laobaixing, and which you, unfortunately, will have to repay. The bad news is that it is not going to be easy. But the good new is, you can do it. You will not repay it, however, by simply digging ditches, or flipping burgers, or filing lawsuits, or selling cars- though all those things are important- and you will certainly not repay it by trading asset backed securities and credit default swaps (that's how we got INTO this mess). You can and will repay it, however- and bring this country back to a position of security and stability- by building better mousetraps. And the process of imagining those better mousetraps- by which I mean, of course, things like cures for dreaded diseases, improved business methods, transportation that runs on cheap, plentiful resources, and other as-yet-unimagined things that the world will demand and purchase- will depend on preserving and fostering this unique American culture of diversity.

SO... please remember. As uncomfortable as it may make you, in all its various forms, diversity is essential to who we are as Americans, and it is critical to our future success. Like your homework, or strenuous exercise, just because it makes you uncomfortable does not mean it's bad. ON the contrary, it's very necessary and very good. So, as you go out into the world and into higher education, I would encourage you to simply be who you are- be yourself- but tolerate, and in fact try to embrace- the strangeness of others. Keep your mind open to different ideas and perspectives, and to different people and cultures. When you start school next year, and go to the cafeteria that very first day, try sitting next to someone who DOESN'T look like you, or talk like you, and isn't eating what you're eating- and see what you can learn from them. Our future as Americans depends upon it!

Taking it all for granted

Completely self-explanatory, and long overdue. This guy (no idea who he is) elucidates something I have mused about for a long time since it hit me a few years ago: humans have a really bad habit of taking any and all positive developments for granted, and bitching relentlessly about the least little thing. We live in the most incredible time in the history of mankind, and you'd never know it. 

(usually barefoot) meg - Louis CK "Everything's amazing, nobody's happy"

Nobody buys American?

Before it recedes too far into the rear-view mirror of history, it is worth noting some of the more revealing prejudices exposed during the auto "bailout" debate. My favorite, heard from countless talking heads on the news networks: nobody wants or buys American vehicles.

Now, of course, we know that this is patently untrue. The data clearly shows what everybody in the car business knows: GM, Ford and Chrysler still dominate the U.S. market, they just do so to a far lesser extent than they did years ago. It's not even really a close call.

So what's to learn from this? It's just another prime example of how profoundly, radically out of touch the major media outlets are with mainstream America. Just because the producers, directors, copywriters, and talking heads at CNBC (or any other number of countless broadcasts from Manhattan) don't find domestic cars and trucks attractive does NOT mean the rest of the country doesn't, but precious few of them even have sense enough to be aware of their own prejudice. This is disturbing enough, but it's really scary to think about the extensions into every other facet of cultural and political life in America. For a lot of Americans- from Wichita to Walla Walla- these outlets, both broadcast and print, constitute their main base of reference (which is scary enough in and of itself).

As someone who had a "cup of coffee" in that environment, interning at a prominent Manhattan-based political magazine in college, I can tell you that it's NOT a liberal, humanist, urbanist, democratic plot. It is simply human nature at work. Manhattan in general and journalism in particular just happens to be full of urban liberal humanists who vote democratic, most of whom are perfectly decent people. It's just that too often, they forget their own prejudices, and we forget that their circumstances and surroundings prejudice them, as they would anyone.

What we need is something to more constantly remind us of this pernicious effect- either that, or physically relocate the bulk of broadcast media to locales more closely reflective of mainstream America- like, say, Indianapolis.

On the other hand.... maybe we just need the occasional reminder.

End of the US?

A Russian professor apparently has developed a rather elaborate and considered theory about the demise of the U.S. as a functioning entity. The Cliff Notes version of the theory is that the States begin squabbling over tax revenue and the union dissolves, with allegiances of US regions going to their strongest economic partners: California and the West in the Chinese orbit, the East Coast in the EU orbit, etc. This is fascinating stuff on a number of fronts:

1) It's a healthy reminder that we were not always the Imperial Superpower and World's Policeman that we are now. The fact that there are enough chinks in the armor for anyone to even pay attention to such a theory is news enough. The fact is that this country rose from relative political obscurity and certainly could return there. It would not happen without disastrous worldwide economic and political consequences, but it could happen.

2) It's a healthy reminder that our strict constitutional construction is as the United States of America, not the United States of America. It's not coincidental that the spoken emphasis-for the entirety of my lifetime, anyway- has always been on the last word in that phrase. For those of you that are historically challenged, that was not the original idea. We morphed into a huge imperial power just after the turn of the last century, but prior to that, it was a different story. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when a citizen's allegiance was to his State first and the Union OF those States second- a laughable idea today.

In any event, its a little sad its come to this, but its also a welcome development in my mind in that it reminds Americans that our position of global prominence is one that must constantly be earned. We've definitely had some serious issues lately but the first step to recovery is self-awareness. Perhaps this will illustrate the fragility of our prominence to the American public.

Malthusian Angst

I am convinced that there is something buried deep in the human brain that just plain freaks out- collectively- when quarters get too close. It's the only way to explain the periodic panic (there's no better way to describe it) that grips human societies every so often, which I'm referring to here as Malthusian Angst. (Thomas Malthus, for those of you that may not know, was the classical English economist who famously posited that the earth had a finite capacity for human population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_malthus, among other things). The latest incarnation of this panic, in my opinion, is Global Warming Angst.

Now, global warming may or may not be a reality. I am no scientist and never even played one on TV, and thus would not venture into such territory (not like me, I know). Opinions are utterly useless in science- mine or anyone else's- which is what the sceptics have been saying all along. I would simply echo the late, great Micheal Crichton's position on the subject ( http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html), which should be required reading for anyone interested. To summarize, there is no scientific certainty of global warming; it is a theory, and anyone who tells you otherwise probably has a political agenda. It may very well turn out to BE a scientific fact- by which point it may be too late to do anything about it- but that's another matter. One thing's for sure, however: the level of anxiety collectively expressed by the educated Western world over the issue far outstrips any reasonable, rational response to the problem (real or imagined) and- in my mind- is simply the latest installment of Malthusian Angst. If you need proof of this theorem, ask yourself why people in dense urban areas are so much more prone to anxiety about this issue than people who live on farms. It's not surprising that most of the concern of this nature is from folks living cheek-to-jowl. Are people in London or New York City simply that much more prescient or intelligent than people in rural or suburban areas? Perhaps- but I doubt it.

There is some merit, I suppose, to the idea of retooling our entire industrial infrastructure to be green just for the Keynesian merit of doing so. Keynes (suddenly very popular again) once suggested that an entire self-sufficient economy could be comprised of people alternately burying and digging up bottles, and if you extend this to the current situation, it may be useful to go to all the trouble just for the churning effect it would have on the wider economy. If you are more of a zero-sum thinker, this won't make any sense to you at all. As far as I am concerned, the main issue is geo-political: I want to see Americans weaned from oil as an energy source simply to deny the almost uniformly distasteful regions that control most of it any more control over us than they already have. That this goal also happily coincides with the goals of those concerned with global warming is, I suppose, a pure coincidence.

Since I originally wrote this in December, the economy has gotten far worse, and in fact Obama has embarked on a number of Keynesian initiatives in regard to alternative energy sources. If nothing else, it will be fascinating to watch and may in fact relieve a great deal of this Malthusian angst.

In the last analysis, the answer is old news: nuclear power. It is the only rational alternative we have anywhere near the horizon, and is entirely practical. Put simply, if the French can do it (and they do, well and safely), we can do it. The old luddite brand of hippie is just going to have to grow up a bit and get over it. Investments in solar and other feel-good forms of alternative energy may get the headlines, but the reality is that nuclear will be the source getting the job done if we are ever going to wean ourselves off dirtier forms of energy.

As it turns out, attitude really IS everything

In 20 years of watching car salesmen operate every day, I have witnessed some fascinating aspects of human nature- the best and the worst. It's a lot like working in a perpetual sitcom. One thing really sticks out, however: life is what you make of it. You happen to it, or it happens to you. You decide.

And while this is probably not a huge revelation to most folks- it's almost a platitude, the sort 0f thing you see plastered on posters and spouted by motivational speakers- it is important to realize that its more than that. This sort of advice is dispensed like Prozac, but that's the problem: I think most people look at it as something you consume on an occasional basis to make you feel better. The insight I'm trying to impart here is that for those who really LIVE it- for whom it has become woven into their personalities- it is utterly transformative. These lucky few people- and I am lucky enough to know and work with some of them- just will not let the bastards get them down (so to speak). Even in this economy, they sell cars- a lot of them. They just keep going, always seeing the glass as half full, even if it's damn near bone dry. And moreover, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to this: their customers love being around them because they love the energy they radiate and the way it makes them feel (I suppose), and they tell other people about that. I have not read The Secret (and won't, thank you very much)but I believe this is what the author must be talking about.

This probably does not rank up there with the most blinding insights I have ever posted on this blog, but it is probably the most profound, ultimately, because I have come to the conclusion that it is fundamentally THE most important aspect of life one can embrace, and it is not just a platitude or a theory to me. I have witnessed it for enough years and in enough lives to testify to its absolute practical truth. It is the wellspring from which everything else good in life flows. Ignore it at your peril.

The Myth of "The Economy"

If I hear about "the economy" one more time, I'm going to blow a fuse. Referring to "it"as some monolitic, national issue is ridiculous. Talking about "it" this way makes about as much sense as talking about the collective batting average of Major League Baseball, and yet it is the only way we ever seem to talk about "it". "The economy"- in this macro sense- is a complete fiction.

All economies, like all politics, are local. The economy in metro Chattanooga and the economy in Dallas, or Erie, or Wichita, are all completely different animals with completely different rates of growth (or contraction) and completely different metabolisms, savings rates, housing prices, etc., ad nauseum. Of course, all economies are interconnected, and there are rarely huge differences in economic health in adjacent areas. It would be much more useful to think of them like temperatures on a weather map; like those temperatures, you rarely see huge shifts, but rather smooth gradients from one place to the next. I am suggesting here that someone adopt this model, and do it soon: it would do more to correct our thinking about the issue than anything else I can imagine. A monthly economic "temperature map" would be a truly useful and informative tool for policy makers.

The Fed does of course publish its Beige Book, which is a patchwork of reports from the different Federal Reserve branches around the country, in order to gauge just what the hell's actually happening out here. It does this, however, so that it can amalgamate the data and come up with an average that it can use to set one interest rate for "The Economy". As much as I wish there were a way to set different interest rates for different areas of the country, they just don't have that figured out yet, so this is a necessary evil. It is NOT necessary, however- and in fact entirely unhelpful- to carry this rubric forward into general discussion about economics. It's harmless (but facile) in economic circles, but it's downright reckless and stupid in wider reporting, because it almost always (unless you happen to living in the area which happens to fall on the average) entails a disconnect with the reader's reality. Talking about how bad- or how good- "the economy" is only serves to artificially frighten (or embolden) the reader, and thus spend money they probably should not spend, or save it when they should be spending it. In current terms, with consumer confidence at historic low levels, it is a particularly acidic and destructive way of thinking about it. It is very difficult for otherwise reasonably healthy local economies- like mine- to get any sort of economic traction when USA Today is constantly announcing that "the economy" stinks.

So- please- the next time you hear some reporter opining about "the economy" in these general terms, do us all a favor and slap them upside the head if they're within reach. Or write them a letter and ask them to do a feature on the Unicorn while they're at it- they might as well.

The Truth about Detroit

There are some points of emphasis in this debate that I wanted to clarify as we consider the subject. I have spent my entire life in the automobile business, and this has been a very frustrating- and ambivalent- experience. I hope these points will help Americans see the light.

1) To suggest that Detroit has been reckless or irresponsible for building large trucks and SUVs is ridiculous, and merely reflects the Statist mindset of the liberal pundits that frame so many of our national conversations. It’s a lie so often repeated, however, that most believe it. The “Big Three” builds what they feel the American public will buy, which is, of course, how Capitalism works. Foreign manufacturers have always done a better job with fuel efficient vehicles, because their home markets demand them, and it was, therefore, their stock in trade when they entered the US market a few short decades ago. It is worth noting here, however, that for all this hype, hybrid sales amounted to just 2.5% of all light vehicles sales through the peak of gas prices in July of this year, and even highly fuel-efficient internal combustion vehicles amounted to just a small fraction of overall light vehicle sales. Clearly, the journalistic prejudice towards the American automobile manufacturers (which Detroit has managed very poorly, to its discredit) has distorted the debate. No one possessed a crystal ball to foresee the recent spike in gas prices; Toyota’s most recent venture, after all, was to build full-size V8 pickups in San Antonio, so the entire industry- if not the entire world- missed the call on this one. The fact is that the lack of a coherent national energy policy led us here, which Warren Brown eloquently explained in his recent Washington Post opinion piece[1].

2) No one holds the UAW in lower regard than GM dealers, or GM itself. They have been a millstone around our necks for many years, and though they may be beginning to see the light in some respects, there is no question but that the slide to inferior quality that led to Detroit’s decline is blood on their hands. What seems to be missing from the debate, however, is the realization that GM is their virtual prisoner by dint of culture, geography and federal law. This arrangement is not the result of management improvidence as much as one of history and circumstance. It is a crying shame that the only suggestion to solve the dilemma thus far involves a bankruptcy judge, but, as Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal has suggested, it is a Washington problem as much as a Detroit one; the complex arrangements regarding CAFE requirements and labor contracts- mandated by Washington- are at the heart of the problem. I am not sure there is an easy answer to this one, but I for one would like federal support tied to some sort of provision that would permanently alter this parasitic arrangement so that the interests of unions and management are better aligned, permanently. Done correctly, this could also inform the dialogue on card-check legislation- as a cautionary tale- such that the public will understand just what’s at stake.

3) What must emerge from this mess is a sound national energy policy. We can’t have arbitrary state intervention in free markets, but it’s another thing entirely for government to create a framework for markets which establishes predictability and pushes the market towards service of the national interest when it otherwise resists. The Toyota Prius would not exist were it not for the Japanese government’s help, and I am sure you’re aware that public-private cooperation is the rule- not the exception- in Japan, Germany and Korea. As much as I hate the idea of any new taxes, a new federal gas tax- one that progressively declines as gasoline prices rebound and tapers out entirely at the point of real consumer pain- would not only generate critical revenue for this rescue but also allow American automakers to retool and plan with confidence for a market that will actually buy the more fuel-efficient vehicles that new CAFE requirements mandate they produce. We also must have more transparency in crude oil futures trading, so that bubbles like the one we just experienced are mitigated or eliminated. For all we know, the Russian oil oligarchs have just succeeded in a plot to steer us over an economic cliff in order to line their own pockets and strategically damage our economy and tax base. One thing is for sure: there is no way, looking at a 5-year price chart of crude-oil prices, that one can explain this spike with the normal laws of supply and demand. A commodity as critical to national security and economic health as crude oil simply must be traded more responsibly and transparently.

4) It is disingenuous to suggest that the Big 3 have been on a level playing field for all these years. After getting us through WWII (so often forgotten), Detroit took on health care and pension obligations at a time when there was a widespread imbalance of power between labor and management in America. Their foreign competition, coming late to the party, never suffered these costs. Detroit also lacks the cooperation and coordination from Washington that foreign automakers openly receive from their governments. Because this is the freest market in the world, it is also the most competitive market in the world, so vehicles here transact for thousands less in currency-adjusted dollars than they do in European and Asian markets, while foreign makers enjoy better profit margins in their protected home markets. Again, although the conventional wisdom seems to be that it’s always been a level playing field and the home team just stinks, that is just not the case. The home team has weights strapped to its back, playing uphill, and has little fan support. Despite these challenges, some elements in Detroit have made significant progress, and we should recognize and encourage that progress, while helping remove the burdens that have made them uncompetitive.

5) It is absurd to lump GM, Ford, and Chrysler together in this debate. There’s only one of the three that has made no significant progress in quality, safety, or powertrain innovations, and that same company has been to the well for federal help once before. This is easy for me to suggest, as I am not a Chrysler dealer, but my point here is that even though I firmly believe Chrysler should be sold or merged into a larger company (foreign or domestic), even it cannot be permitted to simply fold in this environment. Such a failure would very likely set off a cascade of failures with catastrophic economic consequences, and we cannot afford to take the chance of tipping the economy into a depression. The best solution might involve tying aid to “litmus tests” out on the calendar such that- as was the theory behind the original TARP fund- the troubled assets of these companies can be returned to the market when the market is better able to absorb them. Crandall and Winston of the Brookings Institute recently suggested such a plan, and I think it makes quite a bit of sense.

6) Automobile dealers have a symbiotic relationship with the auto manufacturers, not a parasitic one; we are their customers as much as the consumer is ours. As the saying goes around here, “the factory retails to us and we wholesale to the public,” which, based on margin, is an absolute fact. Unfortunately, we dealers are largely captives of our respective manufacturers, which is why we have such strong state laws to protect us from abuse. The manufacturers compel us to invest tremendous sums of money for their brands in our markets, while relying on us to purchase parts, accessories and collateral materials from them. And even though it is rarely profitable, the sale of new vehicles is critical to making the rest of a dealer’s business- repair, service, and used vehicle sales- function. The disorderly failure of any one of the “Big Three”, therefore, would spell disaster for auto dealers, and for much of Main Street across America. Dealers, in short, are not an obstacle to restoring Detroit to health, but rather a means of doing so.

I want to emphasize that I am not apologizing for Detroit in general or GM in particular. I have been endlessly frustrated and disgusted at their missteps, having served on many dealer councils over the years and witnessed dealers’ great suggestions fall on deaf ears. I have long since arrived at the conclusion that a major problem with Detroit is that it’s in Detroit, which is to say that the plodding, insular culture of the area isolates it from the realities of the larger world in many respects. The “tin ear” they are cursed with is a serious problem. The Big Three’s management has not done enough to counteract this issue and must do more if they are to survive, let alone thrive. It might not be a bad idea to start by testing the water supply around Detroit for lead contamination (that’s a joke).

Finally, whatever happens here must also include a component to shore up consumer confidence in general (re-instituting installment credit deductibility, perhaps) and confidence in American automakers in general. While the latter problem is not the responsibility of the federal government, it is absolutely critical if Detroit is going to return to sustainable health. It is a deep cultural problem, in my opinion- one based in the resentment of an entire generation of all things related to the old military-industrial complex- but it must be addressed if the American auto industry is going to recover. All we ask is that these products get the consideration they deserve, because by any measure, Ford and GM are producing products of equal or greater quality than the imports, and yet they continue to get short shrift. Hiding behind the flag is a cheap and tawdry strategy, but we must find a way for Americans to feel good about American automobiles again, in the same way they do about American technology companies like Apple and Microsoft.

[1] Pundits Peddle Revisionism in Attacking U.S. Automakers, 11/23/2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112101348.html?referrer=emailarticle

Demotivation

Some years ago, I had an epiphany of sorts on walking out of a bar called Dick's Last Resort in San Antonio. I'd been treated like shit by the staff, was served dinner (pork chops) out of a galvanized bucket, and drinks from a quart bottle, yet I was ecstatically happy; I wanted to go back, because I had just had one of the best times of my life. Yes, it might have had something to do with what was in the quart bottles, but there was something more to it than that. The staff had clearly been coached to be rude, surly, and short- but in an odd, Zen koan, sort of way. They were not hateful, they were fun- it was just clear that they were not going to put up with any superfluous shit from their customers.

More recently, I've become fascinated by E.L. Kersten's Despair, Inc., and all the accoutrements thereof. For those of you that may not know, Despair (www.despair.com) is in the business of printing posters that look very much like the ones plastered with motivational bon mots that hang in the breakrooms of most every company in America, with one little difference: his are DEmotivational. They are crushing, devastating, and depressing- as well as hilarious and oddly refreshing. My favorite shows a picture of a sinking ship with this caption: Mistakes- it could be that the purpose of your life is merely to serve as a warning to others.

Mr. Kersten recently proved to the world that he means what he says by publishing a The Art of Demotivation, which is a darkly funny sendup of the culture of "empowerment" of which many of us in the retail world have grown sick and tired. It's not merely humor, however- there is truth beneath it, and it make us laugh because it makes us uncomfortable. People in their twenties and thirties are either totally repulsed by it or magnetically attracted to it. Old guys like my Dad (about to be 70) see it as a vindication of all the old-school, dictatorial management directives that he has wistfully watched fade away over the years. Americans in general struggle to reconcile his message with the "customer is always right" culture that we've grown accustomed to, because his is a message to employees and customers alike: you get what you deserve and nothing more, so fuck off. Just like at Dick's Last Resort.

Well, this morning, it finally occurred to me that Dick's Last Resort and Despair, Inc., might be onto something larger: they are exposing a growing chink in the armor of the customer-is-always-right philosophy that has become an accepted truth in American consumer culture. The dirty little secret, of course, is that the customer is NOT always right, and there is an enormous pent up desire for the growing ranks of service workers in this country to SAY so, but because these same workers are also consumers, it rarely happens. The golden rule seems to have found a new and valuable incarnation here. But the fact remains: why do these organizations feel like oxygen in otherwise very stale room?

Well, most obviously, they are exposing the Emperor as naked. Consumer culture can induce vertigo after a while, because it denies many basic truths that we all know to be true: like, for example, that the customer that pitched a fit in front of you in line today was not right, he was a psychotic asshole that needed a shrink or a punch in the mouth, not coddling. Seeing people like this get their asses kissed- or worse yet, having to kiss their asses yourself to keep the customer's business or to keep from getting fired- is a surreal and disturbing experience. Clearly part of the appeal of Dick's Last Resort and Despair, Inc. is the feeling of tension released at seeing this myth shattered.

But perhaps the answer also lies in expectations. The fact is that Americans have been on an upward-spiraling climb in expectations for decades now. We not only want, but have come to EXPECT, higher quality and better service tomorrow that what we had yesterday. What's worse, when we get it, we take it entirely for granted. For example, the statistical strides in automotive quality over the last twenty years have been nothing short of remarkable, in every conceivable sense- but do people sit around talking about how great their cars are, how little trouble they give them? Why no, they find something else to bitch about, of course. The same thing applies to the workforce, which why Mr. Kersten's thoughts resonate so well: employees have never had it so good: better pay, better hours, better benefits, less alienation (in Marxist terms), and yet are employees any happier, more loyal, or harder working than they were thirty years ago? No, Kersten says: you have simply emboldened them to indulge the worst, selfish elements of themselves. As an employer, he suggests, you have done them and yourself a disservice, because you have launched them up that escalator of continually higher expectations with no hope of anything but eventual disappointment. So, he would say, beat the rush and disappoint them NOW.

Perhaps the key to happiness, then, for all parties concerned, is to just lower our expectations. Dick and his friend E.L. are simply reminding us of this. The fact is that it's infinitely easier to attain the state of mind that we all putatively desire- happiness- when you think this way than when you get on that escalator of expectations and keep thinking that you'll find it on the next floor.

Life on Concourse D

Reader beware: my hope is that this will be a book someday. At the snail's pace that I write, someone else will almost certainly have written it by then, but perhaps my version will be better. Frankly, I am really just interested in promulgating ideas, which is why I write this blog, and I think I do a pretty good job of picking up the Zeitgeist before the radar of the world at large does, so I hope someone WILL write a book before I get around to it. This topic- for the inhabitants of middle-market America- will certainly hit a nerve.

The title comes from the Atlanta Airport, and refers to the Concourse to which all the flights to all the smaller cities are relegated. Here you can relax- in ungainly squalor- with all the other hapless bastards from Peoria, Lubbock, Harrisburg, Chattanooga, and Syracuse. Unlike the concourses just up the alphabet, Concourse D does not contain a bookstore, a decent restaurant, or amenities citizens of the First World (who generally use the first three concourses) would consider desirable or respectable. It is assumed that US magazine and USA Today are perfectly sufficient to entertain the inhabitants of concourse D. Needless to say, it is always miserable bastard hour at the one shitty little bar on concourse D. It is a perfect microcosm of life in the cities to which the airplanes serving concourse D flies: you are on the outside, a second-class citizen.

The denizens of Concourse D are sitting in the oldest chairs in the airport and standing on the dirtiest carpet. They are flying on the oldest airplanes, with the youngest pilots. Did they pay less for their tickets? No, in fact, they probably paid more. When they get home they will not be going to any professional sporting contests, unless perhaps it's a minor league baseball or hockey game. They spend most of their lives with their noses pressed against the glass of larger markets and all the entertainment they contain. Our children root for teams that they may never actually see play in person. We endure the haughty attitudes of visitors from other concourses with grudging deference. What sin have these poor souls committed to suffer this fate? They have effectively ceased to exist in the eyes of America's business and marketing world: they do not live in a Major Market.

For those of you that DO live in a major market, this may come as a complete surprise. You are like the good-looking, popular kid in high school that never did anything to make us hate you, yet still, we do hate you: the kind of grudging hatred born of resentment. We hate you because we envy you. You did nothing to deserve your privledge, and we hate you for it. Sort of like the way the Islamic world hates the Western world.

We envy you because you have restaurants we don't have. Stores we don't have. Movies we don't have. Concerts we don't have. Car dealerships we don't have. We have never filled out a Nielsen survey. We never get calls for the Zogby poll. Our newspaper (if we have one anymore) is terrible. In short, we just don't matter in America today. In many ways, we can understand very well why America is resented so much around the world; hell, WE resent it most of the time, because the world understands "'America" by our media, and we are generally no more connected to it than a Candian or a Mexican with a television is.

The warped logic of American business has deemed that since most of the country's population is in the larger cities served by the first three concourses, they can much more cost-effectively understand America by simply focusing on you- and trusting the messages will filter out to us like crumbs from your table. And for the most part, sadly, it works. The problem is that they have effectively segregated America into two worlds: one inside the pale, and one outside it.

When this happens, those inside the pale- most of which happen to be in "blue"states for reasons I won't explore here- are amazed when things like our 2000 presidential election happen. Why? Because we are the barbarians beyond the gate; we are so far off their radar screen that they quite literally have forgotten that we exist. The reader may recall that old New Yorker poster showing a great deal of detail in and around Manhattan and the rest of the country stretching into oblivion just beyond. This is no longer a cartoon, but a cruel reality for those of us in the "second world."

On the other hand, we do manage to elect most of our Presidents.

Nintendo v. the world

Alright, this is a weird one, but I spend a lot of time around Nintendo products as both my kids are fanatical video gamers, and seriously partial to Nintendo stuff at that. I was just reading an article about the new Sony PS3 preparing to do bloody battle with Microsoft's new entry (name escapes me), and poor old Nintendo is just dismissed as the feeble also-ran. This bothers me.

From a technological standpoint, this may be the case- let's assume it is. What Nintendo has, however, which neither Sony nor Microsoft can say, is something far more valuable: the hearts and imaginations of the industrial world's children, via its compelling and interesting characters. In this respect, Nintendo is a perfect candidate for a takeover by a company like Disney. Nintendo's character's (Mario and Luigi being to most recognizable to the childless) are noticably absent from the "stages" of the world's amusement parks, while Disney flogs on with the mouse and duck and other characters in which American kids (if not the world's) have long since lost interest. I was constantly reminded of this on a recent visit to Universal Studios; while I was blown away by the quality of the park and the experience, I could not help but notice the conspicuous absence of my childrens' favorite characters: the Nintendo crew. Clearly, this is a classic "walk down Wall St." opportunity. Someone should wake up and smell this coffee.
Meanwhile, I'll be adding to my position in Nintendo.

Neither Fish nor Fowl

Like a lot of my contemporaries, I am difficult to pidgeonhole. I first noticed this a couple of elections ago in an argument with a buddy who was voting for "the other guy." After we got past the bullshit and the rhetoric, it turns out we looked at things very much the same way. It's just that he thought the other fella would do a better job at it than mine. I know this sounds too simple, but I really believe the US body politic is locked in a false dichotomy of the worst Orwellian kind: it's red or blue, Republican or Democrat, black or white, and never the 'twain shall meet. Well, that's pretty obviously bullshit, but on we march, as if that's the way the world works. It doesn't.

We need a viable third party. We have to have one in order to keep this democracy working like it should. Two parties lead invariably to stagnation, where three introduces a dynamism, a cycling of ideas, that helps keep things honest. I've been saying this for years- about 20 years, actually, to anybody that will listen, but I think the two big parties have become such powerful "brands" that there's no sunlight filtering through to allow another party to grow. I used to be more of a conspiracy theorist (particularly as regards the media), but I don't think that's it anymore. It is just the result of all these parties acting in their own best interests, which is all you can ever expect from anyone anyway.

My idea for fixing all this- borne of that political argument with a friend with whom I had more in common that I ever suspected- is www.votematch.com. I own the domain but have never managed to get the energy or momentum to get it rolling. The concept is simple, the best analogy being that of a dating service. In a representative, constitutional democracy, you are basically looking to vote for someone who thinks as much like you as possible (your "best" you, that is) and thus votes as you would vote. The votematch concept would have a candidate fill out a fairly exhaustive survey- not neccessarily on the issues themselves, but perhaps on broader philosophical concepts (like "on a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you agree with the following statement: history is unfair"), and submit it to the website. Then YOU, the voter, fill out the exact same survey, and the website returns an "affinity score."

It's foolishly simple, and it's been done since we came up with the idea, but it does not seem to have caught on in a monolithic way. It needs to, in order to engender real change, in the same way that people will almost reflexively "google" an interesting new person they've met. If people got in the ironclad habit of "votematching" they would quickly see that their own ideas and opinions rarely fit in the dogmatic buckets of the major parties. Perhaps, then, a real, healthy, viable third party can finally emerge the old fashioned way: from the ground up.

The moniker, by way of explanation

I got this name as a college freshman at Columbia because of my penchant for rambling monologues and for my inability to conceal my accent- especially after a couple of beers- which my mainly-Califorinian buddies mistakenly pegged as Texan. In fact, the populations of east Tennessee and east Texas have remarkably similar accents (an incredibly well-preserved linguistic relic of Tennessee's contribution to the independence of Texas, also the reason TN is called the Volunteer State, of course), but it's a mistake nonetheless. I was born in Tennessee, live in Tennessee now, and will probably die in Tennessee. Despite this, I am known to many of my old compadres as "Tex." The Professor bit should be obvious by now. There is very little about which I don't have an opinion, which is why (I've been told) the advent of the blog is a magical development for me.

I prefer the anonymity of this name- though my close friends and family know it well- as my opinions are not always popular or "nice" and my role as a business owner prevents me from being too controversial lest I piss off a significant segment of my customer base. I don't like the sort of bravado it connotes- it's more than a little riduculous- but it's the only nickname I ever had, so there. Now you know.