Idealism, Pragmatic Idealism, or Realism

Being a first generation immigrant, I do have significantly more sensitivity and interest in US International Relations and Foreign Policy that is usually under-appreciated and does not play a very significant role in U.S. presidential elections. This time around, because of the Iraq war and much discussed Iran issue, it seems to attract a lot more attention than usual, considering the amount of sound bites across the media such as the answers by 10 leading presidential candidates to the question posed by Katie Curic of CBS evening news: What country frightens you the most, and what would you do about it as president?

When I was growing up in Taiwan, I, like many others in the so-called Free World, was awed by American’s wealth, generosity, resources, and achievements, after having witnessed the benefits of receiving various economic and military aids, being an ally (that is, protected) by U.S. As I learned more and more about America (including the Hollywood versions), I was also attracted very much to the ideals of democracy, freedom of speech, free enterprise, not to mention some memorable struggles and heroic triumphs in American history such as the abolishment of slavery.

The first event that made me start thinking beyond the rhetoric and abstraction was the DiaoYu Tai 釣魚台 islands dispute when U.S. and Japan signed the Okinawa Reversion Treaty in June 1970 (end of my sophomore year in college) under which U.S. government handed over the islands to Japan unilaterally despite the long disputes and protests by both Taiwan and Communist China governments. Like many others, I joined an orderly march and demonstration by university students in school uniforms to the American Embassy few miles away. I did not really understand all the issues and history (Internet was in its infancy then). It was simply a nationalistic pride and emotional reaction to an obviously outrageous deal made by US to give away a part of OUR territory to Japan. Truth be told, these tiny uninhabited islands were invisible until ECAFE (United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East) suggested in 1969 that there is possibly large hydrocarbon deposit off them.

This event was the beginning of a watershed: in Oct 1971, UN’s China seat which had been represented by the Nationalist Party led government in Taiwan (as one of the founding members and a permanent member of the Security Council since 1945) was turned over to the Communist China. Then in Feb 1972 Nixon, a long time staunch anti-communist politician, paid the first ever visit to China by an American president that led to eventually the Jan 1979 establishment of full diplomatic relation between US and China and the simultaneous severing of the diplomatic tie with Taiwan and declaration of the “One China policy” till this day. I still remembered vividly the feeling of betrayal and adrenalin flowing as the news broke out and I left my 7 months pregnant wife home in Berkeley to march down, along with some fellow students from Taiwan, the streets of San Francisco in protest and disgust.

This is not just my little personal story. Similar and other experiences have been developed and playing out again and again all over the world for a very long time since US became a dominant and wealthy nation, promoting its values such as free market democracy while exerting its military and economic powers to advance its national interests (what are they?). This is clearly seen as repeated illustrations of double standards as one can see the gaps between what is being done and what is being said. Would you trust a person who behaves that way? Let us pause for a moment and ask why is U.S. government behaving this way and how should we live with our neighbors.

To cite just a few past events for which some reasonable albeit simplistic answers can be found more readily: why is US government so strongly opposing the democratically elected Hamas party led Palestinian government? Why has so little been done about the Sudan’s Darfur crisis since it began 5 years ago when millions of people have been displaced/starved and almost half a million had died? Why was US implicated in almost all coups in Latin America countries for the last 5 decades (including the failed 2002 one to drive out Hugo Chavez in Venezuela)? Why did US limit the prosecution of war crimes and atrocities that Japan committed during WWII, including the biological and chemical warfare and human experiments in China, and remain silent about the continuing denials and revisions of history by Japanese government (Dec 13th marks the 70^th anniversary of Nanking Massacre, a.k.a. Rape of Nanking, when Nanking then capital of China fell to Japan’s invasion force)?

Indeed US foreign policy may be best described as a perpetual human struggle of competing Idealism and Realism. Is it as blatant and relentless as what Noam Chomsky had self-critically portrayed in his book of Hegmony or Survival: America’s Quest for global Dominance? Or is it as romantic and simple-minded as Ronald Regan and George W. Bush had fashioned of Good vs. Evil? Or is it as predictable, intricate, and cold-calculated as Henry Kisinger had shown in his book of Diplomacy? While it may be arguably easy to talk about morals and principles in unconstrained manners at one end, and about exchanges of material support and crushing forces in striking a desired balance and gain at the other end, how and what would one do when he or she needs to make a choice and take a stand? History showed us clearly that, with its infinite memory, man will be judged by the virtue of their decisions at those critical moments.

As I matured and became “wiser”, I found myself wonder more and more what I would do if and when I was put into those circumstances. I do wish we can all be forever young mentally and retain some of our innocence and naivete. How else would we set ourselves apart, strive for a higher goal, and make the right choice when those moments come?

With a heavy heart, Merry Xmas and talk to you after the New Year!

What is Leadership Anyway?

Leadership is a universally and frequently discussed topic of every organization regardless the nature, purpose, size, and structure. The discussions attract a lot of attention and the desire to have a superior leader is most acute especially in times of confusion, uncertainty or crisis.

Vint Cerf (click here to see one of his Youtube appearances), the most recognized father of the Internet and Google’s Chief Internet Evanglist since Sept 2005, once used a cartoon of race to illustrate, in his own humor, what is a leader. He suggested that a leader is someone who sees where people are going and then run the fastest to be ahead of the crowd. Although his remark was aimed at the techy audience, there is a lot of truth to it: a leader needs to be able to see what others don’t and run the fastest (note you don’t have to be the first to see it).

What is leadership anyway? How should we choose our leaders? How could we identify and nurture future leaders? In his April 2007 book “Where have all the leaders gone?” Lee Iacocca offered 9 C’s as critical dimensions of leadership quality. The 9C’s are: Curiosity, Creativity, Communication, Character, Courage, Conviction, Charisma, Competence, Common Sense. As the 2008 presidential race heats up, he also started a Iacocca Meter and invite people to score and evaluate presidential candidates in these 9 dimensions. At a closer examination of the scoreboard that shows the current snapshot of the votes, you will notice that by simple arithmetic average of the 9 scores.

Let us take a closer look of the 9C’s before we score anyone, as they are not of the similar nature and implications as measures. I would consider Curiosity, Creativity, and Competence necessary for any good leaders as they are about the intellectual capacity of a person. Charisma and Communication are good to have as they help move and people more effectively which are important attributes especially for public figures. Courage and Conviction measure the inner strength of an individual. By themselves, they are the most confusing attributes since the words are usually used in positive connotation and yet the eventual results could be very good or very bad. Fortunately, at least one of the C’s - Common sense provides the balance and tells us if the person has a good sense of reality.

The ultimate C though is, in my opinion, Character. Abraham Lincoln had once said “if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” Similarly, Martin Luther King had been quoted to say “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and conveniences, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy”. Thus as a test run to calibrate the meter, let us score from 1 to 5, a few well-known leaders about whom we know more and have some impressions with their track records and accomplishments. Below are my scores.

	G.W. Bush	Clinton	Regan	Nixon	Kennedy	Vint Cerf
Curiosity	1	5	3	3	5	5
Creativity	1	5	3	3	5	5
Communication	1	5	5	1	5	5
Character	3	3	3	1	3	5
Courage	3	3	5	3	5	5
Conviction	5	5	5	5	5	5
Charisma	1	5	5	1	5	5
Competence	1	3	3	3	3	5
Common Sense	1	5	3	3	5	5

In closing, good leadership is badly needed everywhere. We all have it in ourselves in some forms or shapes. Leadership is not about title: title does not manufacture leadership, but demonstration of good leadership does often lead to the recognition of a title. Visionary and great leaders are hard to come by though. To reach that level, I would add 3 H’s – Humanity, Humility and Heart on top of the 9C’s.

Talk to you soon!

How to make a Top XYZ list

U.S. News and World Report published on Nov 29 its first ever America’s best high schools. The result is a rank ordered top 100 schools gold medallists, 405 “silver medallists and 1086 bronze medallists out of almost 19,000 public high schools nation wide based on data from 2005-2006 school year. The High Technology High School of Monmouth county of New Jersey where some of our friends’ kids attended is #7 on that list. Once you look closely to how the list was generated and how some of the schools were set up and run, it should not come as a surprise that many on the list are regional magnet schools like the High Technology High School with programs designed to attract students with track records and aspiration for college studies or particular focused area.

Most of us seem so fascinated and interested in quantitative rankings, benchmarks and metrics of literally every subject with use for ranging from trivia to helping making decisions. Such information are usually reported and summarized in scalars by various for-profit entities with some notable exceptions like Consumer Report with titles such as top 100s, best 20s, most influential 50, the 100 richest, etc. I submit this is partially a result of the non-trivial efforts and resources required to compile such a list. Equally or perhaps more importantly, I suspect this is a result of our limited brain capacity that seems too challenged to process and remember multi-dimensional natures of most subjects and their complex attributes and trades. I bet most of you are like me who can’t remember, off the top of my head, more than top 3 or 5 items of any subject! It must be tough for the contenders to compete for attention for those few spots. This is even worse in politics and sports; people usually only remember the winners. That is why the cliché – winning is everything!

For frogs who are equipped with critical thinking skills, the more interesting and fun question is how and by what formula and procedure does one come up with such a rank ordered list. I did one test case with a little surfing and reading of the Money Magazine’s “Best Places to Live” with self-interest since this frog’s (physical) well is located at Marlboro, New Jersey, which is #33 of the list for the year 2007. I was also curious to find out why we were not on the earlier lists in year 2005 and 2006. Perhaps something of significance happened in last three years? It turns out that Money Magazine used different criteria and procedures in coming up with the “winners” for the last three years! I guess the magazine might have figured out that unless they change the criteria, it would be hard pressed to produce a very different list each year and that would be boring. The good news is there is no need to rush the decision on to where we need to move.

If you google a little bit, you would find many informative lists from which we can learn something. For instance there is a Top 100 Speeches of the 20th Century by American Rhetoric which points us to many defining and moving speeches that left marks on US such as Martin Luther King’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” and John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural speech. Guardian of UK has offered a more worldly but still limited selection of 14 Great Speeches of the 20th Century that includes 3 from US, 1 from USSR, 1 from France, 1 from India, 1 from South Africa, 7 from UK including Virginia Woolf’s “Shakespear’s Sister” and the #1 choice - Winston Churchill’s famous and critical 1940 speech to House of Commons during WWII.

Let us now look at some more entertaining lists: An online men’s magazine AskMen.com has been publishing since year 2001 Top 99 (Most Desirable) Women based on votes from its readers and staffs. As expected, practically all of them are in entertainment business such as fashion models and actress. It appears (as marketed by the magazine itself) that the voters associate desirability of women more with physical attributes, sex appeal, and only to some lesser degree talents and characters despite the explicitly stated considerations. Male readers, be forewarned, AskMen.com did not provide assurance that the awardees never had cosmetic surgery nor that physical beauty will last (the turn-over of the list year to year is left as an exercise for the readers)! By the way, two famous Chinese actresses Zhang Ziyi and Gong Li are #83 and #34, respectively.

Perhaps for not wanting to be accused of missing almost half of the world population and to provide a mirror, AskMen.com started publishing since year 2006 Top 49 (Most Representative) Men. Vast majority of the awardees turned out to be actors and sports stars. To my surprise, only few business tycoons made the list. I wonder if the (male) voters can’t bear to be reminded or admit that most of us just can’t quite get to the very top for the sandboxes we play? Being from the high tech industry, I take comfort that the legendary Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple Inc. that brought us Mac and iPod, is #7 on the 2007 list. For both men and women lists, no politicians made it. I guess Ronald Regan could have made it if such a survey was done in 1980s. I suspect Hilary Clinton could make the opposite list if it was done.

The answer to the question on “How to make a Top XYZ list” is obvious: figure out the criteria and maximize your scores according to the criteria and weights. I don’t condone such a strategy especially when used blatantly or unethically. We do need to keep in mind however that in real world, carrot-and-stick is used frequently and every one of us is surely on someone's top lists of some sort!

Talk to you soon!

Unnatural Selection

PBS premiered a powerful 2 hour NOVA program on Nov 13, 2007. The program is called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial that follows the late 2005 landmark US federal court case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District regarding the inclusion of intelligent design in the Dover high school science/biology curriculum. I learned quite a bit from watching this two-hour program, not to mention that the frog was mentioned more than once as an amphibian that is in between fish and land animals by Darwin’s evolution theory.

As a first generation non-religious immigrant, I was a little surprised to learn the famous 1925 test case Scopes Monkey Trial challenged the Tennessee’s Butler bill, the nation’s first, that banned the teaching of Darwin’s evolution theory. Butler’s act was eventually repealed but not until 1967, my senior year in high school when I thought the most advanced math and science textbook material came from US! While the value and importance of Christianity's teachings should not depend on the narrow and literal interpretation of creationism, I can imagine how difficult it must have been for some to deal with the scientific theories and discovery of supporting data.

It is interesting to note that according to a recent news report, an estimated 40% of US population do not accept the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals". This figure is the 2nd highest among 33 European countries and Japan surveyed and has not changed much for the last two decades! Further analysis of findings of this and earlier surveys can be found in an article by Professor Jon Miller et.al in Aug 11, 2006 issue of Science that attributes it in part to the unique non-hierarchical congregational Protestant churches in US who are free to choose their own ministers and espouse their own beliefs.

Indeed the debate of evolution vs. creationism or intelligent design has been going on for a long time and continues to-date. The delicate balance of political and religious forces has been maintained by and large by the judicial branch of the government. The Supreme court has stood up to the tyranny of majority (via legislative branch) each time thus far and ruled such acts violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that calls for the separation of church and state. One must give credit to the wisdom and critical thinking of the founding fathers’: the implementation, and the willingness to adhere and evolve the laws by most people no matter how imperfect the laws may be at the time of rulings. Nevertheless how could we allow local legislative bodies to decide educational issues such as what can and cannot be taught in science classes? Why not leave those to the professionals where there is more universal knowledge and objective criteria?

Central to Darwin’s theory as described in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species is Natural Selection, a process through which the resulting environment appear as if nature had selected the more adaptive species and allowed them to survive and prosper. Such a process and parallel can be found in human organizations and entities as well. I will call it Unnatural Selection since the environment, interaction, and selection process are man-made in this case.

Consider any typical hierarchical business or political organization. Each of us who joined such an organization all went through adaptations to survive and advance by some vague values and selection processes. Those who manage to adapt or align themselves sooner and better tend to thrive more and those who don’t, hopefully have other environment or organization to migrate to.

More interestingly perhaps, you may ask who define and shape the values? In my opinion, it is all stake holders (not SHARE holders!) including every individual in the organization although those closer to the root of the (local) tree in the hierarchy do have more influence through decision-making channels or power (thus more responsibility and accountability!). This may sound too idealistic but there is plenty of evidence for it if you just reflect upon your own experience for a moment.

For example, in the business world we are often a part of a regular communication and data collection process with peers, reports and upper management about ideas, thoughts, progress, accomplishments, etc. There is no secret that we engage in, regardless our ranks and intention, some level of “spin” ranging from what we want to hear (confirmed bias), what we want our upper management to hear (good news only), and what we think they want to hear. This is how perception of values is created, shaped, propagated and amplified, up and down the line. Yes, I firmly believe that each of us can affect the outcome throughout the hierarchy, no matter how invisible the influence might be at the origin. Yes, rotten root of a tree produce rotten fruits and good managers promote good people and values. Each of us must do our part with our hearts as much as we can in order for the organization to be healthy and constantly moving towards to a better place through unnatural selection.

What I am also saying is there is no we vs. they, no company vs. employees, no government vs. people. All these abstract “external” entities such as nation, government, company and management are just creations of our own minds as we all participate in these entities, and knowingly or not, shaped and changed the outcomes. There are no external entity or beings who are ever going to come and save us miraculously. The buck stops with each of us and we are the ones who hold the ultimate power!

Happy Thanksgiving and talk to you soon!