Letter to all July 5, 2009

Newest Letter to all of you readers, July 5,2009 You can receive all of the blogs by typing Bill Tishman Insights in the Google box.
Click on "blacksheep bill'snewamerica blogspot.
Then you get the blog.
THEN GO TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF PAGE AND YOU SEE THE LISTING FOR ALL MY BLOGS

You can now select Bill Tishman Insights from 2007 to Aug.28,2008.
You can now select in the Bill Tishman Contemporary, Short Solutions from Aug.28,2008 to Feb.6,2009.
You can, also, then select the Black Sheep Bill Tishman blogs from Feb.6,2009 to the end of 2009(es.)


Thank you for your time and patience,

Bill T.

Definition - #301 - #27 - The necessity of “Definition!”

“What’s the successful alternative to Definition?” .... Is there any?

Suppose you say.....
A “cleric” describes what a martyr should accept as an outcome reward ....(virgins, olive oil....)
A “martyr” accepts the “outcome” and just wants to know “How to get there?”
Does this attempt to define a difference between the two?

Suppose you want to “define” the difference between a Specialist, a Generalist and an Analyst.....
An “Analyst” can become a “Specialist” if he deals with one subject.
An “Analyst” could also become a “Generalist” if he looks at a variety of subjects.
Does this attempt to define a difference between the three?

Suppose you want to define the differences between an “Immigrant” and a legal “Citizen”.......
An “Immigrant” is a person who resides in country but is not subject to all its laws and regulations.
A legal “Citizen” is a person who may reside in the country but IS subject to all its laws and regulations.

Can an “Immigrant” maintain his traditions, customs, language and heritage while still in this country?
Can a legal “Citizen” do the same?
This can be a problem.
Is the purpose to “absorb”, “to melt”? This can be a problem!...... Is it “defined”?

What is the USA trying to do?.... What is the policy?.... Is it “defined”?....... Is it a “Commitment”?.... Who pays the “price” if the policy fails?


Does this describe “The necessity of “Definition!”




P.S. ..... (Possible answers.....)

“I’m simply not interested!”

“People don’t think about this!”

Definition - #301 - #26 - Context” versus “Contacts”

Which is more important ....”Context” or “Contacts”?

Without “Context” we have nothing to pass on.
Without “Contacts” we have no one to pass “it” on!

“Context” will always change. People have a habit of making “context” simple and, regrettably, ... “forgettable! The message will be simplified and, in the process, may be changed slightly. It will be forgotten as the newness wears off. As criticism and alternative views appear, the force of any new idea weakens.

Also, as peer review occurs, “the people” will become aware of “other” similar views.

“Peer” review is supposed to be a review by experts “in our world” from people who are supposedly experienced in the research and acknowledged by the elite of the world renowned experts. Who the hell are they? What can you do about that!!

Who is a “peer”? Who is “the people”? Do you have to be concerned about the answer?.....
Only if the views you present are meant to create change, or, if money is involved!
If social or political change is sought, the original “context or view” is terribly important. What can you do?

Now, what about “Contacts”?
“Contacts” are where you get your background information from.
“Contacts” are the people you are able to talk to, to communicate with, and yes, to blog with!
“Contacts” are the people who make it their business to communicate new ideas and new stories to “the people” in general.... the publishing community, the speaking agents, the media representatives, etc.
Do you write a book, do a blog, make a speech.... ?
Without “Contacts”, the right (powerful and successful) people are simply not there! These decisions cannot be made!

Who or what makes a “FACT”?
Does any book, peer, expert, etc. make a “FACT” so?
Who accumulates these so called “FACT”?.... Archivists? Book collectors (libraries)? The internet?
How can a “new idea or story” be permanent? ... Is this necessary? What if it isn’t “permanent”?

So is “Context” or “Content” more important?
Is it possible you have to have “both”? .... at the same time!!




“Not having any views is a sin!”

Definitons - #301 - #25 – What is a real commitment?

First of all, what might be a definition of a “Commitment”?
Strap on an explosive vest and you have made a “commitment”!

A “commitment” is some action or idea for which you are willing to pay the “ultimate price”!

What does “the ultimate price” mean?.... (After all, you can willingly pursue a course of action without making it a “commitment”! You can quit anytime.)
What makes an “ultimate price”? ....Could it be that you take the “responsibility” for your action or statement? You realize that you could lose something of personal value for this “responsibility”. (Your career, your sense of honesty, your self worth, etc...)

Can you “commit” to something of lesser value? Of course...(diet, savings, job security....)! The greater the value of the “commitment” the greater the personal “price”!
You can change your commitment! You can accept challenges to your commitment. If you change your commitment it doesn’t change “the act of commitment” nor the “price” you accept!

“Advice” should be a “commitment”!
“Analysis” or “Policy” should be a “commitment”!... (It can or need not be a “commitment. It would be nice to know at the time it’s given!
Writing down helps create a “commitment”. (It makes the “commitment” more real, less open to interpretation.)

A person must check as to whether they are issuing a statement or are willing to make a real commitment.
People are looking for real “commitments” rather than political or policy statements.
Are you willing to pay “the ultimate price” for your statements?

Suppose you are wrong? .... Without the assurance of “ultimate payment”, people do not want to hear anything!!

Definition - #301 - #24 – What is really “possible”?

It all depends on what your definition of what “possible” is!!!
Let me try to explain......

If “possible” means that you can overcome a situation no matter what the cost or effort; that means something quite different than overcoming the same situation without decreasing your own present treasure or taxing your own present efforts.
If “possible” means without “cost” a lot of things become “possible”!

So then there is the matter of “cost” again, this depends on your definition of “cost”.
Again, let me try to explain.......

There are all measures of “cost”. Some “costs” are measured in treasure, again that means something different than the “costs” related to effort”.... (hours of physical labor, or the management and hours of effort required to solve anything).
If “costs”, including the amount of treasure and the amount of effort is not a factor; “costs” means nothing.

Who says “It costs too much!”? What are they measuring “too much!” against? What is the measure of “costs”?.......

So, “What is really possible?”.........

The world has plenty of horrendous issues. There’s no need to recount them. They are labeled “horrendous” by different social views. Not all issues are “horrendous” to the same degree. It, again, depends on the labeler!

So, “What are we going to do?”.......

Have I presented so many different options that we become “paralyzed”, unable to act? .......
Is it still possible to simply state what we believe is “horrendous”, and what we believe we are willing to pay in “costs” and effort ..... “What is really possible for us?”

It requires a clear, unequivocal statement from someone we are willing to follow. If we are arguing, debating, and unable to come to a consensus; we must assume that it is not “possible”. Those willing to spend the time and effort to pursue a “possible” outcome can continue to try. Those who wish to turn their heads in another direction, simply turn their heads.

An accurate analysis is not enough!!! ...... We must also be able to “follow” a spokesman into action!.....

Regardless of the obvious dangers involved by not doing something, if we don’t accept and follow to action, the dangers will certainly appear! (paralysis by analysis)

Can we all agree on these conclusions?

Is what we’re really talking about, the difference between “possible” and “practical”?

Is “possible” without sacrifice? And, is “practical” with some acceptable burden?

Do we have anything unless we try to exchange ideas on these differences?
Will we be so adamant in our discussions that we throw ourselves into paralysis?
Should we start to spend more of our time on trying to find a definition most of us agree on?
Should we start to spend more of our time on trying to find agreement in our choice of leadership?
Should we turn more against constant disagreement? (with no “Successful Alternatives”)?

Is meaningless, constant repetition of disagreement, constant repetition of criticism an actual “harm” to us? ......

Again.....

Is what we’re really talking about, the difference between “possible” and “practical”?

Definition - #301 - #23 - New Leadership? Yeah!! But “who” are we going to “lead”?

What’s “leadership” anyway?
If you have no one to “lead”; what’s “leadership”/

So “who” are you going to “lead”?
Is there only one group or are there many?
If there are many groups, which group are you going to “lead”?

Do you expect to “lead” many at one time?
What can you say to “many”?

If you want to address one group at a time, what do you want to say to that group that’s different than what you are going to say to another group? How many “sayings” do you have?

Do you really understand what it takes to be a “leader”?

Perhaps a definition of a real “leader” should be........

A “leader” is a voice or image that most people seem to “understand” and want to emulate... to follow! The content of this communication should be understood and appeal to most people. It should be something they all seem to want. The content is a “policy”; not a specific “how to”. (Most people would have their own way to achieve this “policy” anyhow.)

If the policy is too general or too vague, either most people won’t understand or won’t be interested.
The “content” is what makes a leader!

What general things do I want to achieve?
What “general way” do I propose to achieve these things?

It is the success in presenting this “content” that will make a “leader”!
If you are too vague (We’ll do more!.... We’ll do better!... You’ll have two chickens in every pot! ...etc.) or are too complicated; you will lose your audience!

You will not become a leader!

It is the “mystique of relevance” that makes a leader. It is the way he proposes to present his content.
If it changes group to group; most people will be able to track this. If he offers different things to different groups; most people will be able to track this.
It is in the “message” that one becomes a leader!

So!..... Who are “you” speaking to?
Who do “you” want to lead?

Does the government really create jobs? .... How?
Can we really have a specific, detailed conclusion in Iraq? ..... Is it possible? .... How?

What does the general “leadership” in Washington now think about jobs, the economy, war and peace, terrorist threats worldwide, the real threat to the American way.....

What will a “change” be? What changes in positions are being proposed? What “should” the new Washington positions be?

This is the rhetoric, this is the “content” the people should be hearing.
This should be the basis for a “leadership” decision!

Definitions - #301 - #22 - What does it mean to be a “good corporate citizen”?

Can free enterprise survive?

First let’s take a typical “start-up” corporation. The “risk taker” has an idea for a product. He is willing to risk most of what he’s got, say $5000, and he borrows from parents and friends another $10,000. He and an unpaid friend begin to make this product and sell it in the open marketplace.

The difference in his actual costs and what he receives from the sales is a so-called “profit”.
His actual costs must include at least, say 5% interest, on the $10,000 he borrowed from his parents and friends plus a minimum amount so he and his friend can live and eat.
Now let’s say he gets a new order at his selling price for $100,000. Wow! He needs to hire some extra production and shipping help so he goes to the bank and on the basis of his order and his character the bank loans him an additional $50,000 for four years. His costs have now gone up to include his new production help, and an interest payment of 5% on his original of $10,000, and his new loan which carries and interest on the unpaid balance of 7% and a payment of one fourth the total borrowed amount (or $25,000) to the bank as well as his and his friend’s living costs.

Along comes the government and says he now has to pay an income tax.
Along comes the unions and he has to meet certain wage, hour, pension and health costs.
Along comes the application of certain worker’s benefits including Workman’s Compensation Insurance, disability laws and labor regulations, also included is a mandatory owner’s contribution to Social Security benefits. The costs have gone higher but his sales price stayed the same. He must raise his sales price to equal the increases in costs. Can he still maintain his competitive position with his new sale of $100,000?

Suppose he is able to successfully increase his price to cover his increased costs.
Suppose he shortly is able to get an order for $500,000! He goes back to the bank with his new order and the bank loans him an additional $400,000. Same terms as before!
This new risk taker now has to add to his production and shipping labor, he must now have a full time accountant, he must have a budget for legal counsel, he must now have managerial help...... etc. He is in big business!

Soon his original borrowers want to be paid off with interest and a profit for their “risk taking”. His friend wants more than his “living costs”. The bank wants him to go public so he can collaterize his loans with stock. He, the original “risk taker and inventor” wants some kind of increase in his “living costs” and He wants to build a future for his family.
All these considerations must come out of so-called “profits”.

Query........
What % of the “profit” is the original “risk taker and inventor” entitled to?
What % of the “profit” is his friend entitled to?
What % of the “profit” is “being a good corporate citizen” and satisfying union and worker demands .
Can the company still sell its product at the new price which includes all these demands?

Query.....
If, in order to survive in a free, competitive environment, the company must use labor which is at a lower cost (outsourcing) in order to maintain as much of the company as it can; or, should it fold up and close its doors?
If the owner or his staff or labor ask for an unreasonable payment for services and causes this company to raise its prices above the competitive level and thus fail in the marketplace, who should bear the burden? What are the “reasonable” costs of service? Who determines? What is “free enterprise”?

What does it mean to be a “good corporate citizen”? Who determines a “living wage”?

Who determines the “value” of the contributions made? Is there even a question without the original “invention”?

Is “free enterprise” viable?