10 December 2013 –

The Human & Animal New Kingdom Society.  THANKS! 

A friend recently forwarded an e-mail in which the following four questions were asked and answered.  The purpose was to show how disparate thinking can be useful. 

Question #1:  How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator?

Answer 1. Open the refrigerator, put the giraffe inside and close the door. Theoretically, the question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way. 

Question #2: How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?

Answer #2: Open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe, put in the elephant, and close the door. This tests your ability to reflect on the consequences of previous actions. 

Question #3:  The Lion King is hosting an Animal Conference.  All the animals except one attend.  Which animal?

Answer #3: The elephant, silly; you just put him in the refrigerator.  This tests your memory.  

Question #4: There is a river you must cross, but there are crocodiles in it, and you don’t have a boat. How do you manage to get across the river?

Answer #4: You jump in and swim across.  Weren’t you listening?  All the animals, including the crocodiles, are at the conference.  This tests your ability to learn quickly from your mistakes. 

To answer as the author intended, you must abandon reality and allow simplistic conditions to guide your thinking.  I missed all four questions.  Then, I set sanity aside and other, more rational answers quickly came to me. 

    

Answer #1.  Only the government would be dumb enough to study how to put a giraffe in a refrigerator. So, you should bid for the contract.  First, project building a super-large refrigerator powered by solar energy with wind power as a back-up and leasing one middle-aged, male giraffe from a federally-funded zoo.  Then, you use stimulus money left over from 2009 to hire a small, minority-owned, freight company to move the giraffe to the newly-built refrigerator.  A National Parks Service official supervises the move, and three volunteers from the ASPCA video the event.    Once you get the giraffe in the refrigerator, a contracted wildlife expert oversees its care through a specially-designed door.  Total one-year contract cost: $17,500,000.   

Answer #2.  As all federal programs are wont to do, this refrigerator concept grows.  Three giraffes die due to ineffective temperature control, resulting in $25,000,000 in cost overruns in the first year, but you iron out the glitches, do a little research, and declare that the program now is ready to include elephants.  You bid for the new contract, citing your expertise with giraffes.  You also note that the higher elephant leasing costs, the costs for a larger refrigerator, the new health-care insurance package which the freight company’s employees’ union recently negotiated with management (exempted from adherence to Obamacare), and the hiring of an elephant expert to assist the Parks Service official, will raise the cost to $48,750,000.  After you win the elephant contract, the wildlife expert says she can oversee the care of both the giraffe and the elephant, but she needs three assistants.  An additional $400,000 brings the elephant contract cost to $49,150,000 and $42,500,000 for the second year of the giraffe contract. 

Answer #3. The American Bald Eagle does not attend the Animal Conference.  The giant wind turbine blades in surrounding alternate energy wind-farms make it too dangerous for him to fly in and land at the conference site.  The elephant and the giraffe are virtual attendees through 40’ interactive screens.  The purchase and set-up costs—by union labor, of course—add only $2,300,000 to the conference cost of $147,900,000.  Fortunately, all costs are covered by the federally-funded, USAID-dispensed program, The Human & Animal New Kingdom Society, THANKS.

    

Answer #4. Although Congress won’t declare war on animals, you proclaim that river crocodiles are an existential threat to the nation’s security, thereby rallying support from your fellow travelers who want to cross the river.  However, you manage the conflict so badly that crocodiles eat five hundred of your troops, and you waste ten years and one hundred billion dollars trying to build a coalition of responsible and friendly alligators, caimans, and great lizards to help the crocodiles assimilate into an international family of friendly animals.  Finally, you negotiate a treaty with the crocodiles that allows you to cross the river on their backs and allows them unimpeded movement across your borders. 

Final government cost of The Human & Animal New Kingdom Society programs: $1,284,350,000, more or less, and ten years of war.  But now, we project many more meaningful years to come.  THANKS!

6 December 2013 –   

Three Envelopes: Political Strategy at its Finest

When I was a squadron commander, I heard a story about dealing with the dangers of command.  It bears repeating as we assess this administration’s activities since 2009.   

At a change of command, the incoming and outgoing commanders usually have a little time together before the ceremony.  One time, an arrogant, incoming base commander asked the worn-out, outgoing base commander if he had any useful advice before the ceremony.  The outgoing commander studied the new guy carefully and sighed.  He then told the new colonel that in the bottom left hand- drawer of his desk were three envelopes, marked one, two, and three.  In case the new commander, even with his vast skills and inspired vision, could not handle a crisis, he could open envelope number one and consider the advice written therein.  The new commander seemed unimpressed, and the ceremony went as planned. 

Things went well for the new commander. But, one day, something came up that completely flummoxed him.  This brilliant colonel was in a panic.  Then he remembered the envelopes.  He flung the desk drawer open and ripped open the first envelope.  Inside were three words: “Blame your predecessor.”  Immediately, the commander announced that the crisis was due to the old commander’s mistakes and that things would get better soon.  That seemed to placate the troops and the higher- ups in command. Crisis Averted. 

Later, another crisis arose that threatened to bring everything on base to a halt.  The commander was beside himself until he remembered the remaining envelopes.  He tore open the second envelope and read the word: “Reorganize.”  Yes!  The commander announced that the problem stemmed from faulty organization and that sweeping changes would be made to better facilitate the mission.  Again, the troops and the command above him seemed satisfied. Phew!

Then, one day, another crisis befell the base.  The commander hated to do it, but he was tired and had no fresh ideas; he opened the third envelope and read the last piece of advice:  “Prepare three envelopes.”   

Our President, hailed by his supporters as the brilliant man who would lead the United States into a new era, didn’t need to open envelopes to lay blame or change things.  He naturally seems to revert to such political and personal tendencies.  In his first five years, he has blamed his predecessor, Congress, Republicans, rich people, big business, international allies, and climate change for failures in his domestic and diplomatic policies.  I contend that his laying of blame has divided the political scene more than anything else in recent years.  After all, why would those he repeatedly attacks care much for the President’s success?  What is more, the checks and balances in our constitutional system expect, indeed impel the opposition—particularly one where not one Republican lawmaker voted for the Affordable Care Act—not to cooperate as the President struggles to implement such an ill-conceived and unpopular law.   

The President’s failures in crises are numerous:  Benghazi; Syria; the politicizing of the IRS; our languishing in and slinking out of Afghanistan; his failure to pass a budget for five years; profligate spending that will double the 2008 deficit by 2015; the embarrassing lies about and the failed technology of Obamacare; on and on ad nauseum.   In each of these debacles, the President has laid blame on someone else.  This is a petty, short-term diversion, not to be used by one who wants to engender the trust of the troops/constituents. 

     

The President also is reorganizing government and society to his liking, saying it is good for the country.  However, what he added to the advice in the envelope is dangerous:  not only reorganize, but enforce and legislate by fiat.  The President has often warned that if Congress won’t help him do something, he will do it by himself.  Certainly a former constitutional law lecturer should know that such governance is neither constitutional nor faithful execution of the laws.  Finally, the President’s tinkering with, delaying, and reorganizing many parts of Obamacare display poor planning and an incredible naivete that the program would just come together because he willed it.  Each fix seems as dangerous to our economic and physical health as the law itself.  This isn’t reorganizing; it’s disorganizing.   

President Obama knows he does not have to prepare three envelopes.  Short of committing blatant high crimes and misdemeanors, he will finish out his term.  But, on 20 January 2017, a smart successor will not ask anything of President Obama--except to clean out his desk.