Good News For Modern Management?

Issues Are Resolving and Power Is In Check?

Before President Obama's, relatively cohesive, September 10th, explanation of the Syrian chemical gas crisis, ritualized public debate was already off to the races over how much or little influence the president has left in his second term.

Monday morning quarterbacking abounded before last Tuesday night's speech and will, of course, continue such that, as a political opponent, the president's days are depicted waning, as if tunnel-visioning American opinion wasn't the most despicably shallow commercial act feasible. Hardly. But there's (been) a virtual chantlike cacophony that to do the right thing and negotiate political compromise is nothing compared to the power to do what one wants anyway as the only true definition and test of what wielding presidential power is. Forget just getting people to understand there's no such thing as a holy war for Allah/God. Hands, anyone? Soapbox View!

Focusing on the manner in which people are led by cock and bull, the more amusing and tawdry jokes tangentially evolve (freedom fries) into the irrelevant re-paraphrasings of public perception that are as much or more focused than polling's serious punchlines. Because the consuming public is indoctrinated into what's optimal, infotainment moods, rather than open questioning that values discernment. For that reason it has been assumed for generations that mass communication is a poisoned well of propaganda such that no one can be told what they don't want to know. In spite of the smiling serious show faces of newsreaders.

So we really can democratically joke it's not just emperors who're not wearing clothes anymore? Why even serious News is so heavy-laden with sugar and sappy that the taint drips off of us onto the voting booth floor where, as an electorate, we're slipping and sliding to the polls on one or only a few well worn-out tracks the in-crowd is content with for political expedience. 

Amnesty for Alexei Navalny? Everybody?

On the surface what appears amazing about Syria is, outside of Syria, it's almost as if everyone is on the same page? Though Washington's The Hill documented congressional reactions that were relatively correct perceiving slights to American Interests, smoke rings aside when I finished last Wednesday's editorial printed by The New York Times, A Plea for Caution From Russia, What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria by Vladimir V. Putin, I was struck wondering if President Putin, or even their stand-in speechwriter, can write so relatively well, why was it so necessary to stockpile such a huge personal fortune to fall back on in active retirement?

Though according to the Public Editor Margaret Sullivan in The Story Behind the Putin Op-Ed Article in The Times in The New York Times, Russia's president didn't collect a fee for the editorial submitted by his Moscow Public Relations firm. So it's probably naive, as usual, to question why federal funds anywhere seem to have to go missing from off the top since everyone must get paid? Ba dump bump. And an oh well.

Whatever's true or politically true isn't the point. True or not in negotiations positions aren't given up unless something is gotten in return. But in light of innocents dying every day, you'd think there'd be more pride in accuracy than knee-jerk diplomacy. After all history sweeps it all up after the victors and victims are gone and this world's heavy-hitters should care more about how they'll be written up than how well the world's honorable PR professionals are paid to depict them to a consuming rather than active public consciousness. 
Already, of course until Syria heatens, the world doesn't stand still as we're all overwhelmed by the many diverse personal tragedies associated with daily survival. Last week's Colorado flooding as an example that dominated the next day's news after President Obama's speech and President Putin's written public statement. But imagine war as apparently not hard to wish upon others?

When we should just be shaking our heads and smiling because we're truly thinking we're turning corners pursuing loftier horizons than ever endeavored upon before? While the public is led to think of itself as what the centers of power want? But in this one decision not to categorically strike is a deeper meaning than what, in not enough retrospect, was a rash decision to expand American participation in the cycle of revenge. All because the military industrial complex was ready and rar·in' to go? All Hail A Complaining Congress! Go Navy!

Life Is The Performance Or Actual Act Of Getting Our Acts Together?