Dan Erwin

What I learned Teaching Speech in Prison.

The most unique, educational experience of my life was not in college, but a semester teaching speech to the inmates in maximum security at Oak Park Heights, Minnesota.

I had taught for more than a dozen years in three graduate theological seminaries, Baptist and Benedictine, and had also trained numerous business execs. But for sheer enlightenment--and fun--nothing matches that experience in prison. The chairman of my department at the University of Minnesota had asked me to teach the course, because no one else wanted to. It was their loss.

These guys were not nice guys. Five had been convicted of murder and one of them was a serial killer, while the rest were just ordinary thieves. The class varied between 12 and 15 members, depending on whether someone had been put in solitary for a few days.

The first day was a knock-out. I began by asking each of the prisoners--including the sociopaths--to stand in front of the class and tell me why they were taking the course and what they wanted from it. It was a hoot. Those guys were really good--at snow jobs. Never in my life had I witnessed an entire class that good at bullshitting. They told me what they thought I wanted to hear. It was a very poor job of audience analysis on their part. When they all finished, I was silent for a couple minutes, looking at my notes, and purposefully creating tension. When I stood up, I smiled and started out complimenting them. I let them know their presentations were great, clear, and even showed promise. But then I went on, explaining: "You all delivered the finest snow jobs I've ever heard in 20 minutes. I've never heard as much bullshit in one setting." The room erupted with howls of sustained laughter.

The truth came out. Every single prisoner was taking the class so he could speak well in front of the parole board. I decided right on the spot to harness that motivation and revamp the course to achieve their objective. It was the most motivated group of people I have ever taught. Those of you who've had psychology would appreciate this: The motivation was completely intrinsic--they were really self-motivated. I didn't have to motivate them--and probably couldn't have if I'd wanted.

The most memorable thing about the class was that I learned more than they. Talk about feedback and questions. It was nonstop. When the class material wasn't useful, they told me so--and why. When they wanted more input on a subject, I heard from them. When they were having difficulty preparing a speech, they asked for help. Their critiques of each other were thoughtful and concrete. And no one seemed offended by the feedback. They were as uninhibited as four-year-olds. There was less defensiveness around the critiquing of their presentations than I've ever encountered.

They also instructed me on my classroom demeanor. I got several lectures on private space--how close I could safely stand to them, and how I'd be signalled if I got in their "space." They talked openly about personal differences regarding private space. I was told never to walk behind the serial killer and stay about three feet from him--he had his back and chair against the wall. He nodded his head in agreement as his classmates explained. When I stooped down to help another guy at his desk, they interrupted to tell me who I could touch on the shoulder and who I couldn't--and why. (Obviously, several inmates intended to protect me.) They demanded that I critique their speech ruthlessly. They wanted no whitewash from the professor.

That class confirmed an important fact for me: All of us have to deal with the same three issues to become a successful speaker. It's true with undergrads, seminary students, graduate professionals, managers, executives--and even prisoners.

1. Audience analysis. I succeeded by focusing on the needs and objectives of the prisoners. Actually, I had the class in the palm of my hand at the end of the first 30 minutes and they stayed there for the rest of the quarter. They also quickly learned the importance of speaking to their audience intimately. So we spent a disproportionate amount of time assessing the characteristics of people on parole boards. Like the thieves some of them were, they really "cased the joint"--the parole board. The local drug dealers are often the best marketers in a community, but thieves, I've decided, are fabulous at audience analysis. Once they understood its usefulness to speech, they did an impeccable job.

The rule remains true: unless your materials are adapted to your audience, you won't get a hearing.

2. Personal confidence. The research shows that once audiences detect anxiety in the speaker, his credibility and the perceived value of his message go downhill. Furthermore, systematic research finds that audiences can readily detect the emotional state of speakers, and that they assess the emotionality of the speaker (confidence or inhibition) before they pay attention to the actual message.

Speaker confidence goes hand in hand with credibility. In other words, audiences trust and pay attention to confident speakers. The opposite is also true: if the audience doesn't think you're confident about what you're saying, they'll tune you out. Personal confidence is the most vital characteristic of all good speakers.

A minority of speakers have little personal inhibition from the start and so they can move quickly to thinking about their message and their audience. The sociopaths lacked personal awareness, and seemed almost inhibition free. They asked again and again for direct feedback and took it very seriously. None of them lacked intelligence, and as a result they were a very quick study.

Most of us would learn and grow a lot faster if we, too, dropped our inhibitions about getting feedback. Sure, good speaking requires practice and coaching, but it really requires feedback, more feedback and still some more feedback.

You have to be confident and comfortable with yourself to accept feedback, and use it to connect credibly with your audience.

3. Simplicity. Speeches are organized either deductively (a big idea, supported by evidence), or inductively (a problem to solve, with the means to resolve it). In business, speeches tend to be both informational and deductive(e.g.project status, update), or persuasive and inductive (e.g. an argument to get buy-in for a project, organizational or strategic change). The best persuasive speeches hang a small amount of relevant data on the skeleton, major in stories and examples to move the emotions and get buy-in.

Twenty-five years ago business people pooh-poohed narrative. Today you'll find most of the best execs use story. Here, for example, is a typical business blog on using stories to overcome fear. You can learn to tell stories if that's not a part of your heritage. When you're trying to persuade, sell an idea or get buy-in, nothing beats organizational simplicity and a good story.

I learned later that three of the guys who were up for parole were all successful at the hearing. I don't know whether that was good or bad. But for sure, the principles of good speaking remain the same in every situation.

Can a Job Change Change Your Politics?

In an article by Gardiner Harris of the NYTimes, the writer says that as physicians' jobs change, so do their politics. Although doctors were once overwhelmingly male, usually owning their practices, more than 50% of the younger generation of physicians is now female and more and more physicians, male and female, are taking salaried jobs. That's especially true in the NorthEast, but even so in the deep South. What this also means is that as doctors switch from private ownership to shift worker, they are changing from Republican to Democrat.

In the last two paragraphs of the article, Harris quotes the former president of Maine's Medical Association who describes himself as "very conservative." The physician's summary is a classic example to add to my store of beliefs, by otherwise astute people, who get caught in the "fundamental attribution error."

That "error" is the belief that our decisions are made primarily on the basis of our own psychological nature. Here's what the "very conservative" Dr. Kevin Flanigan of Maine's AMA has to say:

People who are conservative by nature are not going to go into the profession because medicine is not about running your own shop anymore.

Amusing--and wrongheaded. Especially the notion of "conservative by nature," or even the unstated, "liberal by nature." Far more important in how we make decision is not our inherent nature, but the situation in which we find ourselves. Although the trait psychologists would like us to believe that there is such a thing as our "inherent nature"--it would help sell more psychological tests--it just ain't true. What's true is that our situation has far more impact on us than any so-called "inherent nature." Actually, some of the well-known proverbs admit to that. And generous proverbs tend to reflect part of reality, so they do have importance. "What would you have done if you were in his shoes?" or "There, but for the grace of God go I." Each of those maxims points in the direction of role demands or situational determinants of behavior. Each also counsels against inappropriate interpretations of a person's "inherent nature."

You can always explain away the exceptions. But I don't expect most people to toss the notion of "inherent nature" in the garbage can. It has some use, but not nearly as much use overall as many think.

So what does this mean?

If you're an HR person and someone isn't performing, perhaps rethink that's person's situation--and try to work out an organizational change before a pink slip.

If you're unhappy or bored in your present role because you haven't been learning anything new, switch to a new setting with new demands.

If, in spite of your recognized performance, you're stymied in your attempts to get a promotion, move on.

If your role doesn't offer a promotion, either decide to accept the regular raises and reconstitute the role, or move on.

In the final analysis, your work situation is more impactful on your success and health than your own psychological disposition.

One of my best friends, a former faculty colleague, left our school after three years. When I asked him why, he responded that he didn't like what the situation (the school's values and attitudes) was doing to him and his wife. It took me far more than three years to make that decision, but since then I've realized how really thoughtful and wise his decision. So pay close attention to your culture and situation. Over the long run, it will have more impact positively or negatively on your career--and your health--than anything else.

"Don't Scorn Paul Ryan."

Like Joe Nocera, who's column title leads this blog, I wrote weeks ago regarding Medicare and Social Security that we've got to do something about this fiscal mess. This past Wednesday, responding to the Democratic win in a New York Republican area, I argued even further that Democrats can't just put their heads in the sand. Thankfully, in that well-published side comment of Bill Clinton to Paul Ryan that it makes no sense to ignore the problem, we're beginning to get more big guns into this fiscal fray.

I'd like to paste Nocera's article on the front page of every newspaper and blog in the country. Nocera's summary of Ryan's budget is this: However wrongheaded his Medicare plan, at least he's facing the issue.

Nocera draws the following conclusions:

1. We have to take steps to resolve our fiscal issues. We can't ignore the problem
2. The Ryan plan is wrongheaded.
3. The Ryan plan will shift Medicare costs from the government to the people, making health care unaffordable.
4. Democrats need not be gleeful at the Republican loss in upstate New York.
5. The debate is not whether Medicare will be reformed but how.

Whatever your leanings, and you certainly don't need to take my slight tilt to the left as gospel, take the time to thoughtfully read Nocera's article: Don't Scorn Paul Ryan.

Is a Sucker Really Born Every Minute?

Actually, we’re all born suckers. That is, until and unless we train ourselves to listen carefully and think logically, something that’s relatively new in human history. Furthermore, apropos the media and the internet, there are a bewildering number of ways to deceive.

Big Fat Lies

We expect advertisers to lie. Pick any cosmetic company. Deception is the foundation of the entire cosmetics industry. Without deception, Revlon, Estee Lauder, L’Oreal and even Proctor and Gamble wouldn’t be where they are today. You don’t really believe that your hair will have that shiny look like the TV ads picture if you buy the goo that they’re advertising? A chemist will tell you that all cosmetics companies are using the same chemicals and producing what is basically the same product. Most of what you pay for is “make believe.”

Big Fat Liars

We also expect politicians to lie. Both Democrats and Republicans. The only deterrent for politicians is the possibility of the falsehood being discovered. Why did Schwarzeneggar wait so long to tell the truth? He knew the voters wouldn’t elect him if he talked about it before the election. It shouldn’t be a surprise that Paul Ryan throws some curves on his budget plan and Obama exaggerates its impact on us. Before you argue with me read the research on Ryan and Obama on FactCheck.

Big Profitable Liars

We now know the finance industry is lying—and getting away with it. The cheat sheet on the financiers is long, and thus far, no top banking executives have been prosecuted. But the list of ways to deceive is long—and maybe getting longer.

So where does this leave us?

We humans are born inherently vulnerable to lies and liars. We’re all born suckers. If you believe in evolutionary biology, and I think there’s a lot to say for it, there are good, evolutionary reasons for the way our brains work. We’ve got caveman brains that used to protect us from a lion’s roar or a snake’s hiss. If we stopped to ponder too long then, it was all over for us. We may have just taken off running without bothering to think about what might happen to us, and lived to have children who were also wired to react without thinking.

Although we humans have been walking the earth for about 200,000 years, our modern notions of logic only showed up about 2,500 years ago. What’s also true is that modern technology—the media and the internet—multiplies the means by which we can be deceived. The scientific method of systematically testing our theories of what’s true against hard evidence is even a more recent invention than that. And today, for no good reason other than that politicians and ministers would like to keep us in the dark, the scientific method is getting a bad rap from the public.

The Caveman brain doesn’t fit the internet age. We’re all going to need to recognize deceptive messages, navigate the internet mine field, learn to think logically and find reliable authoritative facts. That’s what it’s going to take to succeed in your business and your career today—and tomorrow.

For more insight on deception and disinformation, see Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamison, unSpun: Finding facts in a world of disinformation. 

An Equation Too Big to Solve

The political classes must know by now that Kathy Hochchul, a Democrat, won the special NY election in a highly conservative, Republican district in upstate New York. Both Republicans and Democrats have already come up with their storylines. The Democrats are saying that the Republican plan to end Medicare cost $3.4 million and a seat in Congress.” Eric Canter, the Republican, warns against the tendency of people to take signals from individual races. But, he reiterates, the best signal you can take from the special election is the 63 seats that we (Republicans) picked up this past November. 

Who’s right? Both—and neither. They’re both right that Medicare is a BIG problem. The Republicans are wrong to think that Medicare is going to go away. The Democrats are wrong to think that Medicare is going to stay the same. What is right is that we’re going to have to have some form of healthcare net. What’s also right is that Medicare is an equation almost too big to solve. We can’t afford it and we can’t not afford it. 

We’re going to have to “fix” Medicare. That means that Republicans and Democrats are going to have to work together, tweak the big baby, change the tax structure to get more revenue, restrain the drug and medical product firms, and teach the population to get smarter about their healthcare. 

Do we have the courage to do all that? I hope so. What do you think?

How to Make Decisions That'll Keep You Out of Trouble.

What you decide is IMPORTANT!  Your decisions are your road to success, opportunity and even job security. Lousy decisions mean . . . . well, you know what they mean. Ask Schwarzeneggar or Strauss-Kahn.

This post contains 3 very simple rules you’ll want to keep on your front lobes. Why? They’ll keep you out of trouble and get you the kind of attention you want.

Without these rules you’re liable to make decisions that will get you into trouble—even when you don’t expect it. Last week Mayor Bloomberg responded to a lawsuit seeking to prevent New York City from closing 22 poorly performing schools. Without thinking about these rules he let loose a statement about the parents of children in those schools. He said that some parents never had a formal education and don’t understand the value of education. The result? Outrage. His statement may well have been accurate, but it should never have been said. A lot of times we get in trouble unintentionally.

Making good decisions isn’t genetic or inevitable or even the result of a great deal of experience and intelligence. But here are three rules that will help you make good decisions--and get a reputation for good judgment.

1. Know yourself. Self-awareness is especially important for good decisions. You’ll want to know how well you listen and observe, how open you are to improvement and change and how you learn. You’ll also want to have a well-developed understanding of the kinds of bias that will impact your judgment, especially the confirmation, anchoring and vividness biases that result in serious mistakes. (Check out my blog’s custom google on bias.) Knowing yourself is important because . . . it cues you to your strengths and potential weaknesses around a given decision.
2. Know the context. The context is the relevant information and people who’ve got the deep smarts about the subject, can quickly size up the complex issues and recognize the patterns you don’t see. The context is all the stuff you need to know about a subject and the decision. The smart people are those who know stuff about the subject that you don’t know. One of my friends once modestly joked that he didn’t know a lot, but he knew a lot of people who do. Knowing the context is important because. . . it keeps you from making dumb decisions. 
3. Know the players. Making decisions is easy, but making decisions that people will support is not easy. Problems that are purely technical are rare. Nearly all decisions have a people element in them—they’re political. If you think a decision is not political, recheck. The best way to identify the political players is to figure out who you’re going to get in trouble with if he or she is not on board with your decision. These are people with power of one sort or another and they may not even have a recognized position in the organization. Sometimes you won’t identify these people until the decision plays out and trouble starts moving your direction. Knowing the players is important because . . . implementation nearly always involves other people. The greatest ideas and decisions fail because the right people aren't on board.

The best workers get more opportunities and get on the fast track because most of their decisions are right. Smarts helps a lot,but what your boss and your colleagues remember is the outcome of your decision.

Can We Learn Something New from the Recession?

As the recent recession illustrated so well, the world is sometimes not a very nice or fair place. Most of us were caught unawares--and paid for it. 

Yet there are some very obvious ways to avoid the meat-grinder. Although the context differs with each recession . . . there are some important clues to assist us in the future. Robert Samuelson laid out a quick and dirty template for building awareness--a template for assessing the potential for recession and recovery.

Despite differences, all recessions share certain characteristics. One is the role of economic “imbalances.” Something in the economy goes to excess, and the “correction” depresses production, jobs and incomes. Inflation rises, and so the Fed quells it by increasing interest rates. Or companies overinvest in factories and office buildings; investment spending collapses when the surpluses become obvious. Or stocks reach artificial highs — and then crash.

Samuelson doesn't stop there. He goes on to describe recoveries.

Recoveries begin when the imbalances are overcome by the passage of time, other forces in the economy or government policies. This is happening now to three huge imbalances that abetted recession: consumer overspending (an imbalance between household purchases and incomes); the trade deficit (the imbalance between exports and imports); and the housing “bubble” (the imbalance between home prices and people’s incomes).

Oh yeah, Samuelson points out that though it may not feel like it to some of us, the recovery is well under way. Indeed, the April unemployment rate in my home state of Minnesota is down to 6.5 percent. The traffic at my local mall reflected that rate this weekend--the parking lot was almost full.

To read the entire article, check the link above.

Elie Wiesel on the Sexual Imbroglio

Although some of the articles on the current narcissism of public figures can be voyeuristic, Elie Wiesel put it all in a unique context. Here's his fascinating Talmudic saying, which pulls together the acts of betrayal with the cultural and historic implications.

In expressing sadness for Strauss-Kahn's wife, Anne Sinclair, the very well-known French journalist, Wiesel reminds us of the Talmudic saying:

No one is the owner of his instincts. But controlling them, that is civilization.

Anne Sinclair's comments, April 30, regarding the wedding of Prince William provide even further insight into her rich awareness of human life.

I can understand those who didn’t miss a crumb. As if, quite simply, we were like children who, before going to sleep, want a tale, a story with a princess and a dream, because real life catches up with you soon enough....

Reflecting on Sinclair and her French family's heritage of wealth, education and the Holocaust, those of us with a more ethical simplicity may be challenged to rethink our own perspectives.

Still, Peg Noonan adds a more explanatory comment when she writes that human sin is a constant, none are free, and anyone who is shocked by it is a fool or lying.

Why Are Some Skills So Damned Hard to Learn?

Recently I've been musing over a number of blogs focused on two very important issues: collaboration and a customer-centric approach to business.

In one the authors rightly emphasize the necessity of a strategic orientation that’s focused primarily upon the customer, not the organization’s product line. The recommendation is spot on. That's been a widespread emphasis of strategy ever since Tom Peters got hold of the business world, shook it, and made it see the light. But a customer-centric approach is not nearly as easy to implement as some would think.

Just this past week Herminia Ibarra and Morten Hansen wrote a blog on getting collaboration right. They underscored the challenges that companies face and discussed the organizational traps of under-collaboration and over-collaboration. It was a very useful and pertinent discussion of an issue facing many organizations today. But in their focus on organizational collaboration, they, too, ignored the immense interpersonal difficulties underlying collaboration.  

I've worked with senior clients and their teams on these subjects for years. My own experience with executives reveals a huge amount of difficulty with both of them. They talk about them and use the appropriate buzz-words.  But when it comes to the needed implementation of collaboration or customer-centered relationships, the stuff really hits the fan.

It’s very difficult to develop a customer-centric approach when you spend 95% of your time on the firm’s product, rather than the customer. General Motors was a classic example of the problem. The firm’s focus on its auto resulted in a failure to understand the customer—so the Germans, Japanese and Koreans ate their lunch. But it’s a problem a clear majority of firms must deal with.

Collaboration has shown itself to be a very specific kind of talk. Numerous clients have revealed that it also takes a great deal of courage. The fears underneath collaboration, especially in client relationships, make it especially problematic. Furthermore, the language is quite new to most people, not something they have either experienced or observed.

Why then are some skills so difficult--almost impossible to learn? That's a question demanding an essay, not a one sentence answer. But here is some research that answers that question. Ummmm. Be aware that the research is not especially intuitive. It’s not common sense. So you may have difficulty accepting it. But it's well done and quite systematic.

The underlying assumption in my coaching and training business has been that if a needed behavior is not showing up on the radar screen, whether collaboration or a customer-centered approach, there are three possible reasons. And I've even got some statistics, compliments of Virginia Satir, that long-gone genius at changing behavior. In one-percent (1%) of issues, the person is malicious. In two-three percent (2-3%) of situations the person is thoughtless or careless. And in ninety-six percent (96%) of situations there simply are no relevant tools in the person’s toolkit. Those statistics seem to stop people in their tracks. Why of course, they suggest, people understand customer-centered or collaborative relationships. I remind them that understanding a subject has little to no relationship to being able to practice the competency. I understand how to play a clarinet, but you wouldn't want to hear the noise coming out of it with me on the mouthpiece. Getting people to apply this research to themselves or their colleagues is like pulling teeth. However, since my clients ask to work with me, they'll accept it at face value . . . and then eventually do an "oh, shit," when they experience its truthfulness. But this is research that takes a while to stick. It takes a long time to become a fundamental rationale for explaining failure, and then setting out to do something about it.

Given that no tools in the toolkit is often an issue, why are some skills so hard to learn? There's a great deal of research that shows that one of our primary--and fastest means--of learning is through analogy. In other words, we understand and learn to handle a new situation by transferring knowledge from well-understood situations in the past. But what happens when the structure and skill demands of effective collaboration cannot be compared to any of our past experiences? Nearly all of our education and our experience of problem solving, for example, is done alone. We're individualists and many of us have practically no experience of effective problem solving--of collaborating--with others. The research indicates that people who have experience at only one extreme of an experience distribution (such as individual, rather than collaborative problem solving) do not have the smarts to operate under other conditions--and especially conditions at the opposite extreme. 

Furthermore, research that builds upon the previous studies finds that even if a person perceives something new, without comparable memories it's difficult to understand and learn.  If something is not on a person's radar screen, it's often because there is no memory material (neuro-receptors) to attach the information being dished out. In short, when we try on something new, without a comparable experience we're very liable to be resistant and defensive about the learning--but largely out of ignorance. And as often as not—more often than not—collaboration and customer-centric strategy languish in the deep, dark ocean of the Doldrums.

Implementing some skills, like collaboration or a customer-centric strategy, is just very difficult stuff. It’s not going to happen overnight or on a three-day training session. The bad news is that it will require frustration over the way things have been going, extensive practice, mentoring and coaching, adaptation to feedback and an eventual integration of the new behaviors. The good news is that any set of skills can be learned.

Michael Gerson: A Conservative Who Really Gets It

As an independent with a slight tilt to the left (translation: social and fiscal moderate), I've begun to really appreciate the thinking of Michael Gerson, Bush's speechwriter. What I most appreciate is that he's realistic. Not ideological. Not living in a filter bubble. 

Take Gerson's Post column this week as an example. Here, he evaluates the potential populist candidates of the Republican variety, and initially focuses on Huckabee, the Republican populist: 

Compared to his GOP rivals four years ago, Huckabee sounded like William Jennings Bryan — a comparison that would probably offend Huckabee less than it would most Republicans. He complained about overpaid chief executives and talked sympathetically of “people at the lower ends of the economic scale.” His own up-from-poverty struggle lent credibility to his message.

Free-market purists went hard after Huckabee’s record as Arkansas governor — his tax increases, his statewide smoking ban, his 21 percent increase in the state minimum wage. Conservative activist Richard Viguerie tagged him a “Christian socialist.” 

But Huckabee gave at least as good as he got. His dismissed the libertarian Club for Growth, which ran ads against him, as the “club for greed.” After an attack by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Huckabee responded, “Grover’s never been in government, doesn’t have to balance a state budget. . . . Grover’s never been in a situation where he couldn’t borrow money so he didn’t have to raise taxes or tell old people he’s just going to take them out of the nursing home and drop them on the curb.”

Harsh language from one Republican to another. The article makes the point that economic populism and economic mobility are going to depend on the quality of education we can provide, market-based health reforms and business strategy. 

Along the same line, like Huckabee and Gerson, I respond thumbs down to Norquist and his ilk who are more interested in greed and the destruction of the lower ends of society. Societal intelligence seems anathema, perhaps completely lacking in the gray matter of some ideologues.

Because of my experience as an executive coach, I tend to almost unconsciously filter information from the standpoint of the worker's status and ability. I can't read a human resource blog without asking the question of whether a recommendation is realistic or not. Realistic in the sense that ordinary people or even executives have the skills to carry off a set of behaviors. It has nothing to do with capacity, but whether people actually have developed the skills necessary to achieve needed objectives.

A couple weeks ago I had to go to Social Security to gain power of attorney over my wife's affairs as a result of her Alzheimer's. I assumed that I'd need legal documents, a physician's statement and a number of other issues. Because of my experience and education, I anticipated the drill. The agent informed me up front that it usually took 20 to 30 minutes for her to complete the process with a client. We wrapped it up in 12 minutes (I timed it). When we finished I asked the agent why it would take so long. Her response was telling. Typically, she said, people can't predict the information we'll need, don't know how to check out what they should bring, haven't talked to an agent on the phone prior to coming, and will need more time to read the material before they sign off. The average client will need at least 30 minutes to go through the process, and then they'll end up coming back three or four times to bring all the material we need to complete the transaction. It isn't that our process is difficult, it's just that the 8 to 10 steps get easily lost, forgotten or misunderstood by most people. (I immediately thought of the difficulties of the lower end of the economic scale.)

So, I said to the agent, when politicans suggest that people can take care of their own medical and retirement needs and make the financial decisions without the support of government, it'll be a tough task for most? "For just about all," she said. "I don't know what planet some politicians live on. But I wish they'd sit in my seat for a few hours and then they'd get more realistic about their proposals." Sorry Norquist, but you're out of touch and way too self-centered. The issue is really not about lowering taxes, but about whether people have the requisite skills and the necessary income to manage life without any help. Of course, that implies a philosophical stance supportive of the community at large, rather than what's best for me and big business. Hey reader, don't misunderstand. I am a capitalist, but some of the time I try to be a responsible capitalist.

Gerson gets it. He understands that you don't toss people out of the nursing home, that a huge majority of people don't make the income to provide for their basic needs, that education and skills are at a premium, and that responsibility goes beyond me, myself and I. And thus, in some form, we have a responsibility to people at the lower end of the economic scale.