When Mitt Romney first announced his candidacy for the White House, some news outlets wondered (and some still do) how Americans would react to the notion of a Mormon president running the country. Among the concerns and misconceptions about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) is the issue of polygamy. The ironic thing about this concern is the following:
First, Mormons do not practice polygamy. The practice, which was adopted on a very limited basis, has not been part of the Mormon church since 1890. (Just to help with the math, that was 117 years ago!) Any member of the church found to be practicing or even approving of polygamous relationships is excommunicated. There is a zero tolerance policy.
Second, if one is concerned with the moral issues of men having multiple wives, why aren't we as outraged or shocked by the likes of Rudy Giuliani who is currently married to his fourth wife? I know that divorce is sometimes necessary and better for all involved, but you'd think that the odds of a man unknowingly falling into at least 3 non-salvageable relationships would be pretty slim. After all, how many people do you know that are on their fourth marriage? (I wonder what the odds are that this fourth marriage will be "the one"...)
CBS.com: The Women in Giuliani's Life
As an outside observer looking at the campaigns for these two men, this is what I see:
Mitt Romney has five sons who are all actively campaigning for their Dad. He is often shown in the arms of his large family spending time and playing with his grandchildren and children. Mitt's wife, Ann, has her own web site (http://www.annromney.com/) and is a successful mother and grandmother. She appears to be a sincere and genuine person who has battled a debilitating disease (M.S.) and who obviously knows what family values are.
In Mayor Giuliani's camp, we have a man who has more wives than children. None of Mr. Giuliani's children (or ex-wives) is actively campaigning for him. In fact, his only son Andrew went on national TV and appeared to campaign against his father. (ABC.com: Andrew Giuliani Dishes on Problems with Dad ) You won't see any web site from Giuliani's current wife espousing family values or highlighting her successes as a mother or grandmother for obvious reasons...she was his mistress before she was his wife, and she and Rudy Giuliani have no children together.
My intention in writing this piece is not so much to criticize Mayor Giuliani as it is to point out how ridiculous it is to be concerned about a Mormon running for President because of a limited practice that was abolished 117 years ago when we're not more concerned about another candidate who doesn't practice monogamy today, who lacks the support of his own children, and who has the potential to make Bill Clinton look like a devoted husband and father.
I agree with all those who think the issue of multiple wives is important when selecting a presidential candidate. I just think they're all worried about the wrong man.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Monday Morning Quarterbacks...
How many times have you seen or listened to a sports analyst on a talk show who thinks a team or a player should have done something differently? The term Monday Morning Quarterback (or Armchair Quarterback) refers to all the fans, analysts, and other people who aren’t involved with the actual game who spend the following day criticizing and attacking the coaches, players, and referees for the plays they called, the throws they made (or didn’t make), the strategies they used, and the ultimate outcomes of their actions.
The funny thing about Monday Morning Quarterbacks is that they’re always right. They deftly identify and discuss every flaw and weakness in a team’s or player’s approach, and some misguided viewers or listeners might be wishing these analysts and talk show hosts had been coaching their favorite team or taking the snaps the night before. What people tend to forget is this: it’s easy to criticize and dissect a performance or a decision after the fact, and all discussions about a prior performance are subject to what is known as “outcome bias”. That is, our perception of whether a decision was right or not is always influenced by our knowledge of the actual outcome. It takes no leadership, very little critical thinking, and no foresight to prove a decision as being “wrong” when one has the negative outcome as proof. Unless a team’s or player’s performance was perfect (and let’s face it, they never are), then coming up with criticism is extremely easy.
A perfect example comes from the American League Championship Series in 2003. The Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees were playing a decisive Game 7 at Yankee Stadium to see which team would advance to the World Series. Pedro Martinez had pitched 7 dominant innings and held a 5-2 lead heading into the 8th inning. After getting the first out quickly and then giving up back-to-back hits (one that should have been caught by the center fielder) that closed the gap to 5-3, the Red Sox manager – Grady Little – walked to the mound to speak with his pitcher. After speaking with Martinez, Little decided to leave him in the game. – The next two batters doubled, and the game was quickly tied at 5 runs apiece. Little took a second trip to the mound and replaced Martinez with a relief pitcher. The Red Sox went on to lose the game in 11 innings, and Grady Little was vilified in the Boston and national media as a poor manager because he didn’t take Pedro Martinez out when he first visited the mound.
Looking back on the situation, it’s easy to criticize Grady Little’s decision – now that we’ve seen the results. But don’t forget that we are subject to this “outcome bias”. Pedro Martinez had thrown 104 pitches in the game to that point, and he (a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher) told Little he could get the next two outs. Grady Little had 2 relievers ready in the bullpen, but you’ll never see their bronze busts in Cooperstown.
The truth is, Grady Little did what most managers would have done in that situation. (If you’re thinking that I’m wrong…then you may be forgetting that you too are subject to this “outcome bias”!) Pedro Martinez was the team’s best pitcher, and the odds of him getting 2 more outs after having thrown 104 pitches were probably just as good as a journeyman relief pitcher doing the same after coming out of the bullpen.
The sad and irrational thing about this story is that Grady Little’s contract was not renewed based largely on this decision, his laudable success with the Red Sox has largely been forgotten, his time in Boston will be forever remembered for one negative outcome, and every commentator or fan who openly criticizes his decision is accepted as a genius. The most ironic thing about this example is that another manager – the Cubs’ Lou Piniella – was just criticized this week for taking his star pitcher out of a game too early in a similar situation. (Piniella Pulls Zambrano Too Early)
As I pointed out before, this “Armchair Quarterbacking” takes no leadership, no foresight (only hindsight…and we all know how good that is), involves no risk, and can’t be wrong. In short, it’s easy and almost cowardly to openly criticize and attack the person having to make a critical decision under pressure once the results have been made manifest.
Since this thought piece has gone on long enough, I’ll make my point and close for the day. Consider the following:
What if Game 7 of the ALCS was analogous to some important moments in our country’s recent history? Wouldn’t President Bush be playing the role of Grady Little? Perhaps some executive decisions have been as unsuccessful as leaving Pedro Martinez in to face 2 more batters. Certainly there have been others that have fared better. (After all, Grady Little must have done some things right to get the Red Sox into Game 7!) It's easy to identify those people who are the Monday Morning Quarterbacks that criticize every decision, highlight the negative outcomes, ignore the positive ones, and brashly proclaim that they would have done things differently.
I’m not saying that I would have made all the same decisions that President Bush has made over the past 7 years, but I’m also not claiming to have any idea of the enormous pressures, stresses, and information asymmetry problems that a Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States must deal with. (I make enough of my own mistakes within my little sphere of influence!) What I am saying is this: “I don’t know what I would have done if I had been in his shoes. Nobody knows, and anyone who says they would have acted differently or would have made different choices is heavily influenced by the luxury of knowing the actual outcomes.”
So, if you’re ever caught thinking that a 45-year old sports analyst might make a better quarterback for your favorite team, imagine that same skinny talk show host suited up in pads and a helmet and lining up on a football field against today’s best athletes. How much better do you really think he’d fare?
The funny thing about Monday Morning Quarterbacks is that they’re always right. They deftly identify and discuss every flaw and weakness in a team’s or player’s approach, and some misguided viewers or listeners might be wishing these analysts and talk show hosts had been coaching their favorite team or taking the snaps the night before. What people tend to forget is this: it’s easy to criticize and dissect a performance or a decision after the fact, and all discussions about a prior performance are subject to what is known as “outcome bias”. That is, our perception of whether a decision was right or not is always influenced by our knowledge of the actual outcome. It takes no leadership, very little critical thinking, and no foresight to prove a decision as being “wrong” when one has the negative outcome as proof. Unless a team’s or player’s performance was perfect (and let’s face it, they never are), then coming up with criticism is extremely easy.
A perfect example comes from the American League Championship Series in 2003. The Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees were playing a decisive Game 7 at Yankee Stadium to see which team would advance to the World Series. Pedro Martinez had pitched 7 dominant innings and held a 5-2 lead heading into the 8th inning. After getting the first out quickly and then giving up back-to-back hits (one that should have been caught by the center fielder) that closed the gap to 5-3, the Red Sox manager – Grady Little – walked to the mound to speak with his pitcher. After speaking with Martinez, Little decided to leave him in the game. – The next two batters doubled, and the game was quickly tied at 5 runs apiece. Little took a second trip to the mound and replaced Martinez with a relief pitcher. The Red Sox went on to lose the game in 11 innings, and Grady Little was vilified in the Boston and national media as a poor manager because he didn’t take Pedro Martinez out when he first visited the mound.Looking back on the situation, it’s easy to criticize Grady Little’s decision – now that we’ve seen the results. But don’t forget that we are subject to this “outcome bias”. Pedro Martinez had thrown 104 pitches in the game to that point, and he (a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher) told Little he could get the next two outs. Grady Little had 2 relievers ready in the bullpen, but you’ll never see their bronze busts in Cooperstown.
The truth is, Grady Little did what most managers would have done in that situation. (If you’re thinking that I’m wrong…then you may be forgetting that you too are subject to this “outcome bias”!) Pedro Martinez was the team’s best pitcher, and the odds of him getting 2 more outs after having thrown 104 pitches were probably just as good as a journeyman relief pitcher doing the same after coming out of the bullpen.
The sad and irrational thing about this story is that Grady Little’s contract was not renewed based largely on this decision, his laudable success with the Red Sox has largely been forgotten, his time in Boston will be forever remembered for one negative outcome, and every commentator or fan who openly criticizes his decision is accepted as a genius. The most ironic thing about this example is that another manager – the Cubs’ Lou Piniella – was just criticized this week for taking his star pitcher out of a game too early in a similar situation. (Piniella Pulls Zambrano Too Early)
As I pointed out before, this “Armchair Quarterbacking” takes no leadership, no foresight (only hindsight…and we all know how good that is), involves no risk, and can’t be wrong. In short, it’s easy and almost cowardly to openly criticize and attack the person having to make a critical decision under pressure once the results have been made manifest.
Since this thought piece has gone on long enough, I’ll make my point and close for the day. Consider the following:
What if Game 7 of the ALCS was analogous to some important moments in our country’s recent history? Wouldn’t President Bush be playing the role of Grady Little? Perhaps some executive decisions have been as unsuccessful as leaving Pedro Martinez in to face 2 more batters. Certainly there have been others that have fared better. (After all, Grady Little must have done some things right to get the Red Sox into Game 7!) It's easy to identify those people who are the Monday Morning Quarterbacks that criticize every decision, highlight the negative outcomes, ignore the positive ones, and brashly proclaim that they would have done things differently.
I’m not saying that I would have made all the same decisions that President Bush has made over the past 7 years, but I’m also not claiming to have any idea of the enormous pressures, stresses, and information asymmetry problems that a Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States must deal with. (I make enough of my own mistakes within my little sphere of influence!) What I am saying is this: “I don’t know what I would have done if I had been in his shoes. Nobody knows, and anyone who says they would have acted differently or would have made different choices is heavily influenced by the luxury of knowing the actual outcomes.”
So, if you’re ever caught thinking that a 45-year old sports analyst might make a better quarterback for your favorite team, imagine that same skinny talk show host suited up in pads and a helmet and lining up on a football field against today’s best athletes. How much better do you really think he’d fare?
Friday, October 5, 2007
What do you believe?
For the purpose of full disclosure, let’s say that I consider myself a conservative person. I’m officially registered to vote as an Independent, but I generally find myself voting for Republican candidates. Why, you might ask? Because of my core beliefs.
I believe marriage between a man and a woman is an institution ordained of God. I believe children have a God-given right to be born into a family with both a mother and a father, and I believe the family is the fundamental building block of our societies. I believe today’s shifting morals are breaking up the family and eroding the foundations of our existence.
I believe in smaller governments, lower taxes, capitalism, and generally efficient markets. Just because something is immoral or bad for us, I don’t believe it’s always the government’s place to legislate against it. I believe governments exist to protect the innocent and to serve and represent the people. I do not believe that people exist to serve and finance the government.
I believe judges are supposed to enforce and uphold the law, not to make it. I believe the accused deserve a fair trial, but I believe there should be consequences for our actions. People who make wise choices should be rewarded, and people who make poor choices should be penalized. I have zero tolerance for crimes against children and others who cannot protect themselves.
I believe people have an obligation to help the sick, needy, and poor, but I don’t believe that people should aspire to be sick, needy, or poor in order to receive free assistance. I believe in providing opportunities to many, but I don’t believe handing out opportunities and rewards freely builds anything but dependence. Just because one “red hen” has achieved success through hard work, I do not believe everyone around that person deserves some of his bread. (…but if I were that little red hen, I’d surely share some of my bread of my own free will…not because a law told me I had to.)
I believe I am blessed by God to live in this great country. I believe patriotism and American pride are good things, but I also believe that we should be good neighbors with others around the world. I believe that wars are sometimes necessary to protect the innocent, but I am a peace-loving person.
I believe war is a terrible experience for all involved. As such, they should be as short as possible. I believe armies should fight to win. I believe that a job worth doing is worth doing right, and a job done poorly will almost certainly come back to bite you in the end.
I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that each of us in this great country has a responsibility to respect the freedoms and rights granted by our Founding Fathers (and Mothers). I believe in legal immigration, and I believe in legal emigration. I believe that if you don’t like being a part of the United States, you should consider the latter.
I believe marriage between a man and a woman is an institution ordained of God. I believe children have a God-given right to be born into a family with both a mother and a father, and I believe the family is the fundamental building block of our societies. I believe today’s shifting morals are breaking up the family and eroding the foundations of our existence.
I believe in smaller governments, lower taxes, capitalism, and generally efficient markets. Just because something is immoral or bad for us, I don’t believe it’s always the government’s place to legislate against it. I believe governments exist to protect the innocent and to serve and represent the people. I do not believe that people exist to serve and finance the government.
I believe judges are supposed to enforce and uphold the law, not to make it. I believe the accused deserve a fair trial, but I believe there should be consequences for our actions. People who make wise choices should be rewarded, and people who make poor choices should be penalized. I have zero tolerance for crimes against children and others who cannot protect themselves.
I believe people have an obligation to help the sick, needy, and poor, but I don’t believe that people should aspire to be sick, needy, or poor in order to receive free assistance. I believe in providing opportunities to many, but I don’t believe handing out opportunities and rewards freely builds anything but dependence. Just because one “red hen” has achieved success through hard work, I do not believe everyone around that person deserves some of his bread. (…but if I were that little red hen, I’d surely share some of my bread of my own free will…not because a law told me I had to.)
I believe I am blessed by God to live in this great country. I believe patriotism and American pride are good things, but I also believe that we should be good neighbors with others around the world. I believe that wars are sometimes necessary to protect the innocent, but I am a peace-loving person.
I believe war is a terrible experience for all involved. As such, they should be as short as possible. I believe armies should fight to win. I believe that a job worth doing is worth doing right, and a job done poorly will almost certainly come back to bite you in the end.
I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that each of us in this great country has a responsibility to respect the freedoms and rights granted by our Founding Fathers (and Mothers). I believe in legal immigration, and I believe in legal emigration. I believe that if you don’t like being a part of the United States, you should consider the latter.
This is my country...
I've never been overly interested in politics, and I've never been involved in a political campaign. Other than wanting an honest, moral, and strong leader in any elected position (is that asking a lot?), I haven't really had too much interest in campaigns or elections.
Don't get me wrong, I've always gone and voted for the person I felt was the best candidate, but I never felt like it was my place to encourage others to follow my lead. In the past few years, however, I've felt a deeper interest in political ongoings and have become more interested in various candidates' positions, beliefs, and strategies for improving my state or our country.
As a 30-year old U.S. citizen, worker, husband, and father of 2.4 children, I have suddenly become aware that the political process in the United States is not only important for me to follow and become involved with, but it's imperative that I stand up and express my views on the happenings in our communities, our country, and our world. (Since I'm only 5' 10" tall, I'm going to "stand up" in the figurative sense and share my views in this blog.)
Over the next few months, I plan to express my personal views about issues that are important to me and - as a fellow American - issues that should be important to you.
After all, the song says, "This is my country..." for a reason.
Don't get me wrong, I've always gone and voted for the person I felt was the best candidate, but I never felt like it was my place to encourage others to follow my lead. In the past few years, however, I've felt a deeper interest in political ongoings and have become more interested in various candidates' positions, beliefs, and strategies for improving my state or our country.
As a 30-year old U.S. citizen, worker, husband, and father of 2.4 children, I have suddenly become aware that the political process in the United States is not only important for me to follow and become involved with, but it's imperative that I stand up and express my views on the happenings in our communities, our country, and our world. (Since I'm only 5' 10" tall, I'm going to "stand up" in the figurative sense and share my views in this blog.)
Over the next few months, I plan to express my personal views about issues that are important to me and - as a fellow American - issues that should be important to you.
After all, the song says, "This is my country..." for a reason.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
