Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Read: Too Big to Fail

January 25, 2010 by adeolumen

Thanks to Pilar Queen for encouraging her husband, Andrew Ross Sorkin, to write the book Too Big to Fail on the events surrounding our recent near financial market meltdown. I loved the read. Gripping tale.

I also loved Dick Fuld, though he was a tragic character. Having worked in investment banking on a small scale with a man who Fuld reminded me of, I could really enter into Fuld’s world as his Lehman Brothers inexplicably fell apart all around him.  There was much to learn from his experience.

We should all be on notice. With global financial networks still as interconnected as ever–and driven by the same risk-taking as ever–the systemic risks we faced in and around September 2008 are not mitigated.

As my friend Dennis Peacocke reminded me recently, we are effectively stealing from our children with our recalcitrant short-term profit focus. What ever happened to making things grow to have sustainable value the old school way?

When I look at young people today and the interconnectedness of their world and the tools of their communication, I look ahead and see this media ecology will inevitably produce an interconnected outlook as their generation comes of age.  This stands in stark contrast to the monolithic silos of finance, which is the model by which Wall Street banks were built, diversified and globalized though they are now. Perhaps these firms and their opaque, hierarchical structures will inevitably fail.  Perhaps that may be needed for the young minds to have a more suitable financial order to govern in their day, as hard as that transition may be.

Anyway, do yourself a favor and ditch Twitter, facebook, email, and all the rest of the Web 2.0 tools for a spell.  Please slow down and read Sorkin’s book. But if you don’t, and the markets crash again, and the system does not get bailed out as a result, please don’t come crying.

If there is anything Wall Street implicitly understands, it is that life is war. Competition is inherent to the human condition in this fallen world, as is collaboration when the survival of all is in question.  That leads me to my biggest takeaways from the book:

1) seeing the way the top-most players in finance really work, live, and communicate;

2) appreciating how hard it is to square common conspiracy theories with these events; and

3) recognizing that the entire political economy handed off to us from the Boomers and their parents is not too big to fail–in fact, in their broad ideological hubris they seem to be STILL too self-focused to see that systemic survival is STILL very much in question.

And if anyone thinks I am going to sit idly by to wait to find out if the crash is coming or not, you best keep your ears on and see…

UPDATED 1/27/10.

Posted in Economics, Election, Globalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who’s Sweeping Whom?

January 22, 2010 by adeolumen

Is 2010 an Extension of 2008?

President Obama in his interview with George Stephanopoulos has said, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.”  David Axelrod sounded a similar note in his telephone interview with Mike Allen, stating:

We’re FAMILIAR with the vote that was cast today: Some of the same sentiment that propelled [Brown's] campaign, propelled ours — the sense that this economy doesn’t work particularly well for middle class, working people … You overlay the fact that we’re in a recession — the deepest since the Great Depression — and people are understandably agitated.

I agree that there is a growing grassroots sentiment across America that sees Washington as far out of touch from the citizens our government is meant to represent. I also agree that this sentiment propelled Obama into office as it now has Scott Brown.  But Obama is using an interesting tactic to inferentially associate himself with his own opposition.  There should be no doubt that Scott Brown’s amazing run to the Senate was largely (but certainly not exclusively) fueled by national opposition to the President’s healthcare reform plan.

Amazing.  But let’s give the President his due before we question why he would make such an association.  Consider the book The Battle for America 2008 by Dan Balz and Hayes Johnson (HT: Mike Allen) who describe Sunday March 4, 2007.  This was the date of the first political event involving Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama following each of their announcements to run for the White House.  Balz and Johnson describe the prevailing political wisdom of that moment in time as follows:

Obama knows all too well that Clinton stands as the odds-on, even inevitable, winner of the nomination—and for good reason: She is the best known, has the most formidable political organization, the most money, the greatest expertise.  She’s backed by a network that has helped win the White House twice, something no Democrat had accomplished since FDR, and can recruit almost anyone she wants.  And everyone knows her name.

The prevailing wisdom had some good data at its disposal.  At this point, the Obama campaign had no bank accounts, no credit cards, no motorcades, no staff, no donor lists, and no website.  Even the plane leaving that first event was grounded with a dead battery.  Undaunted by the bad omen, Obama calmly told his aides, “I guess this really is a grassroots campaign.”  Indeed.

Against such long odds, where did candidate Obama find the confidence which permeated his speeches throughout his campaign?  Could it be that he firmly believed that history was on his side?  Or perhaps he believed he could control the narrative of Politics in 2008 by playing the part?  Let us use only charitable judgments here and accept the Balz and Johnson account that the hopeful insight of Obama’s lead strategist, David Axelrod, was that now is the time.  To wait to become more experienced is to risk never getting a shot.  Axelrod was proven right.  Obama as a better fit for the historical moment than Clinton, and his candidacy indeed had the potential to “spark a political movement and prevail against sizable odds.”

In being swept to office by seizing this moment, President Obama acknowledged that “the Internet served our campaign in unprecedented ways.”  Undoubtedly, it was unprecedented for an America only two generations removed from segregation to vote a Black man into the Presidency.  Amid this wonderful achievement, it is instructive to recall how Obama characterized our nation’s shortcomings and opportunities—certainly at arm’s length from the comments of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, but not completely at odds with them either.

The Internet amplified what the Obama campaign said about America to an audience that was ready to see certain longstanding structural barriers removed.  But was racism and socioeconomic inequity the barrier, or was it something more?  Again, let us make only charitable judgments at this point and recognize the good of having future generations come of age in this new cultural environment that is able to look back and see clearly that America has rejected the inherent hypocrisy of unjust political oppression—especially in the evil institution of slavery—and the self-evident truth that “all men are Created equal” that is enshrined in our founding documents.

Barack Obama shattered structural barriers that Martin Luther King, Jr. and others fought hard to chip away at over time.  Following the steady gains of racial justice in America, Obama was able to burst on the scene with the right message at the right time.  To deliver the message, he took full advantage of the Internet to reach beyond the traditional network of political potentates and insiders that stood poised to help send another Clinton into the White House.  By using the web in innovative ways, the Obama campaign’s Internet operation raised unprecedented amounts of money.  Half a billion of the $700 million dollars raised by the Obama campaign came from online donations.

From TV to Internet: A New Political Mentality

So we can see that the Internet has given the American grassroots the ability to make its voice known.  But does Scott Brown follow the same grassroots voice that President Obama did?  Only time will tell, of course, but I find it interesting to note that a major part of Obama’s pitch supporting healthcare reform was his assault on insurance companies and their ability to control the GOP.  This is certainly a grassroots pitch, because if the grassroots is united about anything it is in opposition to special interests and political donors having a bigger voice in Washington than the voters.

But where is he going with this?  Does anyone doubt that major special interests and political donors are as influential to the Democrats as to the Republicans?  Some interests and donors are different—though some are the same, most notably those from the financial community—but politicians are highly dependent on OPM (Other People’s Money), even more than they are on votes.  They only need votes on one big day, but they need money every day.  Knowing this obvious fact, I find it hard to accept our President’s accusation against the hypocrisy of the GOP, as if his party is not guilty of the same thing.

But when I look at the actions taken by our President to increase the centralization of our economy in almost every way he could, it is clear that he is not following the same voice as that which I believe swept Scott Brown into power.  The discerning reader should be quick to separate this President’s words from his deeds.  It is disappointing in the extreme to see this gap, given the kind of positive role model he could be as a man of integrity.  I am saddened that the Black community does not have leaders that do more than break the mold.  I recall the timeless words of MLK, calling on all Americans to judge one another by the content of our character.  In this world charged with political correctness and partisanship, one can hardly call out the lack of character by a public figure on the left without fear of major backlash, even if the case is clear.

The case should also be clear that we not feel hopeless or beholden about this environment.  The ground is shifting beneath our feet in ways that are deeper than we have yet collectively realized.  As Chris Anderson has expounded in his book The Long Tail, we have moved from an information environment of scarcity into one of great abundance.  This is game changing for politics, especially if we the people seize the moment. 

The Long Tail is a mathematical concept of power distribution.  This is a principle of disproportion where a given market sector or environment will predominantly favor and be shaped by a small set of choices (“hits” in the case of music or movies), while all the remaining voices or choices will have less influence in aggregate than the few choices at the top.  Translate this into politics, and it is easy to see how favoritism strains representative democracy when voices or groups down the “long tail” do not have the same voice as those at the top (i.e., in the head of the curve).

As Anderson explains, the disruptive power of the Internet is that it levels the playing field dramatically by giving the power of free information distribution to all participants up and down the curve.  In politics, for example, that means that the collective voice of the blogosphere can gain a large enough population of political information consumers to diminish the influence of the few voices who had exerted predominant control prior to the Internet.  This, of course, has changed voting patterns and electoral outcomes in many ways.  To understand the rising grassroots movement, one must understand the Long Tail effect at work here.  The Internet has elevated the voice of citizens—the political grassroots—to directly engage the political process as never before to influence one another, the media, and electoral outcomes.

This is a tectonic shift.  At the time of America’s founding, oral communication were supplemented by printed newspapers, books, and leaflets to constitute the political media ecology of the day.  In the late 20th century, this media ecology expanded to include electronic media such as broadcast and cable television as well as talk radio.  Most recently, interactive tools of information consumption and delivery have burst on the scene through the rise of blogs, podcasts, YouTube videos, Facebook, and the rest of the Web 2.0 world.  These tools have altered power distribution in America’s political media ecology. Now, we see an American electorate with new habits of political data consumption and therefore a new outlook on politics as well.

These developments have a distinctly generational dimension.  The role of the Internet in politics continues to grow across the board, but for young people it now serves as the leading source of political campaign news.  This is a game-changing shift in and of itself.  The first exposure to politics of our young people is now through the lens of the Internet, not television.  The Internet, by its nature, is grassroots.  As Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams highlight in their book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, the mentality engendered by Internet use is structurally different from its predecessor.  In the political media environment built around television and other non-interactive mass media, a winning communication styles involved “controlling the message.”  The inherent structure of mass media as a closed, broadcast platform supported a political logic Tapscott and Williams describe as “plan and push.”  This model favors centralization, while the structure of the Internet is “engage and co-create” and favors mass collaboration.

This distinction reveals the major difference between Obama and Brown and the wings of the grassroots that swept each into power.  Obama represents that side of the grassroots that is cool with centralization, while Brown hails from the conservative side that is wary of such centralization.  Both sides of the grassroots are America.  But what is interesting to me is the way the Internet favors mass collaboration, which to me is more a conservative phenomenon that removes the need for big government, big money donors, and opaque political parties to run the political game.  In other words, mass collaboration via the web cuts out the middle man.

Yet, Obama is quick to denounce the Supreme Court decision allowing unbridled corporate campaign contributions, while Mitch McConnell offered some bogus-sounding, backpedaling explanation to Greta Van Susteren of his support for the SCOTUS decision based on giving every corporation an equal voice even if it does not own a media arm to amplify its voice.  It’s hard to know what anyone really believes or stands for anymore.

We are in very interesting times.  My counsel is that wise political engagement means listening to every political voice charitably, but knowing there was some “plan and push” decision-making standing behind most every word they say.  The stakes are too high for the big donors, and the amount of money contributed to these politicians certainly did not come without expectations that we simply do not know about.  I am not saying we should distrust every politician, but I am saying we cannot fully trust any politician.

And the stakes are too high for us, too.  The future economic stability of the world our children inhabit is largely being decided by politicians now, rather than the taxpayers or the free markets.  Choose for yourself whether you engage or let the planners push our their agenda.  It could be that they are choosing to use whatever words may suit them to win over just enough voters to keep citizen accountability at bay, diabolical calculus though it may be.

But the mentality shift here means we now have all we need to fact check these politicians and hold them much more accountable, perhaps enough to stem the tide of this massive economic centralization and destabilization.  Bear in mind that President Obama openly allows a major gap to remain between his words and deeds—and he is always on the camera.  What do we think obscure politicians throughout Congress are doing?

Look again at the Long Tail and know where our representatives have been getting their biggest “hits.”  The great challenge for us is one of self-controlled ownership or self-organization.  Engagement is a far superior strategy than trusting the next new political hope, while remaining passive like TV viewers as the political world of the future gets determined before our faces.

I believe the grassroots movement that swept Scott Brown into office was less about Scott Brown and more about the American people finding their voice, picking a hill to defend, and engaging the fight against a bad healthcare bill and government overreach overall.  But the test is now that the crisis of that bill is over.  Can the grassroots sustain itself without much of a centralized capability and without that charismatic leader we have come to depend on so much?

Game-Changing Opportunity

The game changing opportunity here comes when you realize the changes produced by the Internet’s engage and co-create structure along with the Long Tail shift to information abundance.  We can awaken as citizens and take control of this seismic political shift looming.  It is one that cannot be easily resisted—at least not without some major planning and pushing of bureaucracy, government growth, and economic centralization.  Ironic that this is just what we see taking place in Washington today—at a breakneck pace.  It’s as if the planners and pushers know the end is nigh for their model of central governance.

Do you see that too, or am I just crazy?

We are now seeing why 2010 will be such a decisive year in politics.  The American people now have a sense of urgency and a path forward to create a much more representative model of self-government under our Constitution, a model that recognizes the great civil rights gains of recent generations while also extending that unique form of American liberty and egalitarian meritocracy which has, from the very beginning, revolted against the hierarchical—even monarchical—structures of Western aristocracy and colonialism that had prevailed in Europe before the American Revolution.

These plan and push structures are still at work in the world, and many in the grassroots know it.  Because TV is also plan and push, it is easy to see that many in the political firmament will never take the grassroots seriously, will never call them other than far right, and will never recognize the real hope for change and lasting reform that stands poised to reconfigure America around the primacy of the citizen, not the donor, in Washington.

Get ready for a battle royale.  Indeed, in the spirit of engage and co-create, I am now calling on my many skeptic friends to engage and co-create with we the people, not leaving it to our representatives in either party to take the driver’s seat in American democracy.  Why settle for sweeping new politicians unexpectedly into office, when we can sweep aside this crooks, vultures, and hangers-on that run and fund the two political parties?

Posted in Citizen-Driven Govt, Election, Frontline Leadership, Media Democratization, Media Ecology, War of Ideas | Leave a Comment »

A Fresh Piece of Political Analysis from One Citizen to Another

January 22, 2010 by adeolumen

Here’s a little something I wrote called Reconfiguring America from the Grassroots Up.

Are you allowed to end a sentence with a preposition like that?  Makes me think of that classic line by Winston Churchill: “That is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”

Matter of fact, I wrote that piece about some bloody nonsense up with which I will no longer put.  Word up.

Posted in Citizen-Driven Govt, Communication, Frontline Leadership, Generations, Media Democratization, Media Ecology | Leave a Comment »

Redskins Season Review and A New Recipe for Culture Change

January 14, 2010 by adeolumen

Man, was I wrong.  I had the Redskins at 11-5 and a real contender this year.  What wishful thinking.

But I do think that my major contentions for why the Skins would have a breakout year were sound.  Sort of.  I said I saw real greatness in Jason Campbell and Jim Zorn.  I stand by that, but more in the character sense at this point than in their game time execution.  Campbell seems much further along as a bona fide NFL starting QB than Zorn as a head coach, but both guys stayed steady and impressed me with their unflappable tenor all year.

Now there are so many big question heading into the offseason, with Zorn out and Shanahan in, from whether to keep Campbell and/or Clinton Portis to constructing a coaching staff to building an offensive line.

Knowing Where to Put the “X”: Priceless

And yet, there really is only one question: What to do about the fact that the Redskins culture has been built around Dan Snyder since he arrived here over a decade ago.  Snyder is clearly effective at building a business from a football franchise.  Yet, the culture has had to live the with a sort of hubris and the blind spots that come from that.  A businessman trying to run a football organization without football experience is a sort of hubris that the man at the top is allowed to have.

So will he relinquish the culture to Mike Shanahan now, or at least the football side of it?  I suspect he will.  But that must be proven.  And I think it could really work well to have a balance of power between the football and the business sides of the house.  That would be real culture change.

But the culture change I want to see–the change to a culture of winning–cannot occur without demanding football excellence.  Shanahan will have to impose that on Snyder in clear and in subtle ways, and then have that trickle down so that all the players see that the Redskins organization is not a retirement village for the old and overpaid.  We need more hungry guys.  We need mean streaks.  But we need discipline.

The combination of tenacity and discipline is what is lacking across the roster on a consistent basis.   The Redskins linebackers seem to have these skills.  The one player who I think shows the clearest lack of these combined traits–but the most potential to hit the next level–is Laron Landry.  He could elevate into someone closer to Sean Taylor, a player who he seems to have the tenacity to be like, if he were disciplined enough not to look for the killer hit on every play.

The culture of what Michael Wilbon calls “Celebrity Football” is the opposite of tenacity and discipline.  Snyder has built that.  Shanahan must undo that old culture before he can build his own.  This is no sure thing.  Shanahan is a celebrity himself.

Culture Change from the Grassroots Up

If I could make one bold move with a wave of the magic wand to ensure the culture change the Skins need, I would directly involve the Redskins fan base in a disciplined way.  When Jason Reid called the Skins fan base the smartest he has seen, I think he was hitting on a profound opportunity.

The Skins fans are Snyder’s biggest financial asset, to be sure.  But it could be a football asset too.  I have done a fair bit of research on the ability for blogs, Web2.0, and the like to reshape culture by bringing the top-down and the bottom-up together into more effective communication.

If the “new” Redskins regime with Snyder, Shanahan, and Bruce Allen at the helm wants to be more profitable, more focused, more vetted in its decisions, and more beloved by fans (especially Washington natives like me who view this organization as something of a sacred trust that is very much part of my family), then there is an incredible untapped opportunity to bring the fans even more into the football decision-making circle.  Concepts like Crowdsourcing and the wisdom of crowds are relatively untapped, but there are great opportunities.  Cut away the obvious haters on the Redskins Insider blog, and you have a passionate and intelligent group of people who have many valuable insights for Snyder and his team.

We have motive alignment: We want him to be successful!  The question is one of collective intelligence. How could you use a concept like Crowdsourcing to harness the insights of the Redskins fan base?  And how could you keep the passionate fans from drowning each other out?

For those skeptics who think this idea is silly, you may want to stop.  Our Democracy may have passionate citizens drowning each other out with partisan back-and-forth all the time, but the fact that American is the leading nation on earth says something about the power of (messy) cultural development from the grassroots up.

Of course, such development needs to be directed.  But with our interactive media ecology, all that would be needed would be some basic planning to get things started, some rules of engagement to keep things positive, and some goals to keep everyone pulling in the same general direction.

For the launch, imagine this grassroots fan engagement campaign kicked off with a big public event with guys like Jason Reid, Mike Wise, and Doc Walker coming together to frame things moving forward.  Let the Skins management be involved if they want, but not as the drivers.  No one would trust that.  Journalists and sports casters should have the name recognition, critical analysis skills, and financial independence to play the key role to bridge the gap.  And let them name the launch even something honest and forward leaning.  I dunno, maybe something like “The Public Trust: Connecting Redskins Fans and Management for Game-Changing Results.”

Then have these journalists pose specific questions (the kind that should bubble up after hours and hours of coverage of the team, whether on print, radio, or TV) about every aspect of the organization.  Start with evaluating the salary cap. Not every fan understands it, but some do. And other perspectives, like that of an everyday contract manager, could be highly valuable. Same with evaluating personnel. A mom calling in or emailing responses to questions about how the players talk negatively in public about the coaches (like DeAngelo Hall did about Zorn) may bring in the winning ideas. If a mom said to let the alpha dog (Snyder) back up the coach by chastising these young, rich loudmouths in public, we would all know she is right. That’s culture change.

The journalists could then take all that they have heard from the fans at this event, aggregate it into a collected series of report (written and video), and then publish it prominently at a website for ongoing evaluation of team performance. That would take blogging to the next level, no. How fascinating would it be to see over the course of the season if the wisdom of the collective grassroots proved to be superior against the small circle of decision-makers at the top.

Let the data speak for itself.  If the fans overwhelmingly wanted to keep Jason Campbell but not Clinton Portis, but the Skins front office went the other way, we may see some surprising results over the ensuing year.  The fans collectively may have a better idea of what to do than the front office.  Or not.  Knowing one way or the other would be helpful.

Of course, there are all sorts of scenarios where apples vs. oranges comparisons would come in.  How do you compare Jason Campbell’s success (or lack) at another team against his track record here?  Or against his future projects.  The beauty here is that you could break down mechanics, stats, intangibles, etc. and there would still be a level of inconclusiveness that would keep it interesting.  Folks would still talk and debate, probably even more because there would be a sense of ownership by the fans.

And if Dan Snyder embraced this, I suspect there would be a strong bridge built between him and the fans as a result, which would only strengthen his ability to make bold moves to get the kinds of players the collective decision-makers identify as critical to future success.  Snyder’s tenacity at getting the players he wants is a great asset–but it needs discipline.  Shanahan and Allen plus this grassroots approach could provide that discipline.

Web 2.0 tools could capture all this, from live video of the launch event to posting of the “report” created by the journalists/sportscasters to ongoing comments, polling/voting, and in-season coverage.  It would be totally fascinating to the entire sports world as well, as it could even become a model for integrating the fan base into the team culture, and vice versa. Why not? Fortune favors the bold!

For Real?

Yeah, for real.  Absolutely.  It is not as silly as you may think.  One key reason why I think this can work is because Shanahan and Allen can be fired by Snyder.  The clock is already ticking on them.  Not so with the fans.  Thus, we are not locked into the culture of Snyder’s Redskins the way team management is.  This is a new football realpolitik, where we cannot be fired by Snyder, nor can we fire him.  Within that tension, we might as well take our shared motivation forward towards winning Super Bowls and work together.

Building a culture of success is very hard.  Wanting it, paying top dollar for it, bringing in previous winners is not enough.  We have learned that the hard way.  I fear we will learn the hard way again, with more top down attempts to create something that simply takes time.

If we want to accelerate things, I think getting more structured, channeled input from the fans as laid out above could not only bring in more insight on the process, it could also bridge the gap between the fans and management to make everyone feel a sense of shared ownership.  That would probably give Snyder a better sense of how to market his franchise more efficiently (and thus freeing up resources for better players, coaches, and facilities).  It would also ease the tensions among the grassroots towards Snyder, which I think would give him the sense of support one needs to be patient and let the culture naturally emerge from all the parties working together to produce a consistent winner.

For real for real, the data is in that supports this.  People are motivated toward mastery in what they do.  That means tenacity+discipline will organically come with patience if you set up the conditions forward and get motivated people in the right places. That means you need to celebrate small, incremental, ongoing successes when things are going in the right direction slowly. This is not Celebrity Football, but it is moving towards mastery. It is the creation of a culture, and this approach can include the fans with journalists/sportscasters playing the critical intermediate, independent role.  It’s what players do every day in practice.  Refinement, isolation of weaknesses, transforming bad habits into winning ones.

Fans kept out of the process of such engagement–when the tools of doing so are readily available–not only strains a public trust, but it also may prove to be a bad strategy.

What Could Be Lost

The downside risk of more Celebrity Football, in my book, is the loss of Jason Campbell.  We saw Jason stand and deliver all year.  Not  perfectly, but pretty consistently.  He kept getting sacked and kept getting up.  He became more fiery as the season went on.  And when Clinton Portis seemed to call him out in public, he bit back harder and then took the high road to squash things from becoming an offseason distraction.  Well done!

Look at the skills and leadership of the three Skins QBs who led them to Super Bowls, then look at Campbell.  Don’t tell me he can’t get it done.

This is my opinion as one fan, but that is what this is about.  So I guess I am kicking off this grassroots fan ownership and culture change right here. Let me draw my line in the sand and state clearly what kind of culture I want: 

Keep Jason Campbell.

He has enough mastery of the skill of being an NFL QB and enough greatness in him as a man to be an effective leader. He can lead a good Skins team from good to great–from where they are today to the promised land of winning Super Bowls. 

Because of all the diligence and drive invested in him and by him already, I believe that he will learn how to win it all here. He will learn to master all the in-season and in-locker room machinations needed to call forth the best efforts of his team to seize victory on the field. He has shown it when the team has been down. Wait until the get some real momentum under Shanahan! My guess is that Jason will get such a strong taste for success that he will gain a leonine hunger to get back there again. That is the killer instinct missing this year on the field, the very thing that must be established for winning culture change on this team. I still believe Campbell has that killer instinct in him, and we have seen flashes of it already (especially against the best teams the Skins have played against).

There is so much downside risk in a culture of Celebrity Football. Celebrity Football says you need a fiery guy like Jay Cutler or Mark Sanchez, but that’s silly. It also may be a projection of the kind of guy Snyder sees himself being on the field. But this season has shown that a strong but silent personality at the QB position can still win the respect of the team, and the fans. A recent Redskins Insider poll has shown this emphatically.

Getting rid of a guy like Jason Campbell is the biggest risk that this organization faces right now. If he will still have us, I say he must stay!

Look closer and deeper at how JC has been treated in the pursuit of these flashy QBs, examine how he has responded as a man of real character, see how the players have stuck with him, and recognize how his game has improved steadily (though slowly at times). How can anyone conclude that we know his upper limits yet, as a passer and as leader of this team?

Give Jason Campbell more time.  Build a culture of discipline, tenacity, and patient mastery around him. Let Snyder, Shanahan, Allen, and the rest of the football organization–and even the collective wisdom of the fan base–come together around him. Let him know this thing is on his shoulders, and we are all standing by to follow him to the promised land, even though it may take longer than we want.

If our team were to really do this, I suspect we’d see what we all really want–us and the whole football world chanting “Hail to the Redskins” again–before we ever thought possible.

Posted in Frontline Leadership, Redskins | Leave a Comment »

Pat Robertson Should Shut His Mouth, And…

January 14, 2010 by adeolumen

Man, Pat Robertson needs to go away from the public stage entirely. And more people need to be listening to sound Christian perspectives from people like Pete Wehner instead.

The images from Haiti say so much. Why do fools like Robertson distract us? And why do others use times like these to take a fool’s comments and call Christianity into question by implication?

If Christians are to say anything bold or controversial at this time, may it be silence fools in Christian clothing. May it be that we the people together take our unique leadership role as citizens seriously, and even to call upon our government to seize a unique opportunity afforded by this moment.

If there is ever a time to be liberal it is now, for real! We should set aside all talk of bailing ourselves out and instead talk about how the world’s leading nation should set the example for the strong relating to the weak in this world. We should do it for no other reason than it is right, and there are fellow human beings in dire need. We are still the richest nation in the world with the opportunity to do something very good right now.

Self-forgetfulness need not only be personal. So what if we are in bad shape economically? Let’s look to serving Haiti and forget about looking at ourselves for a while.

Could not our government give major tax credits to U.S. companies to rapidly rebuild Haiti? May one man like me lift my voice and call upon our President to lean forward in the creation of a rich incentive plan that enables swift action bt one of our richest national assets–the ingenuity of Americans at work?

Mr. President, please use your great voice to send forth the clarion call to our leading corporate citizens:

Go! Save every life you can. Heal every broken body you can. Remove the rubble quickly as you can. Erect new schools and get the children back to learning right away. Bring in food and plant new crops everywhere you can. Invest. Renew. Recycle. Rebuild. Shower that broken nation with the full support and care of the United States, and do it now!

I know I still dream like a child. But the older I get, the more I need that dreaming child within me. This is a broken world, and as a Christian I know I have the supreme answer to its brokenness–the one whose body was broken to reconcile God and man. This is my hope as a man and as a boy. With the hope of our greatest problem solved with such lavish love and kindness, I don’t think it is mere boyish dreaminess to think that a call to lavish love and liberal kindness is the right Christian word in season right now, and even the right solution for the great problems that confront us in this fallen world.

Posted in General | Leave a Comment »

No Killer Instinct Again

December 6, 2009 by adeolumen

On the decisive drive and probably the most telling moment of this season thus far, the Redskins had a 30-23 lead with less than two minutes left in the game.  They had driven the length of the field after the Saints made it a one score game on the previous drive.  The Redskins could have taken some risks and tried to punch it into the endzone.  Instead, they were content inside the 5 yard line to set up a short field goal, and Suisham missed it.

They did not see the bigger risk of taking their foot off the gas–and taking their foot off the neck of the Saints.  And they paid for it.

They lacked the killer instinct.  The Saints did not.  The Saints, like the team of destiny they must believe they are becoming, executed like a champion when they had to.  They grabbed a win when the Skins opened the door a crack.  That is the mark of a champion, a team with a killer instinct.

As a result, the Redskins lost more than a momentum-building game heading into the offseason.  This could have been the kind of win to signal to Dan Snyder this team could play with anyone.  It may have suggested that only a few more pieces and some patience were needed to turn this group of players into a winner.

Now, they look like losers afflicted as with a disease for turning near success into massive failure.  This begs him to massively overhaul this team–and perhaps give Jason Campbell the boot, even though he played mostly a great game today.

The Redskins did not quit today, but they did not seize the day either.  Perhaps that is a form of quitting.  Out of respect for this team and its effort, I won’t conclude there, but I will say that the killer instinct is a level of discipline to which they have not yet attained.

And it is very much in question if they ever can do so without a football man at the helm–the kind of leader who demands discipline up and down the organization and has no interest in anything other than building a winning culture in Washington again.

So close, and yet so far.  With Snyder as young as he is, this sad saga could go on for a generation.

One answer is for me not to take football so seriously.  But that is hard to do when I think of the way sports is a window into all of life–for life is war.

It is especially hard when I watch guys I really respect, especially guys like Jason Campbell and Jim Zorn as the public faces of this franchise, take it on the chin week after week.

Maybe this is what each of those guys need to become (on the field at least) some nasty SOBs that would as soon rip your heart out as shake your hand.  Maybe that is the greatness they need, and maybe I have been wrong all year and they don’t really have that.

Eeesh.  I could drive myself crazy thinking about it all.  I can only imagine how hard this must be for the team and the coaches.

Posted in Redskins | Leave a Comment »

Is A Redskins Win Possible Against the Saints?

December 6, 2009 by adeolumen

Of course.  But, might they have more than an “on any given Sunday” chance of winning?

I think they do.  Now, my record of predictions is way off here.  I still think the Skins players and coaches have some real special qualities–the qualities that could make this team great.  But, with all the data that has come in this season, it is clear that as Rich Gannon has said, there is a lack of discipline up and down the organization.

We all know where that starts.  I won’t belabor that.  And I am amazed at how well Jim Zorn and Jason Campbell have handled themselves as stand up guys in very difficult circumstances.

But on the field, where greatness must be proven out amid all on-field and off-field adversity, the data is clear: this team has fallen far short.  They have lacked the killer instinct needed to win the close games.  As a result, they are in the bottom of the NFL.

But is it possible that this team, which does not appear to have an ounce of quit in it, could muster the focus, determination, and execution to beat the undefeated Saints–a team that increasingly looks like the team of destiny this year?

Yes, the Skins could make their mark on this season by giving the Saints their only loss this year.  And that is what I am thinking may happen.

If Jason Campbell and the rest of the players on the field can get the kind of nasty that Gregg Williams took to New Orleans–instead of running things here–I think they can do it.

Now, the nasty on Williams’ side of the ledger is not to be overlooked.  He will have no small chip on his shoulder today.

An intriguing matchup, to be sure.  The Skins could easily get housed–and Williams could make this a massive statement against the Snyder regime in the face of the entire league.  Part of me is cheering for that–anything to get Snyder to see this franchise is a public trust, a diamond in the rough of this partisan loudmouthed city, and not a marketing organization.  This is a football team and it needs to be run by football people, not yes men.

But the Redskins team is not the Redskins organization.  And I got this team giving the Saints all they can handle–coming up short by a field goal or last minute drive.

And the disappointing reality of the good that could have been this season–and the bad that will continue year after year without a culture change from the top down–will be on display for the world to see.

Again.

Posted in Redskins | 2 Comments »

…On Second Thought

November 8, 2009 by adeolumen

As today’s game against the Falcons underscored yet again, the brutal reality of this Redskins season is that if you don’t  build from the foundation up–that is, starting with the offensive and defensive lines–the level of play in the NFL is too tough and exacting to yield many wins, no matter how well a team sticks together, or no matter how skilled your team may be at other positions.

And that is a front office issue.

Posted in Redskins, Sports, culture | 1 Comment »

Rethinking the Redskins, Hope for beating the Falcons?

November 8, 2009 by adeolumen

I’ve enjoyed this and this insightful comment on the Redskins season from my friend Andre at Every Square Inch.

“How to inspire great execution” is the key struggle Andre identifies, and I agree.  To restate my comments back to Andre, I’d also ask how does the Redskins leadership–from Dan Snyder down to every assistant coach–demand great execution? This is a matter of culture.  Does everything happening within the Redskins culture align around the central value of winning on the football field, or is it something else?

Rich Gannon, a former Redskin, recently met with Dan Snyder and then came out publicly to tell others what he hold Snyder, which is that there is a massive lack of discipline up and down the organization. That’s a statement about the Redskins culture.

Where I have been flat out wrong about these Redskins is at the level of culture–by being a loyal fan more than a being dispassionate analyst, I was willingly blinded to the obvious: there is a lack of consistent football execution with this organization.

While I stick by my observation that there is greatness in this team, it is at the personal level, where guys have rallied together and taken their lumps like men, without complaint and with the greater good of the team in mind.  I love that.  But, as I am learning in my love for bold predictions, there is not necessarily a connection between such character traits and winning.  Discipline and execution are completely impartial as to faith, creed, race, or whatever.  That’s why competition is so inspiring and revealing.

That leads me to see why the Redskins always seem to play to the level of their competition.  There is no one person in the Redskins organization creating a winning football culture–an identity that carries from every front office decision down to the field of play in every game situation.

That said, perhaps there is some hope in that the Redskins have become a momentum team over the past few years, in lieu of being a team driven by a clear cultural identity.  So they play week to week, typically right around the level of their competition.  If this team is truly bad, expect a brutal stretch as they play the toughest part of their schedule, beginning with Atlanta.

But if this is a team that plays to the level of their competition, and when the start playing well it can build on itself and produce some momentum and unexpected winning streaks (as we saw in their two playoff runs under Joe Gibbs), then perhaps they will elevate their play starting right now…

Posted in Redskins, Sports, culture | Leave a Comment »

Skins vs. Eagles: Any Reason for Hope?

October 26, 2009 by adeolumen

Yes.

I have seen true greatness in the way Jason Campbell and Jim Zorn have responded being benched and stripped of play calling duties, respectively.  They have been open about their disappointment, but they have also been uncritical of those above them. Zorn especially has impressed me by saying he gave up being in the loop on Sherm Lewis’ sending in the plays to Jason Campbell because he wanted to “avoid the temptation” of changing the calls.

Accepting a demotion, being disappointed but supportive of the team, and still moving forward…that looks like humility to me, and that’s true greatness.

It has yet to translate into much success on the field, but I know in my own life that the outward success that may think to be so hard to realize really is not that hard, compared to winning the war within.

I am not sure the Redskins will win many games on the field of battle this season, but if these small breakthroughs of humility by the head coach and starting QB are for real, there is reason to think there may be some good things ahead…especially for an historically streaky team that seems to always play to the level of their competition.  Considering how much better the coming teams on their schedule are compared to the last four games, maybe we’ll  be pleasantly surprised tonight.

And secretly in the middle of all that has happened this week, one very important breakthrough occurred: Jason Campbell will undoubtedly be relied upon to make more play calling decisions.  I can’t see Sherm Lewis being as determined to call the plays his own way as Zorn was.

I am such a homer, I know, but I still have hope for this team, as crazy as that sounds.

Posted in Redskins | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »