Balanced Scorecards

Something I can't stand - and something that's happening more and more (given the upcoming Election) is the one-sided nature of each candidate's record and barbs against the other guy/gal.

I don't mind barbs so much; it's part of the game. The game, of course is about marketing and marketing is about selling and selling is about differentiating your product from the others. Barbs are simply a sales tool that can be, as most things in this world, used for good or bad. 

What kills me is my inability to keep track of everyone's (or anyone's) record on, well, anything. And not knowing makes it difficult and dangerous to know how to feel (or vote) because at any moment I cannot be certain about how much bullshit I'm actually ingesting. 

What's worse, many of these candidates - especially the ones that have been there a while - have changed their minds over time so, in reality, there may really be some truth in whatever they claim. This is close to having one's cake and eating it too. Dieting has never been so tricky.

What we need is a balanced scorecard, an idea that was introduced in the 1990's by a business writer whose name I've honestly forgotten.  Kind of like a balance sheet, it's a simple template that helps keep track of, in this case, a candidate's record over time across any particular issue. Here's how it might work:

Let's take Hillary Clinton, the Presidential candidate whose time at this particular juncture (May 2008) looks to be expiring. Love her or hate her, she was in the Senate in 2001 and soon after 9/11 she voted to give the President the authorization to start a war in Iraq. Whether that was, in fact, a good idea or not is not the point. The point is that she voted yes...

The scorecard would note that vote plus any/all public comments she made thereafter to support her decision. If ever she were to stray from her original thinking, so be it, just record it on the other side of the card and let the chips fall where they may. Lots of folks change their mind over time so she's in good company. It would also offer valuable lessons to future generations; great people were still human beings and they, too, made mistakes...

What I like best about balanced scorecards is that it, ideally, is based upon fact. Sure, context is important and without it, one might misconstrue things so let's include some context too. With that it's off to the races. Voting records, attendance, funding sources, pubic comments, infidelities, whatever; it all counts and all should be chronicled. This is what celebrity is about and if you don't like it, then don't play.

At the end of the day, I simply want enough information to make an opinion that is well-researched and informed by facts. By having such a resource, I'd be better able to defend my opinion and to help others construct their own. At the very least, I'd have somewhere to send them - those who need help developing an opinion or revising one. In this Information Age, I'd imagine this is only a few clicks away. 

My Madness & Television...

One of the things I can't stand about myself (and this is not a short list) is that, despite all the goodness in my life - my lovely, well-employed wife, my two sweet and relatively trouble-free daughters, my two fine homes, many-o-friends, and a good/fun job, my focus automatically goes to what is wrong. Why is that?

I pray. I practice yoga. I meditate. I am polite. I read books on SNAG topics such as "loving-kindness". And yet no matter what I do, I cannot make myself a truly nice guy, one who does not naturally gravitate toward judgement and petulance. Don't get me wrong; I appear to be a genuinely nice guy but I'm not because naturally nice guys would never feel the way I do about things, especially silly things that really don't matter, like TV shows:

Why is that fat guy on Lost still so damn fat? Shouldn't he, after spending what seems like years on that not-so-deserted-after-all island, lose at least 75 pounds, becoming merely a chubby guy? Nope. Not him. He's still as big as a house and as weird and depressed as he was in the beginning of the show. Go figure.

Why doesn't Lucy from I Love Lucy (my wife's favorite show) ever learn from the many errors of her almost-always errant ways? Sure, it's funny but why does she not ever try to be better, having learned from her mistakes? It's this lack of development that prevents me from enjoying the show. Instead, I spend the entirety of the show judging her and getting mad at my lovely, well-employed wife for laughing whilst I stew and simmer in angst.

The smash-hit The Hills features a number of blond-haired chuckle-heads seeking careers in the glamorous world of fashion. That's fine - this is my wife's industry, too - but unlike my wife, these feckless dolts invite men into their lives that seem picked from the gutters of humanity. One of them (Spencer) is a U3: unhandsome, untalented and unworthy of love - a pathetic lout on a good day - yet for a time, he held one of this show's star's silly heart. As folks, including my wife, watch this show with bated breath, mine is held as I secretly (until now) plan his demise.

Why can't I simply take the best and leave the rest? The professional advice I get is to simply concentrate upon the good but I cannot. Good is not good if/when it's surrounded by bad; it gets sullied.  Perhaps (I fool myself) it's altruistic; I merely want good for everyone including those people who I see on TV. The answer to date has been illusive but now, looking back, it's easy: stop watching TV with my wife. Now onto my other problems...