<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Congress Capable of Critical Thinking?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking</link>
	<description>We Help Managers Make a Difference</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:26:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sandra Byron</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-569</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandra Byron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-569</guid>
		<description>Leaders, in business or in politics, are usually the dominants (the &#039;D&#039;s in the DISC assessment tests) and tend to believe that they know best and that everyone simply needs to see their point of view and get behind their plans and ideas. Some of that arrogance is what makes them good leaders. I don&#039;t start from the premise that my way is the only right way, so I have repeatedly seen how a solution formed by hearing and discussing multiple points of view produces a better, more workable and more adoptable approach. It doesn&#039;t mean that one incorporates all views or opinions but that multiple viewpoints are weighed and examined to find the best solution.

I have also repeatedly seen how problems nowhere nearly as complex as the ones you mention are successful only by making a reasonable start with a general framework, then filling in and adapting as you go to how things develop. One can&#039;t foresee all of the answers to such complex issues and it takes forever to get started when you believe you must have it all worked out in advance. 

I think so much of politics is not about governing anymore. And while we do get to make the choices that put candidates in office, I often feel that I am choosing between typical politician A and typical politician B who will pretty much follow their party lines if they can avoid embarrassing themselves through public scandal. I really respect my brother-in-law in Indiana. He represents his district in the state house of representatives. When democrats left the state capitol in protest, he  stayed. (http://cnhinews.com/node/908) He chose to think for himself and didn&#039;t agree with the tactic. Whether the democrats were right to leave or not, I simply respect that he made his own decision. And, amazingly, he is a good man, a successful businessman, and leader in his community. I just wish he wasn&#039;t such a rarity in politics. 

BTW, thanks for making us think with your insightful comments and questions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leaders, in business or in politics, are usually the dominants (the &#8216;D&#8217;s in the DISC assessment tests) and tend to believe that they know best and that everyone simply needs to see their point of view and get behind their plans and ideas. Some of that arrogance is what makes them good leaders. I don&#8217;t start from the premise that my way is the only right way, so I have repeatedly seen how a solution formed by hearing and discussing multiple points of view produces a better, more workable and more adoptable approach. It doesn&#8217;t mean that one incorporates all views or opinions but that multiple viewpoints are weighed and examined to find the best solution.</p>
<p>I have also repeatedly seen how problems nowhere nearly as complex as the ones you mention are successful only by making a reasonable start with a general framework, then filling in and adapting as you go to how things develop. One can&#8217;t foresee all of the answers to such complex issues and it takes forever to get started when you believe you must have it all worked out in advance. </p>
<p>I think so much of politics is not about governing anymore. And while we do get to make the choices that put candidates in office, I often feel that I am choosing between typical politician A and typical politician B who will pretty much follow their party lines if they can avoid embarrassing themselves through public scandal. I really respect my brother-in-law in Indiana. He represents his district in the state house of representatives. When democrats left the state capitol in protest, he  stayed. (<a href="http://cnhinews.com/node/908" rel="nofollow">http://cnhinews.com/node/908</a>) He chose to think for himself and didn&#8217;t agree with the tactic. Whether the democrats were right to leave or not, I simply respect that he made his own decision. And, amazingly, he is a good man, a successful businessman, and leader in his community. I just wish he wasn&#8217;t such a rarity in politics. </p>
<p>BTW, thanks for making us think with your insightful comments and questions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Welter</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-565</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Welter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:25:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-565</guid>
		<description>The only reason for using the parentheses was that &quot;well considered&quot; is always assumed when you provide input. I could have skipped those words entirely. 
Cheers, 
Will</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only reason for using the parentheses was that &#8220;well considered&#8221; is always assumed when you provide input. I could have skipped those words entirely.<br />
Cheers,<br />
Will</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zeke</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-564</link>
		<dc:creator>Zeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-564</guid>
		<description>Ooh, I love the use of the parentheses around &quot;well considered&quot;, and you followed that with &quot;volley&quot;.  Excellent, Mr. Welter!  You will hear from me.  I am loading the musket.

Zeke</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ooh, I love the use of the parentheses around &#8220;well considered&#8221;, and you followed that with &#8220;volley&#8221;.  Excellent, Mr. Welter!  You will hear from me.  I am loading the musket.</p>
<p>Zeke</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Welter</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-563</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Welter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:36:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-563</guid>
		<description>Not at all tired of the dialogue. I await your next (well considered) volley.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not at all tired of the dialogue. I await your next (well considered) volley.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zeke</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-562</link>
		<dc:creator>Zeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-562</guid>
		<description>I detect that I have raised your hackles a bit.   Good, that was my intention.  It caused you to reply with a brief, but very interesting message with valuable intimations about your perceptions and just where you are coming from.

I intend to reply, but not immediately.  I am ruminating over your remarks because they deserve a well considered reply. So unless  you tell me you are sick and tired of this dialogue, you will hear from me. 

Zeke</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I detect that I have raised your hackles a bit.   Good, that was my intention.  It caused you to reply with a brief, but very interesting message with valuable intimations about your perceptions and just where you are coming from.</p>
<p>I intend to reply, but not immediately.  I am ruminating over your remarks because they deserve a well considered reply. So unless  you tell me you are sick and tired of this dialogue, you will hear from me. </p>
<p>Zeke</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Welter</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-561</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Welter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:24:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-561</guid>
		<description>Zeke old buddy, 
As you know, I&#039;m an Independent who leans slightly left on social issues and slightly right on fiscal issues. As such, I really do cringe when I see Ls &amp; Cs (Lefties and Conservatives) attack each other with a &quot;winner take all&quot; attitude. Yes, Pelosi scares me -- but I have hope that not all Democrats are like her. Likewise, the Tea Party Conservatives scare me -- I hope that not all Republicans agree with them. 
Let me get a bit &quot;scientific&quot; for a moment. Complex adaptive systems (like a government) need a bit of INefficiency (read &quot;compromise&quot;) if they are to avoid becoming brittle. Extreme left or extreme right will result (in  my mind) in a government that is brittle. I&#039;d love to see both sides move just a bit toward the middle. I like systems that work without generating too much heat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zeke old buddy,<br />
As you know, I&#8217;m an Independent who leans slightly left on social issues and slightly right on fiscal issues. As such, I really do cringe when I see Ls &amp; Cs (Lefties and Conservatives) attack each other with a &#8220;winner take all&#8221; attitude. Yes, Pelosi scares me &#8212; but I have hope that not all Democrats are like her. Likewise, the Tea Party Conservatives scare me &#8212; I hope that not all Republicans agree with them.<br />
Let me get a bit &#8220;scientific&#8221; for a moment. Complex adaptive systems (like a government) need a bit of INefficiency (read &#8220;compromise&#8221;) if they are to avoid becoming brittle. Extreme left or extreme right will result (in  my mind) in a government that is brittle. I&#8217;d love to see both sides move just a bit toward the middle. I like systems that work without generating too much heat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zeke</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-559</link>
		<dc:creator>Zeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:21:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-559</guid>
		<description>One more comment, if I may.  Why do you suppose that the Democrats will not allow the Republicans to participate in their health care deliberations?  The fact that they have banned Republicans from any of their deliberations ought to be an obvious clue that they are not interested in ideas which would enhance affordable access to good health care.  

Surely, the Republican have some good ideas which ought to be considered.  I am certain you are familiar with Paul Ryan, the dynamic young Republican congressman from Wisconsin, who stole the show at the recent so-called White House summit on health care.  He presented very cogent arguments.  Will any of his ideas or those of any other Republicans about how we can improve health care be considered by the Democrats?  No.  Neither Ryan nor any other Republican law-maker have been allowed to be a part of health care deliberations.  That event at the White House was a mere show designed to fake the America people into beleiving that the Democrats were open to various perspectives.  Nothing that Paul Ryan and the other Republican said will be considered by the Democrats..  

And why?  Because the Democrats are not interested in health care.  That is not their goal.  They do not give a rat&#039;s patoot about you or me or whether we live or die.  If they were really interested in looking for solutions they would not have closed the door to non-Democrat suggestions.  Their aim is not affordable health care or any health care per se.  Their aim is control.  They want central control of our lives and what better way to get it than to control our access to doctors, nurses, and hositals?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One more comment, if I may.  Why do you suppose that the Democrats will not allow the Republicans to participate in their health care deliberations?  The fact that they have banned Republicans from any of their deliberations ought to be an obvious clue that they are not interested in ideas which would enhance affordable access to good health care.  </p>
<p>Surely, the Republican have some good ideas which ought to be considered.  I am certain you are familiar with Paul Ryan, the dynamic young Republican congressman from Wisconsin, who stole the show at the recent so-called White House summit on health care.  He presented very cogent arguments.  Will any of his ideas or those of any other Republicans about how we can improve health care be considered by the Democrats?  No.  Neither Ryan nor any other Republican law-maker have been allowed to be a part of health care deliberations.  That event at the White House was a mere show designed to fake the America people into beleiving that the Democrats were open to various perspectives.  Nothing that Paul Ryan and the other Republican said will be considered by the Democrats..  </p>
<p>And why?  Because the Democrats are not interested in health care.  That is not their goal.  They do not give a rat&#8217;s patoot about you or me or whether we live or die.  If they were really interested in looking for solutions they would not have closed the door to non-Democrat suggestions.  Their aim is not affordable health care or any health care per se.  Their aim is control.  They want central control of our lives and what better way to get it than to control our access to doctors, nurses, and hositals?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zeke</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-558</link>
		<dc:creator>Zeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-558</guid>
		<description>I did not respond to your January 23d reply in our continuing dialogue.  I was surprised that you agreed with me that this whole issue is about ideology.  Perhaps I did not convey the true meaning of my remarks.  So please allow me to rephrase.

When I refer to ideology, I refer to the Democrats, whose leadership does not care one iota about health care.  This push for &quot;health insurance reform&quot; (their latest catch phrase for what they are trying to do) is nothing more than one more step (a giant one) in their effort to force the Amerian people to become wards of the federal government.  It has absolutely NOTHING to do with providing affordable health care to all Americans.  It has everything to do with a bald atttempt to infiltrate another area of American life which they can control.    

And once that happens, any attempt to make suggestions or innovations by you or any other businees oriented critical thinkers about the most cost efficient ways to properly manage health care will not be considered.   In fact, you will be laughed at by the bureaucrats who will control our very bodies.  They will not care about efficiencies of any kind.  They won&#039;t have to care just as the NHS in the United Kingdom does not care.  After all, they will have limitless access to the public trough.  We taxpayers will be faced with feeding an enlessly ravenous money monster whose appetite for dollars will never be satisfied.  Efficiencies be damned!!  Full speed ahead!! 

Let me repeat.  From the Democrat perspective (I.e. the President, Harry Reid, Pelosi, et al) this issue has nothing at all to do about health care.  They don&#039;t care one whit about the health of the American people or our affordabe access to it.  If they did, they certainly would not have cobbled together one of the most outrageously flawed pieces of bankruptcy-inducing, inefficiency-creating, private- enterprise destroying pieces of  legislaion in our history.  No, this is about central control our our lives!!!  Now, have I made you cringe?  Good!  I speak the truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did not respond to your January 23d reply in our continuing dialogue.  I was surprised that you agreed with me that this whole issue is about ideology.  Perhaps I did not convey the true meaning of my remarks.  So please allow me to rephrase.</p>
<p>When I refer to ideology, I refer to the Democrats, whose leadership does not care one iota about health care.  This push for &#8220;health insurance reform&#8221; (their latest catch phrase for what they are trying to do) is nothing more than one more step (a giant one) in their effort to force the Amerian people to become wards of the federal government.  It has absolutely NOTHING to do with providing affordable health care to all Americans.  It has everything to do with a bald atttempt to infiltrate another area of American life which they can control.    </p>
<p>And once that happens, any attempt to make suggestions or innovations by you or any other businees oriented critical thinkers about the most cost efficient ways to properly manage health care will not be considered.   In fact, you will be laughed at by the bureaucrats who will control our very bodies.  They will not care about efficiencies of any kind.  They won&#8217;t have to care just as the NHS in the United Kingdom does not care.  After all, they will have limitless access to the public trough.  We taxpayers will be faced with feeding an enlessly ravenous money monster whose appetite for dollars will never be satisfied.  Efficiencies be damned!!  Full speed ahead!! </p>
<p>Let me repeat.  From the Democrat perspective (I.e. the President, Harry Reid, Pelosi, et al) this issue has nothing at all to do about health care.  They don&#8217;t care one whit about the health of the American people or our affordabe access to it.  If they did, they certainly would not have cobbled together one of the most outrageously flawed pieces of bankruptcy-inducing, inefficiency-creating, private- enterprise destroying pieces of  legislaion in our history.  No, this is about central control our our lives!!!  Now, have I made you cringe?  Good!  I speak the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Welter</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-556</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Welter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:25:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-556</guid>
		<description>Zeke, 
I didn&#039;t cringe at all -- I agree that it&#039;s all about ideology. And that&#039;s exactly the point I was trying to wrestle with. Both sides (for the most part) are absolutely convinced that they are right and they are -- given their ideology. However, the problems facing the United States seem to be complicated enough to &quot;allow&quot; some room for give and take to come up with a solution that is&quot;better&quot; even though it won&#039;t be deemed perfect by either party. So, my question is: Do you see any room for some give and take, or has congress become &quot;a fight to the finish?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zeke,<br />
I didn&#8217;t cringe at all &#8212; I agree that it&#8217;s all about ideology. And that&#8217;s exactly the point I was trying to wrestle with. Both sides (for the most part) are absolutely convinced that they are right and they are &#8212; given their ideology. However, the problems facing the United States seem to be complicated enough to &#8220;allow&#8221; some room for give and take to come up with a solution that is&#8221;better&#8221; even though it won&#8217;t be deemed perfect by either party. So, my question is: Do you see any room for some give and take, or has congress become &#8220;a fight to the finish?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zeke</title>
		<link>http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/is-congress-capable-of-critical-thinking/comment-page-1#comment-554</link>
		<dc:creator>Zeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adaptstrat.com/blog/?p=193#comment-554</guid>
		<description>Yes, both sides have dug in their heels.  That is because this (and I know that you will probably cringe when I say this once again) is not about health care; this is about ideology.  

I am convinced, and so are many Republicans, that the current health care debate is a proxy for the real issue.  That issue concerns whether we Americans want the kind of socialism which pervades Europe, or whether we want less government intrusion into our lives.  

I believe that the American people are speaking loud and clear.  They are scared to death of Obama and the Dems ambitions for our nation.  That is why, even in the bluest of blue states, they came out strong against  those ambitions.

There will be more cooperation from the Dems after this Massachusetts debacle only because they have been hit over the head with a sledge hammer by the voters of MA.  They will angrily accept the fact that their socialist agenda is something that the American people find unpalatable.  So their cooperation will only come because they have no choice.  In that respect, we have shown the world what a wonderful free society we are in that the Dems in the White House and in Congress must accept that the people have spoken.

Now, that does not mean that they, including the president, believe in free enterprise,  the entreprenurial spirit,  and the original American idea that the government exists to provide the opportunity and rule of law which enables people to pursue happiness.   No, they believe that the government is the provider of that happiness.  

And therein lies the difference between us.  I believe that the vision of Republicans is very much that of the founding fathers.  The vision of the Democrats is a vision of a European socialism which drains initiative, creativity, ambition, and innovation.  That is why discussions of the various ways we can reform health care and still leave decisions in the hands of the people (e.g. health savings accounts tied to high deductible health insurance policies, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, tax deductibility for health insurance premium costs for individuals, etc., etc.) are anathema to Democrats.  These ideas actually put responsibliity for health care decisions in the hands of individuals and families.  This is inconsistent with the Democrat vision of a society in which government  makes the important decisions for us.  

So, this fight isn&#039;t about innovative and creativie ways to arrive at cost effective solutions.  You know better than I do that such solutions are out there.  They exist in abundance.  I have cited just a few.  This is, rather, about political ideology.  And the Democrats will not rest until they have forced their unimaginitive, inefficient, wasteful, bureaucratic socialized medical system upon us.  

I believe, as has been demonstrated in MA yesterday, and in rallies of millions of people everywhere in this country over the past year, that the American people will not allow that to happen.  In that respect (and I mean this with every fiber of my being), we are, indeed,  the last, best hope for mankind</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, both sides have dug in their heels.  That is because this (and I know that you will probably cringe when I say this once again) is not about health care; this is about ideology.  </p>
<p>I am convinced, and so are many Republicans, that the current health care debate is a proxy for the real issue.  That issue concerns whether we Americans want the kind of socialism which pervades Europe, or whether we want less government intrusion into our lives.  </p>
<p>I believe that the American people are speaking loud and clear.  They are scared to death of Obama and the Dems ambitions for our nation.  That is why, even in the bluest of blue states, they came out strong against  those ambitions.</p>
<p>There will be more cooperation from the Dems after this Massachusetts debacle only because they have been hit over the head with a sledge hammer by the voters of MA.  They will angrily accept the fact that their socialist agenda is something that the American people find unpalatable.  So their cooperation will only come because they have no choice.  In that respect, we have shown the world what a wonderful free society we are in that the Dems in the White House and in Congress must accept that the people have spoken.</p>
<p>Now, that does not mean that they, including the president, believe in free enterprise,  the entreprenurial spirit,  and the original American idea that the government exists to provide the opportunity and rule of law which enables people to pursue happiness.   No, they believe that the government is the provider of that happiness.  </p>
<p>And therein lies the difference between us.  I believe that the vision of Republicans is very much that of the founding fathers.  The vision of the Democrats is a vision of a European socialism which drains initiative, creativity, ambition, and innovation.  That is why discussions of the various ways we can reform health care and still leave decisions in the hands of the people (e.g. health savings accounts tied to high deductible health insurance policies, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, tax deductibility for health insurance premium costs for individuals, etc., etc.) are anathema to Democrats.  These ideas actually put responsibliity for health care decisions in the hands of individuals and families.  This is inconsistent with the Democrat vision of a society in which government  makes the important decisions for us.  </p>
<p>So, this fight isn&#8217;t about innovative and creativie ways to arrive at cost effective solutions.  You know better than I do that such solutions are out there.  They exist in abundance.  I have cited just a few.  This is, rather, about political ideology.  And the Democrats will not rest until they have forced their unimaginitive, inefficient, wasteful, bureaucratic socialized medical system upon us.  </p>
<p>I believe, as has been demonstrated in MA yesterday, and in rallies of millions of people everywhere in this country over the past year, that the American people will not allow that to happen.  In that respect (and I mean this with every fiber of my being), we are, indeed,  the last, best hope for mankind</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

