Michael Beckley

With the Olympics nearing conclusion, I was listening to a report of the medal tally by country.  The commentator mentioned that Canada had the highest gold medal count, but was quick to add, almost clumsily and apologestically, that the US still had the highest overall number of medals.  The obvious inference was, “good for Canada, but we’re still better”.

What if America were less than the best?  If one morning we awoke to discover there was another “super power” usurping our position as world watchdog, or similarly, we found ourselves on an equal military footing with other nations, could we handle it?

Let’s suppose we didn’t win the most Olympic medals, or that our economy wasn’t the largest on earth.  Imagine, for a moment, that there were other economies just as productive as ours, equal or better standards of living in other places, and healthcare of equivalent quality but cheaper. 

I know it sounds ridiculous, but let’s imagine a day when our children weren’t the worlds smartest and our system of education merely comparable to others. It would follow then that our scientists and researchers would have equally capable peers in other countries, that the arts could flourish just as well in other lands and that literature would thrive in languages other than ours.

What would we do and how would we react if we discovered we weren’t the best at everything?  Do we have the fortitude and inner strength it takes to sustain our national pride from anywhere other than first place?  Do we have enough trust and confidence in one another’s effort and commitment to face a world in which America isn’t number one?

I sometimes wonder if we aren’t still, in some subliminal way, tied to our Pilgrim roots.  Our country was founded on pursuit of a better life, on more freedoms, on establishing the new and different.  Could this legacy have destined our national psyche to measure failure as anything less than being the best?  Can we acknowledge, respect and share in the success of others, or do their achievements make us uneasy and uncomfortable?  It may be time to face the reality that in many areas there are others just as good, that life in today’s world isn’t just counting the number of medals we’ve won, and that America has no hegemony on success.  Being the best at anything is a human opportunity, not the entitlement of a particular nation.

Measuring success only in terms of being the “best” is a zero-sum game: it’s a costly, unending pursuit that feeds paranoia and distrust more than it achieves results .  As other countries emerge and the world order changes, America must demonstrate the leadership to acknowledge that “best efforts” can be just as rewarding and valuable as being the “best”, and that success can also be defined as the ability and self-confidence to fully appreciate what has already been accomplished.  Understanding when we have “enough” can be more fulfilling than the endless pursuit for more.

Acknowledging satisfaction with our accomplishments isn’t complacency or failure; it’s maturity as a nation and an example of greatness.  Our adolescent quest for bigger, better, faster and more must be replaced by responsible adulthood that places greater value on harmony and responsibility.  In setting this example America’s greatest and most successful era as a nation is yet to be lived.

For the first time in many years I’ve had an opportunity watch the Winter Olympics on television…and it’s been a thoroughly enjoyable experience for many reasons.

I am well aware that the Olympics, as a whole, receive a great deal of criticism.  The selection process has suffered from credibility problems at various times.  Cities selected often make enormous investments and incur staggering debts years beyond the games.  Athletes themselves have come under scrutiny for everything from performance enhancing drugs to professional endorsements.  In short, there’s hardly a facet of the Olympics that hasn’t been maligned in some way at some time.  But put all that aside for just a moment…

The dedication and commitment of the athletes is remarkable and the performances they deliver are simply astounding.  Fractions of seconds frequently separate medal winners from others, none of whom can be considered “losers” in terms of skill, endurance or artistry.  Outstanding training and competence sometimes masque the difficulty and danger associated with many of the activities, as evidenced by the unfortunate luge accident this year.  The competitive camaraderie of the Olympians characterizes a human bond beyond national borders and a collegial spirit that invigorates our hope for the future.  

Unfortunately, some unfairly criticize the Olympians as pampered and from a privileged class, their lives, often from early childhood, spent in relentless and demanding training at the expense of normal socialization and development.  But there are countless compelling stories of personal challenges and of Olympians who have overcome addictions and devastating injuries, and just like the rest of us, stories of familial hardship and loss.  Many struggle financially and work multiple jobs to make ends meet while they chase the dream of world class competition.  Many deserve our admiration as positive role models not only in sport, but in life itself.

Out of character, I must also compliment the media on outstanding coverage.  The seamless reporting, including high-definition images from scores of event venues in a number of different locations is astounding, as is compiling so much activity into interesting programming, and augmenting the entertainment factor with tasteful interviews and balanced discussion.  In short, the broadcasting has been extremely well done.

Last but not least, our northern neighbors deserve recognition for tastefully hosting the Olympics in a conscientious, considerate and sensitive manner.  The Canadians have demonstrated that their God-given gift of stunning landscapes and natural splendor hasn’t been wasted, but is under the guardianship of a people who appreciate what they have and exude the warmth and willingness to welcome the world to enjoy it with them.   Canada, vous avez complété votre partie pour faire le monde mieux pour nous tout.  Merci beaucoup!

I remain awed and humbled by the depth of human commitment and perseverance obvious in the Winter Olympic Games, my belief and confidence in the positive side of human nature reinvigorated.

More than eight years since the 9/11 terrorist attack a gaping hole remains in the center of New York City with no sign of closing any time soon.  A perspective article by Harold Sirkin (Boston Consulting Group) blames politicization, a “naysayer” mentality, decisions by committee, and bureaucracy.  Plans laced with political agendas are first proposed, then evaluated as to why they won’t work, forwarded to committees who try to please everyone, and then implemented through a mind-numbing process.  The result:  don’t expect the hole to be filled in until sometime between 2014 and 2018.  Mr. Sirkin and his group see the indecision and delay in restoring ground zero as symbolic of America’s drift into mediocrity, “shackled” by its bias towards talk instead of action.  I think the hole goes deeper, to the heart of modern western culture.

There’s no question politicization, negativity and committee ineffectiveness are the hallmarks of bureaucratic institutions.  Like a cultural cancer they insidiously multiply in the lesions where leadership, responsibility, ownership and discipline once thrived.  Gradually these characteristics have eroded if not altogether disappeared from our culture, in favor of a nondescript, lowest common denominator pluralism.

Leadership has been displaced by our insatiable desire to “fit-in” or be “OK”, compromising our personal independence and integrity in favor of public opinion polls and consumer surveys.  The discipline of “thinking” has been diminished to scanning information prepared by others and going with the majority opinion, as opposed to deciding for ourselves. Personal ownership vacillates with public opinion; our cultural ethos a victim of too much compromise.

Organized religion used to provide a moral compass but the simplicity of the “absolutes” it provided has been lost, if not forfeited, replaced by moral relativity and amorphous ethical principles.  Life’s grey areas have expanded to accommodate majorities of people fearful of making hard personal decisions and sticking by them; the “black and white” absolutes of life have been relegated to thin margins on the border of sensibility and the edge of conscience.

Discipline is never fun or easy.  Letting life just “happen” is easier than making decisions and living with them. Displacing our personal responsibility onto a committee or onto society in general gives us a free pass to avoid the consequences.  If our marriage fails, kids turn to drugs, our world crumbles and our career dead-ends it’s always because of something beyond our control…it’s never our responsibility; there’s always something wrong with our institutions or with society, but there’s never anything wrong with us.

In fairness, avoiding decisions and sidestepping accountability is one of the only coping mechanisms remaining in a complex world drowning in opinions but having little in the way of useful facts to help us face tomorrow.  There’s a support group for every failure but little encouragement for success.  Avoiding decisions may help us cope with the fear of failing, but it also helps us cope with the fear of success…of sticking our neck out or being too far ahead of the crowd.

The ground zero hole is still in New York because committees don’t lead or make decisions, people do.  Similarly, the holes that exist in our society are there because people aren’t willing to take accountability for themselves.  As hard as we might try to water-down accountability, avoid leadership, or shirk responsibility, we can never avoid the consequences of our action or inaction.  What we need is the courage to lead and be accountable, to take ownership and accept responsibility, to confront our fear of failing as well as our fear of success.

I noted the media reports on Hillary Clinton’s meetings with Saudi Arabia’s Prince Saud Al Faisal this last week with a great deal of interest, particularly Secretary Clinton’s comments about Iran’s decline into a military dictatorship and the Prince’s doubts about international sanctions as a “workable” solution to Iran’s nuclear buildup.  Ten years in the Kingdom taught me to pay close attention to these carefully choreographed and scripted exchanges.  I don’t pretend to be a diplomat, but the craftily worded statements are an easily deciphered code for increased American involvement.

The Saudis are masters at getting others to do their dirty work, as evidenced by the more than 7M expatriates in the Kingdom engaged in jobs Saudis don’t want to do.  They are equally adept at getting other nations, mainly the US, to protect their interests and wage their wars, while they publicly talk of limiting western intervention in Islamic affairs and privately fear President Obama’s strategy of engagement with Iran.  Despite lofty exchanges at the diplomatic level, the conventional wisdom on the street is much different and highlights the Saudi cultural proclivity for avoiding conflict at all costs.

Saudis were happy with the results of the first Gulf War that taught Saddam Hussein a lesson, protected amassed wealth in Kuwait and Saudi, and cost them virtually nothing beyond “in-kind” support for America…another code phrase for holding our coats while we fought the neighborhood bully.  The second war, however, is a different situation.

Quietly, Saudis on the street received the second Iraq war with far less enthusiasm.  While they hated and feared Saddam, they realized he fulfilled two important functions:  keeping control of a deeply sectarian country and keeping Iran at bay.  They vocalize concerns that continued western involvement only fuels fundamentalist fervor and increases Iran’s influence in the region, not a good thing for anyone, especially not the Saudis.  Some distance between Saudi and the US on “religious” grounds is a good political move for their relations with other Islamic countries, but when it comes to dealing with international problems the Saudis prefer to “walk softly and carry a big stick”, and the big stick is us. 

As a result, it’s only natural the Saudis are now hinting that there’s a new bully in the neighborhood, this one a lot more technologically savvy, well funded, and posing even bigger threats.  Worse, compared to Saddam’s lust for power and personal comfort, Iran’s drivers are ideological and bent on destruction of the “Evil Empire” (that’s us), and view the royals on the Arabian peninsula as collaborators in western immorality.  We all know the Iran problem dates back to pre-Jimmy Carter and our failed strategy to support the Shah, but the difference now is that Iran’s enormous oil revenues support religious fundamentalism rather than a pampered potentate.  Clearly the Saudis don’t want their oil rich desert to become Iran’s nuclear weapons testing ground or get in the middle of their Jihad against the west.

Time has proven that international sanctions mean nothing to rogue states and the Saudis know it.  In order to gain US support for the fights they want to sidestep, the Saudi royals barter their same tired, insipid support for the “Mid-East Peace Process” that so far has netted nothing, and drag out the same old half-hearted support for ending the violence between Israel and the Palestinians.  Past US administrations, some with personal interests in “Big Oil”, have bought in to the ruse fearful of having the world’s petroleum supply in the hands of fanatics. 

So far the Saudi strategy has proven effective.  While the US has incurred horrendous losses in human life and mounting debt in Iraq, the Saudis retain their position of neutrality that minimizes internal terrorist threats against them by not lifting an obvious finger against their Islamic brethren.

Let’s see if this administration is smart enough to see the Saudi behavior for what it is…getting someone else to do the dirty work.

Just when we thought airline belt-tightening had soared to new heights of absurdity it appears some are dealing with yet another weighty problem: obesity.  A Southwest Airlines captain’s refusal to fly a chubby Hollywood celeb hit the national newswires yesterday, and the event may be a bit more than passengers are willing to swallow.

Like many multi-million mile fliers I can testify to the airlines’ longstanding policy of customer contempt. The “charge more – give less” spiral reducing our air travel experience to little more than a third-world bus ride has been justified by everything from hefty oil prices to fat-cat union demands, despite US protectionism of American carriers from world-wide competition.  Now carry-on baggage rules may define “lap top” in a whole new way, adding new insults to battered passengers as seat belts are reduced to Demi Moore proportions and downsizing takes on new dimensions.  Are they entitled to set their own standards?

As a member of the over six-foot crowd I have obediently contorted over the years as leg room diminished to Lilliputian physiques, even as I’ve silently pondered the likelihood of emergency egress from a canon-ball position.  Years ago I abandoned hope of retrieving anything that might fall on the airplane floor and still haven’t mastered the art of turning newspaper pages or brushing unfamiliar hairs from my lap.  I once shared a scaled back FIrst-Class cabin with about ten members of the Chicago Bulls, but, alas, it was before a time when I could capture the gymnastics for posting on YouTube.  Fortunately, the lofty have yet to be demonized by irritable airline staff, most probably by suffering in silence, but in light of recent events I fear we too are in jeopardy.

In all honesty, everyone fears the prospect of a three-hour flight on which “Jumbo” better describes the person in the neighboring seat than the aircraft, and reaching for your ear phones risks a charge of physical assault.  We’ve all held our breath as the perspiring behemoth squeezing down the aisle stops at our row while blanketing another on each side and announces they’re in the window seat.  No, it isn’t pleasant, but on the other hand it is a fact of life…people come in all sizes.

If the airlines have their way, it won’t be long before we have to pass through cardboard cutouts upon boarding, similar to the little boxes that now measure the size of our carry-on bags.  I’m sure the airlines will never be held to account as a means of “public” transportation, suitable for all persons, and will instead root out and charge for every inconvenience under the ruse of customer safety.  Instead we’ll be confronted with “fat-free flying” or “fat fly free” promos as pricing options during on-line booking, while the airlines continue to dictate their policies of customer selection. Next airlines will charge extra for handicapped passengers, or the aged who might move too slowly, or have a separate section for those failing the antiperspirant swab test.  We already supply photo ID’s before boarding, soon they will be required before making a reservation to ensure we fit a “desirable” profile.

Frankly, I’ve lost my appetite for flying and my taste for all the hassles it involves.  If they do start a weigh-in program I hope they do it at the security checkpoint, at least I’ll have my shoes off and will most likely be stripped down to my underwear.  Given the competitive nature of business today, it must be nice to be in an industry that works at devising ideas to drive customers away. 

Hey, now there’s a really good idea…driving!

The decennial population census of the United States officially begins on April 1, a coincidental timing with “April Fools Day” that might be worth noting.  April Fools Day’s aim, by definition, is to “embarrass the gullible”, so perhaps the timing is no coincidence at all.

Census taking is a centuries’ old custom of counting every person in one’s domain with notable beginnings in the Roman Empire, and is most familiar in the biblical account of Joseph and Mary heading to Bethlehem by mandate of Caesar-Augustus.  Even in those days it appears that census taking was a complicated matter, but still nothing like ours.

Just for starters a $326M marketing blitz has been launched just to make us aware that a census will be taken, which included $2.5M for a one-shot ad during the super bowl, a time when Americans are most likely to be receptive to television commercials about their civic duties.  Along with all the other costs for printing, mailing, sorting and personally visiting the 36% of American households who are unlikely to complete the mail-in form, the total tab approaches $15 billion, compared to $4.5 billion to conduct the millennium census in 2000.  

Despite the astronomical cost, funding for the project sailed through Congress, largely because political jobs depend on it.  Population shifts result in reapportionment of congressional districts and, you got it, gains and losses in the number of representatives and in the funds they can steer back home for pet projects.  Washington lawyers also can’t wait for the results, and the hundreds of lawsuits at all levels of government that will be filed in dispute the census methods and findings.

Americans, on the other hand, don’t seem quite so enamored with the idea, particularly in a tight economy.  The highest level of unemployment and the greatest number of mortgage foreclosures since the great depression have the population worrying about a lot more than government nose counting.  Intrusive new government surveillance powers since 9/11 have people questioning just how much they want Uncle Sam to know, and with administrative competency a perennial issue in any governmental program, concerns abound with regard to the handling of sensitive information and the risks of identity theft.  Add to that the estimated 12 million illegal aliens who are a bit touchy about giving immigration officials their name and address especially in light of recent crackdowns, and you have a program facing obvious challenges.  

Once again, there might be some helpful lessons to be learned from our friends abroad.  Developing countries spend anywhere from $1 – 3 per head to conduct their census, which means China’s cost to count the world’s most populous country is likely between $1.3B and $3.9B.  Many European countries do periodic population “estimates” or “samplings” to keep tabs, and nearly all routinely produce population statistics from readily available governmental records, similar to the way US immigration seems to always know whether were in or out of the country.  Besides, there’s a huge amount of US population data on the web as current as 2009 that defines everything from state and local populations to regional population shifts.  Meanwhile, our price tag for the “government authorized” version will be in the neighborhood of $49 per person.  Can’t we get China to do ours cheaper?

Ah yes, nothing but the best for America…so here’s the best part of it all:  After the data is painstakingly collected, family by family, house by house, and every penny of the budget has been spent, the census records will be carefully compiled and placed in our nation’s archives.  Only “aggregate” data, which means top-line compilations virtually identical to what is available on the net today, will be released for public use.  By law the detailed records will be sealed for 72 years under the assumption that most everyone of legal age today will be dead by then…thus avoiding any concerns about confidentiality.  So, in the end, we’re spending $15B for tons of information we’re going to save until no one is alive who has any interest in it. 

Actually, I get the idea… if you’ve ever watched “Raiders of the Lost Ark”,  the Harrison Ford movie, and remember the gigantic warehouse in the last scene…you’ve got the picture.

There have been two prominent news stories in the past week, one here in Knoxville and another in Alabama, of teachers who shot colleagues or school administration in retaliation for canceling contracts or failing to grant tenure.  Mechanisms are in place in our schools to check the students for weapons, but I guess no one thought about checking the teachers. 

I decided to take a look at the data about gun deaths and found myself immersed in websites filled with the same polarized and angry disputes that unfortunately seems characteristic of recent debates surrounding many issues facing our country.  However, I learned that in 2006 (the most recent year for which I could get reliable data) there were 30,869 firearm deaths in the US, compared to 45,509 deaths from automobile accidents.  My reason for selecting automobile fatalities as a benchmark is that auto safety and fatality reduction is a high profile, highly regulated and often litigated civic goal.  Any blip on the auto safety radar and all hell breaks loose…just ask Toyota.  But we hear almost nothing about handgun control.

Everyone is well aware of the National Rifle Association’s extremely well-funded lobbying efforts and our elected representative’s all too eager willingness to sidestep anything that even hints at gun control.  But what about ordinary people, why aren’t we outraged, writing to congress, demanding restrictive gun laws, and voting for representatives who will take definitive action to stop the proliferation of hand guns?

What I fail to understand is why would a person even want to own a handgun?  Please don’t tell me “target practice.  I’ve heard that one before and I will concede there is a sporting element, but given the number of handguns in the US the argument would be similar to saying every automobile owner is a race car driver…it just doesn’t add up.

I know a number of people who own handguns.  A few either carry the weapon on their person or keep it in the car, and at least a couple sleep with a handgun in reach.  Most of the gun owners I know, however, have them locked away in safes or hidden in some closet collecting dust…just waiting for that special moment when…?  I don’t get it, and by bigger fear is that one of them might actually use it someday.

There must be some magic to handgun ownership that I miss but our learned statesmen clearly comprehend.  There must be some fundamental, inalienable right that would be violated if handgun laws were changed.  There must be some enormous principle at play that justifies the counter-intuitive behavior of our politicians in the face of an epidemic of gun deaths across our country.  There must be some reason we close our eyes to an enormous problem…

I must admit that at times I feel like a foreigner in my own country.  Over the years my good ‘ole American English has suffered (or developed?)  through a hodge-podge of changes brought on by living and working with other cultures.  From time to time I really “put my foot in my mouth” by using a word or phrase that is distinctly un-American.  Here in my adopted home of Knoxville, Tennessee, it’s even worse since the word “y’all” hasn’t as yet slipped into my vocabulary, causing the occasional raised eyebrow as people realize I’m a northern transplant, or worse, a Yankee spy.

Living abroad for so many years I no longer think in terms of “foreign accents” and the stereo-types associated with them.  Similarly, I’ve found people very forgiving of my accent when I attempt to speak other languages.  Perhaps there’s a life lesson in all of this!

Just for fun I printed the list of recognized English dialects from Wikepedia.  Mind that a dialect is a documented language variation, as opposed to an accent which only accounts for pronunciation.

Check the list to find yours, and next time you want to call someone a “foreigner” because of the way they speak English, watch your tongue…

Europe

Great Britain (British English)

• Black British English
• England (English language in England)
  • Northern
    • Cheshire
    • Cumbrian (Cumbria excluding Barrow-in-Furness)
    • Geordie (Newcastle upon Tyne)
    • Lancastrian (Lancashire)
    • Scouse (Merseyside)
    • Mancunian-Salfordian (Manchester & Salford)
    • Mackem (Sunderland)
    • Northumbrian (rural Northumberland)
    • Pitmatic (Durham and Northumberland)
    • Yorkshire (also known as Tyke)
    • In the far north, local speech is noticeably Scots in nature.
  • East Midlands
  • West Midlands
    • Black Country English
    • Brummie (Birmingham)
    • Potteries (north Staffordshire)
  • Southern
    • Received Pronunciation
    • Cockney (East London)
    • East Anglian (Norfolk, Suffolk and North Essex)
    • Estuary (Thames Estuary)
    • Kentish (Kent)
    • Multicultural London English (Inner London)
  • West Country
• Scotland
  • Scottish English
    • Highland
    • Glaswegian
    • Cromarty
• Wales
  • Welsh English

Ireland

• Mid Ulster English
• Hiberno-English
  • Dublin
  • Cork

Isle of Man

• Manx English

Channel Islands

• Guernsey English
• Jersey English

Malta

• Maltenglish

North America

• American English (AmE, AmEng, USEng)
  • Cultural
    • African-American Vernacular English (AAVE)
    • Chicano English
    • General American
    • New York Latino English
    • Pennsylvania Dutchified English
    • Yeshivish
    • Yinglish
  • Regional
    • Northeastern dialects
      • Boston English
      • Hudson Valley English (Albany)
      • Maine-New Hampshire English
      • New York City Dialect, Northern New Jersey Dialect (New York metropolitan area)
      • Providence-area English
      • Vermont English
      • Philadelphia-area English
      • Pittsburgh English
      • Buffalo English
    • Inland Northern American English (includes western and central upstate New York)
      • Wawarsing English
      • Northeast Pennsylvania English (Scranton, Pennsylvania-area)
    • Mid-Atlantic dialects
      • Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area Accent (D.C. Slang)
      • Baltimorese
      • Tidewater accent
      • Virginia Piedmont
      • Virginia Tidewater [1]
    • Inland North American (Lower peninsula of Michigan, northern Ohio and Indiana, the suburbs of Chicago, part of eastern Wisconsin and upstate New York)
      • The Chicago accent
      • Buffalo English
    • North Central American English (primarily Minnesota, but also most of Wisconsin, the Upper peninsula of Michigan, and parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa)
    • Yooper dialect (the variety of North Central American English spoken in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and in some neighboring areas)
    • Midland American English
      • North Midlands English (thin swath from Nebraska to Ohio)
      • St. Louis dialect
      • South Midland (thin swath from Oklahoma to Pennsylvania)
      • Appalachian English
    • Southern English
      • Coastal Southeastern (Charleston, South Carolina, Savannah, Georgia area)
      • Cajun English
      • Harkers Island English (North Carolina)
      • Ozark English
      • Piedmont Dialect
      • Southern Highland English
      • Florida Cracker Dialect
      • Gullah or Geechee
      • Tampanian English
      • Texan
      • Yat (New Orleans)
    • Western English
      • California English
      • Utah English
      • Idaho English
      • Boontling
      • Hawaiian English
      • Pacific Northwest English

• Canadian English (CanE, CanEng)
• • Newfoundland English
  • Maritimer English
    • Cape Breton accent
    • Lunenburg English
  • West/Central Canadian English
    • Quebec English
    • Ottawa Valley Twang
    • Pacific Northwest English
• Bermudian English
• Native American Englishes (Amerindian Englishes)
  • Mojave English
  • Isletan English
  • Tsimshian English
  • Lumbee English
  • Tohono O’odham English
  • Inupiaq English

Caribbean

• Caribbean English
  • Anguillan English
  • Antiguan English
  • Bahamian English
  • Jamaican English
  • Trinidadian English

Central and South America

• Belizean English
• Falkland Islands English
• Guyanese English

Asia

• Burmese English
• Hong Kong English
• Pakistani English
• Indian English
  • Hinglish
  • Punjabi/Delhi English
  • U.P/Bihari English
  • Bengali/Assamese English
  • Oriya English
  • Gujarati English
  • Maharashtrian English
  • Kannadiga English
  • Telugu English
  • Tamil English
  • Malayalee English
• Malaysian English (MyE)
  • Manglish
• Philippine English (PhE)
• Singapore English
• Sri Lankan English (SLE)

Africa

• Cameroon English
• Liberian English
• Nigerian English
• Malawian English
• South African English
• East African English
  • Ugandan English

Oceania

• Australian English
  • Cultural
    • Australian Aboriginal English
    • Torres Strait English
  • Regional
    • South Australian English
    • Western Australian English
    • Norfuk language
• Fijian English
• New Zealand English
• Pitkern

Toyota’s troubles are in the hungry jaws of media coverage and are likely to get a thorough masticating before the quality issues are completely resolved.  My guess is the problems will be solved with quiet dignity, minimal loss of “face”, and no hara-kiri…though a few heads will be silently rolling in the background.

Frankly, I’m not a Toyota fan or an advocate of Japanese cars in general, as I always have the feeling they’re designed for small stature people in crowded cities where speed beyond 30 mph is unlikely if not impossible.  However, after numerous experiences in Japan I do enjoy watching the intricacies of the Japanese business culture, and the Toyota story is evolving into a classic.

An article entitled “Toyota is ‘Facing a Crisis’” (A/P Yuri Kageyama and Malcolm Foster), caught my eye.  Characteristically it appears company leadership is less concerned about what to do than how to do it, leaving customers with a sense of uncertainty about how Toyota will deal with the crisis.  But the Japanese co-author of the article underscored a point typical American journalists might miss.  The answer is in the bows.

Akio Toyoda (yes, I spelled it correctly) is the second Toyota president to apologize for quality.  His predecessor Katsuaki Watanabe stunned reporters in 2006 by bowing low before them before promising to improve quality.  This particular article claims that Mr. Toyoda, on the other hand, “bowed as he greeted reporters, but not in apology”, raising some questions concerning commitment.   So, wuh’s up Dude?

I recall a fairly short period in America when “non-verbal” communication was all the rage, with books on every little body quirk from eye-tics to butt-scratching hitting the best seller list, but reading signals like the depth of a bow is slightly beyond the American imagination and our national psyche.  Americans just prefer blurting it all out in speech or text, sending the message loud and clear with no great deal of interest in who’s receiving, and no particular joy in watching the recipient of our missive squirm with unease or writhe in pain.  Just pushing “send” is all the satisfaction we need.  In Japan, things are just a bit different.

In the end Toyota is fully and entirely a Japanese company despite multi-national manufacturing and local leadership, and it is virtually certain they will willingly make the necessary repairs and restore consumer confidence.  The “crisis”, to use the media vernacular, is nothing more than a crisis of cultural understanding.  All the confidence Toyota customers need is already there; just watch the bows.

Pardon me if I wax nostalgic today, but the nearly forgotten Concorde super-sonic transport is in the news again with a liability trial unfolding in France nearly ten years after the fatal crash that signaled the demise of the elegant airliner and the end of an avionic age.  US carrier Continental is on trial for allegedly faulty maintenance of their aircraft resulting in the runway debris that caused the Concorde crash.  Various individuals are also indicted in a wide-ranging litigation that spans nearly the entire life of Concorde from original design through its ignoble end.

Much to my regret I never flew on the Concorde, but I was awed by its elegance and fascinated by the thought of flying faster than sound.  When I lived in Paris my Saturday shopping routine nearly always included a visit to the Carrefours Hypermarche at Roissy, virtually adjacent to the Charles de Gaulle airport.  If I timed things just right I was treated to the majestic sight of the Concorde lifting off for destinations unknown with the distinctive whine of its engines and its hawkish snout protruding downward.  It’s unfortunate that such an awesome mechanical marvel became an albatross.  In many ways the Concorde, like the Titanic resplenedent in its exotic excess, was doomed before it’s maiden voyage. 

I was an avid follower of news about the Concorde development back in the ’60s, and the simultaneous American efforts at launching the SST (Super-Sonic Transport) project.  At the time it was clear that a mini “space race” was underway with Europe, fueled by the Lyndon Johnson era paranoia that marked deepening engagement in the Vietnam War and ever greater isolationism.  When it became obvious the Concorde was a sure thing, Congress scuttled funding for the SST, most likely after concerted lobbying efforts from Boeing who had heavily invested in development of the more utilitarian 747.  Not to be further embarrassed by a European technology edge, Congress next refused to grant US flyover rights for the Concorde, and only very limited landing privileges in New York and Washington DC.  The 1000 anticipatory orders for the Concorde, many from US airlines, evaporated overnight, resulting in actual delivery of 17 aircraft used by British Airways and Air France for more than 25 years, a miniscule production number compared to potential.  The extraordinary cost of matinaining a handful of unique airplanes ensured perpetual operating losses, and the unanticipated increases in oil prices sealed Concorde’s doom by crushing any hope of a financial turnaround in the future.  And so, in 2003, the age of elegant aviation ended, much to the relief of the airlines resigned to supporting a costly status symbol.  There is, however, a post-script to the story.

The British Aircraft Corporation and the French company Aerospatiale continued their collaboration to form Airbus and have since created stiff competition for Boeing, the nemesis at least partially responsible Concorde’s failure to thrive.  Once a collaboration with lofty aspirations, today Airbus cranks out the same utilitarian aircraft as its rival, offering passengers less comfort than my first Volkswagen Beetle and turning air travel into an experience equivalent to riding a crosstown bus.  Alas, what began as a quest for industry excellence and technological achievement has become a competition for the lowest common denominator in passenger comfort.

Adieu Concorde…et le temps de voyage d’avion élégant…