Watching Palin

John Bucher is digital editor of BCBusiness Online.

For schadenfreude junkies, it has been a delicious fortnight.

Two weeks ago, Sarah Palin, the fresh Republican vice-presidential nominee, was a political star ascending. Huge crowds came out to see her wherever she went, she delivered a caustic Convention speech that energized a listless Republican base, and she made Barack Obama, who was slipping into a pull-away stride, look suddenly vulnerable and very much in reach.

Democrats began to worry: Is it possible that, even in this perfect-storm political season, we could lose again?

Well, they might still. But if they do it won't be for a lack of public censure of Sarah Palin. She's on fire, yes. Two weeks ago it was in the good way; now it's in the melting-down dripping-at-the-edges way. And all it took, it seems, was a few media interviews to ignite the flame.

My media cup hath been running over. Here are the last two weeks' finer statements by and about Palin, in no particular order.

"In what respect, Charlie? What, his world view?"
     —Palin responds to a question by ABC's Charlie Gibson: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

"For a seventy-two-year-old cancer survivor to have placed this person directly behind himself in line for the Presidency was an act of almost incomprehensible cynicism and irresponsibility."
     —New Yorker essayist Hendrik Hertzberg, writing after Palin's wandering, fragmented, occasionally incoherent interview with CBS's Katie Couric.

"Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to…I don’t know, you know…reporters."
     —Sarah Palin, expanding on why she believes Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign-policy experience, in that interview with Katie Couric.

"I can see Russia from my house!"
     —SNL's Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin discussing with Hillary Clinton the progress women have made in this 2008 election, an immediate sketch-comedy classic.

"Frankly, I have had it. The sexist treatment of Sarah Palin has to end."
     —CNN's Campbell Brown inveighs against the McCain campaign.

"I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's going to have the nuclear codes."
     —Actor Matt Damon, in a CBS interview, compares Palin's nomination to a "bad Disney movie."

"Well, Alaska and Russia are only separated by a narrow maritime border. You've got Alaska right here, and this right here's water, and up there is Russia."
     —SNL's Tina Fey, again impersonating Sarah Palin, this time – ouch – using the Governor's actual words.

"I know that many times, in my life, while living it, someone would come up and, because of I had good readiness, in terms of how I was wired, when they asked that—whatever they asked—I would just not blink, because, knowing that, if I did blink, or even wink, that is weakness, therefore you can’t, you just don’t. You could, but no—you aren’t."
     —New Yorker humourist George Saunders poking imitative fun at Palin's answer (from the Gibson interview) about her willingness to be John McCain's running mate.


"Ideologically, she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread, revealing the ugliest underside of Republican ambitions – their insanely zealous and cynical drive to win power by any means necessary, even at the cost of actual leadership."
     —Salon's Cintra Wilson delivers a blistering diatribe on the "political Viagra" that is Sarah Palin.

"Palin appeals to the white trash vote with her toned-down version of the porn actress look."
     —Heather Mallick, lobbing at a similar criticism at Palin in a September 5th column that was ultimately removed from CBC.ca and apologized for.

And now two days remain before Palin's vice-presidential debate showdown with Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden. Will the meltdown continue? What's your call?

• 2 comments

Your business personality

What’s type are you? Psychologists say your personality type can define the character and direction of your business. So let’s look at some distinct business types in BC.

The Digital Nomad
Electronic office on your back, you work mostly in cafes or any place you can find wi-fi. You may actually run a company, but who would know. People are always asking you what exactly you do. Suitable sectors: design, entertainment; Internet.

The Implementer
Making order out of chaos is your forte, and caution is your middle name. There’s nothing you can’t deliver if you put your mind to it. And what you deliver will be measured, thought through, checked, double-checked and on budget. Suitable sectors: Government, Mid-tier CFO.

The Influencer
You are an anchor in rough seas because you’ve been there. Conscientious, consistent and controlled in all you do, you sport a massive rolodex, so people always seek you out. Suitable sectors: Consulting, venture capital, investment.

The Hunter
You’re great at spotting new opportunities. You thrive on pressure and uncertainty, like to search out new possibilities and thrive on hard work. But you bore easily. Suitable sectors: mining exploration, sales and marketing, entrepreneurship.

The Navigator
No matter what business you’re in, you’ll grow it because you know how to identify the right people, and you’re ambitious as all get out. Oodles of talent, but you need to understand people better. Suitable sectors: sales and marketing; media; technology.


The Mad Scientist
You analyse. If you’re not taking something apart to see how it works, you’re busy figuring out how to make it work better. But nobody gets it but you. Suitable sectors: design; IT, biotech.

The Enthusiast
You work to live rather than live to work. Given the chance to deliver on a brand promise, you’ll opt to go sailing or skiing. You’re half the population of BC. Suitable sectors: leisure, travel and entertainment; sales and marketing; retail.

Know of another type? Let me know. 


• Add new comment

David Foster Wallace's prescription

Matt O'Grady is editor of BCBusiness.

The death of writer David Foster Wallace two weeks ago reminded me of my favourite piece of his. It was an April 2001 essay for Harper’s Magazine called “Tense Present” – an investigation into what he called “the seamy underbelly of U.S. lexicography.” For a good 20,000 to 25,000 words, he waxed poetic about the ideological strife, controversy, intrigue, nastiness and fervour of the two camps – conservative (“prescriptivist”) and liberal (“descriptivist”) – battling over the future of the English language and “proper” usage. In typical DFW style, the essay was accompanied by several thousand words of annotation. He was, God rest his soul, a prescriptivist.

At around the same time in early 2001 that Harper’s editors were combing through DFW’s dense text, a couple of digital entrepreneurs by the names of Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales were about to launch a revolution with Wikipedia. Seven years on, the user-generated-and-controlled encyclopedia has forever changed the way we look at what’s “fixed” and what’s “true.” Unlike Encyclopedia Britannica, no article in Wikipedia undergoes a formal peer-review process; there is no longer a “true.” Wiki- has, in less than a decade’s time, become the hottest affix around – achieving the sort of ubiquity that it took Watergate, and its Satan spawn of “-gates,” most of the ’80s and ’90s to accomplish. Wikinomics is “the” business concept of the new millennium.

And now this. News last week – just days after DFW’s death – that a website had been launched that “throws open the definition of words to all comers.” Wordia.com is a project by esteemed dictionary publisher Collins, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, and it has taken the descriptivist case to its logical extreme: allowing everyone with a video camera to record and upload a clip of themselves defining their chosen word. One contributor, Shane, defines real estate as “the place you grew up, the place I grew up”; another anonymous blogger defines “uncover” as to “reveal the true meaning of something.”

For the organizers of the website, this is about the democratization of the English language. But as DFW wrote in his Harper’s essay, it is indisputably easier to be dogmatic than democratic, especially on issues that are “both vexed and highly charged.” Word usage, he argues, is highly charged – and “the fundamental questions they involve are ones whose answers have to be ‘worked out’ instead of simply found.” It’s not a fashionable argument to be making in this Wiki-You Tube era, but it does have a certain ring of truth – however you choose to define it.

• Add new comment

Hats on to the pols

Are you struck by the sameness of it all in this federal election? I know I am.

For years, Canada has been sliding comfortably toward absolute economic mediocrity, seemingly incapable of doing more than clipping the coupons of our natural wealth. Some creativity is sorely needed if we are to stop this slide.

And this system is topped by the same old politicians who dish out the same old bromides and can't seem to raise a whit of inspiration.

This is revealed by the exciting election race going on in the US. Despite the celebrity trappings, there seems to be some creative thinking down there.

So I'm viewing this Canadian election through the lens of Edward DeBono's famous decision making and creativity method, Six Thinking Hats.

White Hats are the data driven thinkers, Red Hats are intuitive, Black Hats are cautious and defensive, Yellow Hats are optimistic, Green Hats are creative, Blue Hats are all about process.

Here's how the pols stack up in my books:

Conservatives: Black Hat. Stephen Harper emphasizes “steady leadership in tough economic times”. In other words, nothing. Tough economic times always provide a cover for the fact that you haven't an iota of an idea.

Liberals: White Hat, leaning to Blue. Supposedly, Stephane Dion's pollsters devised his Green Shift environmental plan to touch a feeling in “the people." But it's really just a limp taxation scheme.

NDP: Blue Hat. Jack Layton talks about “the kitchen table instead of the boardroom table.” Is this 1980? Sounds like a rehash of the same tired working man rhetoric they've been using for years.

Green Party: Green Hat. The Greens are the only party showing any kind of creativity. I'm not being cute. At least they're forming half a plan to harness green thinking to create new industries and new futures. In other words, a semblance of a strategy. Not great, but a beginning.

If they only had a chance, we just might come up with an idea in this country.

Agree or disagree?

• Add new comment

We're all gonna die!

That was the basic attitude swirling this week as US investment and financial firms began toppling in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Holy cow! Venerable Lehman Brothers went down? Must be really serious.

The fact that Lehman wasn't the same company started by a prudent German immigrant 158 years ago didn't seem to matter. It was simply one of several Wall Street firms that got greedy and plunged head first into a large banking Ponzi scheme.

Financial systems are complex, but simple at the same time. Stock markets crash like clockwork – they're all about excess, on the way up and on the way down. But the noise that comes from this inevitable righting of the system has everyone running around screaming that – yes indeedy – this time it's definitely different. This is the big one. A financial earthquake of Great Depression proportions.

Aiding and abetting this panic are media operations. Despite what people think, journalism isn't about news or information, it's about emotions, usually raw, which attract readers or viewers. So most news is better swallowed with a large helping of Prozac.

Do you now go to the nearest bar and drink yourself into oblivion? Not a bad idea, but there isn't any real need to.

Sure, the global financial crisis is of great interest to economists who love to study economic entrails and soothsay. But to you and me, it's meaningless and probably irrelevant.

In B.C., the economy, while slowing from its frantic pace of last year, is still operating. Money is still being made, businesses are still starting and growing, and generally everything is okay, albeit more muted. Howe street habitues might not be happy, but who cares about them anyway?

In Canada, our financial institutions are pretty conservative, so they're weathering this kind of storm. Their stock might be hit, but that's a good thing. Now I can buy cheaper and ride the inevitable updraft.

And it will come. It always does.

• Add new comment