Commencement: Congratulations to the Class of 2012!

http://www.utexas.edu/know/2012/05/22/commencement_gates/

Last saturday, I drove three hours back to Austin in order to participate in the University’s 129th Commencement Ceremony to watch one of my best friends and my roommate graduating and walking in cap and gown through the University’s South Mall.

The day was hectic. I woke up around noon. I rushed out the house around 2pm in order to avoid traffic going into Austin and make it on time to Commencement. On the way back, I listened to two podcast installments from the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government – one on “Campaign 2012” and another on “conservatism and why we need it now” by Andrew Sullivan – the latter piece was particularly interesting, considering Andrew Sullivan makes an argument along the lines that the ideological conservatism is in crisis. Conservatism is supposed to preserve society for what it is and not to impose man-made solutions to all problems. Formulaic solutions are not going to work because human conditions change. Sullivan, himself identified as gay, argues that Obama is the most conservative politician in the United States and the Republican Party fails to carry the conservative banner for the movement – quite interesting. I think he has a point, though I am not ready to dwell on it in this post.

In any event, I got back to Austin around 5, unloaded my bags at my apartment and made my way to campus for Commencement Ceremony. I was dazed by the grandiosity of the whole ceremony. Lots and lots of family members were seated on the lawn under the Tower. Graduates were in cap and gowns – some decorated their caps with personal interests. Faculty and administrators were present to celebrate alongside the graduates. There were fancy lighting, music, poignant speeches from students, and then there was Secretary Robert Gates’s keynote speech on how graduates should think more highly and seriously about public service. Secretary Gates is one of those politicians I greatly admire and respect. During his keynote, Sr. Gates framed that we live in a time of “great necessities.” As the former Secretary of Defense overseeing both the Iraq and the Afganistan wars, he deployed thousands of troops, many of whom were young men and women from 18-25. I was particularly inspired by his call for all graduates to serve our country in all capacities. I imagine many of my peers share my apprehension about serving in the public sector, when there are attractive job positions in Fortune 500 companies out there, especially many opportunities in the McCombs School of Business. I do have a desire to serve someday in some capacity. I have a strong desire to help as many people as I can in my lifetime. In a way, Commencement for the Class of 2012 served as a signpost, a guide for how I want to pursue the latter half of my college career here on the Forty Acres. It made me think more about who I am and what I want to do with my own life. The almost surreal ceremony was topped off with fireworks and “Eyes of Texas.” As a longhorn, nothing could get better than seeing other longhorns accomplish so much in so little time with diverse talents, ambitions, and dreams. I feel blessed to go to one of the best public universities in the country, in terms in value, quality, and amount of opportunities. I am thrilled for my junior year starting in the fall. I will keep you updated on my academic life throughout this process. 

Nothing but the Truth

Last night I had some down time to enjoy a very thought-provoking movie on Netflix called Nothing but the Truth (2008). The movie tells the story of one journalist who daringly exposes the government through her newspaper for covering up its tracks in unilaterally fighting against the Venezuelan government (fictionally of course but not utterly without context, as the Bush administration had its fair amount tensions against Hugo Chavez). The story itself is cited to be “watergate,” “Pentagon paper” big. Reporter, Rachel Armstrong, went ahead with the story exposing what happened to be her neighbor, whose daughter goes to the same school as Rachel’s son, as the CIA agent who warned the President against going into Venezuela. Special prosecutor, Patton Dubois, pressures Rachel to give away her source for the story, but Rachel adamantly refuses, citing confidentiality. Rachel is subsequently thrown into jail for holding the court in contempt.

The thematic struggle between free press and big government is pervasive throughout the whole movie. The case questions the strength of our republic and the nature of civil liberties in a post-911 world. What is truly mind-boggling is the eerie reminder of a real case years back (and what I later found out to be a relevant plot inspiration): the case of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s expose by Robert Novak of Washington Times in 2003 regarding the uranium enrichment activity in Africa that was cited as an important piece of support evidence for the U.S. going into Iraq  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair). 

An aside: If you do not know what I’m talking about here, please do look into it at your leisure hours. Scott McClellan, the former press secretary under Bush 43, wrote a book called What Happened, that details some of the decisions within the administration prior to going into Iraq, with a chapter on Valerie Plame. Questions to ponder (I’m still looking): Why did the U.S. go into Iraq in 2003? What were some of the criticisms against the Bush administration at the time? Are they legitimate? What about the case of Valerie Plame? (Another movie called Fair Game theatrically tells the story of Valerie Plame) How does the Plame case play into the criticisms against the Bush administration? What about torture?

Against this backdrop, I watched as the story unfolds depicting a brave journalist who is placing her principle above all else, her family included. One cannot help but sympathize her situation. What’s worse or perhaps unexpected is the film director’s hint that the CIA agent herself is also a victim in this whole situation, not dissimilar to the Plame case, in which the White House seems to be gutting her under a bus. In a struggle for truth, where do we draw the line between “national security” and “First Amendment?” How can our government protect us if it is above us? How can the people hold government accountable if they are deprived of their First Amendment rights due to national security concerns? These are not mere constitutional issues debated in the classroom of law schools across the country. They are existential political and legal issues that all republicans (people living in a republic – small “r”) need to wrestle with. Movies like this often make me wonder: how much power do I really have against the government? Am I really naive to think that my political voice as a citizen can check a government backed up by the most capable and destructive military on earth, supported by a web of highly-trained special force and clandestine operatives? I shutter that thought here. But I encourage you to think about the ramifications of that and ask yourself: how can we the people maintain power if we are not watchful of our own government? In a hyperpluralistic society like ours, there are good apples, and there are bad apples. How do we keep the bad apples out if we don’t participate? 

It is a often told story that Benjamin Franklin answered a woman after the Constitutional Convention when asked whether the Constitution created a monarchy or a republic, he answered, “A republic, madame, if you can keep it.” This sentiment cannot be truer today in 2012. 

I just finished the book Onward by Starbucks CEO and President Howard Schultz co-authored by Joanne Gordon detailing Starbucks’s remarkable turnaround from several years of failed rapid growth preceding the recession that resulted in about 600 stores closing amidst the recession, and most of them were opened only 18 months prior! Starbucks Corporation has over 14,000 stores worldwide. It raked in $11.7 billion in revenues and $2.4 billion in earnings. Its increasing global presence is leading the company toward a newly reinvigorated growth model. But Starbucks was in trouble in 2007. It was growing too fast. It wasn’t meeting its financial metrics; same store sales were on a sustained decline. Massive promotional and pricing campaigns from competitors such as McDonald and Dunkin’ Donuts threatened Starbucks’s customer base. Columnists as-a-matter-of-fact-ly voiced against the indulgence of “$4 latte” in bad economic times. Against great odds to regain organizational and market confidence, Howard Schultz returned to Starbucks in 2008 knowing that he 1) could not simply dwell on the past; innovation is a must; and 2) there is no time for throwing blames; instilling confidence will be his #1 priority. With this mindset, Schultz rolled up his sleeves and went to work, on something that is only second to his family in terms of importance and love. 

What I came away from the reading is an inescapable appreciation for this man’s love and passion for his job, and the company he has built 40 years ago. Starbucks means the world to him. There is a soulful connection he has made with the readers acting almost as an excited kid showing off a magic trick he has pulled off in the last two years. “Magic” was cited by Schultz as the impetus that drove his entrepreneurial spirit, for “as a boy at the Horn & Hardart Automats in New York City, where I [Schultz] was amazed by the ‘magically’ reappearing food. Even at a young age, I began to realize what it means to be a merchant.’” Some of Schultz’s qualities strike me as notable mini-lessons on leadership: 

• His attention to details (Founder’s Conviction): reteach all Starbucks baristas on how to steam a perfect cup of espresso through a nationwide training video, commitment to get rid of the foul smell of burnt cheese in the oven from overtaking the natural coffee aroma in the stores, baristas’ ability to make eye contact with customers over the brewing machine, etc.
• His every effort to connect with customers and to bring coffee to life (Relevance): implementing Starbucks Rewards program, asking leadership to redesign Starbucks stores, using social media, commit Starbucks to community service, utilizing crowdsourcing through MyStarbucksIdea.com, and constantly innovating – rolling out Pike Place Roast and VIA to revitalize Starbucks’s core competency.
• His repetitive emphasis for Starbucks to be about people (Soul): ethically sourcing coffee throughout the Starbucks supply chain – leading the industry as the number one buyer of Fairtrade-certified coffee, never let go the “sacred cow” that is the comprehensive health care package that all Starbucks partners and baristas enjoy, his conviction to improve the company morale and culture through a large scale leadership conference for 10,000 Starbucks partners and managers in New Orleans, his leading effort to build more farmer support centers in East Africa to allow coffee growers to increase their productivity yield, thus more money in their pockets, etc. 

Howard Schultz wrote this book with much humility and humanity with little corporate pretense. From time to time, you can pick up on his disdain toward the financial guys, the Wall Street people, who do not understand what Starbucks is all about. As part of the Transformation Agenda he and his team drafted to turnaround Starbucks, the new bold mission for the company reads: “To inspire and nurture the human spirit one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time” The number 40,000 – the desired number of stores Starbucks would have liked worldwide – used to intrigue Schultz, but then he realized that number would not mean anything without the focus of one. Going back to an earlier post I wrote, Starbucks epitomizes the kind of 21st century corporate responsibility model that multinational firms need to adopt, in which the leadership puts a human dimension on corporate success, where profits come with social responsibility for the very people and communities affected by the business.

Schultz’s renewed emphasis on customer service, on human connection, on constantly refining and improving Starbucks’s value proposition made him an admirable 2nd timer CEO who righted his ship of enterprise and steered it toward financial stability and regained the trust of its own people and consumers at large. An amazing documentary narrative and memoir worth reading. I would recommend Onward to anyone who looks to be inspired by organizational leadership, love, passion, conviction, decision making, and effective communication in uncertain times. This book serves as a valuable, personal inspirational piece examining these topics through the eyes of a CEO who is leading one of the most resilient and innovative beverage corporations in the world. 

With President Obama coming out in support of gay marriage last week, this article resonated with me in the sense that I do believe gay marriage is a generational issue and will be a non-issue in twenty years when a new wave of young voters will simply not entertain letting government regulate personal matters. Government needs to get out of the business of marrying people period (Shout out to the Ron Paul movement) Maybe, just maybe, in Election of 2032, gay marriage will become a political obsolete nonissue because America, once again, will stand on the side of personal liberty and human rights for all people. 

Gay Marriage is a Generational Issue

With the new Class of 2012 about to graduate sometime later this month in a whirlwind labor market that cannot seem to make up its mind on which way to go, I have increasingly started thinking more and more about startup and entrepreneurship. A good friend suggested for us to start out our own company about a couple of months ago – actually Spring Break 2012 to be precise (yeah go figure). He and I had a very engaging brainstorming session driving to Durango, Colorado for s SB trip helping out the Habit for Humanity ReStore in La Plata County – we were both high on caffeine and had to keep bantering in order to stay awake. With much to be done over the summer, I will not bore you with details of our business until later when it is more concrete in fruition. However, I came across this wonderful article yesterday describing various entrepreneurial programs in some of the colleges across the country.

As you can see from the article itself, mainstream, top B-schools do not necessarily emphasize entrepreneurship at the undergrad level. Most schools cited are small colleges, some community colleges, who have a founding vision or an experimental teaching model for entrepreneurship. Even that, the effort is meager and boutique at best. Why isn’t entrepreneurship embedded in the curriculum of top B-schools seeing that these schools and Fortune 500 companies have openly praised and acknowledge innovation as a key tenet of sustainable competitive advantage? Perhaps, business schools themselves do not want to risk their reputation and branding in a game of Russian Roulette, waging merely on a raft of headstrong undergrads. It is understandable from this standpoint that the subject is reserved for experienced MBA students – after all, most startups end up failing. However, we are no longer in a time of affluent America, where opportunities abound and walk up to your door. In a time of grave economic uncertainty, creativity and innovation can go a long way – or I’d like to think: if you won’t be able to land that dream job, what do you have to lose?!? Go start something of your own! Be your own boss. Win or lose, the experience will be thrilling and rewarding. It befuddles me why business schools that supposedly care about student initiative and ingenuity will not invest more in training student entrepreneurs. Just think about the job generating potential of a new legion of entrepreneurs going out into the world greasing the wheels of free market with new ideas, new energy, and new ways of thinking! This kind of entrepreneur spirit and dogged passion will ensure a better path to economic sustainability than any of the quick political fixes been volleyed back and forth in this campaign season.  

Entrepreneurial Classes

Here is the more detailed version about Romney when he was in high school in the 1960s http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_print.html

This morning I was on the treadmill downstairs while watching CNN (my headphones broke – couldn’t listen to my iPod), the headline was that Romney apologized for his high school pranks in the olden days in the 1960s in Michigan. Washington Post exposed the story a couple of days ago saying that Romney and his buddies picked on a fellow classmate who was assumed to be gay – and voila! that’s all you need for the media to spin it 360 around the topic of the week: gay rights.

The story goes on to expose Romney as this New England boarding school brat, who was the son of the governor, well known for practical jokes and whatnot. The story hinted about inequality, privilege, and racist institutions. If you look at this story on balance, I’d say that 95% is about Romney’s life at Cranbrook, and 5% on this guy who frankly in my belief is a mere pawn in this round of media attacks against Romney. You know what? I am sure Mitt Romney messed around in high school and did stupid things… just like the rest of us! What surprises me is to what length this story goes to portray Romney as a gregarious womanizer (ok for his age then, I’ll tone it down a little – “chick magnet”) and prankster not that much unlike how the liberal media has treated George W. Bush and John McCain in the past. I do not argue that these folks were well-off and fortunate in their schoolings – they were; but to attack Romney in the story under the guise of lamentation for a Cranbrook gay alum IS “mean-spirited.”

The media has done it again – twice in a week – in pandering to the President, scrutinizing the Republicans – making them sound anti-gay. This kind of media and journalistic practice – from a news source that I personally had great respect for – is despicable and disappointing.  I can not fathom any other motives besides an attempt to further polarize the American people forcing the political middle to diverge into respective ideological camps. Those allegedly Democratic-leaning former classmates of Romney’s claim that “politics in no way colored their recollection.” But come on? How often do coincidence actually exist in American politics? Wow, the Post could not have found a better time to release THIS story?!

Journalistic bias aside, I think the larger issue here is making a big deal out of nothing! It does not require much for a reasonable person to piece this string of thoughts together: all-male elite boarding school, 1960s counterculture, expulsion from smoking cigarette, [and my personal favorites…] Romney’s involvement in Glee Club and Pep Club in order for one to understand that Romney and his buddies were still very much immature boys in school in a highly structured environment. If we measure our political leaders by what they have done in their adolescent years, we might as well as forfeit our right to vote for the President of the United States and opt to consider the next All-American Homecoming King. What’s more to come? “Gay student loses in a bid to become homecoming king: a 21st century revisit of the institutional exclusion of gays in high school?” Please. What else’s new? 

Romney apologizes for high school prank

Today President Obama came out and affirmed his position in backing gay marriage, which earned much accolade throughout my Facebook wall from my peers. While I appreciate the president for standing up in principle for the LBGT community, his action is so politically motivated that I find it frankly insulting that he is orchestrating this issue when it is politically convenient for him. It must be nice that he coincidentally has come to term with himself and finally “evolved” on this issue in an election year! It is so rich that a Democratic president is using this issue as a political wedge to gain electoral support – a political tactic used by many rightwing Republicans back in late 1980s and most of 1990s. In a year when some sensible Republicans are trying to have big conversations on issues that have significant ramifications to the future generations of this country i.e. jobs, economy, energy, tax reform,entitlement reform, etc., the Democrats are trying to use a wedge issue to divide the American public to gain slim margin at the poll. It is certainly not a coincidence that one out of six bundlers for the Obama campaign happens to be gay, or that 65% of young people (age 18-29) support the President. The President seems to be capitalizing on the speculative buzz that a Romney campaign advisor had recently quit due to his sexual orientation – or worse, that the Romney campaign may have fired Mr. Grenell because he happens to be gay and supports gay marriage, and the much publicized North Carolina amendment to ban gay marriage. I shall think highly of my president, as I shall like to believe that he is first and foremost an American, then a Democrat, but the president’s attempt to place politics ahead of his true beliefs shows a deficiency in his character. Why else did he leave the LGBT community hanging on this issue for the last four years? 

I have personally struggled with this issue for years. I think marriage is a complex social institution that has many historical and religious roots, while at the same time, it makes sense on a civil liberty basis to allow gays to be married. It appears lacking to me for some to argue against the notion that gay couples can be loving and capable of raising a family, considering how many inept heterosexual parents who neglect and abuse children every day. I also do not buy the argument that a someone would choose to have a loving relationship and marry a person of the same sex, as a consequence to allowing gays to marry, if he or she is heterosexual by nature.  I would love to explore this topic in college sometime if given the chance. However, I think for the President of the United States to pedal behind his VP in affirming gay marriage today, just a day after the North Carolina amendment banning gay marriage – while it makes political sense from a campaign perspective – is disgustingly insensitive. I do not doubt Mr. Obama’s true stance on gay marriage, but I find it offensive that he only offers “hope” when it is politically convenient for him to do so. I am even more perturbed by the wide scale fawning over this president – as evident from Facebook – who is demagoguing the American people for political advantage! We should call out politicians, Left and Right, who place campaigns and politics ahead of personal values.

Obama backs gay marriage

I posted the trailer to the film “Bully” on a blogpost about a week ago. Today, Hilary Clinton delivered a remark addressing the issue of bullying. I think no matter where you are on the political spectrum, we can agree that bullying is wrong. And by working together to stop and mitigate the effect of bullying, we make our communities stronger and our peers safer. Only when people feel safe in their environments can they excel in their own right. As this country is founded on the principle of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” let’s respect each other’s differences, appreciate each other’s God-given talents, and work together in a common pursuit for a better future. 

(Source: http://www.youtube.com/)

“Despite the flatlined economy, the art market has been roaring. In the first half of this year, total worldwide art sales hit a record of €4.3 billion ($5.8 billion), up 34 percent from 2010, according to the French Web site Artprice.com” (Blake Gopnick 2011 Newsweek). People like to talk about the “culture value of money” these days. What does that mean? On its surface, it’s almost a paradox. Are 1% capitalists and Wall Street billionaires – you know those CEOs who fly into Manhattan every morning in helicopters, and fly across continental U.S every weekend to go to their weekend home in Malibu to dine and wine with the Hollywood and Silicon Valley stars? – destroying the true value of art by throwing money at it? Remember the $100 million Picasso from a couple years ago? What about the million plus Warhol pieces? As suggested by the article, there is an increasing interest from new “artigarchs” from the BRIC countries who are experiencing the post-capitalist pleasure of collecting art works, perhaps due to a heightened appreciation for a piece of humanity? It always intrigues me how much people are willing to “invest” heavily in art works. How does one even acquire the taste of putting that much money in one art work? (If it is not practiced in the family already #newaristorcracy) It strikes me as if at one point in a person’s life, one has to feel connected to humanity in one way or another, given that their material needs have been met. A discussion with a friend earlier today prompts me to think about whether economics is the basis of society or association/community? (perhaps this is a false dichotomy…) Are we more concerned about a sense of belonging and association with others than economic needs? Or is it the other way around? I have no answer to that; but I think how we answer this question can provide a partial answer to the mentality of “artigarch.” It appears that these folks have made so much money in their life that they are now investing in the “culture value of money,” looking past the traditional role of money as a medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account (Econ 101) for something bigger than themselves – and their wealth. Perhaps if we approach capitalism and market with similar “cultural” considerations, then the whole debate/dichotomy between money and humanity may collapse, and the so-called “social responsibility” component of capitalism or capitalism 2.0 vis-a-vis Bill Gates may then serve to mediate the tensions between the two philosophical camps. One can hope that one day, just maybe, “investing” in art – $20 at a local art work fair, $50 at an antique store, $19 from eBay and Amazon – will become a societal norm of using earned money to appreciate culture and humanity, promote creativity, and even bring together communities. Art appreciation does not need to be a 1% hobby; it can be integrated into the 99% lifestyle because what is art but a piece of human expression created by a fellow human being?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/galleries/2011/12/04/five-highly-touted-artists-whose-works-are-lousy-investments.html#slide4

shortformblog:

Edward Munch’s iconic “The Scream” sells for $119.9 million: We’re with you, freaked-out screaming guy.

Barack and Michelle Obama sit down to have dinner with two couples on the campaign trail in what Obama campaign calls “Dinner with Barack”

(Source: http://www.youtube.com/)