Every time I hear someone in the media comment on "great presidents", I have to wonder what criteria they could possibly use to make the claim. How could FDR be considered great by some historians, and among the worst by others.
It's clear that there would be differences of opinion sometimes big, and sometimes small, and most of those split along ideological lines. So, no list is going to be correct. That said, I did find one (from this posting by Justin Buell ) that has a lot of potential; mostly because it is derived from entirely objective measures.
A couple of observations: I had been going along with the notion that Ronald Reagan was easily in the top 5; only to see him in this list as #17 overall. Was he merely the best in our lifetime? That gives me pause. If in the future we could count on the statistical likelihood of having more presidents better than Reagan, there would indeed be hope for the shining city on the hill.
William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) is the best ever. He was in office one month, and thus did not do enough damage to fall down the list. All present and future presidents should learn from this.
I have to agree, possibly even endorse this list, but would add the 44th one somewhere in the bottom 5. It certainly didn't take him long to find his place.
Here is the complete list.
1. William Henry Harrison
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. John Tyler
5. Franklin Pierce
6. James Buchanan
7. Warren G. Harding
8. Zachary Taylor
9. James Monroe
10. William Howard Taft
11. Thomas Jefferson
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Benjamin Harrison
14. John Quincy Adams
15. George Washington
16. Rutherford B. Hayes
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Gerald Ford
19. Chester A. Arthur
20. James Garfield
21. Dwight D. Eisenhower
22. John Adams
23. James K. Polk
24. James Madison
25. Andrew Jackson
26. William McKinley
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Herbert Hoover
29. Millard Fillmore
30. John F. Kennedy
31. Andrew Johnson
32. U.S. Grant
33. Bill Clinton
34. George H.W. Bush
35. Richard Nixon
36. Theodore Roosevelt
37. Harry Truman
38. George W. Bush
39. Woodrow Wilson
40. Lyndon Johnson
41. Abraham Lincoln
42. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Steven's Dilemma
We’re pretty happy with the antenna design … we’re not feeling right now that we have a giant problem that we need to fix. -- Steve Jobs
A lot of people saw Jobs' tone at the press conference on the iPhone 4G's "AntennaGate" flap as contempt for his customers. His attitude seemed to be: look at all that I’ve done for you people — and now you quibble over some trifle? -- Michael Malone
I really thought lightning had struck with the original iPod, and that (mostly) it was because Apple made it accessible to the masses, not because there was much that I thought was special about it. I had MP3 players that worked as well and were less expensive. But Apple always had the inherent promise that they would make it as painless for the masses as possible, including making the necessary arrangements to make the music accessible for a reasonable price.
Although I figured they would hold the market for a good long time, I thought that their niche was already cast, and they'd be in maintenance mode.
The iPhone surprised me, as did the iPod touch. I'm still figuring out all the things my touch can do. I've had it for a year or so, and until recently, I was only vaguely aware that I could surf the web on it.
Remarkable stuff...and clearly another stroke of lightning in the same spot. So, now the world expects to be delighted and thrilled with Apple.
I have now seen the iPad, which as near as I can tell is iPod for the eyesight impaired. The numbers of units sold simply floors me. It's probably a better form factor for what a lot of people were doing with the iPod (i.e., sitting at their breakfast table or in front of TV scanning email and facebook), but it can't be considered a breakthrough product. Some people were conditioned to buy it. Others saw it as a solution to their needs. Clearly a home run for a product engine like Apple. But the buzz has died down quickly on that product. An iPod on steroids, and that's it. Yes, yes, very nice. So, Steve, what's the earth-shaking followup?
Maybe that's where the iPhone 4 comes in. Mostly mature technology, diffferent package. Some nice enhancements. What all is there to talk about? Gizmodo (1) and Antennas (2). Both of those focused more on the company and it's processes than the product itself. If they really want the next lightning bolt, it's going to have to come from somewhere else. People are bored with their smart phones.
A lot of people saw Jobs' tone at the press conference on the iPhone 4G's "AntennaGate" flap as contempt for his customers. His attitude seemed to be: look at all that I’ve done for you people — and now you quibble over some trifle? -- Michael Malone
I really thought lightning had struck with the original iPod, and that (mostly) it was because Apple made it accessible to the masses, not because there was much that I thought was special about it. I had MP3 players that worked as well and were less expensive. But Apple always had the inherent promise that they would make it as painless for the masses as possible, including making the necessary arrangements to make the music accessible for a reasonable price.
Although I figured they would hold the market for a good long time, I thought that their niche was already cast, and they'd be in maintenance mode.
The iPhone surprised me, as did the iPod touch. I'm still figuring out all the things my touch can do. I've had it for a year or so, and until recently, I was only vaguely aware that I could surf the web on it.
Remarkable stuff...and clearly another stroke of lightning in the same spot. So, now the world expects to be delighted and thrilled with Apple.
I have now seen the iPad, which as near as I can tell is iPod for the eyesight impaired. The numbers of units sold simply floors me. It's probably a better form factor for what a lot of people were doing with the iPod (i.e., sitting at their breakfast table or in front of TV scanning email and facebook), but it can't be considered a breakthrough product. Some people were conditioned to buy it. Others saw it as a solution to their needs. Clearly a home run for a product engine like Apple. But the buzz has died down quickly on that product. An iPod on steroids, and that's it. Yes, yes, very nice. So, Steve, what's the earth-shaking followup?
Maybe that's where the iPhone 4 comes in. Mostly mature technology, diffferent package. Some nice enhancements. What all is there to talk about? Gizmodo (1) and Antennas (2). Both of those focused more on the company and it's processes than the product itself. If they really want the next lightning bolt, it's going to have to come from somewhere else. People are bored with their smart phones.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Why the republicans need to embrace (and fear) the tea parties.
---
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.-- Samuel Adams
We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them. -- Fmr Sen Trent Lott
The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out -- Sen Lindsey Graham
I'm not sure I should be participating in this story. -- Sen Bob Corker
From this vantage point, it does appear that the country's "regular people" identify with the tea parties. The tea party-goers invariably ask for less government (which is exactly the same as asking for more freedom). If the republicans are not "on" with that, the tea partiers will find someone who is. It may be a brave new world out there. I think people are genuinely tired of the left progressive party and the moderate progressive party being the only two choices. Experienced political observers are becoming the vocal majority. Unless something changes in the republican party, this powerful train leaves without them.
Tea party attendees are asking for a halt to unsustainable economic policies. Democrat and quasi-democrat parties don't want to sign on to that. Tea party types want government transparency and accountability. No more bailouts, and are without a doubt very tired of compassionate progressivism. Yet these two parties continue to glide that path together.
In the product development business, we have an axiom that says: If we follow the ideas of brand X, the brand X customer will always choose brand X over our version of brand X. They will pick Nike vs any other swoosh. If we instead make a superior product that is unabashedly Brand Y we have a chance to cut our own path. If we want big government, the way to get that is to vote democrat. No question.
There is nothing more useless than a big government republican (Wizer One-Liner #16 for those of you keeping score), yet it is the only kind younger voters (all those under 30) have ever seen. They likely wouldn't recognize the tea partiers as republican anyway. So, the risk is great that the republican party will "miss" this train.
Senator Graham doesn't see the coherent vision, yet it's as plain as every tea party sign in the rally: The "new" coherent vision for running the government is less government, Senator Graham, and if you don't see that, it might just result in your untimely retirement.
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.-- Samuel Adams
We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them. -- Fmr Sen Trent Lott
The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out -- Sen Lindsey Graham
I'm not sure I should be participating in this story. -- Sen Bob Corker
From this vantage point, it does appear that the country's "regular people" identify with the tea parties. The tea party-goers invariably ask for less government (which is exactly the same as asking for more freedom). If the republicans are not "on" with that, the tea partiers will find someone who is. It may be a brave new world out there. I think people are genuinely tired of the left progressive party and the moderate progressive party being the only two choices. Experienced political observers are becoming the vocal majority. Unless something changes in the republican party, this powerful train leaves without them.
Tea party attendees are asking for a halt to unsustainable economic policies. Democrat and quasi-democrat parties don't want to sign on to that. Tea party types want government transparency and accountability. No more bailouts, and are without a doubt very tired of compassionate progressivism. Yet these two parties continue to glide that path together.
In the product development business, we have an axiom that says: If we follow the ideas of brand X, the brand X customer will always choose brand X over our version of brand X. They will pick Nike vs any other swoosh. If we instead make a superior product that is unabashedly Brand Y we have a chance to cut our own path. If we want big government, the way to get that is to vote democrat. No question.
There is nothing more useless than a big government republican (Wizer One-Liner #16 for those of you keeping score), yet it is the only kind younger voters (all those under 30) have ever seen. They likely wouldn't recognize the tea partiers as republican anyway. So, the risk is great that the republican party will "miss" this train.
Senator Graham doesn't see the coherent vision, yet it's as plain as every tea party sign in the rally: The "new" coherent vision for running the government is less government, Senator Graham, and if you don't see that, it might just result in your untimely retirement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)