THE STAINS AND SCUM FROM THIS CROOKED PIG WILL LAST FOR DECADES

 

 

Bari Weiss NY Times Resignation Letter

 Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. 

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. 

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. 

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. 

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. 

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. 

Sincerely,

Bari

 

NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN FROM HOWARD TULLMAN

 

Now's Not the Time to Make Risky Hires

Not that there ever is one. The labor market might be tight, but you lowering your standards will come back to bite you. As for friends, family and former startup CEOs, just say no. 

 

BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS@TULLMAN

 

I can't count the times I've told entrepreneurs that the worst thing you can do when there's a cash crunch is to try to do things cheaply that you shouldn't do at all. Almost without fail, these kinds of efforts end in heartache, embarrassment, or worse. With scarce resources, the risk of trying to be a mile wide and covering all the bases a little bit is that your clients, customers, and competitors will discover that you're an inch deep in critical places.  It's just like trying to spread too little peanut butter across too many slices of bread.  Cheap is the answer for people who can't figure out better, but ultimately you only end up kidding yourself. Doing a few critical things well is a much smarter bet and a far better use of your bucks.

Importantly, I've always expressed this simple idea quite practically in terms of dollars and cents. But there's also another equally important variation on the same concept today, which has nothing to do with money. The emotional investment and commitment that we make to almost anything we're doing is just as important -- or maybe even more so -- than whatever dollars we dedicate to the task.

The best operators I know, in any business, do everything with a vengeance. Jocks leave it all on the court or on the field; successful entrepreneurs don't have a brake or a governor on their throttles. They're all in, all the time; and even in the corporate world, no one who wants to make a difference comes to work intending to do just a decent job. The ones who commit fully and care the most are the ones who almost always win.

This is why it's so discouraging for me to watch owners and operators doing their hiring in a half-hearted and unhealthy way. We're in a tough labor market and I realize that it's surprisingly difficult to find really special and talented employees. But settling for what you can quickly or easily get rather than holding out for what you actually need to build your business is beyond pennywise and pound foolish - it's a formula for failing in the long run. In the toughest of times, you especially need the discipline to hold on, to look for and hire grown-ups, and to hold out for the very best. Because the minute you decide to settle for less than you need, you end up with even less than you settled for. Hiring everybody is good for nobody.

I've seen and been on every side of this situation too many times to count and I've developed a few simple rules that apply across the board in the best and worst of times and in the tightest and toughest employment markets. Here are five of the most critical ideas and guidelines.

(1) The best person you interview isn't necessarily the best person for the job you're trying to fill. CEOs generally are lousy interviewers. They don't listen to candidates; they're totally focused on trying to sell them on the business. Too often, they end up kidding themselves. Don't talk yourself into believing that you'll find the right spot somewhere in the company for that great guy or gal sometime down the line. Everything today is primarily about filling the needs you have right now. Hiring "smart" people isn't the same as building a great team. You don't get to build your bench until after you've built your business.

(2) If there are things you don't like about a job candidate, you'll like them even less after you hire that person. Forget about converting or convincing someone who's almost right that they can get the job done, or convincing yourself that things will get better in time.  People can improve in the natural direction they're headed, not against the grain. You don't have the time to try to save or salvage the ones who aren't already leaning strongly in the right direction. When you say you don't know about someone, the truth is that you do. Take a pass.

(3) Hire people who can get you where you're going -- not people who claim to have been there before.  A great deal of prior experience isn't that useful if you’re trying to do something that's never been done before. Be especially careful about hiring failed founders who always come with a bunch of unexpected baggage. Lending someone who's tried and failed a helping hand is great, but this idea from the Valley that a parade of past failures is some source of pride and a badge of courage never made much sense to me.

(4) Don't change the job description to compromise, or just to get someone hired. Be careful not to try to make a tough task easier by moving the goalposts or changing the requirements of the position in order to get things done. Stick to your guns and be patient enough to wait for the right person. Signing up someone who "sorta fits" and then holding your breath and hoping for the best isn't ever the smart way to go.

(5) Forget about hiring friends or family to fill in for a while. It's bad enough when an entrepreneur borrows money from relatives and friends to get the business started. The old caution still applies - before you borrow money from a friend, decide which you need most. It's almost always worse when you hire friends and family to help run the company. A simple rule: never hire anyone that you can't fire.

Bottom line: Go for the gold - get the best people you possibly can who are right for each position. And don't be intimidated in the process: "A" players hire A's; "B" players hire C's.  Settling only makes sure that you'll end up second best.

 

I'm Too Old to Have a Future. I'm Just Trying to Have a Past I Can Be Proud Of.

 

 

 

TWO CROOKS

 

NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN BY HOWARD TULLMAN

 

Election Spending Has Become a Waste of Money. Only Advertising is Worse.

Chicago's recent mayoral election demonstrates how broken the system is. Meanwhile, there's no market too small to dissuade Big Pharma from massively advertising its wares.

BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS@TULLMAN

Indifferent and ignorant voters get the results and the leaders they deserve, goes an old political theory. And judging by the recent mayoral election results in Chicago, the city’s citizens certainly got the shaft. The untried and untested mayor-elect was ultimately chosen by less than 20% of the eligible voters. The majority of voters, around 65%, stayed home. They didn’t come, they didn’t care, and they couldn’t be bothered. It was a “meh” mandate for mediocrity, meaningless maxims, and misinformation. An inexperienced guy, Brandon Johnson, a teachers’ union lobbyist who hadn’t bothered to pay his own bills, fines and debts, and wanted to defund the police, is now in charge of a $28 billion budget.  Sad but not shocking. 

Even after four years of the utterly unqualified and incompetent Lori Lightfoot -- a mayor who’s left the desolate city in shock and despair with newly resumed warm weather wilding -- the voters failed again to select a competent and knowledgeable leader. Of course, Chicago’s not alone in that department. After 4 painful years and all the lessons of Trump’s lack of interest in or any qualifications to lead, it’s still clear that hyper-partisan politics are blinding large parts of the public to the true requirements of successful governance. Too many people look no further than someone’s alleged party affiliation at the polls to make their choices. We know now for sure is that consistently painting Paul Vallas, the losing candidate who was a lifelong registered Democratic, as a closet Republican in a supposedly non-partisan election was the kiss of death given today’s totally tribal political warfare. Nothing else really mattered, although the timely Trump indictment days before the vote was the icing on the partisan cake that made sure that Johnson would limp across the finish line. In Johnson’s case, having a field army of teacher’s union workers to wrangle 30,000 young voters to the polls on Election Day also didn’t hurt. One encouraging prospect is that— at least in Chicago— we won’t have to hear the MAGA morons chanting “Go Brandon” any time soon.  

But what’s really shocking is the staggering amounts of money raised, spent, and largely wasted by the two runoff candidates on ugly and angry media, old-world marketing materials, pollsters and doorknockers, and political consultants of every size, shape and flavor. You would think that no one had explained to these guys and their “consultants” that traditional ad media strategies and the old analog channels were dead meat and that the only effective games in town were social media, word of mouth, and precise digital marketing.  Millions were wasted with little or nothing to show for the effort or the expenditures. And, of course, thanks to the Supreme Court’s tortured view that money is speech, we only rarely know the sources of the largest chunks of the dollars flowing into these campaigns or the objectives of anonymous donors.

Waste is one of mankind’s worst inventions. Nature doesn’t abide waste. Everything has a use and a purpose, and the world has worked reasonably well (at least so far) because nothing in nature is ever done in vain. It’s only when stupid people insert themselves and their feckless, selfish acts and concerns into the mainstream  that our climate, culture, and country are all increasingly imperiled. Nothing seems likely to interrupt this accelerating slide into oblivion because no one who’s getting paid wants to interrupt the flood of funding. And no one in charge or in office is willing to be the first to de-escalate the crazy spending. We can only expect more of same and worse from our political “leaders” even when actually winning an election (much like the dog who catches the car) these days seems like second or third prize and an invitation to years of pain, self-flagellation, and embarrassment. No wonder that anyone with a brain or a real job doesn’t want any of these positions.

In a city struggling with rampant crime, shuttered schools, harrowing levels of homelessness, hospitals constantly closing, and growing food insecurity for thousands of families, two politicians pissed away more than $30 million in a matter of months to ultimately elect a deceitful and chronically underemployed union organizer who was good at pretending to be up to the governance task without ever uttering a word of substance. The people would have been better served and the pols would have accomplished far more if they had just paid each of their few supporters a cash stipend to show up and vote in the old Chicago way. And, if you look at the current state of shooting and looting in Chicago, even before the new guy takes office, it’s clear that there’s unlikely to be much improvement in the unsettling situation any time soon.  

We saw the same kind of lucre lunacy and ludicrous spending – around $42 million - right across the state border in another “non-partisan”  race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which set national records for outlays in that type of contest. At least in that instance, the Democratic backers and funders from across the country got the kind of respectful turnout they were targeting and the MAGA sore loser, conservative Daniel Kelly, got precisely the major 10-point drubbing he deserved from liberal Janet Protasiewicz. Interestingly enough, the outcome analysis to date suggests that the historic win and the margin was largely driven by youth turnout which had little to do with ad spend and everything to do to already well-seated Roe vs Wade anxiety. 

While current politics may be one of the most visible and obnoxious levels of excessive ad spending, the problem is far more serious and widespread. Every dollar that any business spends is precious; no one can afford to waste scarce resources on old-fashioned “spray and pray” campaigns or other brute force initiatives based more on faint hopes than hard facts. In the frenzy to get back to business, or to get their businesses back, or to get their story out in the midst of the overwhelming noise and clutter, millions of dollars that should be spent on R&D or productivity enhancements are being squandered on repetitive and useless marketing and ad campaigns which no one wants to see. 

It seems like the unending glut of pharma ads – even running the identical ad several times in the same commercial break – is a conscious effort by these advertisers to drive viewers away from traditional broadcast TV. Right now, no industry is spending more on linear TV advertising than Big Pharma. In 2022, the top 10 pharma ad spenders combined for a total of $1.68 billion in TV ad spend. Who, apart from the miniscule numbers of actual sufferers of these exotic “diseases” and conditions, do they think is interested in messages where the list of risks, abuse, and frightening side effects is substantially longer and a more material part of the ad’s content than any benefit claims? Who’s responsible for the seemingly weekly creation of new two and three-letter diseases like TED that no one’s ever heard of, but which may be secretly plaguing them at this very moment? Who is concerned these days about confusing their penis with bent carrots and other supermarket vegetables?

The arcane references, technical language, descriptive behaviors, prohibitions against use with conflicting named drugs, and other cautions are completely unintelligible to 99% of the viewing population. I’m not sure, for example, that anyone even knows what TD or GmG are, and the doctors complain all the time now that patients come in asking for the “purple pill” even before they’ve been examined or diagnosed. You’d think that the FDA had already been defunded at this point – the regulators have completely abandoned any attempts to regulate these ads which nothing more than lists of symptoms to suck sufferers in and catalogues of side effects to cover the vendors’ bases and potential liability.

The other big and relatively new bucket (and check box) is the politically correct and DEI-infused ads that literally litter the latest pitches from almost every agency and brand imaginable. The most striking element of these new offerings and paeans to whatever’s woke this week is that although they’re running on broadcast channels, they couldn’t be more particularly and narrowly targeted to highly specific, ridiculously small, and typically already suffering populations. Do we really need to be bombarded nightly with suggestions that we “PrEP” this (whatever that means) or “Detect” that? You wouldn’t go wrong concluding that the purpose of creating and running these ads has little or nothing to do with actual sales and everything to do with satisfying corporate and political demands and desires to demonstrate virtue signaling.

The latest Bud Lite trans spokesperson debacle (and the bizarre non-apology, non-explanation letter from the Anheuser Busch CEO) is just another example of busting Bud and burning down the house in the alleged name of expanded representation. Of course, now that the Republican old guard has reminded the young and stupid turks in the party that AB is one of their largest donors, they’ve been told to back away from this particular stunt. Amazon’s ad featuring a teenage girl with a prominent mustache that is the absolute centerpiece of the ad is just another tweak waiting to happen.    Does anyone believe that these ad campaigns on traditional broadcast TV make the slightest economic sense when the demographics of the actual viewing population continue to skew older and older every quarter?   

One of the few smart things that Elon ever did was to spend almost nothing on Tesla advertising while GM, Chrysler, Ford, and Toyota typically spent almost $2 billion a year. At the same time, Tesla’s $3 billion spend on R&D was greater than the combined spends of Chrysler, GM and Ford. Guess who’s still leading the R&D race?

We’re back – for far too many companies – to the Wanamaker times. In the 1920s, department store entrepreneur John Wanamaker was the first guy who honestly acknowledged that at least half of what he spent on advertising was wasted. But that he didn’t know which half.

 

 

 

GO BRANDON !!

 

 

The Anniversary

BY JOHN DONNE

All Kings, and all their favourites,

         All glory of honours, beauties, wits,

    The sun itself, which makes times, as they pass,

    Is elder by a year now than it was

    When thou and I first one another saw:

    All other things to their destruction draw,

         Only our love hath no decay;

    This no tomorrow hath, nor yesterday,

    Running it never runs from us away,

But truly keeps his first, last, everlasting day.

         Two graves must hide thine and my course;

         If one might, death were no divorce.

    Alas, as well as other Princes, we

    (Who Prince enough in one another be)

    Must leave at last in death these eyes and ears,

    Oft fed with true oaths, and with sweet salt tears;

         But souls where nothing dwells but love

    (All other thoughts being inmates) then shall prove

    This, or a love increasèd there above,

When bodies to their graves, souls from their graves remove.

         And then we shall be throughly blessed;

         But we no more than all the rest.

    Here upon earth we’re Kings, and none but we

    Can be such Kings, nor of such subjects be;

    Who is so safe as we? where none can do

    Treason to us, except one of us two.

         True and false fears let us refrain,

    Let us love nobly, and live, and add again

    Years and years unto years, till we attain

To write threescore: this is the second of our reign.

 

NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN BY HOWARD TULLMAN

 

You Can't Be Creative If You're Fearful

In the current political environment, your team could be exercising too much caution. You need to free them from their fears or risk falling into mediocrity. 

BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS@TULLMAN

 

One of the saddest things about our current state of affairs is how much time and effort is expended on imaginary and inane fears largely manufactured by manipulative media, MAGA-poisoned pols, and the always dependable religious nuts and conspiracy mongers. These ridiculous rants and performative stunts have long passed the point of novelty or entertainment.  

They've also become so pervasive and problematic that smart leaders and managers can no longer ignore them. Because when people are confused and lose confidence in their leaders and institutions, they're too easily driven by their fears and not their hopes. And in startups especially, it's all about hopes and dreams for the world, not fears of and for it.

This increasingly dire situation -- where so many team members in firms of all sizes are losing faith -- would be plenty painful but not entirely devastating if these garbage conversations, infantile behaviors, and trashings of the rule of law were confined to D.C. Because having the Republicans continue to make fools of themselves certainly isn't the worst thing that could emerge from a Congress now led (loosely speaking) by fools, fascists, frauds, and football coaches. It's actually something of a relief that this crew couldn't pass a serious bill that had any prospect of becoming law. Nor could they fashion a budget that made even the slightest economic sense if their lives - instead of their notoriety, incomes, and fundraising -- depended on it.

But when the non-stop noise begins to impact our own employees' attitudes and our businesses' prospects, it's another matter entirely. When you walk around and see more of your people worrying than working, arguing about nonsense instead of advancing the company, and focusing on a foreboding future, it's time for you to step in -- like it or not -- because there's nothing more frightening than scared people.

As Warren Zevon sang: "you're a whole different person when you're scared."  Your people don't move, they don't think, they're unable to act, and your business soon stands still. Fear, whether warranted or unreasonable, is a great paralyzer. Fear can suck the momentum out of any movement, and it's the leader's job to break through the clutter, redirect the conversations, and make it clear that (a) worrying and fueling their fears is a waste of energy and imagination and (b) other people's fears and fantasies don't have to become theirs unless they let them. Their faith in you, themselves, their abilities, and the vision needs to be stronger than their fear. Worrying is like sitting in a rocking chair: you're in motion, but you don't get anywhere.

Too many talents now believe that every step forward, every innovation, and every act of change may be perilous and needs to be checked, conformed, and revised to anticipate a whole host of imagined fears. This hesitation can hobble the best instincts and the most creative ideas of even the strongest and most talented players in business and throughout our society.

The end result of this self-censorship is that the ideas, products, and other creations are less than they can and should be. Seeking constant consensus and avoiding the sharp edges of creative ideas is a certain formula for mediocrity. Fear can chase the best dreams into hiding. Worrying incessantly about the future is like praying for what you don't want. It doesn't save you or take away tomorrow's troubles, but it can simply kill today's best prospects. It never pays to rehearse for bad news.  

In the newest staging of the classic Lerner and Loewe musical Camelot, which opened more than 60 years ago, the New York Times reports that Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame felt the pressure to reimagine and contextualize two of the musical's songs in order to pre-empt the umbrage and outrage he expected from the woke and intently revisionist crowd.  If there's anyone who should be more than comfortable in his own judgment and confident in his craft, it would be this guy. Yet even he found himself in doubt, and for no good reason.

The first song, How to Handle a Woman, was an obvious feminist landmine. Apart from the sheer stupidity of anyone objecting to a song of roughly a dozen lines wherein the sole gender management advice is to "simply love the woman," it's hard to imagine how even an auteur as talented as Sorkin could improve on that simple and succinct message to placate the play's easily offended social critics. But we shall soon see how he threads that nebulous needle.

The second song's deficiencies are less clear. Apparently asking What Do the Simple Folks Do? is insufferably classicist. I'm not sure whether the theoretically offended group whose interests the zealots would surely be protecting are actual "simple" people, whatever that may mean these days, or whether the intended allusion and apparent slur was assumed to be directed to the proletariat in general. Whatever the theoretical slander, it was clear to Sorkin that changing the lyrics of this 63-year-old classic was essential. In the event that you're curious, what the simple folks did according to the original score "to shed their weary lot" and to "brighten up their day" was to whistle and sing. And dance. Much the same advice that the Seven Dwarfs shared with Snow White. Maybe DeSantis needs to get on Disney again to clean up this mess.

The implicit anti-classist suggestion of the know-it-alls is that we're not supposed to speculate about what others do or think to address their concerns and angst. Nor can we comment in any respect on their behaviors because such commentary would clearly offend or trigger them and certainly hurt their feelings. This whole ado only applies, apparently, to the allegedly privileged actions and inconsiderate efforts of Broadway writers, revisers, and producers who are restaging high-end historic musicals.

But only some musical expressions are subject to liberal oversight and outrage. Rappers are free to slime and slander women and cops and employ anti-Semitic tropes in their "art" without anyone objecting. MAGA morons led by the Orange Monster can corrupt and bastardize the sacred words of the Pledge of Allegiance without complaint or commentary from the same egg-shell elites and their servile media.

The connection between Broadway musicals and businesses is that you can't have your people getting so concerned about future criticism - internal or external, smart or stupid, talks or tweets - that they become tentative and self-editing in ways that sap the momentum of your business. In the music game, when a hit group starts working on their second album, too often it's all about fear, not instinct, and creativity just doesn't happen. You have to be prepared and willing to bet on an uncertain future and put your heart and soul into the effort and let the chips fall where they may.  

Most businesses are more likely to lose out due to their inhibitions and reluctance to step on toes, move aggressively against the competition, and take reasonable risks than from their inability to perform or their other vulnerabilities. As the boss, you need to help the team focus on finding something to hold on to that is more important than their fears. Whoever can see and manage through fear will be the ultimate winner. The caterpillar is safe in the cocoon, but it's the butterfly that is beautiful. 

 

 

 

NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN FROM HOWARD TULLMAN

 Why I Didn't Fall into the Thrall of an EV 

Yes, EVs are better for the environment. But the technology is young and still balky -- just ask Tesla owners -- and the infrastructure isn't anywhere near ready.  

 

BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS@TULLMAN 

 

We're approaching the end of the first phase of EV adoption - first movers, early adopters, tech bros with more bucks than brains, suburban keeper-uppers, and a few folks who think they're doing something cool for the climate all seem to have shopped their fill. And, notwithstanding the fact that the first-generation Teslas painfully shake, rattle, and roll after a few months of driving, there's been no apparent rush among these early buyers to trade in their "beta" versions for later, better-built models that are built to last. Plenty of these folks will tell you, if they're being honest, that the early Teslas weren't released by Elon -- they just escaped into the wild. 

And no one, with a straight face, will claim that the fit, finishes, and details of the early Teslas were anything to be proud of. The tech was great and unique; the trim, finishes, and detailing were second rate at best. Not that the owners will necessarily admit it, because most of them would rather die than die of embarrassment, but they bought a pig in a poke, waited forever to get it, and now they're living with it, but not necessarily happy about it. A recent suit by unhappy customers in California complaining about repair issues is just one of the latest examples. To keep up with their peers, they bought these beasts and now they're locked in. In the world of emerging technology, it's often just as bad to be too early as it is to be too late. 

Don't feel bad for these people because there are no victims here, they all absolutely deserve each other and the beating they're taking. And the fact that Elon is rapidly turning himself into a pariah means that the cars are becoming the newest version of mobile scarlet letters with a "T" instead of an "A". The only thing that has fallen faster than the value of a used Tesla 3 is the value of Twitter.  

Disruptive innovation typically proceeds in a fairly linear fashion - early efforts are inexpensive, rough around the edges, and bound up with cheap materials because investing in the finer aspects of the product doesn't make a lot of sense until it's clear that someone wants to buy whatever it is that's being sold. It's a bottom-up business strategy that relies on the fact that established competitors usually ridicule or ignore new startup entrants until it's too late. The Chinese took over key parts of the U.S. steel business by starting at the very bottom with cheap, ugly, and inexpensive rebar and they built their market penetration and expansion into higher quality and more expensive specialty steel from that initial product platform. 

An important sign that we've reached the end of the early going is the fact that every major automobile manufacturer now has a suite of electric vehicles for sale. And these new offerings are a serious step up in comfort, finishes, and amenities from the still stripped-down Tesla models. Detroit is no longer asleep at the switch and the biggest global players understand that -- while the basic technology will soon be commoditized - they have recaptured an opportunity to sell "steel" at scale rather than just "smarts" to the next generation of owners.  This group will, once again, be looking for all the quality and the high-end bells-and-whistles they're used to getting for luxury-car pricing. Tesla maxed out the price part of the equation, but dropped the ball on the perks that matter the most in the long term. 

It's clear that either Elon still thinks that this game is all about technology, which it clearly no longer is, or his factories can't pivot to creating high-end and high-cost Tesla versions that are qualitatively competitive with the best EVs from Porsche, BMW, Benz and GM. He's dropping the prices on every model pretty dramatically and that trend is likely to continue, especially outside of the U.S. A far less attractive explanation for Tesla's problems (not counting the Twitter and SpaceX distractions) is that Elon thinks that the next true differentiator will be fully autonomous driving while almost the entire rest of the world -- and all of its regulatory authorities -- believe that it will be at least a decade or two from today. If at all. Things may be smooth in the open highways and bright sunny climates, but there's not a major city east of the Mississippi where anyone would trust a self-driving car to last for 15 minutes.   

In addition, there's a much more troublesome set of obstacles on the horizon because (a) the problems to date are only being experienced by the very small population of EV owners, and (b) most EV owners decided that it really wasn't in their interest to broadcast just what a pain in the ass it has been to own and operate an EV, because misery loves company. The trick to happily owning a Tesla is to not mind that it hurts. As the number of EV owners continues to grow, the problems will only multiply over time. 

But don't expect the present owners to tell you their troubles. Pain is fleeting, but pride is forever and none of these folks want to admit that maybe they were a little premature and certainly that they sold a bill of goods as well. It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. 

Here are just a few of the things that everyone should know before deciding whether to take the EV plunge.   

(1)   Just like cockroaches, there's never just one person waiting in line at your favorite EV charging station - take a number, bring a book, and count on a couple of wasted hours. 

(2)   Charging your EV is an everyday event somewhere - whether you like it or not. You've already got a day job and maybe a dog, but here's another chore to make sure you keep busy. 

(3)   There's nothing like a cold Chicago winter to suck the life out of your EV battery and cut the time you've got in reserve to a mere fraction of what you've been promised. 

(4)   Never buy a car that you can't push. When the electrical system on an EV fails, the whole dashboard, all the assistive technology, and just about everything else disappears. You'd do better at that point to be driving a golf cart. 

(5)   Elon learned how to build a car but, in his trademark arrogance, never thought about repairs or maintenance. Minor dents cost a fortune to fix because you have to take apart whole sections of the vehicle to access certain critical components, which is something that Detroit mechanics can do blindfolded in seconds on their vehicles because their design engineers thought ahead. 

(6)   Millions of people live in multi-family residential units and, if they're lucky, there's now a charging station or two for their entire garage. Worse yet, many condo associations and co-ops won't let individuals install their own chargers even at their own expense. It's not much better at your office garage or nearby parking lot. 

(7)   There are broken public charging stations, which the locator apps fail to disclose; there are chargers whose plugs aren't universal or compatible with your vehicle; and there are growing indications that in major population centers the electrical grid itself is already insufficient to handle the projected daily loads of charging millions of EVs. 

Bottom line: while there may be use cases and even users for whom EVs make sense, the smart money is on taking it slow and letting someone else be the guinea pig as the OEMs learn that the car is only one important part of the ecosystem required to deliver a safe, secure and satisfactory EV experience at scale. After six months of trying to talk myself into an EV, I settled for an embarrassingly overpowered, gas-guzzling Mercedes AMG GT63s with all the frills possible. That certainly doesn't make me an adventurer, but I'm pretty certain that I'm always gonna get where I'm going in style.