It's Adaptive to be Vulnerable

Jack and Suzie Welch said it best when they wrote "Put Your Rage on the Back Burner" for this week's BusinessWeek Magazine.

"It's crazy to think the most profound economic and cultural upheaval of our times will end well if we let ourselves marinate in rage. Rage begets only rage: it often makes people do stupid, short-sighted things that invariably spawn unintended consequences. Rage isn't healing; it's polarizing.

We all have to fight to keep hope alive replacing our rage with renewed focus on the good that are all around us.

Right now there are thousands of geeky, brilliant engineering wonks sitting in their dorm rooms at MIT and Stanford and campuses around the world, oblivious to the weather as they pour their hearts into cool new ideas. Those kids and their ideas are the future of business if we just hang on tight and adapt.

Psychologist, author and artist Robert W. Firestone says that it's adaptive to be vulnerable - that we are more open to opportunity and willing to challenge ourselves and take risks when we're not hindered by rage and other defenses.

Certainly now is the time to stay focused and not get distracted with transitory issues. Ben Bernanke made the analogy of the current financial crisis to the story of the guy next door who smokes in bed. One day his house catches fire. While the house is on fire, it's not the time to place blame. Instead, it's the time to protect your home by pitching in to help fight the fire. When things are safe again there'll be plenty of time to assess blame and provide punishment where it's due. But right now the flames are challenging and it's time to take action.

The Welch article was uplifting to me. I hope you take the time to read it.

Innovation will lead the way out of our crisis

The current issue of Fortune Magazine has a story about Obama's difficulties in hiring a new CTO.

It's not just a Silicon Valley parlor game. The process is being watched all over the country - and the world. It's a key position: the new CTO will focus on using technology to spur innovation both within the government and the broader economy. And that innovation isn't just in the area of telecom; robotics needs to have an equal share of the focus.

Scientific advances and entrepreneurship will help lead us out of our crisis, but the process needs focus and direction from the top. Obama promised that leadership throughout the campaign by his desire to hire and his description of the functions of a Chief Technology Officer.

Having seen first-hand the success of public/private initiatives in Korea, Japan and Europe with a focus on robotics, I'm sure that similar focus here in the U.S. will yield dramatic successes, particularly in the area of robotics.

It's time for President Obama to choose our new CTO and get the process going.

President Obama. When will you choose our new CTO?

President Obama, when will you choose our new Chief Technology Officer?

You promised to stimulate the economy with investments in roads, schools - and technology. Robotics is the next transformational technology comparable to the introduction of the personal computer. Inroads in robotics are happening at an ever-accelerating rate in every area of the industry. Yet not one single reference to robotics (except within NASA) appears in any of the stimulus bills.

How can that be?

Robotic-related public/private initiatives are prevalent in Europe, Korea and Japan. These partnerships address important social issues (senior healthcare in Japan and Europe; increased productivity in many parts of Europe; etc.). And these initiatives are making progress. But not here in the U.S.

Again, how can that be? How can we be losing at a field we invented? The first manufacturer of robots was here in the U.S. It has since moved to Japan. In the service sector, robotics is on the threshold of amazing breakthroughs in healthcare, all manner of personal and home assistance, unmanned surveillance (aerial, underwater, on-land), space, defense and security, and in social therapies (physical, emotional, training, etc.). In the industrial sector, they are moving to lower costs, make the devices easier to train, enable more autonomy, and cover more aspects of manufacturing, logistics and process control.

Yet not one single reference to robotics appears in any of the stimulus bills.

We need a new CTO and we need him now.

Thank you for your time and consideration and for all that you've done thus far.

Accelerating Robotic Development Needs an Innovation Action Plan

Thomas Kuczmarski suggested in two recent BusinessWeek articles a need for a Secretary of Innovation - a cabinet-level person to sharpen the focus on changes needed to stabilize and revive the nation's economy, and an innovation action plan to mobilize and coordinate all of our technology resources. That presently unfilled position is called the U.S. Chief of Technology. Perhaps the delay in choosing this key player in the Obama administration is because of the prevailing hunker-down mentality, or because they don't see the pressing need, or confuse the position with R&D and sci-fi.

Too many companies are choosing to hunker down, postpone investments in R&D, and avoid risk-taking until the market has stabilized. The companies that continue to build an innovation culture and make modest investments to keep the innovation pipeline full will be the ones that enjoy a big competitive advantage a few years from now.

The process of innovation can have just as much to do with rebuilding a devastated economy as it does with rebuilding a product line. It needs someone responsible for leveraging the talents, skills, technologies, and capabilities that we have as a country.

I think his seven-point plan has merit:

1. Graduated tax credits for R&D investments
   
2. Innovation booster grants
   
3. Innovation awards
   
4. National business incubators
   
5. Innovation training
   
6. Intellectual property auctions
   
7. Innovation index fund

Innovation and robotics are buzzwords that are often misused. Both words suggest enormous appeal and promise, yet both are also used to imply excessive research and long-lead hi-tech costs with associated developmental problems.

The business side of robotics is not invention; rather it is the result of research to identify needs, wants and problems and then the interdisciplinary turning of those issues into practical, useful, necessary products and services. But the process desperately needs someone responsible for leveraging the talents, skills, technologies and capabilities that we have as a country.

The new Chief of Technology will help ensure that the full power of the innovation process will be used in the vital work of stabilizing the economy and for advancing technological change and innovation into the future. He or she needs to be chosen and put to work right away.

An Open Letter to the Obama Committee Selecting the new U.S. Chief of Technology

The new stimulus bills will only help the American economy long-term if they help create domestic job-creating industries. Unfortunately, thus far, there is not one dollar in these bills to support what could be a high-growth, high-income, high-job creation industry vital to America's future: robotics. And the 20 members of the Congressional Robotics Caucus have not produced a single news item for anything robotic in the past 120 days.

Society is experiencing significant aging which impacts industry, healthcare and our daily lives. Robotics facilitates a higher degree of personal autonomy, new methods for manufacturing closer to the customer, an entirely new industry in terms of services, and new technologies for security and defense. Robots and robotics are loaded words implying replacing workers in the workforce. In fact, the opposite is true. If the U.S. were to seize the lead in this innovative industry, it could be a source of not only national income, but hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The auto industry and its ancillary businesses could almost immediately yield benefits from strategic investments in improved robotic technologies to aid their industries. Improving manufacturing productivity, after all, is one of the keys to saving the U.S. auto industry - and the millions of jobs that depend upon it.

The healthcare industry is at a similar crossroads. The current application of robotics technology to provide tele-operated surgical solutions represents the tip of the iceberg. Robotics technology holds enormous potential to help control costs, empower healthcare workers, and enable aging citizens to live in their homes longer by the use of patient monitoring robots, robotized motor-coordination, intelligent prosthetics, robot-assisted physical, cognitive and social therapy, and robotized surgery. Yet they remain unviable alternatives as these procedures are not covered by insurance.

Revolutionary technologies are available now to increase worker productivity and revitalize manufacturing, particularly in small businesses. Small scale (micro) manufacturing can utilize these new technologies to accelerate the transition of manufacturing back to America. It will take investment dollars to spur this on - to be the driving force. Yet not a dollar has thus far been earmarked for anything robotic. Nowhere! Not in any of these stimulus or bailout bills!

Robotic-related public/private initiatives are prevalent in Europe, Korea and Japan. These partnerships address important regional social issues (senior healthcare in Japan and Europe; increased productivity in many parts of Europe; etc.). But not here in the U.S. [with the exception of military, defense, NASA and security projects].

I was so outraged by these facts that I rechecked the research -- with the same result. Not a single reference to anything robotic in the House Bill, the Senate Bill or the final American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. And not a peep from the Caucus. Nor from any of the Chief Technology Officer candidates.

How can that be?

Robotics is the next transformational technology comparable to the introduction of the personal computer, yet since the days when it was first established in America, almost all of the robot manufacturers have moved away from the US. Most robots are built in Europe or Japan. CMU, MIT, Stanford and a few other research centers have clusters of innovative regional robotic providers mostly funded by NASA, DoD and DARPA research.

I'm frustrated! It's hard to be hopeful under these conditions. But I do hope that you – the people on the selection committee for the new CTO – will take notice and select someone who is robot friendly, supporting his interest with strategic investments and public/private initiatives initially focused on small businesses, the auto industry and healthcare.

Perhaps Rodney Brooks (MIT, iRobots, Heartland Robotics) could be persuaded to take the job.


NOTE: This piece came from my participation in a robotics conference (International Expert Days) last week in Germany. It became clear to me that America was and is at an unfair advantage in the area of robotics because of the public/private initiatives prevalent in Europe and Asia -- and the lack of any similar partnerships here in the U.S. Hence, this article.

Plastics! Wordprocessing! PC's! The Internet! Cellphones! And now . . Robotics!

I've been fascinated by the growth aspects of the field of robotics. Not the industrial sector - although those are intriguing in their functionality. But it's the service sector that is of particular interest.

In 2011, more than 18 million robots will populate the world - up from 6.5 million in 2007. Most of the growth will be in the service sectors. [ iRobots is selling their line of cleaning robots in shopping malls!]

As a method to focus my fascination - and keep it on track to make money through selective investing - I've started THE ROBOT REPORT as a new website dedicated to tracking the business of robotics. It is a resource for news and links to and about this growing industry:

• Service Robots for Governmental and Corporate Use
• Service Robots for Personal and Private Use
• Industrial Robots
• Ancillary Businesses
• Educational and Research Facilities

THE ROBOT REPORT will be updated as often as there is news - and continually for the addition and maintenance of links.

THE ROBOT REPORT, in January, will begin daily updates of it's new ROBO-STOX™ index, comparing international publicly-traded robotic stocks to the S&P500.

You can help make THE ROBOT REPORT a success by telling your friends and colleagues about the site, sending stories and links, and suggesting new ideas and improvements. Perhaps even advertise on the site.

Please visit and explore our new site. Tell your friends. Send in stories, ideas and links. Tell us what you think. Add me to your mailing list.

Thank you.

Manipulation of the Right Brain

Hillary Clinton is a sharp, analytical woman. She's shrewd, calculating, objective, dispassionate and focused... all the reasons why she's going to lose the nomination.

People don't vote analytically; they vote emotionally. That's not what they say but it's what they do says author and psychologist Drew Westen. Another psychological principle kicks in to cover the dichotomy: rationalization: the need to invent plausible reasons for why you've decided as you have.

So people say they "figured it all out" and decided on Obama instead of Hillary but that's not what's really happened. That's the rationalization. Instead, people respond to Obama's use of emotive methods of communication and his focus on altruism and hope. They know he hasn't described his plans for the future; they don't care. They're paying attention because they're emotionally involved and prefer that connection to the facts.

It's right brain versus left (from the work of psychologist/zoologist Roger Sperry).

Hillary is going to lose because her presentations are left-brain focused; Obama is going to win because his subject matter appeals to the emotions of his listeners as right-brain material.

Republicans also use emotive methods of communication but much is predicated on capitalizing on fear and then refocusing that fear into areas favoring Republican issues and candidates. Karl Rove is a master at fear provocation and manipulating the results with the careful use of catchy one-liners (sound bites). Thankfully, neither Hillary nor Obama have used fear in this way.

People are being hit from every side these days: health care costs, aging, higher prices for food and fuel, sinking home equity, shrinking (or at least tightening) credit, the "war" and fear of more wars (Iran, another massive terrorist event), more disasters (climate change, rising oceanfronts, melting ice), more economic woes (bankruptcies, foreclosures, inflation, an inability of the government to continue Social Security and Medicare benefits, etc.), and, for those of us that can travel, the extraordinarily high cost of everything because of the sinking dollar. These issues will become even more volatile as the election nears for two reasons: they're real and happening, and people pay more attention as the election (a perceived time of change) gets closer.

Howard Dean suggests that every Democratic candidate should read Westen's book. But it doesn't just work that way -- you have to have the personality to go with it. A calculating person such as Hillary has her place in the world; but a more appealing personality that speaks to everyday issues and insights emotions just below the surface will win every time.

Let's Take A Lesson From General Musharaf

Pakistan's General Pervez Musharaf has this week assaulted Pakistan's judiciary, lawyers, and media, imprisoning many and shutting down or limiting access and content of TV broadcasts. He's fighting those who are fighting him. And his methods aren't that nice.

We could take a lesson from the General -- not by sending people to jail; but by firing them and bringing in a new group of players.

Throughout this campaign I've been waiting for any of the candidates to speak about corruption, temptation, campaign financing, the complacency of the Congress, the fact that Congress cares more about political gain and reelection than it does about the rule of law, the protection of our Constitution, and common-sense accountability. And the media who have complacently gone along with converting an altruistic news organization paid for by all the other venues, to the news groups becoming profit centers owned and operated by entertainment conglomerates.

Well . . . in the footsteps of a recent and very powerful speech by Salt Lake City's Mayor Ross Anderson, let's fire the bums.

You have failed us miserably and we won’t take it any more.

While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss.

You have breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law.

You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of the sort never before countenanced in our nation’s history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder.

We are here to tell you: We won’t take it any more!

I spent three hours researching the news to see how Mayor Anderson's speech was reviewed. In America, not a single major media outlet covered it but a few online services reported it with the full text of the speech. It appeared on a few independent blogs and news feeds. Overseas however, it got more play. New Zealand and Australia particularly.

Again, from Mayor Anderson's speech:

We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country – and the world. They were enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people – 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks – a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by a government for which we need to take responsibility.

One of the first few acts of the new team at the AG's office would be to enforce the FCC standards that are being flagrantly violated so that the media will do what we chartered them to do: fairly report the news in return for the use of the public's airwaves, and to end torture and rendition. I can't see either happening with our newly appointed AG.

One of the first acts of a new team of legislators will be to free themselves from funding outrageously expensive campaigns that require huge amounts of time fundraising to the detriment of hours that could be better spent doing the job they were elected to do. Whether it be federally financed campaigns or some other alternative, we cannot afford for our legislators to abrogate their duties to spend time fundraising and also spend face time with big contributors with an axe to grind. Since this topic hasn't appeared too often in the debates - and when it has there's been lip service instead of serious proclamations - I don't foresee a major change in this area either.

And one of the first steps from a new President will be to perform a serious house-cleaning (de-Baath-ification-like) within the top echelon of our government's bureaucracy to rid us of those who have been tempted and those who close their eyes to it.

There are a thousand other activities that need to happen to bring us back down to earth and get the various arms of our government functioning full-time again.

What say you?

Certainly the public senses all these things. Otherwise why would Congress' approval rating be so low? People know but they don't know what to do. The answer is simple: draw a line and say "I'm not going to take it anymore" and then vote to throw the bums out. More importantly, research who's running and select only those that meet your standards. YOUR standards.

What say you?

I'm still vacationing but . . .

I'm still vacationing but I came across this quote from Carl Bernstein in an interview with The Financial Times about his book A Woman in Charge that I wanted to share.

FT: Do you think Hillary will bring the same kind of tough image that America currently has under the Bush presidency?

CB: I think your description of a "kind of tough image" mis-states the actual facts in terms of the Bush presidency. A more common and widely held image, I believe, is one of arrogance, mendacity, incompetence, and secrecy bordering on, or crossing into, the extra-constitutional.

Bravo! and pass the sunscreen.

Gone Fish'in

Actually, I don't fish. But as you may have noticed, I'm on vacation until mid-September sailing throughout the Med and driving all over Europe and the UK. I'll write if the occasion arises but otherwise... I'm on vacation.

Thanks very much for being a reader.

Ex-Politico (Frank)