Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.

The genius of our current plutocratic power structure is their ability to present the illusion of change on the surface, while maintaining continuity just beneath the surface. In other words, despite change in leadership, despite change in political party, despite promises to make a difference in the state or condition of things, despite promises to reform, nothing deviates from the status quo, wealth and privilege continue to reign supreme and our leaders, regardless of party affiliation, remain faithful to imperialist aims and objectives.

Of course, this should come as no surprise, since it's the wealthy and privileged--whether individually, or corporately--who provide most, if not all the funding for both the National Democratic Party and National Republican Party. The same wealthy who who demand free enterprise, at the same time that they totally support monopoly and vested interest. They use the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously in order to keep "we the people" in eternal subjugation.

If you don't believe the two-party system is a sham, consider the continuing escalation of economic inequality, economic insecurity, economic exploitation, corporatized media, military intervention, assault on our civil liberties, "Big Brother", educational indoctrination, not to mention the ever-increasing prison population (since the 1970’s our prison population has increased by over 500%, with over 2.2 million people in prison, 900,000 of them, black) over the last four decades.

What is the point of voting when the outcome is the same?

Read more...

Are We Living in a Post Racial America? Or, Jim Crow Junior America?

After all, as the New York Times claimed, the election of President Obama into the White House, swept "away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive". Really? Then, why are the African Americans suffering more than any other group of people at this time? Remember, many of the white supremacy members said they voted for Obama to send the country into a tailspin...foment a race war.  One former member, Tim Zaal, said, "The faster this country falls, the sooner white revolution will arise." 

"Could it be that the nomination of Obama finally sparks a sense of unity in white voters? I would propose that this threat of black rule may very well be the thing that finally scares some sense back into complacent whites." -- Neo-Nazi, with the pen name, "LastOfMyKind"

For instance, under Mayor Bloomberg, the NYPD’s practice of “stop and frisk” - — practice of officers stopping city residents on the street and searching them- increased to 600,000 stops performed last year. "87% of those stopped last year were black or Hispanic, a number disproportionate to their share of the population. And just 7 percent of the stops resulted in arrests, meaning the vast majority of those stopped committed no crime. The NYPD argues the practice reduces crime, but it has been coming under increasingly intense criticism in recent months".

Read more...

Read more...

The Dangerous Sway of Charisma and Charismatic Salvation

Max Weber in his book, Economy and Society, defined charismatic leaders as those who are "set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least exceptional powers and qualities... [that] are not accessible to the ordinary person but are regarded as divine or as exemplary."

It's often when things are at their worst, when we find ourselves in a dependent state that we look to leaders to bail us out. This is when we are at our most vulnerable. This is the time when we must beware of those with all the answers, who make us feel good, who offer hope as if they are that hope.

We should look for leaders who encourage us to work with each other, who are realistic, and who may not always have the answer or make us feel warm and fuzzy all over.

Nationalism, patriotism, celebrity worship are all examples of referent power,  which is individual power based on the power-holder's ability to sway people and shape the future by their sheer presence and personality. It's the ability to captivate the masses by spell-bounding charisma. It is foolish and can be very dangerous, especially in a celebrity culture like ours. More than ever before, leadership should not rest upon the shoulders of one individual.

Knowing what we know about Hitler now, it's very hard to imagine his power to captivate; however, as the following pictures demonstrate, he certainly did.

"Some observers have suggested that in the presence of charismatics, followers can experience inspiration, empowerment, and even awe. Those states are created by specific acts undertaken by leaders--behaviors such as dramatizing a mission, assuring followers of their competency, projecting self-assurance, and enhancing their own image. Other accounts of charismatic leaders unabashedly assert that leaders need to engage in impression management, in image building, and in manipulation of meaning in order to bind "subordinates" closely to them and to their vision. It's no wonder, then, that charismatic leaders are granted enormous license to direct an organization--be that in a direction of pro- or anti-social practices".

The Brown House in Munich

Hitler's 50th birthday

Pictures from "The Hitler No One Knows"

Read more...

How to Avoid Becoming a Boiled Frog.

After 171 years of doing business, it's safe to say that the company Procter & Gamble (P&G) stands out as a strong survivor, not to mention, "thriver" in the cutthroat world of business. P&G is one of only nine companies from the Fortune 50 from 1955, to remain on that list. The other eight companies - six oil companies, Boeing, General Electric - may partially owe their survival to what's often called the "Military-industrial complex (MIC)", rather than their philosophy, way of doing business, reputation, "out of the box" thinking, and Value-Based Leadership.

According to Bob McDonald, current Chief Operating Officer of P & G, it’s not buildings, employees, brands, technology or product that qualify as the scarcest resource in today's world...it's leadership, because nothing happens without leadership. And by leadership, he means distributed leadership, in other words, leadership that's not designated by a person’s title or position, but an environment that fosters the idea that everyone can be a leader and that the leadership shifts depending upon what the issue or situation is.

McDonald believes discovering your purpose is essential to good leadership and to do that one must examine his values by, in his own words, “getting in touch with my culture, experiences, education, family” and that “leading a life driven by purpose leads to a more meaningful and rewarding life than meandering without direction.”

Once discovered, reassessing those core vales and beliefs by self examination, and focusing on the capabilities that you do not have, are absolutely necessary to thrive and survive in this "volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous world."

In addition, he uses as an example of why some companies don't survive, the parable of the boiling frog, which is basically to remain alert and responsive to gradual changes all around you.

“Character is the most important trait of a leader -- defined as always putting the needs of the organization above your own. The officer eats last. ... If your ambition is for the organization, people will follow you. If you’re a leader whose ambition is all for your self, people will figure that out.”

Robert (Bob) McDonald

Read more...

Wanted: Tree-Shaking Leaders With Balanced Strength.

As our nation faces unprecedented change, and we try to navigate through uncharted waters, it's imperative that our leaders understand the need for balance. They must be able to blend the strength of their convictions and character, with enough humility, to prevent the arrogance that so often accompanies powerful positions.

Regardless what you may think of his views, Pope John Paul II, exemplified the type of balanced strength and leadership we need now. Eight months after he was elected Pope, armed only with his charismatic presence and the courage of his convictions, he took the calculated risk of visiting his homeland, Poland, in an effort to normalize church-state relations with its antagonistic communist government. One year later, in 1979, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko said he was interested in establishing diplomatic relations. Ten years later, the Berlin Wall fell.

In a nutshell, the leadership of Pope John Paul II, an amalgamation of great strength, intelligence, charisma, and paradoxically, a willingness to subjugate his ego for the good of all, succeeded in establishing a meaningful geopolitical presence for the Catholic Church, in an effort to advance social justice and human rights all over the world.

“I didn’t cause this to happen. The tree was rotten. I just gave it a good shake.” -- Pope John Paul II, in response to his role in helping to dismantle the "evil" empire

Well, starting with our own economy, rotten trees abound, and we need a "tree-shaker" leadership.

Vice-President Joe Biden has been around long enough - taking his fair share of lumps - to make most of us feel comfortable that he is - no matter what his position or status in life - who he is. He doesn't "mask" his truth or put on heirs; he's comfortable in his own skin and even more important, he is "comfortable", making mistakes. So, it's fairly safe to say that Biden is a man of balanced strength, not to mention, he also has a history of shaking, at the very least, a few branches.

President Obama, although, not quite as "seasoned" as Joe Biden - as we have already seen - does not fear failure, nor does he let it stand in his way. There is no question that President Obama possess a balanced strength, and it appears he's willing to shake a few branches.

In conclusion, both President Obama and Vice President Biden are courageous men. They can admit error with the same confidence they celebrate success because they both understand failure brings them one step closer to accomplishing the intended purpose, as it provides a learning opportunity. However, the question still remains as to whether they will not only shake a few trees, but shake them hard enough

"There’s never been an elected official I’ve worked with — a president or in my iteration as a senator for 36 years — who is as incisive and disciplined about what he focuses on. He’s clear, he’s disciplined, there’s a precision in his thinking that has surprised everyone. And it goes along with a genuine informality,” he continued. “That informality breeds you being prepared to say, ‘Well, Mr. President, I don’t think that works ... . As opposed to walking in and saying, ‘Sir ... .’ - Vice President Joe Biden on President Barack Obama

Read more...

What Makes Craig Newmark Stand Out Above the Rest?

In a world where the problem of scarcity has been solved, and there is more than enough to go around for everyone, why is it okay that one-fifth of humanity prosper at the expense of the other four-fifths of humanity who continue to live in poverty?
Moreover, why is it okay, that as wealthy as our country is, that so many of our own citizens live in squalor? At the same time, what did an individual hedge fund manager do to "earn" the equivalent of the budget of a nation? These questions and many more just like them require our attention in order for us to emerge from this crisis as the United States of America.

The realities that exist today will not tolerate greedy, power hungry, elitist leaders whose only incentive is the acquisition of wealth. We the people must make our and economic leaders understand that the market is nothing more than a mechanism that is not immoral or moral, but amoral. The market doesn't care, therefore it is up to us to create and maintain its "social conscious".

Approximately one week ago I blogged about Internet entrepreneur Craig Newmark's - The Wave of the Future: Reluctant Capitalism and Nerd Values? - people-centered philosophy, which promotes the idea that all of us, should have an opportunity to contribute our views, ideas, experience and knowledge in what he calls a "culture of participation".

What makes Craig Newmark stand out is his willingness to walk the walk and truly live by the Google rule, 'don't be evil'...something the Google leaders haven't always lived up to. Newmark has been able to resist the allure of power and greed that has overcome the best of intentions many times over. The strength to stand up to the seduction of power will be the true test of leadership as we head into the future, because by its very nature, power for the sake of power strips the person of his ability to collaborate and share his humanity.

In the article, Jeff Jarvis Asks: Is Google an Evil Empire? Dave Kansas interviewed Jeff Jarvis, author of What Would Google Do? (WWGD). Jarvis credits Newmark with his third rule regarding WWGD:

"Get out of the way. This is actually Craig Newmark's law. As Google built the most powerful tool imaginable—the entire world of digital knowledge revealed behind a simple search box—so did Craig build a simple tool that changed society (and newspapers and real estate and more) without prescribing how we should use it. They create platforms to enable us to do what we want to do and then, instead of giving us rules about their use, then they stand back and put us in charge."

By combining knowledge with a certain level of humility, Craig Newmark harnessed the power of the Internet and transformed society. He did so without succumbing to self-worship and self-promotion all the while challenging the fundamental assumption that is wholeheartedly accepted by most business leaders and that is Milton Friedman's belief, that their only "social responsibility is to make as much money for their stockholders as possible".

The way power is currently distributed, the workplaces are factories of authoritarianism and you can’t go to work everyday, 8 hours, turn off your brain, take orders, have no voice in decisions that affect your life and then go home and become an engaged citizen in the big issues of public life. -- Elaine Bernard

Read more...

Does Rating The Presidents Freeze the Debate?

Why are Abe Lincoln and George Washington the greatest Presidents? Why was Andrew Jackson, of all presidents, a "near great" president? Why are Ulysses S. Grant
and Warren G. Harding rated as the worst presidents? Why is Zachary Taylor always one of the worst presidents?

The first official rating of presidents was rather recent. In 1948. Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked two dozen of his colleagues to rate the Presidents from Washington to Roosevelt. That's it. Truman wasn’t assessed as he was sitting a President running for reelection. They selected the following:

Great: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln,

Near Great: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson,

Poor or Failures: Warren G. Harding and Ulysses S. Grant

Some ratings seem somewhat obvious. George Washington ranks up there with the greatest because without him, we may not have had the rest. Abraham Lincoln is chosen for how he handled the Civil War, ending slavery and his overall humanity. However, that's my humble opinion, but that's how our presidents are "officially" ranked - by someone's "humble" opinion, possibly based on the version of history he happened to read. Or, as far as any of us know, they could have made their choices based on hair color, height, sense of humor...who knows?

In 1962, Arthur Schlesinger Jr repeated the same poll with the same results as his father. In 1996, Arthur Schlesinger Jr once again commissioned a poll including two elected democratic officials Mario Cuomo and Senator Paul Simon of IL. Only one participant identified as conservative. Could this be due to a lack of conservative historians? Yep, that must be it.

According to Alvin Felzenberg, Deputy and Senior Director of Communications for the 9-11 Public Discourse Project and author of "The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game", it's fairly easy to monitor the ideological bias of the graders and correct for bias. Just add a few more conservatives in the mix.

"Freezing the debate", Mr. Felzenberg's phrase, is more a manifestation of rating the presidents, than a flaw in the method. The experts have spoken! The experts may have spoken, however, without much to back it up, yet many will swear by the choices of these experts without question, therefore freezing the debate.

“Beware of the power of the expert. They’re not always disinterested and they’ll always put on over on you.” -- Calvin Coolidge

"Andrew Jackson" is the symbol of what's wrong with this whole process, as he represents the most blatant error in judgment based on a faulty "process" lacking any standards, rules, or tests on which the rater's judgment or decision should be based.

Take for example, Andrew Jackson's farewell speech. He stated he was proudest of the following three things:

• The destruction of the Bank of United States which at the time acted like the Fed Reserve Board… it expanded and controlled credit depending on what the business cycle was doing at the time. He thought the Bank of the United States was a bad idea because he hated the President of the bank, Nicholas Biddle. Why? Because Mr. Biddle contributed to Jackson’s political enemies. President Jackson said, "I will destroy the bank, I will cut its head off I will kill it." And he did. Jackson vetoed - the first President to use his presidential veto just because felt like it, not because it was unconstitutional - the Banks supporters attempt to use Congress to enact a new charter for the Bank. Although The Bank of the United States was far from perfect, he destroyed the bank knowing full well the financial panic that would ensue. He was responsible for the first presidentially induced depression.

• The Indian Removal Act 1832: 1828 was the last good year for the Cherokee nation. They had almost fully transformed itself into a "western" nation as President George Washington had planned from the beginning. Based on the example of the American republic, they adopted a political constitution by the tribe. It provides for an elected principal chief, a council consisting of two chambers, and a system of courts of law. They also publish the first American Indian newspaper.
  
  In 1829, Andrew Jackson begins his first term in the White House. Despite legal victories for the Cherokee Indians in the Supreme Court regarding their land, Andrew Jackson's response was “Five members of the Supreme Court issued a decree, let them enforce it. Go to Hell!”. With President Jackson's "consent" Georgia and Tennessee began a reign of terror using arrest, murder and arson against the Cherokee. Fifteen thousand Cherokees were driven at gunpoint out of their ancestral homes in Georgia and Tennessee to a distant land west of the Mississippi known as the Indian Territory. Four thousand Cherokees, more than one in four, died as a result of the internment and forced march which they called "the journey where they cried" or "The Trail of Tears."
• Standing down secession- OK, he gets to be proud of this one.

President Andrew Jackson sounds a little too much like President Bush.

Read more...

Could George W. End Up Being One of Our Greatest Presidents?

Perish the thought; however, it's possible. What if the Middle East transforms from a boiling cauldron of violence and hostility into a peaceful hub of American loving individuals in the next few years? What if our financial system once again serves as the model for the rest of the world to follow? You get the point. Anyone who has engaged in reading this blog knows what I think of President Bush, however, I am also aware of the difficulty of seeing the forest through the trees.

I never thought Ronald Reagan would go down as one of our greatest presidents, yet, less than two decades later, it seems as if he may just do that. Granted, he had something to do with the fall of the "evil empire", but for the most part, President Reagan added the finishing touches to an effort started long ago, which when combined with being in the right place at the right time, makes it appear as if he had more to do with it than he really did (Yes, I'm biased as he is not my favorite President, however he is not solely responsible). President Reagan did accomplish more than someone like me is likely to give him credit, as he also created the Earned Income Tax Credit, uncharacteristic of his presidential agenda, as it enables a disenfranchised America.

On the other hand, by pushing supply side economics and deregulating the shadow economy thus increasing the gap between the haves and the have-nots, President Reagan ignited a very egocentric, self-centered trend in our country that fueled the entitled, "overweight" America we see today...not to mention the Iran-Contra issue; ignoring the Aids crisis and many other blemishes that scar his leadership effectiveness.

Assessing leadership is difficult as it is not a moral concept in and of itself, yet it's almost impossible to evaluate someone as a leader outside of a moral context. All ethics and morality aside, Jesus Christ far "out-leaders" Hitler. Jesus influenced and continues to influence billions of people, thousands of years after his death and He did not use coercive techniques to unite his followers to share His vision. Hitler, on the other hand, amassed a large following, however his "leadership" did use brute force and over half a century later, has a handful of followers, at best.

However, comparing leaders is normally not that straight forward, with the exception of leaders like Jesus Christ and Gandhi, most leaders exhibit an egocentricity that leads to decisions that end up destroying as much as their leadership serves to restore. Consider Charlemagne. He was a great military leader and illuminated a very dark part of history, giving the people he ruled a taste of what it was like to live before the fall of Rome, however he also ordered the beheading of 3,000 people in a matter of a few hours for not adopting his new found belief, just one example of how bloodthirsty he could be. Was he a good leader? He was, overall a good leader, however, no one with a reverence for life can overlook his glaring inhumanity.

If we distinguish between leaders and tyrants, weeding out everyone who found it necessary to use brute force to remain in power, the task becomes somewhat easier, however even that runs into problems because "brute force" must be defined. What about the threat of "brute force"? What if leaders are more insidious and the "brute force" is not so apparent? Some leaders have, as much if not more blood on their hands, yet it's invisible to the naked eye.

George W. Bush will end up with the blood of thousands if not millions on his hands, however, if the Middle East ends up "democratized" and a peaceful land, wouldn't he rank up there with the great presidents of all time? Just as Ronald Reagan's legacy will always be the fall of the Soviet Union, if years from now, Iraq or the Middle East transforms, George W. will no doubt get the credit. Some of our greatest Presidents suffered the lowest ratings in the opinion polls at the time they served the country.

Whatever the eventual outcome regarding George W., we should, at the very least, judge our leaders on the "reality" they impose on the greatest number of people, rather than the personal weaknesses we all have that only affect those closest to them.

So, Monica Lewinsky was stuck with a dry cleaning bill of perhaps, $15 and maybe Hilary wept the tears of betrayal that 99% of our population has wept at some point in their lives, and "We, the people" go batshit crazy. On the other hand George W. sticks us with a bill of billions of dollars, maybe trillions of dollars, human suffering abound, and a death toll we'll probably never know the number.

“Scholars should remind us that leadership is not a moral concept. Leaders are like the rest of us: trustworthy and deceitful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To assume that all leaders are good people is to be willfully blind to the reality of the human condition, and it severely limits our scope for becoming more effective at leadership.” -- Barbara Kellerman

Read more...

Fatigue Cripples US Troops

Just reading about our troops in Iraq cripples me with fatigue...I can't imagine what it must be like to be over there.

"The anecdotal evidence on the ground confirms what others - prominent among them General Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State - have been insisting for months now: that the US army is 'about broken'. Only a third of the regular army's brigades now qualify as combat-ready. Officers educated at the elite West Point academy are leaving at a rate not seen in 30 years, with the consequence that the US army has a shortfall of 3,000 commissioned officers - and the problem is expected to worsen."

The "quality" of the soldiers is not what it once was. The military has had to lower its standards because of retention and recruitment problems. The army is admitting men and women that, under normal circumstances, would not qualify to be a soldier and therefore much more likely to collapse from fatigue.

[...]

"The consequence is that we are seeing people who do not have the same coping skills when they get here, and this can be difficult.

'We are also seeing older soldiers coming in - up to 41 years old - and that is causing its own problems. They have difficulty dealing with the physical impact of the war and also interacting with the younger men.'

Valentine says: 'We are not only watering down the quality of the soldiers but the leadership too. The good leaders get out. I've seen it. And right now we are on the down slope.'"

One possible solution is a draft, not something most Americans want to hear.

"America's 'war tsar' has called for the nation's political leaders to consider bringing back the draft to help a military exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Read more...