If you choose to be in any kind of leadership role please must remember the words of the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius:
Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness.
If one chooses to become a heterodox to conventional thought the problem becomes intensified. Being the rock in the current has few pleasant days. But there is no position that can bring a higher feeling of personal achievement or satisfaction! And then you die.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
Natural ability without education has more often raised a man to glory and virtue than education without natural ability.
Let it be your constant method to look into the design of people's actions, and see what they would be at, as often as it is practicable; and to make this custom the more significant, practice it first upon yourself.
Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the the universe is change.
To understand the true quality of people, you must look into their minds, and examine their pursuits and aversions.
I'm really tired of all this stuff about Zelenskyy and the world's take on his White House visit. It really comes down to this, it really was a set up, but not by Trump.
That kind rhetoric, warped reasoning, and deliberate obfuscation of fact by Rice worked in days gone by, but not with real journalists or the alternative media. They have excellent memories and great rhetorical skills that devastate professional liars like Rice. Make sure to follow that link.
Somehow the Pravda media decided they were going to decide American foreign policy, as is suggested by this video.
They just don't get it, they don't count any longer, and no one cares what they think, but apparently Zelenskyy has failed to recognize that, especially when dealing with Donald Trump.
Then there's Europe. After leaving empty handed he went to Europe for a love fest, what Victoria White Berger called Kabuki theater, and King Charles, who
talks to and shakes hands with plants, and who assured us the world was going to be incinerated over global warming so we must abandon modern life, with predictions that having long passed and failed, but he assures
Zelenskyy, along with the Prime Minister, who won't be in office much
longer, will stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes.
It's being claimed after Zelenskyy's failure with Trump Europe is going to double down on Ukraine support, and they're even discussing boots on the ground. Really? Good luck with that.
It sounds impressive but I think that's just a lot of CO2, as Europe's economic situation doesn't lend itself to the kind of support Ukraine needs, and I'm betting any effort to send troops to Ukraine will meet with some serious kickback, which the governments of the UK, France, or Germany can ill afford. The fact is both the UK, and France know that's all horsepucky because without Trump, there is no leadership, nor is there an anchor for their foreign policies. As Victoria White Berger called it: Kabuki theater!
One EU leader insists the Free World needs a new leader
now. Okay, America's good with that. Exactly and who will that be? And what Free World is she talking about? It's certainly not in Europe where they've censored the media,
jailed people for expressing their views on line, and it's been said any Americans who go to Europe could be subject to arrest for any online expressions these governments may not like. They're puttin people in prison for silently praying and for exposing the horrors of
the rapes, murders, and overall crime caused by the Muslim invasion. So, as Vice President JD Vance Asks: "What Has Europe Become, what are you defending yourselves for?’
At Munich he really hit some nerves showing their lack of democratic principles is the rule, not the exception. Freedom of elections, freedom of speech, are out. Antisemitism, tyranny, and social intimidation is in. Europe and America no longer share the same values, so, exactly
what free world is she talking about? It's certainly not Europe, and like the Pravda media, Europe still doesn't get
it. Neither of them count any longer.
The freaks running the Biden
administration are out, the post WWII/Cold war strategy is over, NATO
needs to stand on it's own hind legs now because America is not going to
hold their hands any longer, and Trump understands the real center of
concern is not Europe, it's the Middle East.
Russia, Europe, and China are losers economically, militarily, and
socially. For the time being they just refuse to accept that, but
that's soon going to change. Russia was considered the number two
military nation in the world, and couldn't beat the number 22 military
nation in three years. Europe is no longer afraid of Russia, even with
it's nukes, which he won't use. If Russia occupies all of Ukraine they
still lose as they can't afford to rebuild it, and the Russian Bear has been exposed
as a "Teddy Bear", filled with incompetent leadership at all levels.
Ukraine knew since 2014 this war was on Russia's agenda, but it
didn't happen until Biden became President. They have all this mineral
wealth that could have made Ukraine a hugely wealthy country allowing
them to purchase the most advanced military in the world, or even
produced it themselves, which would have prevented this war, but they didn't because
they were too busy lining their pockets. And that's what Zelenskyy, and
the EU want...not peace.... unending war, unbridled corruption.
Europe is doomed, and at some point is going to break up into their
natural social paradigm, a quilt work continent of smaller countries. China
may have the same problem, but even if it doesn't, Xi made a speech recently that is a 180 degree turn around on China's economic system, in direct opposition to his previously ultra Maoist communist economic positions of the past. If
they really go capitalist, he's out, since in order to stabilize their
economy they will have to abandon all these military expenditures, and
the military in China is almost semi-autonomous, so he fears them.
With Trump they just have no idea who they're dealing with, but
they're scared of him, including the Democrats and RINO's. I believe the next
four years are going to be the most geopolitically and domestically
profound in my lifetime. The world is in a state of restructuring, and desperately is looking for an anchor for their policies, and most of their leaders are clueless. That leaves Donald Trump, and there's no way he can, or even wants to save Europe, since history has played that card, and it's not a "trump" card, pun intended. Europe threw that card away.
Trump exemplifies leadership. Zelenskyy
tried to pull a stunt to get more than was agreed to beforehand
in an attempt to embarrass Trump into submission in front of the nation, and that was a mistake. We'll come back to that.
If either of those questions are answered in the affirmative, then Zelenskyy was party to one more corrupt scam, and he's toast, and Europe is putting one more nail in their coffin.
Updates:
Zelenskyy and the Future of NATO - Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s childish histrionics and ultimatums in the Oval
Office directed at President Trump’s efforts to bring an end to the most
devastating war on the continent of Europe since World War II are
reflective of the European delusional mindset of self-serving
expectations and perceived American obligations stemming from a
one-sided seventy-five-year alliance -- the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. A treaty that evolved into the United States effectively
taking upon itself the unappreciated role of military protector of
nearly half of the European continent...........
Devious, deluded, or desperate: Zelensky with Trump - Everyone and his brother have an opinion of what actually took place in
the Oval Office in the meeting with Trump, Zelensky, and Vance. Some of
the talking points are valid, but as the stakes for Ukraine couldn’t be
higher, and President Trump is far more experienced with negotiation
techniques than Zelensky, emotions were high, leading to emotional
outbursts..........
Canada, Europe diss, threaten U.S. - I have always been fond of Canada—and Canadians. I have always had respect for the beauty and history of Europe. But sadly, I have started losing that affinity. Canada and the E.U. have recently been treating the United States
like a baby treats a diaper. This is particularly reprehensible in light
of 250 years or so of history and shared destinies. Canada and the E.U., we are trying to build a far more transparent
government in the U.S., so listen up, the following is a no-sh*tter as
those in our military are wont to say: You could not have beat the
Germans in World War I or World War II without the help of the United
States. No less than Winston Churchill knew that to be true...............
Another lesson in Great Power Politics -After the recent Oval Office flare up, it is obvious that Zelensky still
believes that his allies in entertainment/media, the Democrat party,
and the EU will come to his rescue and derail the Trump train. Maybe it
was all those fawning celebrities making their (paid) pilgrimages to
Kyiv that inflated Zelensky’s perception of himself. (Recall that many
of those appearances were sponsored by our tax dollars, courtesy of
USAID.) Maybe it was a Brussels politician whispering in his ear that he
does not need to pay attention to Trump because the EU has his back.
Whatever is propelling his outward demeanor and rhetoric has led him
astray this time around with Trump. Babbling on about Trump being under
the influence of the Kremlin is about the worst thing that Zelensky
could have said. He is forgetting that this is the president who has
weathered partisan accusations of Russian collusion since the start of
his first term and is in no mood to listen to such nonsense.
.............
As I watch the world's event unfolding I can't help but recognize most of what's wrong is as a direct result of bad leadership. In the Russian sphere of influence it's an abject mess, and Joe Biden is responsible for that entirely. Putin would have never attacked Ukraine if Trump was President, and for a number of reasons, one of them being Joe Biden's abandonment of America's energy independence. That made Russian energy supply far more valuable generating more sales and funded his invasion of Ukraine.
But the small countries all around Russia are fighting also. The Middle East has exploded, and again it's Joe Biden's fault. His abandonment of Trump's very successful Abraham Accords and his weakness as a leader, and he's sent the most radical Islamic nations, including Iran and Afghanistan billions and billions of dollars, which have been used to fund their terrorist activity, including Gaza's attack on Israel. Not to mention he's dumb as dirt and surrounded by far left lunatics who are creating policy for Ole Joe. Some might even call them ....weird!
Now the Democrats have kicked out Joe because he's clearly demented. One day he was sharp as a tack, and the next day he was so neurologically damaged they demanded he end his run for President, and he resents it.
But he fixed them. He chose Kamala Harris as his replacement by endorsing her for the job. An absolute nitwit who before this was considered an absolute twit by everyone. The next day she was the personification of domestic and foreign policy genius. Remarkable how the left and their myrmidons in the media can shift gears, along with Hollywood. It's hard to believe they could get dumber than dirt, but they managed it nicely. That's the one thing leftists excel at.
Now Kamala is on a fairness kick. Now Kamala Harris' is on a fairness kick. Kamala's understanding of economics is even worse that Joe Bidens. Equity isn't equality, it's a formula for poverty, and a Kamala presidency would be very prohibitively expensive to everyone. Sure, inflation has caused everything to cost more, but she's clueless as to the cause of inflation, government spending and borrowing, taxes, regulations, and crime. All the DEI insanity is killing America, Harley Davidson goes woke, and might go broke as a result.
Price controls is historically a failure, as Silvio Canto observes, Price controls an oldie, but no goodie, and it's a stupid idea. But, until now, no one claimed Kamala had a brain in her head
Her view is it's not fair how much stores charge their customers, so she's going to tell them how much they can charge, how much houses can be sold for, how much drug companies can charge, and more, all because it's "not fair". Except, there's no "book of fair". What's fair? Who
decides?
Actually everyone decides! Because everyone has their own
definition of what's fair, and in so many cases I've found what's
deemed to be fair depends on whose ox is being gored.
Fair can't be codified without being "unfair" to someone. Fair has no
universal definition unless it's so broad it has no meaning. Fair has
no modalities or parameters. That means fair has no real logical
foundation. Fair often times ends up being nothing more than an
emotion reaction!
However, I don't like the government deciding that issue. The
government is even less qualified to decide whether anything is fair or
not than the rest of us. I don't like minimum wage laws. I don't like
people who've never had a job, never started a business, never had to
write payroll checks, never borrowed money to keep the business afloat,
never had their house on the line, and never went without a payday in
order to pay their employees telling me or anyone else "what's fair".
The market place fixes that - and admittedly - at times in unpleasant
ways, but market place fixes eventually end up working, and they don't require another expensive and
incompetent layer of bureaucracy leaching capital from the system. And make no mistake, that's not fair.
A crucible is a vessel heated to extreme temperatures in order to refine
substances, and America is now that vessel, and it's all because of seriously flawed leadership with goals that are antithetical to American values. The question is what will be the end refinement? That remains to be seen.
If it walks like a communist, and if it talks like a communist, it's a communist.
During the Civil War Lincoln's advisers wanted him to fire General
Grant. Why? Because he drank, a lot. Lincoln said he can't fire
Grant, "he fights! "
By Rich Kozlovich
I have no idea why anyone wants to be a politician, everyone lies to them, and Harry Truman was right when he said if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog. If that's true, and it is, why do these people keep running? I'll tell you what, we'll come back to that.
As regular readers know I owned a pest control company, and I spent many years heavily involved in my industry's affairs serving on four trade association boards in defense of the use pesticides and fertilizers.
One of the things that amazed me was that defending who and what we are can be an amazingly thankless task. There's always someone, or a group, who are in opposition to that effort. Why? Because it's in their interests to be opposed and totally ignore the long term consequences for short term gain.
They simply refuse to see farther, deeper, or wider, and unfortunately, entirely too many of them are in positions of responsibility in trade associations, especially when it's at a national level. Government regulators, many of whom are in reality environmental activists disguised as government employees, will promote idiocy that happens to support their philosophical flavor of the moment. All of which works to the detriment of America's industries. And what do we find? The national associations will embrace it.
In pest control it involved efforts to stop the use of pesticides, and the national leadership embraced it. A classic example with the lies regarding Colony Collapse Disorder. Why? It's simple. A failure in values. There was more than ample evidence CCD was not being caused by pesticides, and they ignored that evidence.
I published this in 2014, Presidential Pollinator Protection: Myths, Facts and Hyperbole, and sent it to who at that time was the head of pesticide regulations at EPA. He forwarded it to his colleagues. I don't know how much impact my article had on this issue, but that was the end of the EPA's challenge of pesticides and Colony Collapse Disorder. But why did a bug man have to do the research on this and challenge what was now the conventional wisdom? Where were the Ph.D's? Where was the leadership? The answer is simple, there simply aren't enough John Boyd's in the world. The patterns of life keep repeating over and over again, and when choosing leaders it's necessary to evaluate their life practices.
Entirely too many "leaders" are in it to be served, not to serve. Too many leaders want to have all the privileges that go along with being in prominent position, but they really don't want to do the work, and unfailingly put their needs ahead of the needs of those they represent, and leaders such as that have never found a limit to their "needs", which are in reality their "wants". Especially at the expense of others.
Real leaders are willing to stand as rocks in the current telling the world, "you're wrong, and I'm going to tell you why." Most lack the courage to fit in the John Boyd mold, and are cravenly more than willing to go along to get along. They self interestedly cater to those who pander to them, and defy any who challenge them, no matter what the facts may be, or the consequences for ignoring those facts.
While they claim to be concerned about people's problems, and insist they're going to fix them, in reality, it's all emotional rhetorical pandering to the crowds, knowing full well they're going to do nothing.
There's a difference between self confidence and arrogance. Both wish to be right, but a self confident person will accept correction in order to be right. An arrogant person will accept no correction. Most of these "leaders" are arrogant.
So, why does anyone wish to be a politician? A few really are willing to row against the tide and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune to defend what's right and true. But most of them are in it to feather their own nests.
Finally, how can we tell the difference. Find out how they treat the least important people in their lives. How do they treat the janitors, the waiters, and waitresses, how do they treat the nobody's in their life. All that's observable, pay attention to how they live their lives, because that's who they are.
Through the course of my life I discovered that being a good leader means standing up and saying:
Hold it! This is all wrong and we’re going to change!
Never confuse real leaders with those with titles or rank. Whether it
is in academia, the military, government, or in business, being a real leader means being the rock in the current, a character quality that had to have been
there for most of their life. Let’s face it, heterodoxy isn’t for
the faint of heart, and for the most part is a personal trait, which
means this quality was part and parcel of who and what they are, making
it easy to be seen for what they are, often disliked, often ridiculed, and
often rejected. However it can be learned and practiced, if one has vision
and courage.
As for the go along to get along guys who are
perceived as 'good leaders': They may in reality only be ‘good
managers’ who were chosen to merely organize the direction everyone
decided to go! They’re easy to deal with, easy to get along with, and
would never in a million years stir up the manure.
Take for example two arenas where this is so obvious I shouldn’t have to
explain it, but most don’t get it because people believe they represent
the highest standards for leadership. Military career officers and
PhD’s, both of which got to the top by going along to get along. So, let me tell you about Col. John Boyd.(Editor's Note: What appears below is from a site that no longer exists.RK.)
"Forty-Second" Boyd, the man remembered for defeating every opponent
in aerial combat at the Air Force's premier dog-fighting academy in
two-thirds of a minute, helped found the Fort Myer get-togethers at the
end of his Air Force career”…..however this doesn’t demonstrate the
“long and often painful saga of a man who, as a full colonel, went toe
to toe, time after time, with a phalanx of two-and three-star generals
for the good of the country, winning most of his battles and surviving
long enough to help provide secretary of defense Richard Cheney the
ideas needed for swift and decisive victory in the Persian Gulf War.
("Keep
it simple — so that the generals will understand it,") Boyd frequently
told his small band of fellow guerrillas, known collectively as "The
Acolytes." Boyd was…..a Pentagon "Whiz Kid"— one of the rare few who
were "defined by the courts-martial and investigations they faced." He
was also "the most important unknown man of his time and the most
remarkable unsung hero in American military history."….. Loud and
profane, Boyd's intellectual achievements were matched by his relentless
guerrilla warfare against hidebound "careerists" then running the Air
Force…… The tenets of this speech reflected both his spirit and values:
"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to
have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." [Boyd]
raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody.
You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on
your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get
promoted and you will get good assignments." Then Boyd raised the other
hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can
do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for
yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and
you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a
favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself.
You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might
make a difference."
He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life
there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a
decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"
The people of the world are at a cross roads. One path leads to Marxism and tyranny, and the other path leads to capitalism and freedom. Which way will you go?
The common threads which held our Country together through
the years since the Revolution has been
coming apart like the thread on an old garment. There are groups and causes
which have no intention of becoming productive members of our society and
assimilating. They would rather tear the Country down. There are monsters who
are being celebrated by people in this country.
A considerable amount of what is taking place is because
there is no real leadership in this country. The person who is supposed to be
the leader of the Free World is an Empty Suit and half of the time has no idea
where he is. All that permeates down to the people. Especially those who seek
to destroy this country because they know that they can get away with their
violence. The world is slowly becoming a battlefield in one area after another.
Russia invaded Ukraine, Hamas has invaded Israel, China is
Saber Rattling in South China Sea area. We are all at risk because there is no
strong leader in the White House. Which was evident recently in Frisco between
Biden and Xi. There are people supporting and defending the murderers and
terrorists, while attacking anyone who differs with their point of view.
There are terrorists who murdered, raped, executed, and kidnapped
people who were attending a Music Festival, and now they are celebrated, much like those celebrating Bin Laden
and his 'Letter to the American People'. A man responsible for murdering 3,000 of our
people and he is be celebrated as some hero! What is becoming of that Shinny
City on a Hill?
We have a problem with language and definition in America. I've been accused of not being reasonable. Is it that I'm not
reasonable, or is the problem a matter of definition? Adversaries define reasonable as
going along to get along, with their views and wants.
The
dictionary defines reasonable as making sensible and fair decisions
based on facts, reason, and logic. And while history isn't in that definition, history plays big in being truly reasonable. And so my response has always been: "When have I ever not been reasonable?"
Well folks, now is the time to be "reasonable", using reason, logic, facts, and history.
Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen.
Richard Clark could not define the term “demigender” when asked this
week in Congress to defend the Academy supporting a fellowship
opportunity for “demigender” people. Under questioning from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Clark
confirmed that the population that makes up the fighting force are
mostly men, and mostly cisgender men. Gaetz asked him if he was familiar with the Brooke Owens Fellowship,
promoted by the academy. Clark confirmed he was familiar with the
fellowship. Gaetz then asked him why, if he supported diversity in the military,
the academy is promoting a fellowship that excludes cisgender persons
from applying. “So you just said…it’s all about the fighting force that we draw
from, but you’re literally pushing a program in the academies that says,
if you’re a cisgender woman, a transgender woman, a non-binary,
a-gender, bi-gender, two-spirit, demigender — what’s demigender?” Gaetz
asked Clark............. When asked again what “demigender” meant, Clark finally responded, “I’m not really sure, sir.” When asked if he knew what “a-gender” meant, Clark said, “Sir, I don’t.”
In short, here's a three star general who's the head of the Air Force Academy promoting something he didn't understand and couldn't define. While Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, who "has been stalling promotions for more than 150
generals and flag officers over a policy that funds travel costs for
servicemembers seeking abortions", has been criticized for "jeopardizing our national security”. Which of these two do you think are in reality impacting national security negatively?
Ultimately though, it's Biden who's responsible since he's made it clear he won't sign any legislation regarding the military unless it includes funding for DEI, abortion, and gender transitions! All of which has nothing to do with military readiness or national security. Those are all social engineering issues, all of which all the senior military "leaders" have signed on to. Tuberville's efforts to stall promotions needs to be replaced with efforts to purge them from the military, just as Obama purged those who didn't go along to get along and replaced them with nitwits.
So, who do you really think is jeopardizing national security?
When
you see this kind of stuff you have to wonder how does someone this
stupid become a three star general? Well, I have the answer. About
ten years ago or so while in Washington on my industry's trade association
legislative day one of my companions had been a graduate of the Air
Force Academy many years back. He told us one of the dumbest guys in
his class made the Air Force a career and was now a two star general.
I
can say honestly from my personal experience in the service, butt
kissing and brown nosing is far more important than smarts when it comes
to promotions in the military, and Col. John Boyd showed what happens
when you defy the generals, many of whom I don't think are all that bright.
The
fact is the two groups everyone assumes are real leaders, aren't, that's military officers and Ph.D. candidates.
Show me a
junior military officers who tells senior officers they're all wrong and
can prove it, I'll show you an career junior officer.
Show me a
Ph.D. candidate who tells the Ph.D's. during his oral dissertations
they're views are all wrong, and proves it, and I will show you a career
Masters degree academic.
They learn very early on they have to go
along to get along in order to get what they want, and that pattern of
thinking becomes intrinsic to their character, removing any vestige of a
backbone. Make no mistake about it, their ability to be the rock in the current, or the ability to row against the tide is non existent. They're not leaders, they're mangers who are merely organizing the direction others have decided on.
Former Speaker of the House John Boehner once said a leader without followers is a man taking a walk by himself. While that may be true, the lack of followers that doesn't make them any less a leader, because a real leader will stand up for what's right and true, willing to say "you're all wrong, and I'm going to tell you why". Having the courage and willingness to stand against the slings and arrows of his adversaries, even if he has to do it all alone.
Heterodoxy isn't for the faint of heart, and real leaders don't countenance the faint of heart. To be, or to do? Which way will you go?
I'm going to say some seemingly contradicting things in this piece in order to lay foundation for my views about leadership.
First, I hated the military, yet I've often said, you couldn't pay me a million bucks to repeat it, but you couldn't pay me a million bucks to have missed it. Truth is, usually only those who served understand that. Military life alters you in subtle ways, and often times we're not aware of just how much until years later, and in spite of what I've said, those subtle alterations were beneficial, at least for me.
I've made no bones about two things in my writing. First, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is neither uniform, nor justice. Secondly, I despised the officers when I was in the service, and so much of what's happening now shows how they're openly demonstrating why they deserve my contempt, along with everyone else's. This scene,You Can't Handle the Truth! - A Few Good Men , is in my opinion, a classic example of the military's system of justice and the officer corp.
Remember, they gave this case to a Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee. A lawyer with an amazing record of plea bargaining. The goal? Make Col. Jessup's crime just go away and place it squarely on the shoulders of obedient, honorable, loyal and duty bound enlisted men. The fact he didn't do that is immaterial to the reality of military justice.
The rules never apply to them. I found them to be arrogant bullies pushing the lower ranks around because they could, and get away with it, like Medieval lords. I had issues with that, and I still do, so after over 50 years, I still despise the officers. I worked for some great Chief Petty Officers, and the Navy could be grateful for them. They make the Navy work. But after hearing from a neighbor's son who made a career of the Navy, I'm not sure that's the case any longer.
I found officers to be foundationally lazy and more than willing to kiss their superior officer's butts in order to get promoted. They're much like PhD's in academia. Arrogant. As one PhD said, the lowest form of life in the planet is a PhD. candidate because those working toward their PhD's will do anything to get it. After they've gotten it, they'll say or do whatever it takes to get government grant money.
They both represent the get ahead by going along to get along crowd.
Show me a PhD candidate who tells the PhD's grading him they're all wrong, and worse, demonstrates why, and I will show you a lifetime Master's degree.
Show me a junior officer who tell his superiors are wrong and demonstrates why, and I will show you a career junior officer.
For the history buffs out there who've studied the Generals of WWII, you will see just how badly, with the exception of Patton, they went along to get along, and how it cost an unnecessary loss of allied soldiers lives. While much of what I've said is a generalization there are a few real leaders among them who are prepared to be the rock in the current. People likeCol. John Boyd:
"One day you will
come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about
what direction you want to go."..... "If you go that way you can be
somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back
on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted
and you will get good assignments."......
"Or you can go that way and
you can do something— something for your country and for your Air Force and for
yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not
get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your
superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your
friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference." He paused
and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a
roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which
way will you go?"
"Ask
for my loyalty, I’ll give you my honesty. Ask for my honesty, you’ll have my
loyalty."
People like Boyd are not interested in money, power, prestige, privilege or position. For the real leaders in those two groups it's all about the mission, and they're prepared to face the consequences to accomplish that mission. What's that mission? They despise the lies and the corruption, and they just want what's right.
So, that brings me to the point. That kind of conduct and mentality isn't exclusive to academia or the military. Life is all about patterns, and we need to see those patterns. We need recognize them for what they are. All I've said thus far was to lay foundation for what follows dealing with these same kind of "leaders" in the Congress.
First, I have little confidence the
Republican party, as it's now configured, will accomplish anything after they take control in 2023, at least not without Trump as President. However, I do
think there may well be enough actual conservatives who get elected this time to
throw out Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, and possibly Mitch McConnell as the Senate leader.
Now it appears McCarthy went to Mar-a-Lago and kissed Trump's ring seeking forgiveness "because on reflection he realized just how wrong he was". You mean he needed time to see what was obvious to the most casual observer? Wow! Well, maybe he had an epiphany? If so, that epiphany is called "polls".
“What
he did is unacceptable. Nobody can defend that and nobody should defend
it,” McCarthy reportedly told Republican associates on Jan. 10.....Republican
leaders wanted to see then-President Trump impeached after the deadly
Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, and spoke openly behind the scenes about
their hopes for him to be ousted from politics, according to a new
report.
“I’ve had it with this guy,” House Minority Leader Kevin
McCarthy (R-CA) is said to have told associates in the immediate
aftermath of the insurrection. That’s according to a new book, This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future, which The New York Timesdetailed in a report out Thursday. Before
they voted to acquit him of impeachment, McCarthy and Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly blamed Trump explicitly for the
violence at the Capitol..........Trump’s behavior on the day of the riot “atrocious and totally
wrong” and accused him of “inciting people” to storm the Capitol,
according to claims in the new book. Two days later, he went even
further and vowed to urge Trump to resign, the book claims.
But, McCarthy had an epiphany, and after McCarthy's epiphany Trump forgave him. He even says he likes him? Really? Well, I've watched how Trump deals with things, and if I didn't know better I'd swear Trump was Serbian. He's not going to let this go, no
matter what he's saying publicly.
Does anyone doubt McCarthy is a
leaky vessel as an ally? Does anyone doubt Trump can't see that? If the wind changes, so will McCarthy. Remember, this is the guy who didn't want Liz Chaney removed from her position as a Republican leader in the house, and later condemned Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., for speaking at the America First Political Action
Conference, or AFPAC, calling it "appalling and
wrong". I see Jordan as Speaker of the House, after this exposure.
But what about Mitch McConnell? Apparently he agreed with McCarthy echoing McCarthy and the leftist mob's outrage over AFPAC, which means they must be doing something right, like being being for all the conservative values, which apparently Mitch is likens to being a "white supremacist" and an "anti-Semite". When questioned about his turnabout and supporting Trump during the impeachment he stated:
My point is what happened in the past is not something relevant now, we’re moving forward. We’ve got a new administration.”
So, what can be gleaned from that?
It's kind of like what Muslims call the law of abrogation, where what he says today abrogates anything he said in the past. Polls are the wind that makes the ship change direction, and that's of concern, because it would appear nothing he says is based on any real moral foundation that can be trusted to be the same yesterday, today or tomorrow. Boy, doesn't that just give you a real sense of confidence? Or perhaps it gives the impression Ole Mitch has been around entirely too long, and it's time for ole Mitch to be put to pasture as Senate Leader. As Oliver Cromwell told a corrupt Parliament he dissolved in 1653:
"You have
sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... In the name of
God, go!"
Who will take his place? There's talk of
Scott, which is Trump's choice, and Thune.
Personally I like Kennedy, Cruz, Hawley
or Cotton, but they don't seem to making any sounds about running,
however, I do think their influence will be huge this time. For some
reason McConnell has deep support in the Senate, which is a clear
demonstration of how flawed is the Republican party, but that may change
after November depending on who enters the Senate, and I do believe
outside the beltway, McConnell absolutely lacks credibility with almost
all conservatives and a lot of Republicans.
If that's the truth, and it is, can you handle it?
House Republican caucus voted Wednesday to kick Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) from her GOP conference chairman post. According to Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the caucus held
a voice vote, so no final tally numbers will be known. Kinzinger also
said that no replacement had yet been voted on.
Cheney, who served
as the No. 3 Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, was a
constant critic of former President Donald Trump and his reported role
in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. She was one of a handful of
Republican lawmakers to vote for impeachment
in January, which sent her down a path of constant criticism from
Trump, fellow House members, including GOP leadership, and the Wyoming
Republican Party, which voted to censure her for her impeachment vote.
A slew of primary challengers have thrown their hats in the ring to take on Cheney in her re-election bid. A recent poll
showed that Wyoming Republicans appear ready to send Cheney packing,
with more than half of primary voters saying they will vote for anyone
but her...........To Read More.....
My Take - There's a reason why the Republicans are called the Stupid Party. Why do I bring this up now with a seeming victory for conservatives in the Republican leadership? Because the talk is Chaney is going to be replaced with a liberal Republican from New York, Rep. Elise Stefanik. Why? Why wouldn't they replace her with a conservative, irrespective of gender?
Because they're trying to please the Democrats who hate and despise them, and to avoid criticism from a corrupt media who may hate and despise them more than the Democrats? Why do they act that way?
They take the way of cowardice because they're invertebrates who will always try and appease their most vile, mendacious and wretched adversaries, and that makes them stupid! Republicans can pull defeat out of the jaws of victory better than anyone, and they do it all the time.
Couple stupid with invertebracy and what do you get? Republican leadership.
Who will lead thedeplorables’ exodus
from the bondage that the political-corporate-cultural oligarchy
imposes on America? The power that the oligarchy has gathered since 2015
pales by comparison with the resentment it created thereby, and the
wave of public opinion that is building against it.
America’s deplorables, clingers,
irredeemables, chumps, dregs, neanderthals, etc.—persecuted,
increasingly prosecuted for being on the wrong side of the
oligarchy—yearn for political leaders to rescue their way of life.
Demand is so high because most self-proclaimed conservative leaders talk
the voters’ talk, but walk the big donors’ oligarchic walk.
South Dakota GovernorKristi Noem’s
recent self-disqualification as a potential leader bids us recall that
the public will follow only those who actually lead them by personally
defying the oligarchy. Focusing on themselves is the worst thing that
they can do.
Noem had seemed to be such a leader.
Her manner, personifying the beautiful, no-nonsense young mother next
door as she defied the oligarchy regarding the COVID-19 virus led many
to count her among the few Republicans who answer to the voters rather
than to the big donors. Few noticed, however, that as regards COVID-19,
and when she ordered law enforcement to stop the summer 2020 riots in
their tracks, she was acting with the local business community’s full
support. She had not been tested............To Read More....
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll
call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do?
Which way will you go?" - Col. John Boyd
"Shack (Ernest Borgnine) is a merciless, inhumane, and sadistic bully, a dedicated Company Man/Railroad conductor on the Oregon, Pacific and Eastern Railroad,
during the Great Depression". He happily kills (murders) anyone who attempts to hop a ride on his train.
A-No.-1 (Lee Marvin) is a hobo hero. He's determined to ride Shack's train all the way to Portland, Oregon, and no one's going to kick him off.
Cigaret, (Keith Carradine) is a scheming back stabbing braggart who happily betrays him, and yet desperately wants to be somebody within the hobo ranks and tags along with A-No-1, attempting to take credit for A-No.-1's feats, and just about gets both of them killed.
The movie was startlingly violent for that time, 1973. It ended with what I thought was a great scene. After beating Shack half to death and kicking him off his own train in the middle of nowhere, he kicks Cigaret off the train for trying to take some credit for his victory shouting to him:
Hey
kid you got no class. Hit the bums, kid. Run like the devil. Get a tin can and
take up mooching. Knock on back doors for a nickel.
Tell them your story. Make 'em weep.
You could have been a meat-eater, kid. But you didn't listen to me when I laid
it down.
Stay off the tracks. Forget it. Its
a bum's world for a bum.
You'll never be Emperor of the North Pole, kid. You
had the juice, kid, but not the heart and they go together. You're all gas and
no feel, and nobody can teach you that, not even A-No.1. So stay off the train,
she'll throw you under for sure.
Remember me for that. So long, kid.
And the movie, which I viewed as a lesson in life, was a box office failure. The director said he'll never understand why saying:
"I thought the symbols were so clear. It never occurred to
me that the audience would miss the relationship – that Borgnine was
the Establishment, that Marvin was the anti-Establishment
individualistic character, and that Keith Carradine was the
opportunistic youth who would sell out for whatever was most convenient............ Nobody cared."
Does anyone beside me see the parallels for this time? The leaders today are either Shacks; vicious, self serving, and traitorous, or the Cigarets; invertebrates who will follow the latest philosophical flavor of the day, corruption not withstanding, if it will benefit them. Both of whom are immune to the devastation they leave in their wake.
That leaves us with darn few A-No.-1 characters in the mix. Leaders who are prepared to draw a real line in the sand, and like the heroes of the Battle of the Bulge, taking their stand, irrespective of the consequences, manning the walls telling the world; no one will harm you on my watch!
Paraphrasing A-No.-1 regarding the nation's leaders in the political, scientific, medical, media, academic, industry arenas:
You could have been meat eaters, but you didn't listen, wouldn't listen and didn't care. You'll never be real leaders! You had the juice, but not the heart and they go together. You're all gas and no feel, and nobody can teach you that. Steers got horns, and you got none.
At some
point in our lives we come to a fork in the road and must make a
decision. If you take one path you will be popular and you will be
rewarded. If you take the other path you will be criticized, ridiculed
and scorned. However, you won’t have to turn your back on your friends
or your principles. If you are more concerned with accomplishing that
which is right and best, the satisfaction for having stood against the
conventional wisdom on right principles will be your reward, and you may
actually accomplish something worthwhile.
To be or to do, which way will you go? The world is now aware that what appears as leadership within the nation is not real leadership at all; only self serving hucksters and con
artists displaying an astounding lack of character. The only real leaders emerging to defend the Constitution and fight for justice and the rule of law are being attacked and smeared. Leaders who are prepared to lose
everything for that which is right, while being painted as unreasonable.
My answer to that is this: I would like for someone to show me any
insurmountable obstacle that was overcome by being reasonable!
Being unreasonable in pursuit of a worthwhile goal requires definition, clear vision and
understanding. It takes courage, it takes fortitude, it requires the
ability to stand outside the comfort and support of the group. It means being a rock against the current.
The link above in part deals with the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case saying:
I
would be willing to bet the children Sandusky abused would have loved to
have seen someone who was "unreasonable" in the university's ranks of
‘leadership’! Unfortunately there was no one! Including a much beloved
football coach who should've been in the forefront defending these
kids.
In November, 1863, the New York Herald reported that a temperance committee had asked President Lincoln to dismiss Ulysses S. Grant. They told him the general was an imbiber of strong spirits, to which Lincoln replied: “I wish you would tell me the brand of Whiskey Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel to my other generals.” This story is probably apocryphal, but it captures the contempt with which the socially awkward Grant was viewed by the eastern establishment. This came to mind when I read the following about President Trump by a little old lady named George Will:
By his comportment, the president benefits his media detractors with serial vindications of their disparagements.… For most Americans, President Trump’s expostulations are audible wallpaper, always there but not really noticed.… And as balm for his base, which remains oblivious to his likely contempt for them as sheep who can be effortlessly gulled by preposterous fictions.
Will contends that Trump’s “deportment” is what drives the abuse and lies to which the President is subjected by the frauds of the Fourth Estate. Likewise, Grant’s exaggerated drinking was an excuse the northern press employed to denounce his tactics during the Civil War, as well as the necessity, when he was President, to keep troops stationed in the southern states. Will, in his dotage, has evidently forgotten that the media has relentlessly savaged any and all Republicans. To blame Trump for his treatment by CNN, MSNBC, et al. is like blaming a woman for her own rape...........
[Trump voters] wanted someone to take the fight to the Democrats and keep fighting......They wanted to win and they knew something the fastidious George Will didn’t — Trump was the fighting general for whom they had all been waiting. A few here at TAS also understood. Ironically, even the execrable Michael Moore got it:...........To Read More.....
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) isn't the only House leader seeking revenge against colleagues who step out of line. GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) is now retaliating against a fellow Republican for voting against him in the Speaker vote earlier this month.
Multiple GOP sources told The Hill that McCarthy and his allies on the Republican Steering Committee have booted conservative Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) off of the Armed Services Committee, making good on a vow to retaliate after the Freedom Caucus member voted for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for Speaker................To Read More........
As we approach the midterm elections, the "leaders" of the Democratic Party sign on to a variety of hard-left proposals, including "Medicare for All." The fact that many of the proposals are brutally expensive and would lead us into a brave new Venezuela seem completely lost in the woods. One must also wonder at the ludicrous speed at which previously "rational" Democrats have swung from working across the aisle to become feet-in-stone resisters. What is the source of the rage that turned mere humans into Green Hulks?...............
To any thoughtful observer, it is painfully clear that there are two distinct parts of the Democrat plantation: the D.C. swamp and the useful idiots in the streets.
The relationship between the two is intuitively obvious but seldom exposed. The swamp exists because it has enough vocal support, both on the streets and in the press. The very air it breathes is on the pages of the New York Times and commentary on CNN, fed by cameras in Berkeley and on the steps of the Supreme Court. That brings us to the key question. Which came first: the useful idiots, or the swamp?..............the Democrat "leaders" are in fact NPCs – Non Player Characters in video games, controlled by the program, with no vestige of real humanity...........They are the ultimate groupies, willing to surrender all principle in order to keep their positions of power in the halls of Congress
............
To Read More
Imagine Dianne Feinstein running Judiciary and Maxine Waters managing Financial Services. Republicans, independents, and thinking Democrats who wonder why they should go vote GOP on November 6 should visualize this: Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein and House Financial Services Committee chairman Maxine Waters.
If Democrats capture either or both chambers, key congressional panels would fall to far-left lawmakers. The macro effect is staggering. Among ten top Senate committees, the average lifetime American Conservative Union rating for today’s GOP chairmen is 85.3. Assuming that current ranking Democrats became chairmen, their average ACU rating would tumble to 7.1. In the House, across 10 top committees, the equivalent ACU averages would plunge from 88.6 to 5.0.
Translation: Loud Democrat demands for higher taxes, bloated spending, spools of bright-red tape, and ferocious digging beneath every rock in the Trump administration.
Come January, seniority and political jockeying might shuffle the leadership deck. But for now, imagine that today’s ranking members led these committees. (For more details, see my spreadsheet here.).............To Read More....
Attempts to defend the recent provisional agreement between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China, which was signed on September 22, have rung increasingly hollow over the past few days.
That pattern began before the ink was dry in Beijing, as Pope Francis’s secretary of state, Pietro Parolin, issued a statement claiming that now “for the first time all the bishops in China are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, with the Successor of Peter.”
Really?
Weren’t “all the bishops in China” in full communion with the pope before the Chinese Communists set up their front church, the Patriotic Catholic Association?
Parolin also tried to justify the provisional agreement on the grounds that Pope Francis, like his immediate predecessors, “looks with particular care to the Chinese people” — a claim that, translated from Vaticanese, suggests that John Paul II and Benedict XVI would have made the same deal Francis and Parolin reportedly did.
But that deal was available to John Paul II and Benedict XVI and they didn’t make it, because they knew that giving first rights of nomination over Chinese bishops to the Chinese state or the Chinese Communist Party was both a violation of the Church’s own canon law and a prescription for a puppet episcopate............To Read More.....
My Take - Is it any wonder so many Catholics stopped donating to the Church and so many keep asking - who picked this guy? But to me the most important sentence in this article is their justification for this agreement saying:
"Throughout the negotiating process, those diplomats and the mouthpieces of the current pontificate kept insisting that the Holy See had to have a place at the table in Beijing, for China was the rising global hegemon."
Why is that so important to me? Because I hear this same justification by the leadership of our industry involving the EPA and the green movement. "We need a seat at the table." What we have to understand that by having "a seat at the table" with those who hate and despise who we are, and what we do, isn't going to ameliorate their actions, or long range goals. It justifies them!
Then we become party to our own demise. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do so many refuse to grasp that fundamental truth?
Because to embrace that means being an outright adversary to the forces of evil, and most don’t have the courage to be that kind of rock in the current. Heterodoxy isn't for the faint of heart.
We can always find the go along, get along, Neville Chamberlains or the Vidkun Quislings of the world as leaders. Appeasers and traitors are legion!
But where can we find a Winston Churchill? Where do we find leaders that run to the fight and not away from it? Where do organizations find leaders that are capable, and willing to stand against the slings and arrows of adversity?
You can't find them, they have to come to you, because unlike so many "leaders" they recognize what is the battle of their time, and they're willing to fight it, and because after the go along to get along guys make a mess of everything - there's no one else to turn to but the Winston Churchill's of the world.
Donald Trump left the G7 meeting early to head for Singapore and meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. He left behind a disgruntled gaggle of Lilliputian states who have grown accustomed to U.S. leaders accepting the institutional ropes binding the world’s greatest power, and now are shocked and angry that an American leader is putting America’s interests first.
We don’t know how Trump’s high-stakes negotiating on trade and tariffs will turn out, or whether the American people can take any economic pain that may attend the correction of trade imbalances that have tended to favor our partners and rivals at the expense of our own economy. But we have long needed to concentrate our partners’ minds on the wisdom of changing their assumption that the United States will put itself second in order to uphold the “postwar world order” that frequently camouflages the subordination of our interests to theirs.
This “global order” is made up of the transnational institutions built on the rubble of two World Wars. The most important include the UN, NATO, the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the G7 group of the world’s richest economies representing 62% of global wealth, a total of $262 trillion. These multinational groups are supposed to keep the global peace, and manage the globalized economy so that it runs smoothly and equitably............The institutions like the G7 that manage and sustain those policies detrimental to our interests have been like the ropes the Lilliputians used to bind Gulliver until they could figure out how to exploit the giant to serve their own aims. Trump has started snapping the ropes and showing the world we’re no longer the “weak, pitiful giant” who subordinates our own interests to those of some mythic “global community.”..........To Read More....
My Take - This Gulliver's ropes analogy is truly approrpiate. The giant is loose and the rest of the world needs to start paying attention. Things are going to change radically from now on, as this is a President who isn't interested in what leftists, media, Democrats, internationalists, globalists, leaders of Europe, China and Russia think or say.
What a shocker this must be for them after a stupid child like Obama and a blithering idiot like Kerry.
Here's what it comes down to. We don't need them. They need us. And if they're going to play in our game, they'll play by our rules or they're out of the game. It's just that simple!
How can society better ensure that leaders and innovators are there when we need them?
James E. Smith, PhD
Leadership is too often overlooked by the very societal systems that rely on it. Every social and organizational level depends on leaders and their direct and indirect efforts, to provide progress, success, even survival. History books worldwide are filled with stories of strong-willed, compulsive, focused, charismatic, and occasionally troubled but ultimately successful visionaries who became the needed leaders and innovators for a given era.
The search for, and development of, leaders and innovators should be a mandate, devoid of random chance or choice.
Any leader or innovator must confront unique social, economic and environmental factors. Many also face adversity, financial crises and physical woes, while dealing with serious social and interpersonal issues. Often viewed as scoundrels, these dreamers with questionable sanity were risk takers willing to put themselves, and often their family and friends, in financial jeopardy.
However, this common set of traits must often be combined with a “fire in the belly,” an inability to resist solving a need or undefined, ambiguous problem that to them is obvious – coupled with the compulsion to lead us in a better direction, despite objections from many quarters. We often don’t know what is best for us until we can view it through a rear-view mirror.
Fortunately, leadership is not limited to just those few who made the history books, or The History Channel. We find evidence of leadership attributes all around us. In any social environment, leaders organize us, direct us, and provide the needed lubrication to counter the inevitable social friction of just being around each other.
As a society, we have either been enormously lucky in finding these invaluable individuals who come to our rescue, or there is a natural order to things that effectively requires or ensures that an innovator or leader rises to meet the challenge when serious problems become evident.
The general contention is that nearly all of us have a latent leadership potential that is often unrealized, but can inspire or compel us to take the lead and solve problems of the day when a true need arises.
It might also be interesting to consider leadership and innovation as an impulse that is triggered by need that is perceived or otherwise, by a crisis, or possibly just by an inner urge, like an itch that needs to be scratched. Indeed, leadership and innovation surface continuously in any number of situations. Apart from a crisis-based need, many awakenings are people or situation-dependent, with little or no way to predict their arrivals.
This leadership potential is not to be confused with everyone’s desire to be the master of his or her own destiny. The designation of master or boss holds its own criteria, which often involves a change of perceived stature or authority within management hierarchy. Whereas the boss manages prescribed, daily activities, the leader finds a way to solve the bigger problem, by questioning, altering or eliminating perceived best practices.
The distinction appears within a leader’s direct sphere of influence. There is most likely a segment of the population, as history is apt to show us, that has the visionary attributes not only to solve today’s problems, but also to anticipate the growing issues of tomorrow.
The “sky is falling” reaction rarely works. Thus, it is the behind-the-scenes proactive leadership that keeps the sky blue and in its proper orientation. Leaders also tend to keep a cool head when Chicken Little is running around, often because they not only see the actual problem, but also because they have the confidence and experience to realize they can solve it, should they have the opportunity.
You don’t have to be a world-class player to be a great coach, but you do need to have mastered the fundamentals of the game.
The magnitude of problems varies, along with according consequences. Yet, the solution must arrive in a timely fashion. In most instances, the problems and respective solutions were generational in nature. Each had time to incubate, a period to learn and train the problem solvers, followed by the opportunity to implement the solution. This process likely took at least one or more generational cycles to implement.
The populace was also afforded a comfortable interval to accept the change or solution, which is required to avoid negative reaction and push back. This proves vital when the required changes were perceived to be too radical, affecting too many comfort-based life style changes, or possibly affecting the vested interests of the status quo.
It should be noted that, in previous generations, the general public handled the cultural, economic and technological changes better than was expected or anticipated by the then-contemporary thought leaders. Consider for instance the social and economic changes that occurred due to scientific and engineering technology advancements during the century from 1850 to 1950. The landscape of that period changed continuously and dramatically, but no one sailed off the edge of the world.
Without a leadership presence within, how can we expect to lead others to needed changes in our future?
Technology has provided a means to improve social and personal security, while also providing the potential for greater longevity and personal satisfaction. As the world’s population continues to grow, mankind will become increasingly reliant on advanced technologies to maintain and increase the expectations of better-informed and equipped world populations. At some point, the only solutions to managing the needs of society will come from technological advances and breakthroughs.
Enhanced, visionary leadership is critical if we are to progress and stay ahead of the problems created simply by taking up space on this planet. Meeting these growing needs and expectations will happen only if we recognize that change is a fundamental requirement for any progressive, forward-moving system, and change will not be obvious to people who are immersed in survival mode or the current solution-set of the day. The individuals who are best able to identify and mentor these essential individuals are themselves leaders and innovators.
An accelerating and growing population exerts social and environmental pressures that shorten the problem-to-solution cycle. Patiently waiting for the next great visionary leader and innovator means we are already seriously behind the solution curve, which increases both the social and environmental pressures that will have to be contended with later.
We cannot go back to a simpler time. The future demands progress. Reaching our shared destiny requires tough decisions by leadership and major disruptions to our shared life style. We must not only find and embrace those few leaders who will rise to the top naturally.
We also need to stimulate, train and reward all who recognize a need and want to brave the normal slings and arrows that result when a person takes the road less travelled.
Given the time and nature of problems this globe will face, at least some individuals will develop their leadership skills in answer to those needs. With the growing nature of the complexity and number of these problems, a more pro-active approach to fostering and encouraging the development of these leaders and innovators will hopefully become mandatory. At every educational level, including all levels of our educational and training process, we must allow and help students develop their leadership skills.
Most likely it will take today’s recognizable leadership to mentor the next generation. From there, the newest leaders will need to provide the same service to the next, hopefully larger group, until the rewards reaped by these individuals become so obvious and ingrained that the educational system adapts to the survival method of leadership and innovation. What will it take to get the current system to acknowledge and foster the solutions to this need?
James E. Smith, PhD is director and a professor of the Center for Industrial Research Applications in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department of West Virginia University
By Rich Kozlovich