Telling It Like It Is

THE ENTERPRISE--Six Events Transforming the World--Intro

THE ENTERPRISE--Six Events Transforming the World--Introduction

We are living in turbulent times.  These are truly times unlike all other times past.  Change is greater and more rapid.  The rate of change, largely due to technology causes changes in a year or two that might previously have taken a decade to unfold.  Whether you are a business person, or just a concerned citizen of the world, recognizing the underlying changes, events and trends that are shaping these times.  Another characteristic of these times is that they are extraordinarily complex-and that complexity either works for us or against us.  The choice is ours.

Thanks to an old friend and the continuing wonder of email, I recently received a paper written by Herbert Meyer that outlined several “transformations.”  Herb Meyer has a distinguished record, having served during the Reagan administration as special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council, where he managed production of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimates and other top-secret projections for the President and his national security advisers.  His perspectives are derived from a broad and deep understanding of global issues.

I want to share excerpts from some of them in these editions of THE ENTERPRISE.  Along with pieces of Meyer's material, I will fold in with my own perspective and observations, which may not be as profound as Meyer's, but will be derived from my 40+ year career in business, most recently as an observer as well as a participant. 

Since these Six Events represent a huge topic, it will take far more than a single issue of THE ENTERPRISE to cover it.  In this issue, I will outline the six large issues in general, with subheads that fit under them.  In future editions, I'll expand on each of the topics, in hopes that it will stimulate thought and reflection on the part of everyone who reads it. I also hope, that in some small way, detailing these “events” will better prepare all of us for the consequences they bring with them.  Without further introduction, here are the Six Events Transforming Our World as we enter the year 2007.

1. Shifting Demographics of Civilization
Demography is destiny.  Absent famine, war or pestilence, those who are born, will get older as they live and then die.  The consequences of this certainty are numerous: Aging populations of US, Europe, Japan; Negative population growth in these countries/continents; Population explosions in some of then less developed countries; Male-Female gender imbalance in China; Disease, famine and genocide in Africa; and more.

2. The Emergence of China & India
Three billion consumers and workers; Demand for resources; Sources of Innovation; Geo-political; Social and military power grows.  Two global powers emerging differently, and at different rates, but the combination of which will comprise almost half of the earth's population, and hence, have a huge impact on all other nations.

3. Globalization Reconfigures the Planet
Parity grows; Latent capacity remains; Technology levels the playing field; The earth is not “Flat” but it has some flat spots amidst rugged terrain; Social and political issues complicate matters immensely.  The ability to send ideas, concepts, knowledge and skills around the globe in seconds, minutes, or hours has leveled many of the playing fields, and made it more important than ever to recognize which are, and which are not “level.”  Free trade is not necessarily “fair trade” either, and this has huge consequences.

4. Restructuring of American Business
Large companies become smaller or “hollower;” Merger mania consolidates every kind of business; Small business formation explodes, unrecognized; Fracturing and reconstruction of industries and leaders via outsourcing.  The nagging question that haunts Americans is “what will we make in America during the coming decades, and what does 'make' mean?  And further to that end, what will we do that creates enough value to sustain our extraordinary standard of living.

5. The War in Iraq & Growing Middle-Eastern Turmoil
War in Iraq, Hezbollah/Lebanon-Israel conflict, Iranian nuclear ambitions, Afghanistan/Taliban conflict, Pakistani ambivalence toward US.  What Centuries have failed to change cannot be changed in a few short years by military might or political maneuvering.  Cultures in other parts of the world have changed-but over decades or centuries.  Will the Islamic culture also do so-or not?

6. The Failures of Leadership in the US Government & Parts of Industry
Weak and/or power hungry political leaders; a mixed assortment of flawed candidates; past failures of leadership-both corporate and government; the leadership void with little incentive for filling it.  Few problems are so vexing as a lack of leadership.  The only one worse is bad leadership, since it is contagious.  What are we to do to attract truly great talents and leaders into our governing bodies, when the mere thought of it entails being stripped bare by a voracious and tireless media scrutiny?

As you can see, this is an ambitious list.   It is, however, one that is compelling in its urgency and critical in its need.  There are so few reliable sources of information, and so many questionable sources of information, it is difficult to form opinions and positions based on facts and hard information.  This means that unmanaged opinions can easily rule any dialogue-this one included.

Much of the data I cite is from secondary sources that I believe to be reliable, but I must include that disclaimer.  I think the conclusions are still the same, even if the data points are off by a bit.  We are at a pivotal point in history.  How we behave, who we elect to lead us and how well informed and intelligent citizens impose their views on the many who are either malleable or apathetic, can truly change the shape of our world for decades to come.

Read, think, agree, disagree, but most of all, form a position upon which your actions will be based.  Then do something positive to bring about change.  Our lives and those of our children and grandchildren depend on it.

Best, John

THE

THE ENTERPRISE--HONESTY, HUMOR AND HONOR

THE ENTERPRISE--HONESTY, HUMOR AND HONOR

HONESTY ISN'T JUST THE BEST POLICY--IT'S THE ONLY RIGHT POLICY
I continue to be amazed at the frightening lack of honesty on the part of many leaders.  Telling the truth has become a notable virtue instead of the expected norm.  Is it any wonder that many corporate leaders and equally as many government leaders fail to inspire the confidence of the people who they are supposed to lead.  Nobel prize winning poet and novelist Herman Hesse once said, "The truth has a million faces, but there is only one truth."   There are times when it is not good to tell people "everything," because they don't need to know everything and it might cause more harm than good.  But that is different from lying to them.

I'm sure everyone skirts the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" more often often than they'd like to admit.  A Jim Carrey movie a few years back named 'Liar, Liar" portrayed (at times humorously and at times far to accurately) how "inconvenient" it is to always tell "the whole truth."  Feelings get hurt.  Embarrassments get exposed.  But most of all, the truth takes away the "wiggle factor" completely..  And yet, there is still no substitute.   I don't remember who told me this, but it was valuable wisdom:  "Always tell the truth, because that way, you don't need a good memory.   The truth will still be the truth."

In my experience as a leader in large and small companies, I have seen people show a remarkable ability to not only deal with unpleasant truths, but to actually respond far better than I expected.   The trust, the appreciation, the loyalty and the gratitude people have for leaders who tell the truth is truly inspiring.  This is a lesson I will never forget.

But on the topic of "not being able to recall" whether something is the truth or not...this next one is maddening.  With all the truly big problems we have as a country, se spend our time playing "gotcha games."  Dumb.

THE SCOOTER LIBBY TRIAL REMINDS ME OF EMILY LITELLA? (Gilda Radner on SNL)
In case you didn't watch the original Saturday Night Live, Comedian Gilda Radner played a fictional character, Emily Litella, an elderly woman with a hearing problem on the Weekend Update segment in the late 1970s. Frumpily attired in a dress and a sweater, "Miss Emily Litella" was introduced with professional dignity by the news anchors, who cringed at her tirades on subjects that were "misunderstandings" of words and actions.  Radner's character peered through her bifocals and read a prepared letter addressing some public issue, becoming increasingly agitated as her statement progressed, only to discover in the middle of her report that she has misheard what the issue was.

Some typical examples of her mistakes were: "What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a "deaf" penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is!"  Other misunderstood topics included: Endangered Feces (Species), Flea Erections (Free Elections), Presidential Erections (Elections), Busting School Children (Bussing school children), Conserving our Natural Racehorses (Resources, Youth in Asia (Euthanasia), and Sax and Violins on Television.  When the on-air reporter finally interrupted to point out her error (death vs. deaf, erection vs. election, etc. ), she would crinkle her nose, say, "Oh, that's quite different...never mind."

It was hilarious then, but now whenever I hear the reports on the Scooter :Libby trial, I think of that routine. Much ado about very little. "Never mind" seems like an appropriate way to end one of the recent history's most misguided "witch hunts."

FEDERAL BUDGET & WHY IT'S SO INTRACTABLE--JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS
See the concentration in the few lines at the top.  Making major changes must involve changes to those large items.  That doesn't mean billions of dollars are not wasted on boondoggles and bureaucracy on the bottom 15+ lines.  But also study the % share and how that has shifted dramatically in some cases.
From now on, whenever you hear "budget debates" call to mind this chart.  It will clearly remind you of where your tax dollars are being spent.  (And to save you the calculation, $1 Trillion--that's a million-million--is going toward Social Security and Medicare with the first of the "Baby Boomers" not even there yet.

Download proj. '08 Fed. Budget.gif

WEAK CRITERIA FOR ELECTED LEADERS = WEAK ELECTED LEADERSHIP
In the business world, when a job opens there is usually a search for a person who meets the requirements of the job--education, experience, leadership, creativity, a record of success in similar jobs.  Companies are reluctant to hire a person who is clearly and glaringly unqualified.   Not so with our elected officials. The primary requirement most candidates fulfill is the desire for power and influence, (sometimes) the desire to serve, strong financial backers, and usually the ability to speak in front of crowds and travel endlessly telling the audience as much of what they want to hear as possible.

What do we get for elected officials?  You know the answer--marginally qualified people (if we are lucky) and even less qualified ones if unlucky (Louisiana Gov. Blanco come to mind),   Then we choose potential VP candidates on how they'd balance the ticket.  The Speaker of House, 3rd in line to run the country in a time of disaster, is chosen based on what?  Political influence?  Favors owed?  Longevity in an elected position for which there were never any real criteria?  Look at the last two:  Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi.  Nuf said?  Scares the hell out of me.  Of course these people do have real issues:

--INTENSE DEDICATION & COMMITMENT OF ZEALOTS/TERRORISTS
The more I observe the news (and continue watching 24) the more impressed I am with the dedication, zeal and commitment of terrorists to their causes, however worthy or unworthy, good or evil.  Few who must oppose them match that dogged determination to "succeed" at all costs--even the cost of their lives.  It's little wonder they "win" when they have no moral rules and their goals are so clear--to terrorize and then kill us.

--PRESENT IN OUR SOLDIERS, BUT MISSING IN MANY GOVERNMENTAL LEADERS
Then I realized that we have a large group of brave, committed people..but few of them are our elected leaders.  Who are they?  Our brave soldiers and their leaders, that's who.  They volunteered for a job that has lousy working conditions, in which they must follow orders unquestioningly, for which they are not well paid, and in which they risk their lives.  Wow.   "Duty, Honor, Country," is a striking expression of West Point 's time-honored ideals; the motto of the U.S. Military Academy and is imbedded in its coat of arms, and in our military--but not in our governmental leaders--except for a (too) small number of them.

The vast majority of current political leaders are power-hungry and gutless, posturing for position, without thinking twice about how reprehensible their behavior looks to the young men and women who are sacrificing their lives so these charlatans can conduct their charades.  How disgusting.  Even the smart, talented ones are using that talent to manipulate the facts, instead of the working with the truth.

DC'S LATEST NONSENSE...5-DAY WEEKS FOR "SHOW" AND "AIR FORCE THREE" FOR GO
In case you haven't heard, the latest flap in DC is that House Speaker Pelosi has forced Congress to 5 day work weeks.  Egad!  That would make sense except what is done on the :"fringe days" of Monday and Friday is to hold votes or debate on "garbage issues" like approving citations or recognition statements.  Even her own party-mates are starting to gripe.  Of course that's why she needed a bigger, faster plane to go to and from California.

As you can tell by now, being cooped up during the winter storm has done little to dampen my contempt for our governmental leadership and its ridiculous antics.  President Bush's press conference provided a few moments of "relief" when he flatly refused to answer some of the typically inane "put-down" questions about the Libby trial and the more critical ones about his plans for Iran.

The media in this country has grown "too big for its britches" (to use an old down-home expression).  Something or someone needs to put them in their place, and not be a bit delicate about it.  They are insufferable, condescending and so openly biased as to be hopelessly transparent in their motives.  Few things make me happier than to see Katie Couric's CBS Evening news in last place in the ratings.  The sooner CBS figures that out and puts a real news person in there the better. (Although it will be another, differently liberal biased one)

(One person suggested loading a couple of 747s full of the Democratic Congressional leaders and their friends in the mainstream media and flying them to Baghdad to see how things are going first hand.  Hmmm.  Interesting idea.  Then Pelosi would get to ride on a plane as big as Air Force One!)

ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL   
Rudy Guiliani is gaining traction.  Barack Obama is just nibbling around the edges of really saying something with some meat to it.   When he does, watch Hillary come after him!   Hillary--well, she's still Hillary.  Here's all I can say about her.  If you don't like what she stands for, wait a short time.   It'll change as the winds change.

Ok, that's plenty of ranting and political humor for one wintry weekend.  Look for some meaty material that will make you think in the next week or two.  Our world is undergoing several huge changes, for which we are largely either unprepared or unaware of.  Those will be the topic of the next few editions.  Until then, stay well.

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE--Four Statements

There is so much to cover, let's start with a helpful concept and then dive into several important issues.

FOUR QUESTIONS: Here's a bonus from a forthcoming article of mine.  We are all too proud, too concerned about our image or just too afraid to say four things that can make our lives (and careers) immeasurably better.  Think about these and then try them. You'll be amazed.
1.    I don't understand.   (Would you please explain again?)
2.    I don't know. (But I'll try to find out.)
3.    Would you please help me? (I need your advice and help.)
4.    I'm sorry, I was wrong. (Please forgive me.)

DON'T AMERICAN AUTO-MAKERS GET IT, YET?
I've been sitting home nursing a winter cold, which means I have more time to read and think, both of which are dangerous.  Just a few days ago, I read a lengthy WSJ article about AutoNation and its dealings with US auto companies.  A key topic was why inventory accumulates in models with feature combinations no one wants, while the best selling models/feature combos sell out of stock.  Some of the statements and quotations in it just BLEW MY MIND.  Try these few excerpts:

---"Adopting a system in which market intelligence drive manufacturing would represent a profound and wrenching change for the industry." HUH?  Translation:  Car companies want to make what they want to make, not what car buyers want to buy.  Is anything wrong with that?  YOU BET.  It is exactly backward.

--"GM has one million unsold cars in the pipeline, while Toyota and Honda have 300,000."  So what does Mark LaNeve, GM's North American Sales & Marketing head say about this?  "It's not like we have some crisis,"   ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  Translation:  I am part of the problem or else I live on some other planet where I cannot recognize how wrong my company has things.  WAKE UP!

--AutoNation's Toyota and Honda locations carry 35-42 days of inventory.  It's GM, Ford & Chrysler locations used to have 65-70 days of inventory, but as domestic models continue to lose share, they now have 80-120 days of inventory. NO CRISIS, HUH? Translation:  We'll [US makers] continue to build as many as we want, and of what we want to build and ignore what people want to buy and how fast they buy them. THE BIG 3 DESERVE TO GO BANKRUPT.  (PS:  Even brilliant car design/engineering guys like Bob Lutz CANNOT fix this one.)

--US Automakers are drowning in complexity offering too many choices, and still not making what people want to buy!  [From the article] "While US car companies continue to offer a large number of options, they're not always geared toward particular buyers.  Japanese companies, by contrast, typically manufacture a small number of variations tailored to specific groups of customers... and can move quickly to adjust if sales are poor."  WOW.   Translation:  Those clever Japanese car makers have decided to make what people want to buy, and react when buying patterns change. HOW UNFAIR OF THEM   

--Example:  One Ford dealership is working his inventory down from 100 days to 83 and aiming at 65 days (still way more than Toyota or Honda would have).  Why this is hard:  "Ford makes a dozen versions of its big Expedition SUV, but just three of them account for 75% of the sales in all of south Florida."   Wanna bet how many Ford "insists" they stock?  I bet it's way more than 3.  DUMB.

WHY IS THE MEDIA SO EXCITED ABOUT OPTIONS DATING AT APPLE/PIXAR?
First remember, both companies are doing great for their shareholders.  Most readers (and media writers/reporters) have never worked as an executive developing compensation packages or been part of the Compensation Committee of a Board of Directors. I have, so let me explain why this whole backdating of options issue at Apple/Pixar is being overblown.

The most recent "incident" involves Pixar (where Steve Jobs of Apple is also the top guy) and its top animated film director John Lassiter.  It seems that 3 months time passed from when the Options were priced and the date granted according to the signed documents.  Sometimes it does take a long time.  Sometimes the options are granted at the time the stock is low to reward the employee--and the documentation trails along afterwards.

None of that really matters, because if the management and board wanted to, it could simply have awarded Lassiter more shares at a different (higher) option price, but resulting in the same dollar gain when exercised/sold at a higher price in the future--or even given him some additional cash compensation.  That is completely within the rights of Comp. Committees and Boards.  The board's most important objective is to increase shareholder value, and keeping top people, creating award top products is a good way to do it.   Two of those people are Jobs (at Apple) and Lassiter (at Pixar).

In some cases, there have been backdated options granted to far less successful and productive executives.  In these cases, shame on that board and its compensation committee for failing to look out for the shareholders as well as they might have.

But remember one more thing.  All such decisions are made about future results without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.  Second guessers will always be more accurate, but they can never predict the future, just criticize others about past decisions, which leads me to the next topic.

WHAT DOES HILLARY BELIEVE?   IT DEPENDS ON WHEN SHE'S SPEAKING
--Oct. 10, 2002:  "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt."[Iraq vote]
--Dec. 15, 2003:  ""I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein....We have no option but to stay involved and committed."
--April 20, 2004: "I don't regret giving the President the authority because at the time it as in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the International Community for more than a decade."
--Oct. 2005: "I don't believe its' smart to set a date for withdrawal..."[from Iraq]
--Nov. 2005  "If Congress had been asked to [authorize the war] based on what we know now, we never would have agreed."
--Aug. 2006:  On wanting Rumsfeld's resignation, asking for:  "new leadership that would give us a fighting change to turn the situation around before it's too late."
--Dec. 2006: In renouncing her war vote:  "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."
--Jan, 27, 2007:  She DEMANDS of a sitting President that he: "Extricate our country from this before he leaves office." 

What she means is :DON'T LEAVE THIS MESS FOR ME.  IF I GET ELECTED, I DON'T WANT TO DECIDE ANYTHING ON IRAQ WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF 20-20 HINDSIGHT, OR A WAY TO BLAME YOU IF IT GOES WRONG. 

It's rational to change positions when new information becomes available.  President
Bush has been rightfully criticized for doing too little of this.   BUT, Hillary, like many "second guessers" is good at knowing what should have been done in the past, especially if new and better  information is available now.  The problem is THE PRESIDENT HAS TO DECIDE ABOUT THE FUTURE AND DO IT IN THE PRESENT.  Hindsight is the luxury of  cynics and second-guessers. 

Chief Executives--of companies or countries--have to decide based on the best information available at the time and then execute to support those decisions (this area of execution was Bush's real Iraq failing).

IS RUDY GUILIANI THE RIGHT GUY?  OR IS MITT ROMNEY?  OR BOTH?
I become increasingly convinced that Senators do not/cannot make effective Presidents.  They have become too rooted in the debate on alternatives and NOT in the decisive action needed in the top EXECUTIVE office of our nation.

Using that criteria to narrow the list of candidates for President:  My 2008 tickets now are Guiliani and Romney,( in whichever order seems most electable) opposing Clinton and Obama.    Keeping John McCain in a leading GOP role in the Senate makes more sense than trying to elect a 72-year-old (controversial) President.  More on this in future editions of THE ENTERPRISE

HOW IS IT THAT A JOURNALIST CAN SEE WHAT OUR GOVERNMENTAL LEADERS CANNOT?
Many of you know I don't always agree with Thomas Friedman's politics.  I do think he is a wonderful journalist and very perceptive when it comes to Geo-political  solutions especially involving the Middle East, where he has lived and worked extensively.  The conclusions he posed in a recent NY Times Op Ed piece are so obvious and so practical, it makes one wonder why no one in Washington, DC has reached them.  The reason, perhaps, is that the polarized politicians in our nation's capital would actually have to agree on something.  And that, is a very tough sell these days.

I have copied Friedman's Op Ed piece below for you to read and consider.  We find ourselves living in interesting and dangerous times.  Only if we apply our collective wisdom to the important choices we face, can we influence the outcomes in a positive direction.  Let's do it.

Best,
John
-------------------------
February 7, 2007  Op-Ed
Yes, We Can Find the Exit
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
©The New York Times
MOSCOW
Listening, from Moscow, to the debate in Congress about Iraq is troubling: it sounds as if the American people are being offered two routes to a dead end: either follow President Bush and have troops surging into a roiling civil war, or go with one of the Congressional resolutions and denounce the surge, but without any alternative strategy for securing U.S. interests.  I believe there is an alternative strategy, but it will take two concrete numbers to implement: a date — Dec. 1 — and a price — $3.50 cents a gallon. Let me explain.

What is the U.S. interest in Iraq right now? It’s to quell the civil war enough so the parties may eventually reach a negotiated settlement, and if that proves impossible, to get America out of Iraq with the least damage to our interests.

We will not quell this civil war with a surge of troops alone. The only thing that will do that is a power-sharing, oil-revenue-sharing deal between the parties. The only way we will get serious negotiations going is with leverage that America does not now have: leverage on the parties inside and outside Iraq. Negotiating in the Middle East without leverage is futile. These folks know how to calculate the balance of power down to the last ounce.

So how do we get leverage? The first way to do that is by setting a firm date to leave — Dec. 1. All U.S. military forces are either going to be home for Christmas 2007 or redeployed along the borders of Iraq, away from the civil war. Right now everyone in Iraq is having their cake and eating it — at our expense. We have to change that.

The Sunnis, who started this whole murderous cycle, participate in the government, negotiate with us and also indulge the suicide bombers and the insurgents. The Shiites collaborate with us, run their own retaliatory death squads and dabble with Iran. The Saudis tell us we can’t leave, but their mosques and charities funnel Sunni suicide bombers to Iraq and dollars to insurgents. Iran pushes its Iraqi Shiite allies to grab more power, while helping others kill U.S. troops. Ditto Syria.

O.K., boys, party’s over: we’re leaving by Dec. 1. From now on, everyone pays retail for their politics. We will no longer play host to a war where we’re everyone’s protector and target. If you Sunnis want to go on resisting, we’ll leave you to the tender mercies of the Shiites, who vastly outnumber you. You Shiites, if you want to run Iraq without compromising with Sunnis, fine, but you’ll have to fight them alone and then risk having to live under the thumb of Iran.

You Saudis and other Arabs, if you don’t use your influence to delegitimize Sunni suicide bombers and press Iraq’s Sunnis to cut a deal, we won’t protect you from the consequences. And Iran, you win — yes, if we leave, you win the right to try to manage Iraq’s Shiites. Have a nice day.

But at the same time, we have to impose a tax that creates a floor price of $3.50 a gallon for gasoline — forever. This is also about leverage. It says to all the parties: we are going to conserve enough gasoline and spur enough clean alternatives to fossil fuels that no matter what you all do in the Middle East, we will not depend on you for energy.

Today in Iraq, none of the key parties have to make any choices, and we don’t have any choices. That is the definition of “stuck.” Right now we can win only if all the parties in and around Iraq act in the most farsighted and flexible manner. Otherwise we lose in our attempt to democratize Iraq, and we’re left holding the bag. We need to be in a win-win situation that we control.

“I don’t think at this stage that the promise of 20,000 more troops will change any minds in Iraq,” said Michael Mandelbaum, author of “The Case for Goliath.” “But the threat of a lot fewer U.S. troops might conceivably get everyone focused. Right now, the U.S. is the passenger in a car that other countries are driving — and it’s not going in the right direction. We have to change that dynamic.”

Indeed we do. Once we’ve set a date to leave by and a gas price to live by, we, for the first time, will have choices in Iraq. We can stay to broker a deal if the parties want to be guided by their better angels or, if they want tribal instincts to reign, we can leave by Dec. 1 and insulate ourselves from Islam’s civil war with a new energy policy.

To put it another way, if setting a date to leave miraculously brings them to their senses, our aspirations for the Iraqis will have been achieved, and we’ll be stronger. And if it doesn’t, but we have set an exit date and a gas price, we’ll be out of Iraq and more energy-secure — and we’ll also be stronger.

-----------------------

THE ENTERPRISE--Leadership is what matters

THE ENTERPRISE--Leadership is what matters.

A QUOTE THAT SEEMS RELEVANT WITH THE COMING POLITICAL SEASON
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful."  —Samuel Johnson.  If this brings anyone to mind, I can only say, "if the shoe fits..."  I'll add my own quote:  "Integrity is like virginity; you either have it or you don't."

RISK OF FIGHTING THE COMPETITION INSTEAD OF SERVING THE CUSTOMER
An old friend once told me a story that has stuck with me for years. It was about sailboat racing. One of his colleagues almost always came in 2nd or 3rd, but never won the regattas.  One time my friend went along to crew on his boat and discovered why.  The friend always looked to see what the strongest competitors did, and then reacted to that.  Thus he always was in the top group of 3-5 boats, but never won.

NO WAY TO FINISH FIRST...
The parallel to this in business--and in politics--is following and responding to the competition and the opponent BUT not concentrating on serving the customer and deliver what the customer/constituency wants.  The result is then same--losing--whether it is 2nd place or 4th place is not relevant--it is not winning.  Winners observe conditions, assess their strengths and weaknesses and then make plans to serve the customer/constituent--and win the race--by taking the right actions; doing the right things.   In boxing, one of the scoring points is "effective aggressiveness" and a '"counter-puncher," who waits to react to the other man's punches, only wins if the aggressor gets careless.  He virtually never controls the flow of the fight.

THE ATTACKER'S ADVANTAGE
Leaders must lead.  Winners must follow their plan and control the field of play, whatever the sport.  Most often, if you observe who is attacking and who is defending (or reacting), the attacker has the advantage and usually wins--unless they get careless or lose sight of the real objectives. (Watch Tiger Woods)  Winners don't  just wait to respond to the competitor's moves.   Winners initiate the moves, and let the losers attempt to respond.   If the GOP chooses to "react" to moves by Democratic liberal party leaders, and fighting (the symbolic leader) Nancy Pelosi, and the party's "stalking horse" Hillary Clinton, it will be relegated to SECOND PLACE again in 2008 elections.    That is an undesirable outcome (in my book) for America.—more on that point later.

HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESSES--A NEW FOCUS
I recently joined a small group of "experts" who share their knowledge and experience on a web site specifically aimed at the needs of small businesses.  Small businesses are the source of many of the new jobs and much of the innovation in America these days.  Helping small businesses succeed is one of my goals, the goal of Small Business Trends, a web site created by Anita Campbell, who also does an Internet radio show with a similar purpose.  Check it out using the link below, and refer your contacts to it for help in their small (and not so small) businesses.
<>http://www.smallbiztrends.com/2007/01/small-business-employment-trends-for-2007.html

THIS SHOULD MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT U.S. LEADERSHIP IN IRAQ
As I have said before, one of my favorite publications is The Week magazine.  It covers a wide range of topics, provides differing perspectives and is a great way to stay broadly informed without carrying around tons of magazines.  The article below is reproduced with permission from their most recent issue.  It outlines our new military leader in Iraq--a uniquely qualified General.  It made me feel better that we have someone there who understands the dynamics of the situation.  Whether he can turn around an abundance of mistakes, with a scarcity of resources and time, is not clear, but at least he has the right background and outlook to do it--and that is a definite improvement

Our New Man in Baghdad
©The Week magazine Feb. 2, 2007  (Reproduced with Permission)

The new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq is Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, an intellectual who has specialized in tactics for fighting insurgencies. How will he change U.S strategy in Iraq?

Why was Petraeus chosen?
A career soldier with more experience in Iraq than any other active general, Petraeus, 54, is widely regarded as the most cerebral active-duty general in the U.S. military. Petraeus graduated near the top of his class from West Point, just a little too late to see action in Vietnam, and went on to earn a Ph.D. at Princeton in international relations. In his dissertation, “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam,” he argued that the U.S. public would not support prolonged wars—especially those against local insurgents. Petraeus served in Bosnia and Haiti, but first saw combat as leader of the 101st Airborne Division, which took northern Iraq during the 2003 invasion. If confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus will replace the retiring Gen. George Casey as commander of all U.S. troops in Iraq.

How did he earn his reputation?
He’s the Army’s leading authority on counterinsurgency warfare and co-author of a recently published field manual on the subject. And in Iraq, he’s proven that his “hearts and minds” philosophy can work in practice. After the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Petraeus and his Screaming Eagles were dispatched to the city of Mosul, in northern Iraq’s volatile Nineveh province. Petraeus’ success in stabilizing Mosul is considered one of the very few highlights of the U.S. occupation.

What was his strategy?
He began by having enough troops. Petraeus’ counterinsurgency field manual calls for at least 20 combat troops for every 1,000 civilians, and in Mosul, with 20,000 Screaming Eagles, Petraeus had the manpower to establish an overwhelming presence on the streets. Just as important in Petraeus’ doctrine, though, is how those troops conduct themselves. Unlike regular warfare, counterinsurgency requires “nuanced” and “empathetic” soldiering, Petraeus writes in his field manual. “The more force used,” he writes, “the less effective it is.” Or as Petraeus put it in an interview, “You’re not going to kill your way out of an insurgency.” His soldiers in Mosul were instructed to think of themselves more as a community police force than a conquering army. Soldiers patrolled on foot when possible, rather than in armored vehicles. Back at the barracks, Petraeus had posters put up asking soldiers, “WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO WIN IRAQI HEARTS AND MINDS TODAY?”

How do you win hearts and minds?
It’s the “little stuff,” says Petraeus. His troops were told to knock on doors instead of kicking them down, and to tell the owner of every home they raided, “Thank you for allowing us to search your home.” Petraeus himself went so far as to host his own regular radio call-in show, and even launched a TV show called Nineveh Talent Search, shamelessly modeled on American Idol, that was so popular it was renewed for a second season. The tactics worked. Weeks after his arrival, Mosul was stable enough that Petraeus actually held elections for city council—many months before the waving purple fingers of the national elections—and there were even signs of an economic upswing. The citizens of Mosul were so impressed they erected a street sign in honor of the 101st Airborne. “You know it’s authentic,” said Petraeus in 2004, “because there are two misspellings in it.”

How was Petraeus rewarded?
By being given the hardest job in Iraq: recruiting and training the new Iraqi security force. Rather than measuring progress by the sheer number of Iraqi soldiers “on duty,” Petraeus instituted the more meaningful standard of “unit readiness”: how many Iraqi units were actually capable of fighting. He also revamped training methods, embedding U.S. advisors into active Iraqi units. No one disputes that both the quantity and quality of Iraqi troops improved under Petraeus, who was recalled to the Pentagon at the end of 2005, but some critics say he should have done more to stop the infiltration of Iraqi units by insurgents and members of Shiite militias.

Is that why he was recalled?
No. The Pentagon has a general policy of “rotating” senior officers out of Iraq to keep them from “burning out,” a concept Sen. John McCain has called “deeply unwise.” Petraeus’ return to the U.S. may have been accelerated by the fact that his success and fame had begun to irritate both his superiors and other generals, who began calling him “King David.” Petraeus’ touchy-feely, troop-intensive soldiering was directly at odds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s vision of a small, “nimble” military that relied on sophisticated weaponry. Pentagon officials were reportedly also displeased by Petraeus’ appearance on the cover of Newsweek in 2004, above the headline “Can this man save Iraq?”

So why the sudden rehabilitation?
Since Rumsfeld’s departure, President Bush has been publicly rethinking his approach to the war, and Petraeus represents a dramatic change of philosophies. But in Baghdad, Petraeus will be facing a far greater challenge than he found in Mosul. Even with the extra troops provided by the “surge,” Petraeus will have only about 35,000 troops to secure Baghdad, not the 120,000 required by the formula in his counterinsurgency manual. Even Petraeus’ biggest admirers admit that it may be too late to save an Iraq where most hearts and minds have already been lost, but they say he may be the only general with the skills to do it. “He’s a first-class leader,” says Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), a persistent critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. “If anyone can help motivate the Iraqis into taking on more security responsibility and lead American forces in Iraq, it is he.”

DO DEMOCRATS DAMAGE AMERICA, ENCOURAGE ITS ENEMIES?
While the newly elected Democrats in Congress try to destroy the Bush administration are they also destroying the morale of our troops, and feeding fuel to the fires of our enemies"  I think so.  Perhaps now is the time to break an old taboo--the one of avoiding discussions of religion or politics in group settings.  If we are to get our country back on track, intelligent people must discuss the issues that will shape its future for decades to come.  That means whether it is your kids, your parents, your siblings, friends, business associates or casual acquaintances...it is time to speak up about what you believe is right and what is simply (wrong-headed) partisan politics.

HILLARY MUST BE EXPOSED
Hillary Clinton has already started her campaign by pretending to be exactly what she isn't and by unabashedly lying about where she once stood on important matters.  I once thought it was Bill Clinton who would tell people whatever he thought they wanted to hear, and that Hillary had strong values and convictions (although I disagreed with many of them then too).  At that time I thought her traits were more admirable than his.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR?
Now Hillary seems willing to stoop to any level and say anything she thinks will get her the coveted prize--the nomination first, and then the White House.  Could that be the only reason she stayed with Bill for all these years?  I can readily imagine her party nominating her, since she will say whatever she thinks best mirrors its philosophy (excluding the New "Blue Dog" Democrats, who will prove to be a real thorn in the side of the aging liberal Democratic leadership).  But if Americans elect someone who will do this, our country then learn what a terrible mistake it has made in choosing its leader.

Just consider the outcry about whether President Bush "lied" about Iraq, his motives, etc.  Think about the wisdom of electing someone who is proven willing to lie (or hide the evidence of wrong doing--remember the Whitewater files that mysteriously appeared on her desk after being "lost' for so long?).

Study issues and candidates carefully and choose informed positions, then speak out,  to influence the many people who follow your example and leadership.  Our future is at stake--starting this soon after the mid-term elections.   And let's hope General Petraeus does have the "right stuff" and it isn't too late to apply it.

Best, John

PS:  RED FRIDAYS--A NEW WAY TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS
(Passed on from a friend:)
Very soon, you will see many people wearing Red every Friday.  The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the "silent majority."  We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers.  We are not boisterous or overbearing.

Many Americans simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops.  Each and every Friday until the troops come home, send a silent, yet deafening message that every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar, will wear something RED on Fridays.

If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, coworkers, friends, and family, it will not be long before the USA is covered in RED and it will let our troops (and our Congressional leaders kno where  the once "silent" majority stands--with our troops--on their side more than ever, and certainly more than the mass media lets on.

The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do to make things better for you?" is ..."We need your support and your prayers."  Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example, and wear something RED every Friday.  Put a reminder on your appointment calendar.