Telling It Like It Is

THE ENTERPRISE--A Lack of Leadership

THE ENTERPRISE

GOOD NEWS: ROSIE IS LEAVING THE VIEW--ONE LESS MISGUIDED VOICE ON TV
In spite of the spin that she "chose to leave" because they wanted her to stay 3 years and she wanted only one, I'm betting that behind the scenes there was more to her departure than that.  However it came about, denying her a daily TV platform for her misguided mouth is a good thing.  Whenever a wrong-headed voice is taken off the mainstream media, we are all better off.

THE INMATES ARE NOT RUNNING THE ASYLUM;  SPECIAL INTERESTS HAVE OPENED THE DOOR AND RELEASED ALL THE INMATES
I could write a whole issue--or more, on the topic of how special interest groups have so totally distorted our culture that common sense is no longer common.  It's about gone entirely.  Through the guise of well meaning initiatives, basic tenets right and wrong have fallen prey to the ever spreading illness of Political Correctness.  The rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution have been abrogated and /or completely over-ruled by legislation prompted by special interest groups.  Some of it was well intended but most of it was the product of noisy zealots winning over the apathetic majority.

SOME SPECIAL INTERESTS ARE WORTHY--TOO MANY ARE JUST SELFISH
I'm happy to wash my hands in a knee high sink or park out past the ten empty handicapped spaces so handicapped people have life a bit easier.  I do mind when a major university and a social infrastructure ignores repeated, clear and undeniable warnings about a dangerous and unstable student... until he kills 31 fellow students and himself.  Then his  whole story is  "glorified" in his own video, which is shown to the entire nation by an irresponsible mainstream news networks--NBC—(Nothing But Crap, is how one pundit characterizes the initials.) 

(NOTE:  Can anyone spell "copycat" killers--it's been proven a couple of decades ago that every highly publicized suicide triggers a national rash of suicides--50-60 of them!  This is why responsible media quit reporting on "suicides" as such.  One has happened already today in a mall shooting incident.)

Universities are now paralyzed with fear about disclosing any "private information" about students even to their parents, and even when the rules banning such disclosure do not apply (when the student is still a legitimate dependent, and recorded that way on tax returns)  And when there is a situation involving a dangerous situation, even the strictest of disclosure rules can be set aside.

SPECIAL INTERESTS HAVE SO DISTORTED "RIGHTS" THAT THEY HAVE NO MEANING ANYMORE
For several decades now, zealous special interests have been usurping the rights of the "mainstream American people."  Led by groups such as the ACLU (American Criminal Liberties Union?) and followed by innumerable well-sounding, and sometimes well-meaning campaigns, most of our "inalienable rights" described in the Constitution have already been taken away.

FIRE SOMEONE, ALMOST ANYONE,  AND TAKE A RISK OF GETTING SUED
Just one example.  It used to be accepted practice to fire someone who was not satisfactorily doing the job for which they were being paid.  Now, you must document numerous examples, counsel the person repeatedly, check with a team of lawyers, and then, maybe, you can fire them.  But they can, and often will, turn around and sue you anyway.  Why?  Because they were part of some "protected class" and because of that, somehow deserved special treatment--like tolerating them not doing what they were getting paid to do.

EVERYONE IS IN A PROTECTED CLASS (EXCEPT THOSE WHO JUST DO THEIR JOB)
Protected classes?  What are those?  Here is what they are.  The U. S. labor force counts 151 million give or take a few million illegal aliens (but they usually do work hard).  It breaks down like this:
--Minorities (31%) and growing very rapidly
--Age 40 and over (52%) and also growing
--Female (46%) slowly growing, but nearly stable
--Unprotected** --usually white males under age 40 (16%) and shrinking fast

**But only if the employee is NOT disabled, gay, a  whistle-blower, a veteran, foreign born, called for jury duty or a workers compensation claimant.  (NOTE:  figures do not add to 100% because some employees are in more than one "protected class.")

Bottom line, probably less than 10% of the U. S. employment based can be fired without legal recourse--white males under 40 who have simply worked and done their jobs and have no unusual aberrations or experiences.  It seem to me that is totally backwards!

See what has happened?  As intermarriage continues, in the near future, virtually everyone in the US will be in some sort of special interest "protected class," which will make everyone a candidate to sue an employer with the unmitigated gall to expect them to actually work and perform in the job for which they are being paid.  Is that a problem.  I THINK SO!

ONE U. S.  EPIDEMIC WE CAN START TREATING--IF POLITICIANS HAVE THE GUTS TO DO IT
--GUNS--especially rapid fire guns--are one of the worst epidemics in the US.   There are already more guns (240 million) in the US than adults.  Gun control laws have been largely reduced to the point of ineffectiveness.  It's time to get sensible and completely BAN all semi- or auto-fire guns, as well as any that can be easily modified to do so.

Let's demand that we quit filling prisons for extended periods with "white collar criminals" (who committed "victim less crimes") and hordes of minor drug offenders (easy to catch).  Then let's start handing out seriously severe sentences for owning or being in possession of illegal weapons (and going back to include those which were acquired, even with licenses in the past and requiring them to be surrendered for fair market value compensation). Change the law to assess stiff penalties (prison) for gun dealers who violate a lengthened waiting period.  Shut down all "gun shows," which is where many illegal activities thrive and spread.

Sure, there will still be illegal guns sold, but strict remedies will stop much of the traffic in killing tools. It's time to recognize that the NRA is  wrong in its aggressive support for gun ownership. The second amendment was written for a very different era.  If you don't believe that this area is out of control, go shopping in a local gun shop or at a local gun show and see the murderous assortment you can buy with very few questions asked--and those are just the tip of the iceberg..  This is an American freedom that is out of control.

GO TO THE DOCTOR AT WAL-MART?  SURE. NOW!
Several years ago, after bad experiences with an Urgent Care and a Hospital ER, I suggested that sooner or later we could go to Wal-Mart for medical care.  I've been getting eye exams and glasses there for years.  Now Wal-Mart  and several other retailers (Walgreen, CVS, Meijer) are opening clinics for "minor or routine" illnesses.  These are typically staffed with a nurse practitioner (which is all you see at many doctor's office these days, unless there is something serious wrong) and some with doctors, refer complex or serious illnesses to more comprehensive care providers.  This approach makes a lot of sense and should be very successful.

OLD NEWS, BUT BIG NEWS--TOYOTA SURPASSES GM
This is perhaps the most unsurprising major news piece of the past week.  Toyota has surpassed GM in global sales.   It surpassed GM in auto quality a long time ago.  That's why it is not surprising that the sales catch up with the quality and value.  Ironically, Toyota has had its own growth problems recently.  Quality problems with some new models introduced "too fast" by its own admission, and a series of other, less well publicized flaws that were handled quietly with." GM is making progress in its own right.  The question is whether its competitors are progressing faster, or if GM is gaining ground.  I have said for years that there is no "structural/knowledge reason" the US auto makers cannot design and build world-class vehicle--it just doesn't.  The US auto maker problems were (are?) management, leadership, and legacy issues.  Too much of the old "we know what's best," and "good enough is good enough," philosophies that just don't cut it anymore.

"SECRETS OF AN HR SUPERSTAR"--GE'S BILL CONATY
Every once in a while I find an article with major points that are worth passing on.  These come from the article of the same name in the April 9, 2007 issue of Business Week.  Bill Conaty, now retiring was the key HR person spanning Welch and Immelt's regimes as heads of GE.  Perhaps he deserves the lion's share of credit for the array of competent leaders and managers inside and coming out of GE.  His advice for nurturing leaders is worth noting...and following:
--Dare to differentiate:  Employees must be constantly judged, ranked, and rewarded or punished for performance.  You have to know who are the least effective people on our team—and then you have to do something about them.
--Constantly raise the bar:  One reason executives fail is they stop learning.  The job grows and the people don't grow with it.
--Don't become friends with the boss:  Too often, he says, HR executives make the mistake fo focusing on the priorities and needs of the CEO.  That diminishes the role of being an employee advocate...and the rest of the organization thinks the HR exec. cannot be a confidant.
--Become easy to replace:   Great leaders develop great successors (and succession plans).  Insecure leaders are intimidated by them.  If someone "kills" 2-3 successors along the way, start looking at "who's doing the killing."
--Be inclusive:  There's a tendency to favor people you know.  That can undermine success. ...Make the valued people feel financially and emotionally welcome, and then get to know them better.
--Free up others to do their jobs:   One of his jobs was to take things off the boss's desk, not put things in his/her head.  Solve things and moves forward.  But don't "sugar coat" bad news, either.
--Keep it simple:  Most organizations require simple, yet focused and disciplined communications.  Leaders succeed by being consistent and straightforward about a handful of core messages.  And the best don't get derailed when times turn tough.
---He wraps up with, "70% of leaders handle adversity well and 30% let it overwhelm them.  If you can't take a punch and you don't have a sense of humor, you don't belong in this company.  Everyone experiences failure now and then.  It's how you handle it that matters."

THE COMMON DENOMINATOR
What do all these seemingly disjointed paragraphs have in common?  What is the underlying common denominator?  In a word--LEADERSHIP--or rather, the lack of leadership.  Our country, the proud and dominant United States of America, is suffering from a pervasive lack of leadership in many, many areas. 

Our government's newly elected Democratic leaders--Harry Reid—proclaiming "the war is lost" when there are still over 140,000 Americans fighting in Iraq to avert that loss, and Nancy Pelosi—under the guise of "doing her job" as the House Majority Leader, playing polite politics with a murdering despot, misquoting Israeli leaders and spitting in the face of the President of the US.  And the President, George W. Bush, so steadfast in so many right beliefs and initiatives, executed some so poorly and then turned so blindly stubborn in others,  that all but his staunchest supporters either hate him (and his administration) or are dismayed or disillusioned and disappointed. 

A LEADER
It is incredibly important that a strong and credible leader** gains the White House in 2008 and regains the confidence of the American people and much of the free world.  There is much to be done in the USA.  Huge issues must be faced, and decades of irresponsible legislation must be corrected.  We must start now.  Contact and meet with your elected representative.   Study the issues.  Take stands, and influence those who follow your lead.  Our future depends on it, but moreover, the future of our children and grandchildren depend on us.  The time is now, and the urgency is great.

Best, John

**There are several of those currently seeking the Presidency.  On this you may differ with me, but I think they are named Guiliani, Romney and McCain, and NOT Clinton, Obama or Edwards.

THE ENTERPRISE--It Just Doesn't Matter

THE ENTERPRISE

A GREAT NEW TALK-RADIO SHOW
I found a great new radio show for those who are either in the car or near a radio (with time to listen) during the daytime. It is the Dennis Miller Show.  Yes, that Dennis Miller--the comedian--and he is an excellent host and is just "learning the ropes" of doing a talk show.  He is erudite, has good, balanced opinions and is fair to callers--he listens and considers what they say.  Plus he has great guests because he has a lot of friends.  You'll have to check its web site to see if it is on in your area--but if it is, and you happen to be driving around when it's on, tune in.  I find myself laughing out loud at times, something not caused by a radio show since "Chickenman" was on in the 1960's.

A WONDERFUL OPINION PIECE
I seem to always like what Peggy Noonan writes in the Weekend WSJ.  As a former Presidential speech writer, you'd expect her to be smart and articulate.  What is refreshing is how she cuts to the heart of matters.  I'd like to share with you a few lengthy excerpts from her piece this weekend, in case you neither get nor read the Wall Street Journal.  I was going to weigh in on the Virginia Tech shootings, but she says it far better than I would have.

FROM PEGGY NOONAN'S 4/21 WSJ COLUMN
---"Dennis Miller the other night said something compassionate and sensible on TV. Invited to criticize some famous person's stupid response to a past tragedy, he said he sort of applied a 48 hour grace period after a tragedy and didn't hold anyone to the things they'd said. People get rattled and say things that are extreme."
---"But more than 48 hours have passed. So: some impressions."
---"There seems to me a sort of broad national diminution of common sense in our country that we don't notice in the day-to-day but that become obvious after a story like this. Common sense says a person like Cho Seung-hui, who was obviously dangerous and unstable, should have been separated from the college population. Common sense says someone should have stepped in like an adult, like a person in authority, and taken him away. It is only common sense that if a person like Cho leaves a self-aggrandizing, self-celebrating, self-pitying video diary of himself to be played by the mass media, the mass media should not play it and not publicize it, not make it famous. Common sense says that won't help." ....
----"The school officials I saw, especially the head of the campus psychological services, seemed to me endearing losers. But endearing is too strong. I mean "not obviously and vividly offensive." The school officials who gave all the highly competent, almost smooth and practiced news conferences seemed to me like white, bearded people who were educated in softness. Cho was "troubled"; he clearly had "issues"; it would have been good if someone had "reached out"; it's too bad America doesn't have better "support services." They don't use direct, clear words, because if they're blunt, they're implicated."
---"The literally white-bearded academic who was head of the campus counseling center was on Paula Zahn Wednesday night suggesting the utter incompetence of officials to stop a man who had stalked two women, set a fire in his room, written morbid and violent plays and poems, been expelled from one class, and been declared by a judge to be "mentally ill" was due to the lack of a government "safety net." In a news conference, he decried inadequate "funding for mental health services in the United States." Way to take responsibility. Way to show the kids how to dodge." ....
---"One watches all of this and wonders: Where are the grown-ups?"
        From the Wall Street  Journal Weekend Edition, April 21-22, 2007 p P16.

ON GLOBAL WARMING--AND INCONVENIENT POSITION--BUT PRAGMATIC
Yes, I watched Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and actually found it to be quite well done.  Now you can probably imagine I don't agree with many things Al Gore says, and having read some expert climatologists' disagreement, I don't agree with his most dire threats.  But...here's the surprise...I DO AGREE WITH HIS CONCLUSION at least to this extent.  We must do some major things, much  differently--and fast.

ECOSYSTEMS AND SPECIES
I once studied the work of a leading ecological scientist on ecosystems and species and their interaction.  Don't get me wrong--it was not exhaustive study, but it was a broad overview for background work on an unpublished book in which I planned to explore the learnings,  the inferences and metaphors from nature that clearly also apply to business.  The book never made it, but I learned a lot about "nature" ands science.  Bottom line, ecosystems can support a limited population of a given number of major species. Also, sometimes those species don't get along, so the strong ones wipe out the weaker ones (Darwin told us this, too.)  Now with this snippet of scientific background, consider planet Earth--a big ecosystem.

First of all, the population of earth is growing faster and faster:
Year 1000 (A. D.)—250 million humans;
Year 1500—500 million people—a doubling in 500 years.
Year 1900—1.6 billion population—a tripling in 400 years.
Year 2007—6.5 billion people, a quadrupling in 107 years.
The rate of growth of our human species in the Earth's ecosystem is still accelerating (in spite of some of my past weeks' dire statements about birth rate declines in developed countries.)

Now consider this.  The more humans that inhabit the Earth, the more of the natural resources they use and the more waste they create—material waste, energy waste and atmospheric waste (some would call it all "pollution").  People in the more developed, wealthy and wasteful parts of the Earth's population (Like the USA)  use more of everything AND waste more too, even though they are adding population relatively slowly.  In less developed and less wealthy parts of Earth (China and India with 2.4 billion people), they use more resources just to live, use them more crudely, and their waste is messier and also larger due to their large population.  Both the more developed and less developed countries are helping create the problems in our Earth ecosystem.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S "RIGHT" ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
With that preamble, the reason I come out agreeing with part of Al Gore's conclusion is that we are, as a species, abusing our ecosystem and treating it poorly.  Ecosystems are not particularly tolerant of  species who do that.  The line "Don't mess with Mother Nature" has more truth to it than you can imagine.  The ecosystem will adapt to its abuse.  And it will do so with little regard to the impact on the species that happen to inhabit it—including whether they are the guilty ones or not.  It'll just wipe out a bunch of them (sort of "inadvertently") and do what it must to overcome the abuses.

WE'RE FOULING OUR OWN NEST--AND MUST STOP IT
With that rather simplistic piece of science and logic, you see that we must quit messing around with senseless ideas like "carbon credits" —nothing but an illicit excuse for not doing what's right.  We need to apply all of our "Best Available Technology" to improve how we treat our ecosystem--Earth.  A few simple examples show how focusing on a couple of the worst offenders in both the energy use and environmental impact and improving them can make a big difference ... and we can do it relatively fast--in a decade or two—maybe less.  (I cited some of these last week.)

THE KNOW HOW EXISTS NOW
    --Honda vehicles averaged 30+mpg during the decade 1996-2005 and yet all car makers in the US averaged under 25 mpg for that decade.  We must demand that all cars have to "catch up to Honda" technology.   (Fortunately, some auto makers are working on that actively, right now--GM and Ford to name just two.)
    --Mercedes Benz new Blue Tec diesel engine uses less fuel and creates less pollution than the old diesels did, and is more powerful.  We must insist that ALL diesel engines, in cars AND trucks have to "catch up to Blue Tec" technology.
    --GE, arguably one of the worlds wealthiest and most powerful companies, has an environmental push going on now, and it also makes most of the aircraft AND train engines used in the US.  We must hitchhike a "ride on GE's coattails" and create cleaner, more efficient diesel train engines and jet aircraft engines. (And quit allowing airports to schedule more departures in a time slot than have proven statistically possible to take off--leaving jets burning fuel and spewing emissions while sitting on the taxi-ways for long times.) 
    --We should copy Wal-Mart's energy saving concepts (Greater use of skylight in stores and warehouses is just one simple example) and its "sustain-ability" initiatives.  Let's "copy Wal-Mart's good deeds" and use them everywhere.

BIG ALTERNATIVES ARE VIABLE, TOO
    --Nuclear power plants pollute far less than the most (or all/) coal-fired units. We must initiate a massive conversion to "Nukes Now" for electric power generation. The know how and designs exist and have been tested.  What is needed is a push to get them placed in critical need areas to replace older, dirtier plants, and start construction—FAST.  (This will also reduce our need for OPEC's oil too!)
    --Protesters will complain about wherever is chosen to build these plants and/or where and how to transport and dispose of (bury?) nuclear waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years.   Yet, they think nothing current situation, of the tons of gaseous and particulate waste currently being pumped out of smokestacks into the air we breathe.   The protesters who don't want a nuclear power plant in their area are not thinking about the consequences of continuing down the current path.

NOTE--For a wild idea, how about launching the nuclear waste into space?  There's a lot of emptiness out there, and it wouldn't be any worse than some of the other gaseous matter that is flying around in deep space.

WE'VE EVEN STARTED TO DEAL WITH THESE PROBLEMS BEFORE
    Decades ago we discouraged the disposal of glass bottles by assessing a "deposit" on them, and on metal cans (in some states anyway) by assessing a penalty on them too.  It's time to "revisit simple solutions" and force all the makers/users of plastic bottles to pay a hefty fee per bottle to fund a system to recover/recycle them instead of polluting the environment.  What, the cost of a bottle of water will jump from $0.25 to $0.50?  Big deal.  Drink tap water, before we pollute it so much it won't be drinkable (like some places in China now!)

ENOUGH FOR NOW
    I've already messed up your head enough.  I can't believe it.  Me (sort of) agreeing with Al Gore on anything.  The difference is that I think these pragmatic types of improvements can actually be implemented by the right kind of joint private and public initiatives.  Taxes can be levied on the worst offenders and the money collected diverted to fund the highest leverage emerging solutions--sort of like our "man on the moon" project of the JFK era.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER EXACTLY WHO'S RIGHT
    And let's quit wasting time and money arguing about "what exactly is causing global warming."  I suspect both sides are right.  Some of it is "people induced."  Some of it is "a natural cycle."  But IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER.  It's time to quit arguing and get to work.  Maybe our politicians could quit wasting their time and our tax money on hearings about "who did what in the past" and worry about "who needs to do what to improve our future."  That would be a nice change.  Now there's an idea.  How about getting in touch with your ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE and suggesting exactly that.  (I have and will continue to do so.)  You'll find some of them are actually good, intelligent people.  (Some aren't, too;  those we have to replace.)

That's it for this week...me agreeing on anything with Al Gore.  That's one to write home about.

Best, John

FYI--with no cars, and no humans, the Great Smoky Mountains were still hazy and the Los Angeles Basin still had "smog" because both are caused by natural photochemical reactions from living plants that release "greenhouse gases."  But both places are far worse now than they were just a few decades ago, because more humans are fouling the air faster and faster.

THE ENTERPRISE--Unions, Energy, & the Environment

THE ENTERPRISE

This week will be a return to "random topics" after the past 7 weeks of "heavy reading."  No particular single theme, just "observations" on important matters.

WANT TO KILL AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS?  TRY THIS ONE.
There is a very damaging piece of legislation bouncing around on Capitol Hill:  the Employee Free Choice Act is its name.  The name in itself is a lie.  This act would permit union organizers to simply collect (coerce, cajole, whatever) 50% of employees to sign a card indicating interest in a union and VOILA', the company has a union!  The law now requires 30% plus to sign cards, and then a secret ballot election is held, in which employees can vote their true feelings without fear of recrimination or undue pressure. 

This is a disaster of legislation allowing one-sided (union) pressure tactics to create union representation.  There are complaints by supporters of the new act that employers "pressure workers unfairly" now.  Wrong.  They can't.  Employers who unfairly pressure workers are subject to an "Unfair Labor Practice" charge, which, if they are found guilty, gets them a union by decree.   But unions are still losing membership because they no longer add value in so many situations.

Under the new law organizers can go to employees homes and attempt to persuade them to sign cards (of course the company can't do that), visit the employee with a "team" of organizers, catch them unaware in the parking lot or gang up on them in the cafeteria, etc. and some might even represent signing the card as "just an indication of interest."  Sure it is...

In his Business Week column, Jack Welch (and although his wife Suzy coauthors the column, these ring out as Jack's words) says this:  "...we're worried as can be that American competitiveness is about to be whacked by something no one seems to be talking about:  the Employee Free Choice Act, which is currently weaving an insidious path through Congress toward becoming a law.  If it does, the long-thriving American economy will finally meet its match. ...  the title of this bill is pure propaganda." 

"And pretty soon," he continues,  if enough business leaders and legislators don't stand up, it may well be:  Hello again, unions.  So long American competitiveness."  The Welchs call it The Unemployment Act in the title of the column.

Unions had a place in American industry.   Perhaps they still do.  But not under this kind of a power play that Unions (and their well funded Democratic legislator friends) know so well. Pressure tactics will get signatures from the most reluctant workers.  A few months or years later, they'll wonder where their jobs went.  The Union officials will still be drawing their pay, but from an ever shrinking pool of dues paying members.  This is the American way gone wrong.

WANT TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT?
Face facts:  no one can say with certainty (no, not even Al Gore) how much effect greenhouse gases are having on the environment and how much of global warming is a natural cycle and how much is caused by us.  One thing is sure:  take any ecosystem (like the earth) and populate it with 10 or 100 times as many people over a couple of centuries, and the load on the ecosystem is increased dramatically.  How does it respond?  Perhaps it becomes less hospitable to the species inhabiting it--or the species begin fighting over parts of it that are less contaminated.   Sound like a Sci-Fi movie?  Not at all.  This could be a real possibility

Furthermore, when some of these populous societies become so prosperous and so wasteful that "soccer moms"  can haul a 60 pound kid ten miles to a soccer game in an 8-person, 2-1/2 ton vehicle that gets 10 mpg (on a good day); or perhaps a society that throws away a billion (non-biodegradable) plastic bottles each year because they were simply a convenient way to carry drinking water; or how about a society that disposes of plastic utensils, containers, coat hangers, etc. on a daily basis that were nicer and more serviceable than much of the population used a century ago?

A friend once showed me how air conditioning destroyed the neighborhoods in American cities by moving people in doors, where TV hypnotized them into submission.  Before those "inventions" they might sit on front steps or in back yards and parks and talk, with each other--actually interact directly with other humans--and think about important parts of their lives. All this happened without text messaging, email, chat rooms, cell phones or YouTube.

Now we must power those air conditioners and TVs and the microwave ovens where many of tthose disposable food containers pass on their way to the dump.  So, we use coal fired power plants.  There is still lots of coal; so it burns dirty and pollutes the air.  We are afraid of nuclear plants ever since Three Mile Island, even though the technology to prevent accidents is orders of magnitude better.  Let's burn coal, or oil or natural gas, and vent the exhaust gases where--oh, right--into the air we breathe.  (Seen in an ad in NYC: 79% of the greenhouse gas emissions in NYC is generated by the energy use of buildings.)  No, we shouldn't sign the Kyoto Accords--they were totally misguided and put the vast majority of the climate improvement cost on developed nations and specifically the US .  We should start about becoming more conscious of how wasteful we are, and how we are fouling our environment--mistreating our ecosystem--before it reacts unkindly to us.

HERE ARE A FEW SIMPLE IDEAS TO START WITH:
According to a recent Honda ad, Honda's average fuel economy for 1996-2005 was 30.1 mpg. and the average of the entire auto industry was 24.8 mpg.  That means a 21% improvement in gas usage (and emissions) could be achieved if the entire auto industry just caught up with known technology as applied by Honda.  Ah, you say, but Honda sold fewer big truck-like vehicles, and more small cars.  Of course they did.   But the Odyssey Minivan, Honda Pilot and Acura MDX  SUVs will haul 8 passengers as well as any of the competitive alternatives--and have been rated best in class--and economy and emissions--many times.  And the Accord and Civic--the two best selling Honda sedans also compare favorably in capacity and ride quality to many larger, more expensive gas guzzlers, yet use more fuel efficient engine technology. Twenty percent improvement is possible with known, proven technology.  So why should we be sympathetic with auto-makers screaming about CAFE standards going up 20%?  And while we are at it, let's slap a tax on fuel to keep it at $3+/gallon and use the money to pay for energy saving tax incentives.  (FYI--Gas costs lots more than this in Europe.)

Next, lets quit burying our garbage and start recycling it--and better less--create less of it.  To preserve trees start with controls (via monetary penalties) on "printed materials".  Tax bulk mail to reduce the amount of paper-based junk mail--use the income to incite environmentally friendly means of communications.  Tax newspapers and waive thet tax if they set up and operate recycling centers. 

You see,  herre's the process with paper based, bulk news and advertising:  1) cut down trees, 2) invest energy and water to pulverize them into paper,  3) run them through huge printing presses  4) create heavy bundles of words and ads on paper, and finally, 5) use gas or diesel powered trucks to deliver them to the door as either newspapers or catalogs.   This is an incredibly energy intensive and unwieldy way to deliver information--news and/or ads.  Take a cue from Wal-Mart's "Sustainability" campaign and spread that concept broadly across other companies of all kinds.   Use energy efficient light bulbs.  Drink water out of reusable containers (we used to call them water glasses).  Install more skylights in large buildings.  Do laundry in full loads, and use "dryness sensors" on dryers to limit excessive energy waste.  And on, and on.  These are known ways to save lots of energy and reduce environmental waste and pollution.

FINALLY--ATTACK THE LARGEST SOURCES OF WASTE AND POLLUTION
Demand either clean-coal or nuclear power plants be started en masse.  Let energy costs rise if necessary--that is part of energy conservation--higher prices will motivate lower usage. Unhook from imported oil coming from our enemies--Venezuela, Iran, Syria, etc.  Penalize older, dirtier power plants, and provide an economic incentive to replace them or clean them up.  Require trucks to meet newer, more stringent energy and emissions rules.  Give them a short time frame to meet the new regulations, or to buy an "energy/emission exception license."  Check for compliance at the  many weigh stations located all over the Interstate system and fine the offenders.  Ditto for trains and planes.  GE is the largest US producer of diesel train engines and jet aircraft engines.  Enlist its help in cleaning up both--intelligently.  Essentially hire GE to devise better solutions.

THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET
Even Al Gore can't come up with the magic bullet to clean up the environment and whether it is "global warming" or just environmental common sense, there will be a cost.  But in the long run, there will be a larger savings.   Energy efficiency has proven that time and again.  Lighter cars, with more fuel efficient engines and better aerodynamics are not a mystery to build.  Energy efficient light bulbs are here now.  Nuclear power plants are well within our technological know how, and disposing of nuclear waste--the big bogeyman of that industry's opponents--is no more problematic than disposing of gaseous emissions from carbon fueled plants.  It just shows its effects in different ways.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?  LEADERSHIP--AGAIN.
Our national leaders have to quit bickering over partisan nonsense and get with the program.  An energy policy (conservation) and an environmental policy (including global warming) and an economic policy are all part of the same continuum.   

This is no different than many complex problems.  The same 3 steps apply:  1) Understand the problem; 2) Define the problem; 3) Solve the problem.  There are no shortcuts.  When will the folks in Washington, DC and corporate boardrooms across America realize that.  Soon, I hope. 

Now I have to go out for a breath of fresh air--while it is still fresh.

Best, John.

THE

THE ENTERPRISE--Failures of Leadership in Government & Industry

SIX EVENTS SHIFTING THE SHAPE OF OUR WORLD

As I close this six-part series, I reflect on the influences that impact our society, and a very large one is our pervasive accessibility to media content that has no "quality assurance" whatsoever.  A TV show can put on 2-3 "talking heads", one of which is a genuine expert on the topic and the other(s) are either unqualified or radical extremists on the topic.  But, the TV display (and air time) portrays them as equals, and often, the lesser qualified one, with more radical views "shout down" the expert and the commentator. 

Add the genuine "celebrity problem people"--of which I will mention just two:  Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell.  Both have had voices in issues that are so far out of proportion to their qualifications that it is almost incredible to believe--but it happens--and it influences the opinions of millions.   Both people's backgrounds portray children who grew up and discovered that misbehaving in a certain way got them attention far beyond what they deserved.

(Moore albeit misguided and offensive as he is, gets credit for having been an Eagle Scout, once upon a time, but  Rosie should be forced off the air for her idiotic and dangerous outbursts.)

One of the largest challenges—perhaps the largest one—faced by the current generation of leaders is overcoming the "noise" of these big mouths who get excessive "air time" and grossly unjustified credibility.  With that opening, let's move to the last of the Six Events I promised to write about 7 weeks ago: Leadership Failures.

1. Shifting Demographics of Civilization
2. The Emergence of China & India
3. Globalization Reconfigures the Planet
4. Restructuring of American Business
5. The War in Iraq & Growing Middle-Eastern Turmoil
---6. The Failures of Leadership in Government & Industry

FAILURES OF LEADERSHIP IN U.S. GOVERNMENT & INDUSTRY

When I started writing this series for THE ENTERPRISE, this topic was the first one I thought about.  It is the one that will determine how we as a people, as a country and as a society deal with the other five issues.  The prior topics are five huge issues that we will be faced with-of that there is no doubt. As a people, a country and a society, we will either deal with them well or poorly, largely based on the quality of our leaders and leadership.

First a “disclaimer” of sorts:  There are many, many fine leaders in our US government and in our corporations and other types of organizations (civic, not-for-profit, etc.).  As I write this, it may seem I am “painting” all of our leaders with the “same brush” of criticism and concern. I do not intend this.   I do intend to point out flaws and failures.  I will make observations based on what I know and perceive.  Whether that knowledge and those perceptions are complete or comprehensive, I can't say.  All I can say is they are mine, and I believe them at this time or I wouldn't put them here in “print” where they is no squirming out of having stated them.

LEADERSHIP “STYLES”
Author Stephen Covey studied different types of leaders during research for his Ph. D. and later described them in his books, notably the one titled Principle Centered Leadership.  The names he used to characterize the two basic types of leaders he observed fit my needs, so I will use them here.  Covey described “principle-based leaders” and “personality-based leaders.”  Principle based leaders choose their behaviors, decisions and leadership on principles-deep beliefs on what are right and wrong behaviors-like a moral compass, non-negotiable.  Personality based leaders base their behaviors, decisions and leadership on the “cult of personality”-another way to say it is “looking good vs. doing good.” For a snippet from his book go see:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0671792806/sr=1-4/qid=1175910744/ref=dp_proddesc_0/102-0579267-8096139?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1175910744&sr=1-4

Author Jim Collins referred to different leadership types in his book Good to Great.  But one point he makes reinforces Covey's points.   The best leaders are distinguished by “what they do,” and not “what they look like.”  In the US, for several generations a combination of Wall Street and Madison Avenue have pushed leader-executives to spend a disproportionate amount of their time “performing”-in front of them instead of performing-by doing what leaders must do.  Collins characterizes his (best) “class 5” leaders as “self-effacing” and “modest,” unlike the “class 4” which includes “charismatic” leaders.   He doesn't preclude the latter from performing well, but in his studies, the best performers were those who rose from within an organization, earned its respect and grew in influence and then led based on principles-not flashy-just solid.

“(MIS)-PERFORMING” VS. PERFORMING
Politicians are forced by the campaign process to “perform” in front of crowds of constituents and this has worsened the problem of leadership style over substance.  Occasionally we are fortunate to find a leader who has both-good principles and good presentation.  When such a person is recognized, unfortunately it is too often for the “performance” instead of the underlying principles, insights, knowledge or integrity.  Many feel that President Ronald Reagan was such a leader.  There is no doubt that he could deliver a message superbly.  Whether he or others crafted the plans behind that message is still argued, but is a moot point if he took ownership of those plans and positions and led the nation in executing them.  Leaders are not always the “brains” behind all the best ideas.  They ARE always the people who choose the talent and mold the organization that works with them, as they sift and sort through the input and then help the organization choose the path and then build a consensus around on a shared vision.

But look at whom we choose as leaders.   It has been proven that taller people win elections more often and get promoted more often than shorter ones.   Handsome/attractive people are favored over less attractive ones.  Those who are particularly articulate and at ease in front of crowds almost always prevail over those who are less articulate and/or not so glib in front of a crowd.  One excellent example of this is former President Bill Clinton.  I am always impressed when I see him speak (even though I often disagree with his statements).  He comes across so well it is hard not to like him and want to agree with him.  It was only after he was exposed for his immoral and unprincipled behavior that (some of) his charm and charisma was tarnished.  But it is still formidable.  This is revealing in itself about how much of the persona of a leader is based on his ability to “present” himself/herself.

CORPORATE LEADERSHIP
In the corporate world, many of the highly touted “celebrity CEOs” chronicled in the business press turned out to be weak, ineffective or downright unscrupulous leaders:  Ken Lay of Enron, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom to name just a few.  Each of these men had a distinctly different “persona,” but all three had one thing in common.  They became consumed with “looking good” instead of “doing good.” 

During that era, Jack Welch of GE received a great deal of publicity for his leadership, but it was largely based on the results GE achieved under his leadership.  Welch was intense, focused and eschewed the media attention while he was operating as the head of GE.  His leadership “style” has since come under attack, but the huge number of corporate executives that came out of GE during his tenure is proof that he did far more right than wrong-even if he was “Neutron Jack” and a “tough SOB.” 

In recent times, “pleasers” have been much more coveted as leaders than the “tough guys.”  It is dangerous to generalize about which of these types of leadership is more appropriate or effective.  Suffice it to say that the original premise-doing what's right-is more important than per se being “pleasing” or being “tough.”  Treating people with respect and dignity and expecting responsibility and accountability infer no bias toward either of these as mutually exclusive options.   But that is what good leaders do.

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
The recent defeat of many Republican incumbents and candidates was driven by two factors.  The leadership failings of President George W. Bush and their own belief that the power they had should be employed for their own agendas instead of the agendas of all Americans they were elected to represent.  A commonly overlooked fact is that regardless of which political party's candidate is elected, s/he is the elected representative of ALL of the constituents in his/her district or state, not just those of his/her party.  When the incumbents forget that leaders must lead ALL of their constituents is when they fail to follow a critical principle of leadership.  A leader's power and influence is earned by his/her actions and principled leadership; when that power is “bestowed,” it is temporary and not particularly effective unless or until it is “earned.” 

President George W. Bush exhibits an unusual mixture of leadership attributes that could only be the outcome of a political party's selection process.  He is committed to his beliefs to the point of stubbornness-a positive that easily can become a negative.  He is not articulate at presenting his ideas, although he has improved (of necessity) and that is unusual in a top level elected official.  He was inexperienced in dealing with complex leadership and managerial issues, and has botched some badly in his terms as President.  Bush's primary failures have been failures of delegation (people choices too), execution, communications/handling of the execution, and notably, of making and then becoming irrevocably committed to people and decisions that were based on flawed information/perceptions.  He has also been guilty of taking on initiatives that were worthy, but with very low likelihood of success.    (Like the old cliché, “Biting off more than you can chew.”)

FLAWED INFORMATION MAKES FOR BAD DECISIONS
A major problem for executives and leaders is making decisions based on incomplete or flawed information.  All leaders suffer from receiving filtered input.  Few subordinates give absolutely honest/complete information, because they feel part of their job is to “clean things up” and not dump them on the boss.  The problem is that a leader can make seemingly brilliant decisions, but if they are based on flawed or incomplete information, those decisions are similarly flawed-often downright terrible.

When a leader is surrounded with senior staff that is “too invested” in their input to decisions (like Bush') and then begins to regard dissenting opinions as irrelevant or misguided attacks, the leader is then insulated from important awareness of the need to modify prior decisions based on new information or insights.  Whether this is in government (e.g., the Bush administration) or industry (e.g., General Motors), it is a very serious leadership problem and usually has serious (bad) consequences.  Organizational insularity and/or hubris are near fatal ailments that are very difficult to recover from.

POLITICS AND CRITICISM EXISTS IN BOTH GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATIONS
In our overheated media environment, political leaders, and especially a President whose political leanings (conservative) are opposed by the majority of the media (liberal), the problems are far more publicized, debated and sometimes, blown all out of proportion. (The Scooter Libby case)  When similar problems exist in the corporate world, the media is second to react.  Wall Street is the first responder.  Stock prices drop.  Management pressures intensify-often irrationally.

One of the by-products of these many leadership issues is that the candidates who decide to run for office are twisted and distorted by the environment.  Either they “flip-flop” to find the right positions on critical issues or they must withstand the torrents of criticism while standing their ground on those things they believe deeply (principles).  Flaws in their personal lives are exposed and emphasized ad infinitum.  Unfortunately, there are few people in this world who are perfect and who have never made mistakes in judgment.  Those that do exist don't seem inclined to run for office, lest the tiniest detail of their lives get blown out of all proportion and made into a character flaw when none existed. 

NO CRITERIA-EXCEPT THE WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE … AND SERVE
The life of a successful CEO dictates that the demands of the job supersede everything else-family, friends and self.  The life of a candidate for a meaningful political office dictates that the person be prepared to have everything s/he says or does, or has ever said or done, withstand intense scrutiny, and vitriolic criticism.  And then there is the fact that both are often chosen on flawed or non-specific criteria-especially political candidates.  (e.g, Was the lady Governor of Louisiana-a former schoolteacher-prepared to lead the state in the face of an enormous natural disaster?  Of course not, because that was not “exactly” contemplated in her job description while she was campaigning and being elected.)

BIG REWARDS-MODEST PENALTIES
The rewards for corporate leaders (CEOs particularly) can be enormous wealth-or unemployment, but still with “golden parachutes” of sizable payoffs.  The rewards for political candidates (who win) can be tremendous power and influence, and later in life considerable wealth as a secondary effect, or, for losers, anonymity and/or a footnote in history.  (Former President Clinton earned over $40-milllion last year for speaking engagements).  Only when convicted of criminal misdeeds (e.g., Lay, et. al.) do CEOs suffer great penalties-other than subordinating their life to the job.  A few elected officials have “served time,” but most are punished by a “slap on the hand,” and moved out of the office and into lucrative careers as either a lobbyist or “rainmaker” for influential law/investment firms. (e.g., Newt Gingrich).

THE MANY WHO DO THE “HEAVY LIFTING”
I will close this diatribe with a tribute to the many leaders who don't get elected to office or that don't carry the title of CEO and the riches that go with it.  These are the middle and upper level managers who do most of the work, make most of the decisions and get most of the results in corporations large and small. People at the level below the Vice President do most of the true value-added, important work in corporations, and many of these people perform as strong, valuable leaders with minimal recognition.

In Washington, it is a well-known fact that senior staffers of Senators and Congressmen are the career policy-makers.  They serve some elected officials for a long time, and are invaluable in doing homework while making deals and determining how elected officials will vote on legislation they had great influence in crafting.  Some people move from Congressman to Congressman, surviving changes in administrations and incumbents.   The same goes for SOME of the civil servants who also survive through multiple “regimes” (administrations).  Others in Civil Service are part of the bureaucracy that fuels the leadership problem, jockeying for power and position by politicizing and manipulating the issues within their purview to maximize their power, regardless of what is right or wrong.

NOW WHAT?  WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?
It means look carefully at what the leaders-either corporate or government-are doing and most of all, WHY they are doing it.  What are their actions?  What do their motives appear to be?  How are they going about achieving what they hope to get done?  How do they engage their constituents, their staff, and the employees/staffers who must do the real work?  Watch carefully.  Study multiple sources for input.  Do not just consider a few biased sources-pro or con-read/listen to “all sides.”  Above all, judge them not so much by what they say or don't say, but what they do or don't do.   Do they “walk the talk?”  What results do they get and how do they get them?  The answers to these questions reveal the worth leaders.

WHO DO WE CHOOSE AS WE GO FORWARD?
As we move toward the election of a President and legislators in 2008, I hope readers will remember these points.  In the months coming up, I will try to evaluate the candidates on their leadership competencies as well as their policy positions.  In my case I am far more objective on the former than the latter, and I hope to find my own “balance” in choosing our country's leaders.

If you are actively involved in working with or for corporate leaders, I strongly encourage you to assess those leaders based on both what they choose to do, and how they go about doing it.  There is nothing so certain as the fact that great outcomes demand great leaders.  It has always been that way-and it always will be.

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE--THE IRAQ WAR & MIDDLE EAST TURMOIL

THE ENTERPRISE

SIX EVENTS SHIFTING THE SHAPE OF OUR WORLD
1. Shifting Demographics of Civilization
2. The Emergence of China & India
3. Globalization Reconfigures the Planet
4. Restructuring of American Business
---5. The War in Iraq & Growing Middle-Eastern Turmoil
6. The Failures of Leadership in Government & Industry

THE IRAQ WAR & GROWING MIDDLE-EAST TURMOIL-THE LARGER ISSUES

The war in Iraq is on every American's mind.  Media attention and political turmoil assures this.  As Washington goes into gridlock from vitriolic exchanges and partisan politics, the facts and truth surrounding the Iraq war go virtually unnoticed.

Why the US invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein is a morass of claims and counterclaims, flawed intelligence and suspicious agendas.  If, as many think the overt purpose was removing Saddam and disabling his Weapons of Mass Destruction, the first part worked and the second part came up empty.   If, however, as some experts think, the real reason was to create an island of democracy amidst the turmoil ridded Middle East, then perhaps the degree of failure is not so clear.

The insurgents currently disrupting Iraq are almost certainly sustained and supplied by Iran and Syria, both of which would love to embarrass and defeat the USA.  The long-standing animosity between the Shiites and Sunnis adds considerably to the unrest.  Middle Eastern countries have long kept such sectarian rifts under control by brutal dictators using fear, aggression and, when necessary, murder.

------A Historical Context
To understand what is at stake in this conflict filled area, let's consider some of Herb Meyer's explanations.
---“There are three major monotheistic religions in the world: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.  In the 16th century, Judaism and Christianity reconciled with the modern world.  The rabbis, priests and scholars found a way to settle up and pave the way forward.  Religion remained at the center of life, church and state became separate.  Rule of law, idea of economic liberty, all these are defining points of modern Western-Individual rights, human rights civilization.  These concepts started with the Greeks but didn't take off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and Christianity found a way to reconcile with the modern world. When that happened, it unleashed the scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring of art, literature and music the world has ever known.”

---“Islam, which developed in the 7th century, counts millions of Moslems around the world who are normal people.  However, there is a radical streak within Islam.  When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks Western civilization.  Islam first attacked Western civilization in the 7th century, and later in the 16th and 17th centuries.  By 1683, the Moslems (Turks from the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of Vienna.  It was in Vienna that the climatic battle between Islam and Western civilization took place.  The West won and went forward.  Islam lost and went backward.  Interestingly, the date of that battle was September 11. Since them, Islam has not found a way to reconcile with the modern world.”

But this long-standing failure to reconcile is very similar to the root problems in the Iraqi conflicts.  Earlier this year I documented some of the principles that are stifling success of the American efforts in Iraq.

-----A Cultural Context

Iraqi society is based upon a strict patriarchal hierarchy under which a sheikh has absolute power over his tribe.  The concept of civil government centralized at the provincial and national level is still relatively new (a few decades old) to the Iraqis, whose social structure is still tribal.  Thus, the Western concept of democracy and the value of sharing power are almost meaningless in their society. 

The primary concern of Iraqi officials has not been democracy or the political evolution of an Iraqi nation-state.  It has been the use of their position to gain personal wealth, and benefits for their extended family and tribe. This observation simply reflects the reality that in a Bedouin society, where the core social unit is the tribe, loyalty is to that tribe. In a society that is evolving from a harsh Bedouin desert existence, where water and other staples of life are in short supply, the Iraqis have learned that the group who controls the resources lives, and the one who does not, dies. If Iraqis do not value something, they will not fight for it.  This is why the Iraqi army put forth a poor showing in the Gulf War.  They melted away, as they were being asked to fight for something in which they did not believe.  And yet, these same Iraqis are tenaciously fighting the world's predominant military power in their tribal areas and cities.  The difference?  The insurgents are now fighting for something they believe in - expelling foreign troops and sectarian enemies from tribal areas that they hold dear.

Trading and bartering for personal or tribal gain is part of the Bedouin culture.  Self-sacrifice for the general welfare is not.  Accordingly, frustration with “Why don't the Iraqis just try to get along for their mutual benefit,” is a Western, culture-based judgment applied to a society where violent conflict to gain advantage is the norm.  Plus, Iraqis do not share Western concepts on the use, passage, or value of time.  They sincerely believe that if a matter is truly important that Allah will control the outcome and the personal efforts of individuals are merely tangential to that outcome. 

This is the source of the frustration every US soldier who has served in Iraq and seen lack of resolve, follow-through, or reliability from his Iraqi counterpart.  The concept of “En Sh'allah” (Only if God wills will it happen) overshadows all aspects of Iraqi life, including reconstruction and political evolution.  As such, the political resolution, if any, in Iraq will be done according to the glacial pace of Iraqi society, not a US timetable.  This point is critical in setting realistic timetables for the presence of US troops in Iraq.  Under these principles, relying solely upon foreign military force to impose a lasting political stability upon the Iraqis will not work for long.  In truth, the military victory was won in 2003.

The above history does not mean that Iraqis are not capable of stabilizing Iraq in the long term.  It does mean that it has to be done predominantly by Iraqis, on Iraqi terms and for values for which they are willing to fight.  Self-preservation may be one of those values - democracy is not yet one.  Promoting the integrity and power of their respective tribes within a new Iraq is definitely such a cultural value. We can provide all the military training possible, but only the Iraqis themselves can provide the necessary will to rid their country of foreign fighters and internal insurgents.

------Hezbollah/Lebanon-Israel Conflict & the Axis of Evil: North Korea & Iran
There are many common values like the Iraqi shared in Middle Eastern countries.    What are also shared are the factors behind the trouble.  Not only is Iran and Syria supporting the insurgents in the Iraqi struggle, it is also behind the strength of Hezbollah in Lebanon.  When Israel reacted so strongly to the abduction of a few of its soldiers, much of the world claimed it was an overreaction.  I don't think it was.  I think it was because Israel feels so vulnerable to Hezbollah's strength and proximity.  And that is exactly what Iran and Syria want, since both hate Israel and would like to wipe it off the face of the earth.

No amount of diplomatic intervention will change that.  All it does is strengthen the aggression of Israel's enemies, and weaken Israel's position.   Intervention by the United (“Useless”) Nations is even worse because it carries an unworthy level of credibility-but does nothing except dilute American positions and strengthen our enemies in the process.  Iranian nuclear ambitions are clearly known and no amount of UN sanctions will change them.  With leaders who are either irrational or insane, both Iran and North Korea are dangerous beyond belief.  There is little effectively being done to limit the nuclear ambitions of these countries. 

It appears that different approaches are required for different rogue states.  North Korea's people are starving and its leaders have become accustomed with Western luxuries.  For some strange reason, these two widely contrasting factors may provide the most effective ways to at least slow down North Korea's nuclear ambitions-provided China is our ally in pressuring North Korea.  Most of its sustenance currently comes from China, so the Chinese have the greatest influence, and given the proximity of a rogue nation with an irrational leader-Kim Jong Il-and thus the Chinese have the most incentive to take action.

Herb Meyer adds to the thought process with this:
---“The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a small number of people can kill a large number of people very quickly.  They can use airplanes, bombs, anthrax, chemical weapons or dirty bombs.  Even with a first-rate intelligence service (which the U.S. does not have), you can't stop every attack.  That means our tolerance "for political horseplay" has dropped to zero.  No longer will we play games with terrorists or weapons of mass destructions. Most of the instability and horseplay is coming from the Middle East. “

---“That's why we have thought that if we could knock out the radicals and give the moderates a chance to hold power, they might find a way to reconcile Islam with the modern world. So when looking at Afghanistan or Iraq, it's important to look for any signs that they are modernizing.  For example, women being brought into the workforce and colleges in Afghanistan is good.  The Iraqis stumbling toward a constitution is good.  People can argue about what the U.S. is doing and how we're doing it, but anything that suggests Islam is finding its way forward is good.”

In Iran, many of the youth of the country and the majority of Iran's elected officials are reportedly unhappy with its radical leader Ahmadinejad's actions, and the hardships that could result.  It will take time, but there is a real possibility that Iran's people will be the best deterrent to its militant leadership-if only it happens soon enough.  In all likelihood, whatever timetable is projected for Iran to have nuclear weapons, it will have them sooner than expected.  Little or nothing can be done to keep them out of the hands of Syria, Hezbollah and al Qaeda if that is what the Iranian leaders choose to do.  This is the most frightening scenario of all.  North Korea may be selling nukes now, or soon.  Iran will be next.  Pakistan already has nukes and is falling deeper into the clutches of unfriendly (to the US) influences.

Afghanistan is slipping backward as a Pakistani supported Taliban resurgence is underway.  A sad, but true fact about how we took Afghanistan back from the Taliban (not that long ago) was that it happened through a coalition of questionable partners-the Northern Alliance and a president-elect chosen and elected with US support, because he was the “least bad” of the bunch.  Such are the choices in these unfriendly, unstable and unfamiliar countries.  (e.g., If Pakistan were not helping al Qaeda hide bin Laden, we would have already found him.  This alone reinforces the threat of more backsliding in neighboring Afghanistan.)

-----When Will Islamic Countries Move into the 21st Century? (other than weapons)
These are frightening scenarios.  Peace in the Middle East is an elusive thing-that is more likely to be analogous to an armed truce-because the factions positions are not changing much or at all.  What Centuries have failed to change cannot be changed in a few short years by diplomatic efforts, 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?  Will Islam move into the 21st century and become reconciled with the rest of the world's major ideologies?  Perhaps the best hope is embedded in one of Herb Meyer's thoughts:

---“Thanks to TV and the Internet, the average 18-year old outside the U.S. is very savvy about what is going on in the world, especially in terms of popular culture.  There is a huge global consciousness, and young people around the world want to be a part of it.  It is increasingly apparent to them that the miserable government where they live is the only thing standing in their way.  More and more, it is the well-educated kids, the children of the generals and the elite, who are leading the revolutions…. Seventy percent of the Iranian population is under 30.  They are Moslem but not Arab.  They are mostly pro-Western.  Many experts think the U.S. should have dealt with Iran before going to war with Iraq.  The problem isn't so much the weapons; it's the people who control them.  If Iran has a moderate government, the weapons become less of a concern.”

-----The Threat of an Extreme Liberal Bias-in DC and the Media
Our largest problem in the US is that too many of the leaders of our government are either wrong in their perceptions or have misguided beliefs about what is the future of our nation in the face of these threats.  Our media is so liberal-biased that any semblance of “balanced” reporting of the news is rare or non-existent.  Ironically, the media in the USA is dominated by the liberal thinkers on the East and West coasts, in the “bluest of blue” cities located in the “blue” states-Democratic and its ownership and media personalities lean far to the liberal left.  As such the mainstream media does not accurately represent the American people overall-while it strives mightily to influence all Americans to its slanted point of view.

Many of these are celebrities' opinions carry far more weight due to their fame than is deserved due to their intellect or merit.  That is a very bad situation.  The New York Times, a venerable and widely read newspaper is so liberal that on several occasions its writers and editors have been found guilty of not only managing the news, but “making it up” if the facts did not support their (biased) positions.   That paper and its policy (and behaviors) is a very bad “news” problem

This media bias is adding fuel to the Middle East problems by sensationalizing everything negative that occurs and burying everything positive.  I have had multiple occasions of forwarded emails from soldiers in Iraq asking why the news on CNN (and the other 3 major broadcast networks) was so distorted and different from the truth.  The answer is simple.  As humans, we don't believe what we see; we see what we already believe and then frame that to reinforce our biases.

-----SO WHAT CAN WE DO?
Stay informed, and use a variety of sources to offset the biases.  Don't just watch Fox News.  Watch either CNN or MSNBC now and then to recalibrate your idea of what is being fed to the public.  Watch ABC Network news too--but believe little of the 'spin."  If you choose to read the New York Times, also read The Wall Street Journal, which will only partially balance out the bias.  (Finding a conservative major city newspaper is almost impossible.)  Read The Economist too-which has always been more “middle of the road” in its editorial content.

Think about the interplay of the issues raised in the past few editions of THE ENTERPRISE.  Discuss them with your friends and family.  Contact your Congressman and meet him/her.  Discuss their position on the issues.  Remember, they are your elected representatives in our government. 

The good news is IF you have read this far, you are in the minority who care.  Keep caring, and take stands based on thought and information.  After all, it's our country-and if we don't care enough to look after it, who will?

Best, John