Many successful people know the story of Henry Ford, the 4th grade drop-out who built one of the biggest business empires in the world. When asked how he did it without a good education, he simply said, "I don't need to know anything except how to surround myself with people who do."
In other words, he was too busy focusing on being a leader to waste his time with menial tasks. Those tasks were delegated to others. Henry did not need to understand accounting, but his accountants did. He did not need to know how to weld, but his welders did. Henry knew that leadership was its own job, and if he weighted himself down with menial tasks, he would get nowhere.
Now the Obama campaign has put out an ad that belittles McCain's inability to learn how to use a computer, or to send email. This ad is most unwise, and shows Obama's lack of understanding of the role of leadership. McCain has been busy in his role as a leader. Using computers and sending email are tasks delegated to staff and assistants, so the leader can put his time into leading.
I'm not saying McCain is another Henry Ford. But I am saying that he understands the role of a leader while Obama apparently does not.
Obama needs to pull that dumb ad. But he won't, because he just doesn't understand. And therein lies the problem with the Democratic nominee.
You want success. Great! Follow the lead of Henry Ford and John McCain - don't waste your time on any task not directly required in the role of being a leader. Delegate everything that does not require your absolute control.
Yogi Berra said it well: "If you are an orange, don't try to be a banana. Just be the best orange you can be."
Friday, September 12, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Calibre
This is about the calibre of media reporting, and of party affiliation. It will be simple and sweet.
Over the 16 months of Obama's campaign, I have not seen a single news story about anything his kids may heve done wrong. I have not seen any pundit pull them into the spotlight in anything but a positive way. They have not been attacked by the media, nor by conservatives.
In the 6 days that Palin has been campaigning, all the liberal news media, and the liberal pundits, and the liberals, themselves, have relentlessly attacked Palin's children. Headlines like, "Palin Daughter Does Drugs at 13", or "Palin Daughter Pregnant & Unwed" have been everywhere.
This speaks loudly of the scruples (or lack thereof) of the liberal media and the liberal pundits. While conservatives have kept Obama's children as "off-limits", the liberals have constantly and viciously attacked Palin's kids.
This shows the calibre of people. And I would be completely disgusted and ashamed if I were a Democrat, since all liberals are Democrats (but not all Dems are liberals). But since this very thing helps prove that liberals have few, if any moral values, I am sure they feel neither disgust nor shame for their immoral antics.
And please do not waste your time defending the "moral fabric" of liberals, as their leaders have often admitted that they have few morals, because it is morals that hold us to traditions. And liberals, by nature and definition, are not tradition-bound. The very word liberal means to be open to anything new or different (whether good or bad does not seem to matter). So I am not being intentionally insulting when I say that liberals tend to have the morals of a junkyard dog. I am just stating the facts of life.
If you doubt that, look upon the 10 Commandments (note that they are NOT the "10 Suggestions"). Thou shalt not murder - yet liberals hold to abortion - even live birth abortion. Thou shalt not covet - liberals make no secret of coveting that which is ours, by taxation and wealth re-distribution. Thou shalt not commit adultery. When Clinton and other Dems did this, the liberals said "This is not an issue. Just forget it. Big deal!" When a Republican is caught doing it, Republicans find it morally reprehensible (and so do liberals, suddenly). Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Almost all atheists are liberals. Thou shalt not steal. The liberals constantly attempt to take what we have earned, without our permission, and give it to others.
Face it, anyone who wants to vote for a party that works at (but sometimes fails at) maintaining the high moral ground would vote Republican. Yes, sometimes they fail - they are only human. But at least they HAVE moral values, and TRY to honor them, for the most part.
Over the 16 months of Obama's campaign, I have not seen a single news story about anything his kids may heve done wrong. I have not seen any pundit pull them into the spotlight in anything but a positive way. They have not been attacked by the media, nor by conservatives.
In the 6 days that Palin has been campaigning, all the liberal news media, and the liberal pundits, and the liberals, themselves, have relentlessly attacked Palin's children. Headlines like, "Palin Daughter Does Drugs at 13", or "Palin Daughter Pregnant & Unwed" have been everywhere.
This speaks loudly of the scruples (or lack thereof) of the liberal media and the liberal pundits. While conservatives have kept Obama's children as "off-limits", the liberals have constantly and viciously attacked Palin's kids.
This shows the calibre of people. And I would be completely disgusted and ashamed if I were a Democrat, since all liberals are Democrats (but not all Dems are liberals). But since this very thing helps prove that liberals have few, if any moral values, I am sure they feel neither disgust nor shame for their immoral antics.
And please do not waste your time defending the "moral fabric" of liberals, as their leaders have often admitted that they have few morals, because it is morals that hold us to traditions. And liberals, by nature and definition, are not tradition-bound. The very word liberal means to be open to anything new or different (whether good or bad does not seem to matter). So I am not being intentionally insulting when I say that liberals tend to have the morals of a junkyard dog. I am just stating the facts of life.
If you doubt that, look upon the 10 Commandments (note that they are NOT the "10 Suggestions"). Thou shalt not murder - yet liberals hold to abortion - even live birth abortion. Thou shalt not covet - liberals make no secret of coveting that which is ours, by taxation and wealth re-distribution. Thou shalt not commit adultery. When Clinton and other Dems did this, the liberals said "This is not an issue. Just forget it. Big deal!" When a Republican is caught doing it, Republicans find it morally reprehensible (and so do liberals, suddenly). Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Almost all atheists are liberals. Thou shalt not steal. The liberals constantly attempt to take what we have earned, without our permission, and give it to others.
Face it, anyone who wants to vote for a party that works at (but sometimes fails at) maintaining the high moral ground would vote Republican. Yes, sometimes they fail - they are only human. But at least they HAVE moral values, and TRY to honor them, for the most part.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Why Don't They Get It?
Still hearing from "green" people about increasing sources of ethanol - corn, switchgrass, stinkweed - the list goes on. And these people actually believe this is a sound, "green" alternative. Why have they not thought it through? Why do they ignore the facts?
Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.
But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.
It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"
And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.
Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.
The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.
Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.
But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.
It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"
And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.
Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.
The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)