Sunday, February 1, 2009

Acting vs Being President

I read an article on Huffington Post the other day that just really got my goat. I'd love to say something a bit stronger, but I don't like to swear.

Think Progress provided this little gem about Andrew Card's response to the working informality of President Obama's administration in the NY Times Article:

CARD: I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I’m disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office.
Seriously??? Because President Obama will take off his suit jacket to actually do work in the Oval Office, Andrew Card thinks it creates a locker-room experience??

Because if anyone created that locker-room experience it was President Bush, with his ridiculous habit of calling people by their nicknames! Why? Because he couldn't be bothered to respect that individual by remembering or calling them by their true name. What was up with him calling reporters like David Gregory, "Stretch", or Michael Brown that incompetent FEMA director, "Brownie". It always reminded me of some coach saying "You can do it slugger".

If nothing else, this seriously underscored the disillusionment of the Bush Presidency. Here is the difference between the two men:

If Mr. Obama’s clock is looser than Mr. Bush’s, so too are his sartorial standards. Over the weekend, Mr. Obama’s first in office, his aides did not quite know how to dress. Some showed up in the West Wing in jeans (another no-no under Mr. Bush), some in coats and ties.

So the president issued an informal edict for “business casual” on weekends — and set his own example. He showed up Saturday for a briefing with his chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, dressed in slacks and a gray sweater over a white buttoned-down shirt. Workers from the Bush White House are shocked.

“I’ll never forget going to work on a Saturday morning, getting called down to the Oval Office because there was something he was mad about,” said Dan Bartlett, who was counselor to Mr. Bush. “I had on khakis and a buttoned-down shirt, and I had to stand by the door and get chewed out for about 15 minutes. He wouldn’t even let me cross the threshold.”

In a nutshell: President Bush just PLAYED at being President, while President Obama is a President.

President Bush just liked the pomp and circumstance, taking pride in his silly Presidential Rug in the Oval Office, the special feeling of flying around in Air Force One, and the "Hail to the Chief" playing in his footsteps. He would never admit to making a mistake, because he felt that would make him look weak.

President Obama, however, is more concerned about actually DOING something to make a difference. Setting the tone, communicating to the American Public what's at stake, and what's being done, setting the goals and priorities to his Administration. Because that's what a PRESIDENT DOES! He doesn't feel the need to own all the ideas, he will admit that he will make mistakes - who doesn't? Most of all, he is willing to hear opposing views and criticism.

Another example showcasing the difference between the two Presidents:

In the West Wing, Mr. Obama is a bit of a wanderer. When Mr. Bush wanted to see a member of his staff, the aide was summoned to the Oval Office. But Mr. Obama tends to roam the halls; one day last week, he turned up in the office of his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who was in the unfortunate position of having his feet up on the desk when the boss walked in.

“Wow, Gibbs,” the press secretary recalls the president saying. “Just got here and you already have your feet up.” Mr. Gibbs scrambled to stand up, surprising Mr. Obama, who is not yet accustomed to having people rise when he enters a room.
This example of the two types of leadership isn't just limited to the Office of the President, Everyone in any field or job knows what I am talking about. The boss who only pays attention to superficial matters, like what time you get in, as opposed to what you actually accomplish. The manager who expects everyone to fawn over them, despite the fact that they are incompetent. The ones who expect you to do all the work in getting ready for the big presentation, and then take all the credit. Even in the military you have some officers who are complete idiots, and who care about looking like a leader, as opposed to actually being a leader.

But it's not just jobs, it's also in some Churches. You have some churches who disapprove of how people are dressed for service. I always think it's nicer to dress to go to church, but I guarantee that God doesn't care whether you wear jeans or whether you wear a designer suit, he would just rather you show up to spend time with him, to hear his word, and sing about his blessings!

This is a small thing, and I am sure that President Obama could care less what Andrew Card and his ilk have to say about whether or not he wears a suit jacket in the Oval office.

But when I read this comment, it just got me totally steamed about the principle - that the Bush Administration NEVER GOT IT. It's not about the superificial things that matter, it's about the substance - the blatant disrespect of the the US Constitution, the secrecy, the incompetent managing of the economy, the Wars that were bungled, and the lives that were lost.

The fact that they don't speak to that, but just stupid, superifical things about what to wear in the Oval Office is what makes me so angry. I mean how STUPID are these guys? They totally don't get it, and they never will.

Part of what drives success is a clear willingness to honestly assess your strengths and weaknesses. According to these guys, they never did anything wrong. This continued lack of self-awareness will be the reason why the Republican Party will be wandering in the wilderness for generations to come. They only have bloviating idiots like Rush Limbaugh to lead them.

They have no solution, no ideas, no message, and no self-awareness of exactly what's wrong with their party.

The only danger to the Democrats is if they fall victim to the same trap! They too need to be cognizant of what is required, and really understand the mood of the American People. If they lose that, then the leadership is their's to lose.
Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Trust

Of all Human emotions, I find "trust" to be a really strange concept. We talk about trust as a concept in our every day life, from the dollar bill that declares "In God We Trust", to the notion that we, as individuals, "trust" in the legal entity and validity of the US Government to ensure our bank accounts. Because if you think about it, our paper money could be like monopoly money. The only thing that gives it value, is because we endow it with meaning, and we "trust" that the government would be able to back the value. Originally this was backed by the value and holdings of Gold Reserves, but since we walked away from tying the the US Dollar to the Gold Standard, our financial system is dependent on the trust we place in the US Government.

When we go grocery shopping, we "trust" that we get what we paid for, that we expect that there is a minimum standard of quality and freshness.

Duracell has spent a lot of effort to brand this idea in their batteries - that it's

A stable society can only flourish with trust in the individual responsibility - that people adhere to the same set of rules. Personal relationships work only when individuals trust in each other. That there is something dependable and reliable between two people. Parents trust that their kids will do the right thing. When that trust is broken, it always makes things harder to keep the same open trust in someone new, that trust issues from a past relationship doesn't color the new one.

I struggled with this concept recently, which is why it's so much on my mind. I struggled with a new person I had recently met, particularly after being disappointed by my last long term relationship, but I also run into this trust issue at work all the time. It's been my experience, that no matter what process or system we implement to help us attain some business result, it's success always depends on trusting that everyone conducts their tasks as required, that they stick to the guidelines or rules that have been set.

What's interesting is the culture in my company is very much centered around individual ownership and accountability. That there is this trust that people will perform and do what they are supposed to do. Funny enough, the reality is, it's actually a lot harder assume this "trust". Because while one person might be trusted. It's a lot harder to control for a larger group. Can anyone really expect the same level of consistency?

Normally I consider my self an optimistic person, always willing to give others the benefit of the doubt. But the reality is, that I have a strong tendency to want to control situations and people, because I don't trust that people will do what is right, what is expected of them. Ironically, I railed at this very issue that made me want to bang my head against the wall today. In a nutshell, the global function essentially does not trust the local countries, so when I told them that they would no longer be signing off on the end product, they balked. My argument to them was that they, at the global level, set the standards. It's up to the local countries to follow and execute to those guidelines. It's this whole notion of "Think Globally, Act Locally". They have to trust that the local organizations will keep to the original intent as much as possible, while at the same time using their judgment to make changes to support their market. So I was demanding that they trust the countries, but oddly enough I would struggle to also place this same trust were I in their position.
Sphere: Related Content

Friday, January 23, 2009

Commander-in-Chief Obama

Just saw an interesting story on President Obama's upcoming meeting with military commanders at the Pentagon.

From the AP:
Iraq is stable enough to allow the roughly 22,000 U.S. Marines there to withdraw, the service's top general said Friday.

"The time is right for Marines in general terms to leave Iraq," said Marine Corps Commandant James Conway.

The Marine Corps can't fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, because it does not have enough combat support troops and equipment to divide between the missions.

"Anything that you put into Afghanistan must necessarily come as a reduction of Marine forces in Iraq," he told reporters. "When the door slams on the Marines in Iraq, let all the Marines be on the other side of the door."

Conway has been pushing for a large deployment of Marines to Afghanistan for months. No decisions have been made on the size of the force that would be sent.

More interestingly, was this observation:

Conway said that Obama's willingness to meet with his military chiefs at the Pentagon instead of the White House amounts to a gesture of respect to the commanders.

"It is great symbology; he's on our turf," he said. "More importantly, he gets to meet and shake hands with hundreds of people in all the services."

President Obama continually impresses me with his collaborative nature, political maturity, and his respectful demeanor.

Sphere: Related Content

Closing Gitmo ~ Restoring America's honor

Obama signed the Executive Order to close Guantanamo Bay Prison within one year.



Already the Conservatives pundits are going crazy with fear. What I find astonishing is that they think that Gitmo has kept Americans safe; when in reality, this very act was probably Al Qaeda's most powerful recruiting tool! They can advertise how unjust and hypocritical the United States is, and they would laugh and spit on our notion of Democracy.

According to the latest Gallup Poll, 45% of Americans do not believe that Guantanamo Bay should be closed. This was quite surprising and shocking to me. How can more Americans not see how morally wrong it is to torture. Can anyone,who professes to be a Christian, even say with a clear conscious that torture is acceptable?? How can Americans who profess that we feel so strongly about democracy and freedom, that we are willing to die for it, suddenly become so cowardly to say, we need to ignore human rights and that torture is acceptable because it will keep us safe.

As a society that upholds democratic ideals and principles, everyone should know that torture is wrong. You don't need a law to tell you that to commit such barbaric acts is not right. If that was the case, then why not castrate rapists and pedophiles? Yet we don't do this, because that is an act that is not reflective of a humane and just society. This idea that we can even attempt to tell the rest of the world, China included, to respect Human Rights, and push them toward a democractic model, while continually supporting torture and rendition, and ignoring Habeus Corpus is laughable.

The Habeas Corpus act of 1649 and its interpretation was clearly upheld and incorporated into our Constitution by the Founding Fathers. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers, when developing the Constitution, clearly put the focus and emphasis on individual freedoms, and checks and balances against the limitations of Government abuses. This is why during criminal trials, the burden of proof rests with the State, not the individual. This is why illegal search and seizures are not allowed.

George Bush created a nightmare when he created Guantanamo Bay Prison. He was on record for trying to close it, however, he was unable to accomplish it, simply due to the legal complexities, and the fact that because evidence obtained by torture taints the evidence.



I have no doubt that there are some very dangerous terrorists, at the same time, there is also a large probability that a majority are innocent people who have been illegally imprisoned. They have had no avenues for justice, nor have they been able to petition for release due to lack of evidence. However, by imprisoning and torturing them unjustly, we have now just made more enemies.

Let's remember that all the former Secretary of States went on record on the CNN Forum "The Next President: A World of Challenges":

AMANPOUR: General Powell, it's not just about like, is it? It's about being able to get things done. America is the strongest nation in the world. But a new intelligence report is going to tell the next president that America's dominance is not going to be as supreme as it was.

So what do you tell the next president about how to regain respect?

POWELL: I think we have to recognize that there are other nations in the world now whose economic strength is growing, and therefore their political influence is growing.

I don't know that we should be afraid of this or see that as a threat to us. Isn't this what we were working for all of these many decades? We wanted them to rise up and join the international economic community. And that is what is happening.

We're working multilaterally to solve the Iranian problem, the North Korean problem. We have worked with the world to increase funding for HIV-AIDS. We've doubled the amount of money we're putting into development assistance around the world.

So I think a case can be made that we can build on that strength. And the new president, with a different approach to things, and with a different attitude to the rest of the world, can reverse this.

SESNO: But how about some tangible things that the next administration, the next president can do to change policy or send a signal that will address these issues?

POWELL: Close Guantanamo.

ALBRIGHT: Close Guantanamo. I think...

BAKER: Close Guantanamo. We were on a panel together several months ago, and we all agreed, one of the best things that could happen would be to close Guantanamo, which is a very serious blot upon our reputation.
Military experts all agree that torture is not a reliable method for obtaining evidence. Unfortunately, most Americans watch too much TV, and have been fooled by the television "24", and the notion that by torturing someone, it will for sure get that critical piece of intelligence that will help defuse a bomb with 1 minute to spare!
Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Inauguration of Barack Obama ~ 44th President of the United States


For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

The Inauguration of Barack Obama was filled with amazing pomp and circumstance, tradition, electricity, history, joy, relief, and somberness. His Inauguration speech embodied the commitment to our ideals as brought forth by our founding fathers, the renewal, individual responsibility, engagement, and collaboration that will be required to meet the challenges of the future. It was everything that we needed to inspire us on this special day.



Sphere: Related Content