There is only one quote today; not because Imre Lakatos didn’t say anything else worth quoting, he did, but because I want this one to stick in your head.

The year is more than half over and we are swiftly moving into election mania times and 2012 will be far worse.

“Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime.”

So I offer this bit of what I consider wisdom, especially for all those who vote an ideological ballot, whether it’s the Right, the Left or somewhere else.

We aren’t living in an era in which we can afford blind commitment to anything, so dust off your skepticism, put away your knee-jerk reactions and put on your thinking cap—the country needs you.

Flickr image credit: quinn.anya

I’m not particularly sentimental and, by today’s standards, I’m a pretty private person, at least on-line. Last Memorial Day I wrote about my father and heroes, this year I have nothing personal to offer, but I did find a poem that sums up my attitude to who deserves the credit for the life I value.

It is the veteran, not the preacher, who has given you freedom of religion.
It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given you freedom of the press.
It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given you freedom of speech.
It is the veteran, not the protester, who has given you freedom to assemble.
It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given you the right to a fair trial.
It is the veteran, not the politician, who has given you the right to vote.
It is the veteran, who salutes the Flag, who serves under the Flag, whose coffin is draped by the Flag.
–Father Denis Edward O’Brien, USMC

As to those who dishonor them by using their funerals as a staging ground to flaunt their ideology I have one simple comment, go to hell.

Because that is where you belong.

Flickr image credit: NCinDC

“You’re fired!”

Donald Trump has made those two words made famous since the start of his reality show, but they had power long before that.

‘You’re fired’ are fearsome words; words no one wants to hear form their boss.

They are the ultimate power source for managers, especially those who practice a top-down, command and control style.

The amount of research that has proven that approach to be passé is too great to be cited here (but it is easily googled). And the one place ‘you’re fired’ has never cut any ice is in politics.

It cuts no ice because those in a position to say it have no one to say it to other than their own staff.

Unlike corporate bosses, politicians can’t fire those who disagree with them; who actively work to undermine their vision; who publicly heckle and harangue them.

But at all levels, local, state and national, you see dozens of people running for office whose main qualification is having run a successful business.

Donald Trump is (IMO) a hilarious example of this.

Can you imagine him trying to manage Congress, since he couldn’t fire members that didn’t toe his line? And while Presidents do have that power over their Cabinet members, the political fallout from firing one is enormous.

No matter what political flavor you prefer, consider the applicability of the environment from which they are coming and the political environment to which they want to go.

It’s likely that the higher they were on the corporate or small biz ladder the less likely they will deal well with their loss of power and the reality of today’s politics.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/5440002785/

Today I have a question for you, what is the real point of education?

Bill Gates emphasizes “work-related learning, arguing that education investment should be aimed at academic disciplines and departments that are “well-correlated to areas that actually produce jobs.””

Steve Jobs says, “It’s in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough — it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing…”

So is the end goal of education to provide the knowledge, skills and tools to work or to teach critical thinking.

The choice is likely to be described as pragmatic and based on available funding.

Years ago a successful business executive I know commented that if people had full bellies, a job and a bit left over to see a movie now and then at the time of the election, then the party in power would be reelected, but if the reverse was happening they would “throw the bums out.”

There are more sinister reasons to find a positive way to avoid graduating legions of critical thinkers.

• Non-thinkers don’t make waves.
• Non-thinkers follow the pack.
• Non-thinkers are easier to control.
• Thinkers are more creative and innovative.
• Thinkers are more likely to reject ideology.
• Thinkers are more willing to take risks.

You have only to look at what is going on in the world to see the effects of an empty belly and education, formal or not, grounded in questions, not answers.

What do you think?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeanlouis_zimmermann/3042615083/

My apologies if there has been too much politics lately, but you have to admit it’s difficult to avoid when so much of it is tied to “leadership” issues.

Or the lack thereof.

I rarely read op-ed pieces, but the title caught my, Awful, Awfuler, Awfulest; wouldn’t you click on that?

The author, Gail Collins, had written an article debating which state had the worst “leaders” running for election and chose Nevada as the winner.

Immediately, there were outcries from voters who believed their state had been unfairly overlooked on the dreadfulness meter.

Maine has a candidate for governor whose wife and kids live in their “primary residence” in Florida (the the other house is in Maine); Missouri has honors as the state with the least variety, 26 different candidates since 1980 from just two families; Florida has the dubious honor of a gubernatorial candidate whose company was fined $1.7 billion for fraudulent Medicare billing.

She says that in Net York’s race one candidate seems to tie every issue to his opponent’s sex life, while the main opponent doesn’t talk at all and a minor one is a self-proclaimed madam.

Nevada still won and you’ll have to click the link to learn why. (Hint: One of the candidates claims that Dearborn, Mich., and Frankford, Texas (a ghost town) are governed under Sharia, which is Islamic law.)  And take a moment to read some of the 229 comments for more hilarious examples and observations.

Why do we continue to accept acts from those in public service that we would condemn in other circumstances?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/avlxyz/1807572441/

Mid-term elections are coming up, so I thought I would share some something I wrote a couple of years ago.

In general, I’m not a cynical person, In fact, I’ve always said that I’d rather be a chump than a cynic, but I also believe in two old adages,

(This post generated some interesting comments.)

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The first time it’s a mistake, the second time it’s experience and the third time it’s stupidity.

I try very hard to avoid the third time.

But time and experience have taken their toll and my cynicism has increased over the years—especially in politics.

We have no leaders, let alone statesmen, just ideologues, elected by like-minded ideologues, who care only about getting reelected, bringing government money back to their constituency and making lucrative connections in the event they aren’t reelected or are caught by term limits.

In most elections I find myself going to the polls, holding my nose and voting for whomever I see as the least offensive candidate—the one I believe will do the least damage—and maybe even buy us a bit more time to find real solutions.

But I don’t hold my breath.

Solutions mean going against entrenched interests—the same interests that pony up the money needed to win the next election.

And so it goes.

Albert Einstein said, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”

Sad to say we’re at the same level that created them—if not lower.

(This post generated some interesting comments.)

Einstein also said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Americans must be insane; we will go to the polls flip the party in charge and expect different results.

Based on the past, what we will get is a different ideology that screws up differently, not better results.

Better results would require real leaders and even a few statesmen if we were lucky, but again, I’m not holding my breath.

What do you think would really make a difference?

Image credit: Atom Smasher

How can a week of discussion focused on ethics and cheating not touch on politics? Especially when it’s that time of year and media is filling the air with conversation, clamor and rants by and about those running for public office.

It’s a frustrating time for those who don’t blindly vote an ideological ticket; frustrating because most campaigning is focused on trashing the opponent as opposed to anything constructive.

I listen to people complain about the negativity when it’s aimed at their candidate, while sagely nodding at its appropriateness when coming from their side.

I listen to the rants against incumbents, but hear little about what should be done, other than ideological platitudes.

They all talk of the importance of leadership, while demonstrating none.

In a post a couple of years ago I wrote, “Sadly, the oxymoronic coupling of ‘leader’ and ‘politician’ usually is just plain moronic.”

Proof of that is showcased in an analysis of how Rod Blagojevich got elected.

How did we, the people, end up with this mess?

It can’t just be blamed on Obama or even on Bush—it’s been developing for more than seven decades.

It stems from our collective MAP and the arrogant world-view we developed after WWII; the abandonment of our melting pot roots; the entitled mindset that taught generations of Americans to covet and indulge in unsustainable lifestyles and, more recently, the replacement of thought by ideology.

How can we, the people, clean it up? How can we find more statesmen and fewer politicians?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/quinnanya/2244832648/

Yesterday I commented on the fact that leadership is dependent on both context and culture to be effective.

In a review of The Leadership Illusion at Leading Blog Michael McKinney says,

This gets to the heart of the leadership illusion: seeing leaders and leadership in one dimension. We ignore the context. When we evaluate the causes of the success or failure of leaders, we tend to “focus predominantly on the individual (sometimes the context), but very rarely both at the same time. The need to see someone as “fabulously successful or woefully inadequate” is strong. … Leadership is not a solo performance.

The importance of context is especially timely because of the upcoming election.

Consider Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, two in a long list of business executives who will tell you that if they can lead successfully in the corporate world they can lead in government.

For the sake of this article we’ll accept their claim to successful corporate leadership.

Now comes the real question: how transferable is that success in the context of government service?

Whitman is running for the CEO slot in California, AKA governor.

When you are a corporate CEO you need a great vision and Whitman had that, but you also need a management structure that supports that vision and works to make it happen—not just a strong senior staff, but the whole management team.

What it really comes down to is support the CEO’s vision or find a new company.

But there is no such power structure available for a governor dealing with the legislature. The governor has little to no say in who is hired, they aren’t likely to leave if they don’t like the vision; they certainly can’t be laid off or fired, their reviews are only done every four years and not by the executive team.

Given that context how many corporate CEOs would succeed?

For an interesting look at a darker context read Dan Gillmor’s article in Salon.

And if you really want to get depressed take a look at this opinion piece on the “Rise of the Richies.”

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brunoagostinho/3952264896/

Budget woes are disrupting state and local governments and everything they fund. Cuts are being made and what better place to cut than those things that don’t show up immediately? Things that are either out of site, like infrastructure, or that can be pushed off to when times are flush(er), such as learning.

As most CEOs will tell you how better to reduce costs than to reduce headcount? And that means firing teachers—more than 100,000 come June and that’s not all.

As a result, the 2010-11 school term is shaping up as one of the most austere in the last half century. In addition to teacher layoffs, districts are planning to close schools, cut programs, enlarge classes and shorten the school day, week or year to save money.

Politicians, especially local pols, tend to focus on supplying instant gratification to their constituency in order be reelected, so even as the economy improves you can’t count on the money being replaced and teachers rehired—assuming they are still available.

It’s far easier to use smoke and mirrors to show that kids are doing just fine in the brave new reduced budget world—smoke being standardized tests as viewed through the mirror of lowered standards.

Education offers little in the way of instant gratification to voters, rather it offers whining kids complaining about homework, tests and tough teachers who have the nerve to expect them to stop texting, pay attention and learn. (What nerve.)

Not all kids are whining, some in New Jersey are protesting the cuts approved by voters .

The mass walkouts were inspired by Michelle Ryan Lauto, an 18-year-old aspiring actress and a college freshman, and came a week after voters rejected 58 percent of school district budgets put to a vote across the state (not all districts have a direct budget vote).

The full damage of cuts now won’t be felt for years to come, but the voting public has both long and short-term memory loss and the pols who did it will be long gone—or moved to a higher level.

And America will be left wringing its hands and moaning about its loss of world leadership and the incredible difficulty of finding good talent to hire.

Image credit: 19melissa68 on flickr

Anyone who knows me knows that hypocrisy and fanaticism are tied for first place on my list of things-that-I-detest.

Political, religious and business hypocrisy continue to make headlines; rarely do I find myself laughing, but this time I did.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, the undisputed king of monopolistic uncompetitive practices is boo-hooing to both US and European regulators that Google has an unfair advantage in search.

Ballmer said Microsoft believes Google Inc. has done a number of things to gain an unfair advantage in the Internet’s lucrative search advertising market. He didn’t specify the alleged misconduct.

I am not alone in considering this totally ludicrous. And it’s not what Google does or does not do, but that Ballmer has the audacity to complain in the wake of Microsoft’s own track record.

And therein lays the real problem.

The idea that if ‘they’ do it it’s unfair, immoral, or illegal, but if we do it it’s OK.

We saw it in the arguments of torture being acceptable on the detainees at Gitmo.

We see it in the political and religious leaders who preach high moral codes while practicing immorality.

We see it in business leaders who preach ethics and practice them only as long as it’s convenient.

We see it in parents who demand better education and then condemn any teacher that doesn’t give their child a good grade.

We see it in colleagues whom we complain of slacking only to do something similar ourselves.

We see it in friends who share our private information even as we share someone else’s.

To paraphrase Walt Kelly’s Pogo, “We have met the hypocrite and he is us.”

Image credit: Kain Kalju on flickr