 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 22, 2008 at 00:12:10
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/22/08: by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
1
1
By the time one has lived into their mid 30's or beyond, the chances are one has either worked in or belonged to a large organization. It could be the boy scouts, or a political party or a large firm. In my case, it was Price Waterhouse/PricewaterhouseCoopers where I worked from 1994 through 2001. If you have been a member of a large organization, chances are you had the opportunity to see how a change at the top impacted how that organization functioned. I work in IT and I observed at PwC how the same large IT organization, technicians, developers, system administrators, managers and directors worked through three different CIO’s. 
Obama
Somehow, the same people performed very differently depending on the leadership of the organization.
There was one CIO in particular, a man by the name of Mark Lutchen, who seemed to bring out the best and got the most out of everyone. In my research today, I discovered that Mark has written a book titled "Managing IT as a Business". click here . He was interviewed by Katherine Chalmers in March of 2006, and the interview can be seen here http://www.bsmdigest.com/managing-it-as-a-business-interview-with-author-mark-lutchen/When Mark took the reins as Price Waterhouse's CIO in 1996, he gave a speech that was very inspirational. I still remember some excerpts of it and my memory is not good in general so the fact that I can remember any of it says something about the quality of the speech. In that speech, he made it clear that he understood our challenges and he understood how hard we all were working. He also said that if we were open to change and worked with him, he could make a big difference in the quality of our work experience.
To make a long story short, we trusted him, and things changed a lot for the better both for us and for the organization it was our job to support. I also seem to remember working a heck of a lot of hours under Mark, and enjoying every single minute of it.
The reason this applies to the criticism of Obama's cabinet picks should be obvious. Someone who knows how to be a leader can make a big difference in how an organization and individuals in that organization perform. The leader sets the tone and expectations, inspires (or fails to inspire) and follows up to make sure their expectations are being met.
We know what Obama’s expectations are. He wants to bring an end to the Iraq war as rapidly as possible. He does not believe in torture or extraordinary rendition. He does not believe in warrant-less wiretapping. He believes in Universal Healthcare. He believes in sitting down with leaders of countries with whom we have disagreements to find peaceful solutions to our issues. He has committed to finding the best and brightest people to turn our economy around and that brings me to another point.
The one thing that could stand in the way of even a great leader is if the people under the leader did not have the basic knowledge and abilities to perform the tasks that would be assigned to them. Obama is making sure this is not an issue by hiring some of the most competent and experienced people available. Some of these people may have performed a certain way while on their own or within the administration of a different leader, but that does not mean they will perform the same way under Obama.
Mark completely changed the way we all did our jobs. It was the same people, but we improved how we measured the effectiveness of everything we did. We improved our knowledge of how IT affected the business and changed how we delivered our services based on that knowledge. We literally changed under his leadership. Even today, 12 years later, when I think about my career, job capabilities and ability to conceive how IT works on an enterprise level, I think of them based on how they were pre-Lutchen and post-Lutchen.
I know from my own experience and from watching how Obama led his campaign that he is the kind of leader who will set very high expectations and insist that they are met. Moreover, I know what Obama’s expectations are and I listed some of them a few paragraphs above. Knowing all of this, I am not going to occupy myself with overanalyzing every single one of Obama’s cabinet picks. I think most of the people that are doing that have a pre-existing desire to see Obama fail and the rest don’t know a good leader when they see one. I look forward to Obama proving his early naysayers wrong.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 74 comments |
|
For Steve the shill
Today’s NYTimes political analysis: “Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy F. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury — suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party” Nuf said? “But wait”, like the shills on the cheap TV shouting scam ads say, “there’s more!” Yesterday, NYT neocon, David Brooks, said this, and you can take it to the bank (even when you have nothing in the bank): by Alan MacDonald (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 131 comments [43 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:22:52 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: So you have never been part of a large organization
where the leadership changed, every other person was pretty much the same and the leader changed how the entire organization functioned. Glad to know the lack of your experience. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:57:56 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Price Warerhouse
is one of the main companies that got us into the economic disaster, why am I not surprised you worked for these criminals. by sliphoch (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 110 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:49:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hah, you so clearly know nothing of what you speak
thanks for making that clear. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:15:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Changing the world through better accounting
No, Steve, I've never been associated with one of those innovative and fast paced companies of which you speak in the accounting world. However, I did have the opportunity to participate, innovate, and learn at two F500 US firms and one Global 100 computer/communication firm. The greatest lesson I learned is that genius founders and visionaries who look beyond financial risks and can actually build world-changing innovations inspire respect, awe, and cooperation. And the most serious lesson I learned is that when 'empty suits' spouting hopeful marketing banalities and incapable of building anything but a 'caretaker' regime mentality take over from the innovators, politics prevails and all hope of new innovation dies --- as the company is looted and limps to a shadow of its former self. BTW, Steve, if the whole accounting world wanted to innovate anything they might start with the innovative inclusion of 'negative externality costs' being internalized into corporations' absurdly distorted profit and loss statements ---- so as to take into account those little things called our society and our world. And if you still think my mild discussion and debate about Obama's 'progressive promises' and hard right turn is rough you might want to put on asbestos underwear before reading this: "Obama’s “left” cheerleaders and the right-wing transition" Then there are those who make a political profession out of deluding themselves and fostering illusions among others in order to support the Democratic Party and the profit system which it defends. This is the political specialty of the Nation, which has long been a central organ of left liberalism in America. Its columnists are finding the job of peddling illusions in Obama more difficult in light of the appointments and statements surrounding the transition, and are expressing concern. At the heart of their worries is the fact that Obama is moving sharply and openly to the right even as the crisis gripping American capitalism is creating conditions for a sharp turn to the left among American working people, students and youth." by Alan MacDonald (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 131 comments [43 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:55:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Perspicacity... Not in SL's World...
It was stated: "Moreover, I know what Obama’s expectations are and I listed some of them a few paragraphs above. Knowing all of this, I am not going to occupy myself with overanalyzing every single one of Obama’s cabinet picks. I think most of the people that are doing that have a pre-existing desire to see Obama fail and the rest don’t know a good leader when they see one. I look forward to Obama proving his early naysayers wrong." I'm so glad you "know" what BHO's expectations are.… and that you believe the folks who actually look at and emphasize evidence “have a pre-existing desire to see Obama fail...” lol. Well, that does say a lot about you, Stephen …. aka as ‘textbook example of cognitive dissonance’ Lesser encourages us all to simply … ‘close our eyes...’ It is also reassuring that you blithely ignore BHO's actual track record in the Senate as well as his statements and actions while running (just loved his statement about the 'bailout' ... it couldn't have gone forward without him) and his statements/expressed plans regarding Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan etc. And those pesky Ruskies. You choose, interestingly, to ignore the assembly of neocons, neolibs and hawks with whom he is now engaging in a group grope. But I imagine that you actually ‘like’ most of those folks. I wasn't against Obama until his actual behavioral/oral history as well as the assembly of his handlers began to be revealed. But the evidence is pretty clear now. And it ain’t pretty. But you can go on living in 'La La Land' but you might want, sometime, to remove those hands from in front of your eyes and those fingers from your ears. But somehow I doubt that you have the capacity. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:41:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Another sane and qualified comment Steven
For some of us, the election of Obama is beyond imagination and the thought of being rid of Bush and his group of thieves is like fresh air after being trapped in a mine. Yet, even though we are 60 days away from him being in any offical capacity, we hear all the negative and second guessing of every move Obama makes. In our local paper this morning, some dull witted person complained that the only change he has seen since Nov. 4, is a decline in his 401K, as if Obama was directly responsible. You made a great point Steven by showing that it is the guy at the top that makes the change and the rest pick up on his leadership. The only thing that surprises me------is my surprise at all the nay sayers. They would not be happy unless they could complain. Reminds me of a "nut case" we had on our small city council. He did not like anything and always voted "no" on anything any other council member wanted. One day he was the only "no" vote on a resolution but he forgot, he had proposed it. Go figure!! by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:02:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Leser
With apologies Steven. I am sad today. It is momentary. I will adapt and adjust as I do always. I understand your half full approach. As I do not bunch you into a blind box that Obama's goodness is fully intact on our behalf, neither do I bunch Mr. M or Richard into the also easily filled box of those you claim 'want' Obama to fail. Unfair is what that is. Simply unfair from both parts. We all are so in need of the taste of the good nectar. All. Good leadership as you expressed above, is indeed a necessity and if you are correct that Barry has it intact and healthy, I will be happy too for us all that your senses are proven worthy. Underneath all our personal opinions of Obamas choices, for me, those two lovely little girls he tucks in each night are in his grace as are they in ours also. My hope is that you are correct that he is filled with the good. My sadness today is that I am left wondering without an answer yet that they are as important to him as I pray they are. peace by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I wonder
" My sadness today is that I am left wondering without an answer yet that they are as important to him as I pray they are." Are you questioning his love of his children? I would certainly hope not----but this comment struck me as strange. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:09:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Do not wonder....my choice of words
Gin....I DO NOT QUESTION THAT. I have no doubt he loves his children. I do hope that in addition he is also guided by it and remembers that, as he honors the responsibility which he has accepted. When I look to tomorrow about what I will do today, I have only to glance into my child's eyes. peace by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:40:57 PM (0+)
|
|
This is worse than mere wishful thinking -- it's abandoning
all pretense of objectivity. Your argument is basically that "the leader is good," so it doesn't matter if he fills his administration with war hawks, Wall St insiders, & recycled veteran Clintonistas. This argument is absurd on its face. It puts the cart before the horse, in that one can judge just how "good" Obama really is, by looking at the choices he's already made. They are extremely revealing. They demonstrate that he's not really "good" at all, & that he should be seen as simply a slick marketing phenomenon who ran on empty slogans like "hope and change," but really represents continuity in policy, not change from it. The policy remains militarist, imperialist, & pro Wall St. Hillary ("Obliterate Iran!") Clinton is a completely unprincipled war hawk. It's hard to argue that she's any better than Condi Rice. She voted for the Iraq War Resolution & refused to apologize for it. This choice alone shows Obama's claims of "change" are phony. Geithner was one of the key architects of the Wall St bankster bailout -- the biggest & most outrageous robbery of the taxpaying public ever seen. Obama's transition team for Pentagon & CIA appointments is headed by pro-Iraq war figures, who were complicit in the policies of torture & extraordinary rendition, & also involved in making up all the lies about Iraqi "WMD." He may well keep Robt Gates at Defense. Gates is a past director of the CIA, & was a leading supporter of Bush's "surge." You claim that "We know what Obama's expectations are. He wants to bring an end to the Iraq war as rapidly as possible. He does not believe in torture or extraordinary rendition. He does not believe in warrant-less wiretapping. He believes in Universal Healthcare. He believes in sitting down with leaders of countries with whom we have disagreements to find peaceful solutions to our issues. He has committed to finding the best and brightest people to turn our economy around..." - Every one of these assertions is false. Obama is not interested in "ending" the Iraq War. He merely wants to ratchet it down a bit, & keep it off the front pages. He proposes the gradual withdrawal of combat troops (& this, only if commanders "on the ground" approve), & transferring them to Afghanistan/Pakistan. His plan would leave at least 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, & he has said nothing about taking mercenary troops out. It's overstatement to say he doesn't believe in torture. There are different degrees of opposition to torture. It's one thing to be fundamentally against it, & to declare that anyone responsible for it is guilty of war crimes & should be prosecuted. It's something very different to merely take a symbolic stand against only the most visible instance of torture (ie, by closing Guantanamo), without addressing the other CIA torture prisons around the world, like Bagram & Abu Ghraib. He doesn't believe in warrantless wiretapping? He VOTED FOR it, in July. This was a complete betrayal of principle. It's indefensible. He doesn't believe in Universal Health Care. He believes in giving the insurance companies an unchallenged seat at the table. This kills any prospect of real (ie, single-payer) universal health care. The whole point of national health care is getting the insurance parasites out of the system. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:33:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Assuming the conclusion
Mr. Lutchen was called "good" by judging the effects of his management style. Obama is being called "good" even before he takes office. How can he be a good leader before the fact? by Jim Eldon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 253 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:43:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: richard-- your picks?
I'm curious who you would have liked Obama to have picked for the different roles. I'd bet that he made the deal with Hillary some time in June or July, for her to take Sec. of State, for her to get behind him, btw. And I'm sure she's going to do a lousy job, like she's done with most everything else she's done, as a manager. The good news as, as an ineffective leader and manager, she's like to do less damage than you fear. See. We can agree on some things. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:34:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: OK, let's put it this way. I'm categorically against the War
on Terror, the Afghan war, the Iraq war. I want to see a huge cut in defense spending, & want to see the US renounce all the entire path of trying to dominate the world by military force. I'm against rule by the Wall St oligarchy. I'm strongly in favor of accountability for high crimes committed by the Bush administration. Certainly that means Obama would not be able to fill his cabinet with Democrats & Republicans I'd approve of. Nonetheless, if he at least tried to recognize the small progressive faction in Congress (figures like Feingold, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Marcy Kaptur, Bernie Sanders) it would sit better with me than if he ignores this group & goes strictly for the war hawks & pro-bankster group. If he approached public intellectuals like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz & Ralph Nader, I would feel more hopeful than if he does not. So far, his entire transition team, & his cabinet picks to date -- all of them are insults to real progressives. They are 100% war hawks & agents of Wall St. So far, he couldn't possibly have done any worse, even if he'd tried. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:57:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: They need to call him
by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:37:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: For starters, Krugman loves Obama's economics team
you should read some of the stuff he has said about them. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:30:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: My Picks?
Well, they damn sure couldn't have been worse than Obama's, Rob. Could Not Have Been Worse. Why pick up those reflecting the status quo, when you could have picked a recent Nobel prize winner for Treasury????? You know who I mean. Krugman. Why keep the same Bush guy running DOD , when someone honest like Scott Ridder, who was telling us the truth regarding Iraq's supposed WMDs is available? You do know, Gates brags about his assignment from V.P. Bush to form an "Islamic Brigade" in Afghanistan in the 1980's, in his autobiography?? You DO KNOW THAT, do you not? by David Hastings (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 116 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:55:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: On Boston Legal...
they tell a woman she's an idiot, for voting for McCain, because she liked Palin. I don't see much difference with you voting for someone with no chance of winning-- and see your hoping that you will be able to say "I told you so" in June to be despicable. BTW, It's Ritter-- Scott Ritter, not Ridder. And maybe he is a good idea, but do you really think the congress would approve of him? Appointments have to pass muster with congress. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:59:18 PM (0+)
|
|
On "Corporate Leadership" as it relates to politics
I was a corporate drone for over 25 years, working for Fortune 500 corps my entire former career... During which time i saw more regimes come and go than i could scornfully shake a sharp stick at. There were similarities: Most of the Division Presidents and Group VP's came from sales or marketing positions, then late in the 90's and 2000's the trend changed to coming from Accounting... But always they were hired from another company or division... NEVER promoted from below. There were many similarities in their initial statements, in their desires to "move ahead". And of course, there was the similarities in their social class: All were educated in well-thought-of Universities; and nearly all were men from affluent families; usually in their 40's . But the most striking similarities came from their RESULTS. They instituted 3 or 5 year plans that NEVER made it past one or two years. This is because by the time the Piper was due his pay; these execs had always managed to move on to "Bigger and Better Things"... And in every case, their failures to realistically move the organization toward future market needs, or to make any of their Sales Goals, was apparent to an embarrassing degree to all involved. The first year was always a "gimme"... The execs were excused for not making Plan, because it was blamed on the previous regime. The second year, they had to start polishing their resumes.... Yet nothing ever changed... the next "5 year plan" was rolled out by the next elitist stuffed suit, and everyone winked because they all knew it was hogwash. This constant re-shuffling had the effect of never having to say you are sorry ;) It removed the corporate exec's from ultimate responsibility for failure. And it insured that no "new blood" or ideas based on realism ever really made it to the top.... Despite the frequent changes of names on the doors of "Mahogany Row". It is, imo and experience, a very common and institutionalized aspect of corporate America. So excuse me if my experiences are not the same as yours. I can appreciate the possibility of true innovation and motivation from "real" Maverick Leaders, it is just that in experiencing an estimated 18 corporate regime changes, i had the misfortune to never see any evidence of it. And i certainly saw no evidence that this method of "leadership" was worthy of anything more than derision and scorn. God help us if this is what awaits us now! by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM (0+)
|
|
False analogy & unknown facts
This argument rests on the analogy between presidential cabinet officeholders and a group of employees in the IT division of PwC. The analogy does not hold. You're expecting us to believe that a group of nameless techies are in the same situation employment-wise as the people in the President's cabinet? This is ridiculous. Every cabinet selection is a leader in his or her own right, and they are not employees of the President. Their livelihoods and I dare say their job satisfaction do not depend on "doing a good job" for the President. They are political appointees. Their standards for success have nothing to do with any accounting bottom line; their "productivity" (metaphor) is political, not economic. It's also debatable who leads whom; history provides plenty of examples of cabinet members leading (esp. deceiving) the president. In terms of real power, the president himself is middle management. If you think he or they or all together can effectively oppose and redefine the status quo, your going to need a lot more to prove it than a weak analogy to corporate work ethic. These are political appointments of, by and for the status quo. Or are you going to insist that policies are going to suddenly shift to something new that you think he wants rather than remaining as they have been for all these appointees' professional lives? This is an unknown fact. He and they are all, every one of them, establishment insiders whose political leanings, from an historical perspective, are nowhere near left. Criticism and low expectations are therefore entirely justified. Also, knowing what Obama's campaign rhetoric was does not mean we "know what Obama's expectations are." In fact, if you know what his real expectations are (as opposed to those merely suggested by his rhetoric) then you must be able to read his mind, and I doubt that too. So those expectations too are unknown facts. by Jim Eldon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 253 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:09:18 PM (0+)
|
|
I was in
a couple of pretty large organizations myself. The US NAVY for 20 years and the US Postal Service, for another 22. I think they qualify. I saw change in leadership at the top. The Navy varied significantly, some good and some bad. The US Postal Service did nothing but deteriorate for at least the last 10 t o12 years. Another story, and a bad one full of tales of employee abuse. In both organizations I worked collateral duties, as a facilitator, in team building and organizational excellence. In instance after instance our work was destroyed by supposedly good managers who did not want bottom up input. Again another story. Maybe people will work differently for different bosses. I have seen it. Especially where clear operational goals and programs were laid out. You are once again wrong, assuming I wish Obama to fail. I don't. I just happen to be the kind of person who shouts when I see a bus about to go over a cliff. Obama is not yet in office, so we cannot evaluate him on those terms. But we can evaluate him on the basis of the philosophy of governance shown by the people with whom he surrounds himself. We can review the positions and actions of those folks and determine whether or not we are in for more of the same. We can listen to the pronouncements of these folks as to what is on or off the table. And if we determine, to our own satisfaction, that the bus is going over the cliff, we get to stand up and say so. What is flawed is not the criticism of Obama and his picks. What is flawed is the blind obedience I see from those unwilling to critically examine just what is going on, and act accordingly. Yes, Obama deserves some breathing room to some extent. He also has asked for our thoughts, which include criticism, as he develops his administrative direction. So perhaps, rather than taking to task those who criticize, welcome different viewpoints. Let Obama and his group winnow them out. You may just be blocking the missing piece of the puzzle. by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:15:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Well now...
It may be a bit harsh to call Mr. Leser a shill. He may be incredibley naive and have a lollipop view of the architecture of modern political power. He might believe modern US pennies are actually made of copper. He could still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa too. There are many adults in the US who have not been allowed to mature. It is the system itself that encuourages the jejune attitudes of this cultures Mr. Lesers. I would even wager that many of those complaining about cabinet choices actually believe that Mr. Obama, as preisdent is actually the head of the administration. Such ideas are poppicock. Obama is a front man, a puppet, a mouth peice; and he will read his script and dance to the tune played by the real masters behind the scenes. And all of us being encouraged to make our complaints known to Mr. Obama should understand that nobody cares what we think. If this has not become obvious in your first 18 to 20 years of life then you need a happy accident to wake your silly ass up. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:15:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: If you are so naive
as to assume that someone is not reading those comments, then you need to put some ice cubes in your koolaid. Of course they read them, not, obviously, for their 'change ' paradigm, but to gauge the mood of the electorate. You need to wake your silly ass up and educate yourself on the issues. by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:43:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Obama's Cabinet Picks and Flawed Criticism Thereo
Time will tell Steven. Obama's picks so far are a real concern to me; they certainly are not progressive! America needs to go left of center, and bring back a fair share of the wealth, and universal health care for all. It is no secret that the middle, and lower class's are sinking with the wealth flowing up to a few; this must change. by Rolland Miller (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments [78 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:04:57 PM (0+)
|
|
flawed criticism?
Where's the change? Where's the policy change from Bush? Where is the staff change? I mean we have dualed citizenship people just as in the Bush Administration and old picks of the Clinton Administration. The Bushies are loving Obama. Read the C&P newspapers statements above in the post. And Mister William (above) wrote (and I totally agree and have stated the same before): "I would even wager that many of those complaining about cabinet choices actually believe that Mr. Obama, as preisdent is actually the head of the administration. Such ideas are poppicock. Obama is a front man, a puppet, a mouth peice; and he will read his script and dance to the tune played by the real masters behind the scenes." Obama's choices of appointments show absolutley NO CHANGE from the same people we have been listening to for the last 10 yrs. Obama loses his credibility by those of us that can identify these appointments by their PNAC associations or dual citizenships of Israel and America. Why should Israel get to run our country? I mean Henry Paulson has been controlling our money and he is an Israeli/American dual citizen. Chertoff has been running the "Homeland Security Agency" and he is a dual. Rahm is a dual and this guy and that one. Hillary and Bill are fascists and are corporatists all the way. "Flawed" critisim? I beg your pardon but your ignorance of WHO these "picks" are and where they come from and their ideation and goals is not a "flaw" on my part but an accomplishment on my part for DOING MY HOMEWORK. Do yours and then write another article. by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:16:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you Ms. Reese
I would like to see some more mature and sophisticated responses here such as the nature of yours. For one, I would like for Mr. Leser to come back up here and explain the Hegelian Dialectic in his own terms, just to let us all know that he has an actual understanding of political science. The gentleman claims to have some understanding of politics in his self boosting profile that he has posted. I am affraid that I have read nothing from him to indicate that he has the slightest comprehension of the way the world actually works. All he seems to provide is a dull recital of Civics 101, which is nothing more than the conditioning one gets in Jr. HS. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:12:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Yes, Steven, I've worked in large corporations
And I've also worked in small ones. As a general rule small ones are wholly owned, perhaps not even incorporated. What you see is what you get. The owner hires, you fit and stay and know how to be useful and how to advance for the most part. BUT--always a but--for the conviviality and personal satisfaction comes a couple of drawbacks. The job depends on the business staying viable. And there is not much chance for advancement. I worked for Spiegel (catalog company) which had just been bought by Household Finance. Since I was hired to learn computer programming, I missed a lot of the rigamarole usually introduced to seduce employees to stay for the gold watch. There were trainees leaving for another 1K every week. For personal reasons I continued on for almost 3 years and when I applied for a new job, the interviewer was likely to ask why I stayed so long. During the latter half of the 60s it was a great sociological experience for me, because my fellow programmers were all Boomers and their main concern was the VietNam war. Jumping out of the kettle into the fire, I went to Honeywell, where an experiment (Honeywell Institute of Information Sciences) started a 3-month course to train recent college Liberal Arts graduates. That was in 1970 when IBM unbundled. Great experiment which lasted until the oil embargo took over. Honeywell's CEO and 3M's CEO were son-/father-in-law. Honeywell (infamous with the anti-war movement for making more anti-personnel devices than any other company) bought part of GE Bull. It and MMM both were fined substantially for disobeying the embargo. I liked the work and recognized I was not interested in going up the organization. So then I settled into a good teaching job with a family-owned Data Processing company which also ran a commercial college. Great job! Which I left only because my husband reached retirement age. Through all this I learned to navigate the shoals of business snags. I had been a full-charge bookkeeper long enough to realize that the bottom line is what propels curious changes in corporate culture. The above remarks deal directly with Obama only in that we are lucky not to be inheriting another MBA for president. This is not to say I regard all MBA's as opportunists. I hear they teach the difference between short and long term measurement in business colleges. It's just that the end-of quarter and bottom-line seems to have won out. So blame it on the Arabs! Since I studied political science--therefore know nothing because of lack of a Ph.D.--I will opine, anyway. Obama is a better politician than most of his followers know. How did he make it to the Oval Office after a couple of years in the Senate? He felt out the leading members of Democratic party. Daschle gave him a boost by recommending his former staff. Came the midterm elections and he was out on the hustings to put Democrats in Congress. Came time to arm wrestle with others in the primary, he gave them enough time to fizzle out--without alienating them. They will work for him, which means talking straight rather than brown nosing. I am a fan of Richardson. So I wondered how the place at State would work out, because there was drama over who BR would finally support in the primary. Of all the cabinet members, I doubt if any others has as much diplomatic experience as Richardson (has a degree from Tufts, also). Then I realized that Secretaries of State circle the globe, gladhanding. He's been there. Why not Commerce? Imagine that job going to a fellow with negotiating skills. As I said, this is a backward look at my experience with bosses and companies. I care not to criticize critics. If anyone has a hard-felt opinion of what Obama's cabinet should be like, please present credentials and then submit arguments backed up by the nominees' histories. Oh, yes. Since this seems to have something to do with the State Department, who wants to help me analyze what Zbigniew Brzezinski's books (The Grand Chessboard and Second Chance) have to do with Obama's foreign policy agenda. I've got the paperback copies. Would be glad to discuss them, since Brez and his students are apparently part of the administration's advisory team. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:16:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: As usual Margaret
you sum up things very well. At 66 I know that age does not necessarily make us smarter but it does give a perspective that one younger might not have. Another reason I think Obama is doing things right, in that he is bringing some people that have lots of experience, along with people his own age. I like the mix. I have never worked in a big organzation but I understand Steven's point and I think he is correct. Lets face it Margaret, some will not agree with anything Obama does or says and to "banter" back and forth with them is a waste of time. I choose to spend my time more productively. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:48:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A laughable & lame assertion: "Let's face it....some will
..... not agree with anything Obama does or says..." - You're dishonestly try to pretend that the issue is a mere matter of critics irrationally "hating Obama" or not hating him. It has nothing to do with that. The fact is that every single appointment he's made is a war-hawk, a defender of the Wall St bailout, or was complicit in various aspects of the Iraq war. THAT is what the issue is. Obama is only being criticized because he's a phony and his appointments stink. It's not because of some irrational urge that critics have, to say nasty things about him. Let's hear you defend these miserable appointments -- such as the ones I outlined in a post higher in this thread, or as described in detail in this Jeremy Scahill article. If you can't offer specific defenses of them, then you really have nothing to say. You're simply insisting that whatever Obama does must be OK, because he's a Democrat, & you like him. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:24:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I put my comment here
although it does not matter where I put my comment in this case. Here is my diary entry on the subject: Werewolves in Power? I admire Mr.Leser for his loyalty to the cause but his articles more and more remind of self-convincing. I am sorry, Mr. Leser, cadres do decide everything, And in this particular case the people in the Cabinet reflect the desires and orders of those who apparently put Obama to power. We now see their goals- those are reflected in the unfortunate, totally useless opportunists coming to power, those who had lied so much that some of them cannot even look straight anymore like Hillary or Geithner ( he even looks grotesque). You can use the old Scottish verse here,' Yes , his eyes are truthful- they truthfully say that he is a damned crook.' Moreover, leadership matters, of course but culture works and in such country like USA the system presumes that no matter what a President is he follows the goals of those who put him there. I hope we are not naive people and understand that there IS a group and they did put a lot of money in Obama for a reason of their own. Now we see what they want. We see that through the people coming to power, through the party machine, through the KINDS of people reaping the harvest. IT IS A COVEN! No matter how we sympathise with Obama as a human being we MUST state the fact- the group which put him to power does not seem to have good and honorable motives. BTW, I suggested Vincent Bugliosi for AG, one of the several diplomats who resigned in prrotest against Iraq war to be a Secretary of State. I suggested a cabinet ot be young and I suggested to demolish the DHS- thus saving a LOT of money. That is for Rob Kall. Now, one more thing- Zbig B is nuts. He has been nuts since birthday. And his books are the books written by a nut. There are more and more nutty bastards in our power structure. BTW, if Obama is so much for peace why is that he had not even tried to meet Cindy Sheehan? Remember how Hillary treated her? Some of our folks here have short memories, really. Folks, I want to remind to all of you that you have a duty to the truth. Sympathy or not so far NONE of the Cabinet appointees worth a penny. NONE. You better say that loud and clear. If you now hide behind self-convincing and all those stories you will betray all the results of your struggle with the Bushies. The transfer from CABAL to COVEN is not what we anticipated. Here, I said it. And one more thing- for Steve- I had been working for a Fortune -500 Company for 18 years. Steve, corporation is not a democracy. Better use some other examples. Or better acknowledge the truth, please. With that adjourn by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:10:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Isn't it curious...
Isn't it curious that so many of the commentors of this excellent and wise article, simply fail to even acknowledge the whole point of it...the leader indeed makes a difference in how people perform their duties, and it certainly needed to be pointed out as it appears that most people have forgotten this aspect of leadership. So, thank youSteven for your keen observation, and please do ignore the ignoramusses that would rather criticize than listen or learn anything. by Linda Alvarez (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:49:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It is curious they haven't dared touch the concept...
... perhaps because its truth is unassailable? Leadership matters. Thanks for the level headed response Linda. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:25:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Everyone is Hammering the Concept Steve!
And Lemmings run off a cliff following the One at the front. Obama has done nothing to earn devout faith in his abilities. Even as he allows these appointees to be associated with him he plays the game, but is looking the same as those before him. Why must you bow and kowtow? This is a question for you to consider. Why do you look to a "leader" to show you the way? History has few leaders that have not betrayed and led astray their flocks. Seems power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, trust not those in power. by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:48:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: lemmings do not run off cliffs
This is a myth -- based on a film in which the director threw lemmings into a camera's view. Perhaps the similarities here are closer than i originally thought. . . by sometimes blinded (4 articles, 106 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 615 comments [51 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:11:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It's also curious that you can't seem to respond ...
... to well thought out criticism and questions, but are quick to pat yourself on the back, as you make insinuations and assumptions of others. Both you and your buddy Gin, and all other Obama apologists just can't seem to see the writing on the wall. You see the wall, point at it and go: "wall," but the writing? Forgetaboutit! by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:17:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: writing on the wall
sorry, buy you ran and slammed into a wall a long time ago and never got your face out of it and since then, you don't see anything BUT the wall you ran into, which basically makes you a broken record. Richard mentions progressive members of congress who have no experience or preparation for jobs Obama has, so far, appointed. Hillary as Sec of State sucks. She has been a failure at everything she's been a leader at. THat's a big mistake, but I believe Obama cut that deal to get her on board back in July, in order to nail a win over McCain. I'm disappointed with all the appointees so far too, but I know that it is wise to appoint people with experience. There are plenty of other people who could have made me happier as attorney general, but I like having a black man and hope he has integrity and follows the directions Obama gives him. I don't know what to make yet of the Sec. of Treasury appointment. First glance is not good, because he's so inside the Fed and WTO, etc. But, on the other hand, understanding how they work and knowing who is who will make him more effective. Now, if he makes the decisions and calls the shots, without Obama, that will be an unhappy turn of events, but if Obama uses his experience and connections, but directs the big decisions, it could work well. Someone like Krugman could have great ideas but no way to follow through and get things done. I'd be surprised if Obama doesn't tap Krugman for advice, same with some other more progressive economists, like Joseph Stiglitz and Jared Bernstein. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:13:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Good Ceasar, Bad Ceasar?
Do we really need a Ceasar? I see the issue not as a what if, but a why? We just elected someone that we don't know enough about to say what he is going to do. If his first move is not to eliminate some of that 'absolute power' from the executive branch, then I have a problem with him. We elected him President, not King! by Linda Gonzales (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:17:41 PM (0+)
|
|
grump, grump, grump
I don't like most of Obama's appointments. The closer I look at them the nastier they look. They're, as Kevin says, Clinton re-treads. But what was he supposed to do, bring in green, inexperienced people with no experience, or bush appointees? I've yet to hear the complainers mention alternative appointees. Frankly, I'm hoping these will be starters and he'll, over eight years, replace them with lower level, more progressive people he appoints in positions where they can step into leadership roles. Like I said above, I think he cut a deal with Hillary for Sec of State months ago. And getting her out of the senate is a good move, if he can influence the selection of her replacement. He DOES have to get his appointees approved by congress. That said, I'm still waiting for one I can feel great about. So far, not so good. OTOH, if he choses to move to the left, he'll have people who can talk the language to people he'll need to move with him. This is dicey stuff. Cynthia McKinney was not going to be SOS. Nader was not going to be EPA head. I'd still like to hear from all the critics who they'd like for the different slots, rather than them just reacting negatively to them all. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:46:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Let this grump pump your rump to reveal the chump...Lol
Rob says: "I'd still like to hear from all the critics who they'd like for the different slots, rather than them just reacting negatively to them all. " Why should the "Grumps & critics" comment on who they would like to see fill the slots in a criminal organization such as the so-called "Federal Government"? How many more times? What does it take to wake up the TVZombies here? You have been screwed so many times, running to the polls and "voting" as if it really has anything to do with the price of microchips in China...it is a hoax, and any who fail to recognise this at this very late date are chumps beyond recovery. Are you simply brain dead? What is this all about anyway? Going along to get along? Do you want your liberty back or not? This is the vital question, because if you do, you will have to take it back, it will not be offered to you on a ballet. As a personal note to Rob, please do not take this as too harsh, or purposely insulting--our situation is a life or death dilemma NOW at this very moment. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:09:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I Am Laughing Out Loud!
I almost hurt myself, laughing at your subject line! No offense to Rob. by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:51:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: To Rob and everyone
The President has a lot of power (that can be ltd. by assassination, and the knowledge that you'll be assassinated, with it pinned on a patsy, if you step out of line like Lincoln, the dead Kennedy's, Wellstone, MLK, etc). However, as the NYTimes and Brooks noted, Obama's made it clear how intends to govern, and whose info he'll be framing reality and basing decisions on. Richard Mynick brought up several people that are "mainstream" but would have sat a lot better with progressives and real liberals than the "center-right" corporate hawks he's surrounding himself with: "Nonetheless, if he at least tried to recognize the small progressive faction in Congress (figures like Feingold, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Marcy Kaptur, Bernie Sanders) it would sit better with me than if he ignores this group & goes strictly for the war hawks & pro-bankster group. If he approached public intellectuals like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz & Ralph Nader, I would feel more hopeful than if he does not." Also Patrick Leahy, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney, RFK, Jr., William Pepper, Paul Craig Roberts- these people may have issues i'm unaware of- if you know of any, please comment. by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:39:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Rob, please explain what makes you think ...
... what we think or suggest, makes a tinkers-damn as to how it would effect what Obama does, or whom he picks? Is this just some kind of mental game? A "what if" fantasy for fun? He didn't give a crap what we thought when he was supposedly trying to "win" our votes, so what on God's green Earth, makes you think it matter's now? I mean I could go on and ask why you think either of these two parties gives a crap what we think? I'd ask you whom do you think they represent to begin with? Because it isn't us! This whole thing is a charade. It's a carnival, and we're the gullible pubic walking through, as barkers shout promises of delights of a life fulfilled, just step right-up folks, give your money to the man over there and have a seat inside. Only to find out that the half-man, half-women, half-black, half-white, half-liberal, half-neocon, isn't half of what we paid for. So we stagger out of the tent, bitching about how we got gypped, or at least some of us do, some of you walk out jaw on chest, thinking what you just witnessed was the real thing, grab some cotton-candy, until another barker sells us another line of crap. And all the while the carnies are laughing their asses off at us fools that keep lining up for a promise of a little titillation in our otherwise made-up for us lives. Jesus, they put us in a box and some of you think that's all there is to life, that box. Ever think of thinking "out-side that box?" Can you even conceive of that? Or are your connections to established norms of perception so ingrained that you can be agent for those very ones you should be tearing down? What if there's no "there" there? Than it makes all this who gets in meaningless. At least to us it is, in that we don't matter to the carnies, we're just marks. Ever think we need to burn down the tents, tar and feather the snake-oil salesman and run them out of town? But we can't even do that anymore, because we've been falling for the same tricks for so long the carnies have taken over the town. We aren't chasing them out, they're starving us out! Obama is a tool and anyone that believes anything he does is with us in mind first, second, third, forth, fifth ... one-hundred and sixth is just another fool. Step right up folks ... by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:04:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: tar and feather and run out of town....
and then what? I ask you and Richard, et. al., who you'd want appointed. Richard's suggestions are ludicrous. Those legislators are not in any way prepared for or ready for the jobs Obama is filling, even if they are not happy with who Obama IS appointing. When you talk about tearing down, you have to talk about what you want instead. I'm tired of hearing a bunch of complaining without constructive suggestions on what to do instead. How about balancing your grump sessions with ideas on what you want to see instead? by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:22:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You got any suggestions, Rob?
I've asked you whom you think these people represent? Can you do that? I don't think you can, because you haven't come to that place where you can conceive that whatever we do, simply doesn't matter. It doesn't matter - because it doesn't matter to them. They don't give a sh*t, what you or I think. This isn't b*tching, although it's something to b*tch about, it's a cold hard reality that you simply can't wrap your mind around. To you they're still listening, when they're not! You can't give us one single GD example of where they're listening, but that still doesn't stop you from standing in line, money in hand, ready to go take your seat inside. Rob, you keep asking me "what would you do?" And I swear to God, Rob, I don't know. I know where we need to get back to. We need to get back to living to the dictates of our Constitution. That would be a good start. But I don't know how to get there. I just know we can't count on these cretins you keep placing bets on. They don't give a damn about us and I don't know how many times I have to say that before it sinks in. I know that during other trying times positive change didn't come without great sacrifice in blood. And we're definitely at the cusp of one of the most trying in our history. I don't believe your nuance will work on these cretins for the simple fact they play it like a fine-tuned piano. These aren't politicians, they're murdering sociopaths with college degrees, you can't expect them to care, and we can't vote them out either. The game is rigged. The bottles you're trying to knock down are weighed. Keep throwing and throwing but you'll never get that Cupie Doll the way you're doing it. And I don't know how it's going to turn out. I just know we're in for some changes that no amount of conjecture is going to be able to even envision. But for you to go on and on about what can we do when it is meaningless until we get rid of nearly every man-jack in government today in high position, and since we can't do that with our votes, or through impeachment, or indictments I'm open for suggestions. Got any? by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:32:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: i appreciate that Mr. M
and i too would be interested in hearing who Rob's ideal cabinet picks are and why. Rob? by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:30:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I'm not so much interested in his picks ...
... as much as whom he thinks they represent? If neither party represents us, it doesn't make a difference whom they pick? by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:49:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Uh, Rob, cranky old man here,
but I would like to point out that Obama is one of those legislators without experience. Krugman definitely. Treasury. Ralph Nader, naturally. AG probably. I am surprised that Obama has not picked Dick Cheney for Sec Def. He does have all that experience there. by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:48:36 PM (0+)
|
|
LEADERS?
"Leaders"? What 'leaders'? In a republic, the public officers are not leaders, they are servants of the public will. We were not meant to be ruled in the US, we as a sovereign people were meant to lead ourselves--not follow 'leaders'. The USA was conceived to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy by plutocracy. Or corpocacy, or oligarchy/synarchy, or crony capitalism or any other ism/cracy/archy they have tried to foist upon US. The founding fathers would be absolutely horrified to see the “mob rule by the privileged elites” into which this once great nation has degenerated. Every political philosopher knows that democracy, when sufficiently dumbed down and unduly influenced by the moneyed ruling class, will always devolve into a despotic tyranny. Therefore, the wholesale exportation of our fraudulent notion of democracy, and its supposed freedoms (to buy, buy, buy after watching the boob tube hucksters), by the political and corporate classes must be reconsidered. And it will be soon, on a new channel during this “Fall” season’s new lineup! Stay tuned --- by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:48:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Leadership qualities
by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:22:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: If that was all
... that commenters thought the author was saying then responses would likely have been more restrained, such as “Nice sentiment, but very likely too optimistic”, based on Obamas announced appointments. That would be my response. But, are those his only points? The author ended the piece, “I think most of the people that are doing that have a pre-existing desire to see Obama fail and the rest don’t know a good leader when they see one. I look forward to Obama proving his early naysayers wrong.” That was a clear slap-in-the-face to everyone offering any criticism at this time. It seems intellectually dishonest to lump all of Obama’s critics into those two catergories. Even worse, what kind of person might have a "pre-existing desire" to see the first Black President fail? Is he really suggesting that Obama's critics are all racist or stupid? If so, that is not a very nice method of argument. by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:00:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: opinion, not insult
"What kind of person might have a "pre-existing desire" to see the first Black President fail?" I think it was his actual opinion, not intended as an insult. ... Based on the opposition that was expressed on OEN earlier, in regard to voting for Obama. Some posters believed we should all be voting third party, even though it would have meant a McCain/ Palin win. And now, when these daunting appointments are being made, some of those same posters sound smug, almost gleeful, in a "Told you so" kind of way (particularly in another thread that's running on same topic). It would be, but I don't believe that was his intention. And he didn't say "all". by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:03:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The author is clearly an optimist, and
... I’m generally an optimist myself, so I hope it was just an opinion not intended as an insult, but it is easy to see how it could be taken as an insult. It would have been much clearer if he hadn’t used the phrase “pre-existing desire”. And technically, the statement, “Most [critics] are in Category A, and the rest are in Category B” does imply that Categories A and B include “all” critics. Smugness, glee, and "Told you so" type attitudes are off-putting, I agree, especially after some people predicted the future would hold much less positive change than most people expected. But, most people in society abhor people who make such predictions, treat them badly at the time they do, and rarely credit them with foresight or having provided a service even when they are proven right. Small wonder they crow once in a while. I think the real message being offered by Obama’s critics has less to do with Obama the man than it does with their observations and conclusion that our Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” has been hijacked by an elite few. The message they (me too) are trying to get out is that real change will involve: eliminating the influence of secret societies and special interests on and within Government, especially that of the moneyed elite, their big businesses, their media, their think tanks, their molding of public opinion instead of seeking it, their Federal Reserve System, their mechanism of control – our current monetary system - and restoring many aspects of our original Constitutional Government that have been degraded, such as: our civil liberties, a sound money system, corporate law requiring businesses to operate in the public interest in specified ways to obtain the privilege of a corporate charter; repudiating military and economic global hegemony in concert with other moneyed interests as our nation’s foreign policy goal, etc. These are radical changes that will require throwing out almost a hundred years of changes in the wrong direction that resulted in concentrating and consolidating economic power in the United States in the hands of a few people who do not have the public interest of Americans foremost in their minds. It means fighting entrenched interests in the American banking, military, and business institutions and their international allies. Obama’s critics are simply saying he shows no sign of intending to fight those battles or that war, none at all. by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:42:33 AM (0+)
|
|
Flawed Analogy
The analogy is flawed. I have no doubt that a great leader can sometimes come into an organization and transform the culture through the power of his/her leadership. I also agree with those who have shared their corporate experiences, that this is rare. But Obama did not come into an organization where he might try to use his transformational abilities to change the culture into something wonderful. He is choosing the organization's members. If you have the ability to choose those within your organization, why would you choose those that you think you might be able to transform with your leadership abilities? Why not choose those who are already in synch with your promises and your agenda? by Bob Trowbridge (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 70 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:13:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Because He's Not Choosing Them
Would a military leader "choose" spies, turncoats and committed enemies, and welcome them to his inner court?! C'MON!!! Does a builder select wormy, rotten lumber for his foundation and framework?! I think not! Someone is picking the poison here, and it will not go well. Now, you all must THINK~ by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:00:06 PM (0+)
|
|
I'm not surprised to see so many take issue with the idea...
of Obama as a great leader. I'm also not surprised to see that so many understand leadership to be an authoritarian concept. The reason is that great leaders are extraordinarily rare, and particularly so in large organizations where one normally gets a large sample in the parade of what passes for leadership. Mostly, its just CYA, authoritarian defense of their turf and availing themselves of the anonymity of the large organization. None of this has anything to do with leadership. Leadership has to do with choosing the correct course for an organization to reach a clear goal and effectively communicating the direction to those who support the leader. That choice cannot be made without consulting those in support, and having support that is competent and knowledgeable is also essential. The reason that I have backed Barack Obama since the first time I heard him make an argument in his senate primary debate is that I recognized these essential qualities then. He spoke clearly of practical choices he made (including opposition to the Iraq War) without falling back on the normal cliches that the rest of the field were bleating. His response to every question was reasoned and measured and demonstrative of good judgment. I fully expect that a change to that style of leadership is a change he will make. The criticism of the left with their efforts to force Obama into foolish commitments with the criticism of the right and their propagandistic pipe dream of Obama the conservative are probably all one needs to see to conclude that Obama's intent is to govern practically rather than ideologically. I say, "Hear, hear," to that having had enough of ideological government over the past eight years. When the lefties and the righties are crying out, demanding to know exactly what Barack Obama is, I say to them all, "He is the next President of the United States of America." by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:34:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Look to the following for the correct revision of my comment
Thanks by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:38:06 PM (0+)
|
|
I'm not surprised to see so many take issue with the idea...
of Obama as a great leader. I'm also not surprised to see that so many understand leadership to be an authoritarian concept. The reason is that great leaders are extraordinarily rare, and particularly so in large organizations where one normally gets a large sample in the parade of what passes for leadership. Mostly, its just CYA, authoritarian defense of their turf and availing themselves of the anonymity of the large organization. None of this has anything to do with leadership. Leadership has to do with choosing the correct course for an organization to reach a clear goal and effectively communicating the direction to those who support the leader. That choice cannot be made without consulting those in support, and having support that is competent and knowledgeable is also essential. The reason that I have backed Barack Obama since the first time I heard him make an argument in his senate primary debate is that I recognized these essential qualities then. He spoke clearly of practical choices he made (including opposition to the Iraq War) without falling back on the normal cliches that the rest of the field were bleating. His response to every question was reasoned and measured and demonstrative of good judgment. I fully expect that a change to that style of leadership is not a change he will make. The criticism of the left with their efforts to force Obama into foolish commitments with the criticism of the right and their propagandistic pipe dream of Obama the conservative are probably all one needs to see to conclude that Obama's intent is to govern practically rather than ideologically. I say, "Hear, hear," to that, having had enough of ideological government over the past eight years. When the lefties and the righties are crying out, demanding to know exactly what Barack Obama is, I say to them all, "He is the next President of the United States of America." by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:36:33 PM (0+)
|
|
dear john,
John got one thing right. It is not a right thing and it is not a left thing. Obama will ‘govern’ “practically” ….. One point is that Obama is not the ‘govern’ - ing entity. The Republic as it was founded is to be of, by and for the people. Not Obama. YOU. A second point is that we are indeed ‘governed’ and the Republic is dead. But the folks who ‘govern’ are far above Obama. ‘They’ are the Rockefellers, the Gates, the Morgans the MIC and even some folks from across the sea as well as all the other folks that some label as the ‘elites’. When they govern, ‘they’ choose the middle management that ‘will’ be elected every four years. And that four year circus is to give you proles out there your delusion of democracy. To reinforce your fixed false belief that you actually ‘have a say’ in who assumes control of middle management -- what and who you think is the ‘leader’. Can’t help it if you and other proles like Stephen falsely believe the ‘system’ exists as presented and actually works. What I find perfectly reasonable is that, given the propaganda the proles are fed daily, they actually believe the Republic still exists. P. T. Barnum was right. What is also perfectly predictable is that not one of the obamaniacs takes the time to look at what the current incarnation of the ‘leader’ has stated he intends to do. This was well-covered by others above. And what he has certainly endorsed is a continuation of the Empire (which is what the U.S. actually is) with the same goals. the same means, the same techniques, the same strategy and the same evil. I know it is hard for many who post here to grasp that all of their presuppositions about what this country is, what it is doing and why it needs to be seriously re-examined. It is also a foregone conclusion that most will not use their brains to do so. They hear the words ‘cognitive dissonance’ and the words pass through one ear and out the other … with no cognitive process of any kind except ‘denial’ influencing their progress. It is rather like a Kuhnian paradigm shift … they simply can’t handle it and insist upon remaining in a Ptolemaic world. When folks like John make their ‘arguments’ it is clear that they simply don’t get it. Because, after all, it is not a pleasant reality through which one must travel and it’s always easier to remain within the delusion that what you were taught, what you were carefully taught to believe about this country, about how it ‘choses’ it ‘leaders’, about its essential nature and structure … is real. The Johns of the world cannot escape the paradigm. Unless and until you can ‘get’ those simple facts, you’re never going to comprehend what you might do about it. And because you don’t and can’t get it... all will continue as before. And so the wars for global hegemony will continue. The economic. political and actual enslavement of the American public will continue and increase. The manipulation of their and their children’s minds will continue unabated. And the proles will chant... all hail Obama. Obama will save us. He is different. Terrorized and infantalized … the chant will continue. George Carlin knew.…. "The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying – lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else," ranted the comedian whose routines were studied in graduate schools. "But I'll tell you what they don't want," Carlin continued. "They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 f*cking years ago. You know what they want? Obedient workers – people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your f*cking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this f*cking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club." “Carlin did not want Americans to get involved with the system. He wanted citizens to get angry enough to remake the system.” But, not to worry... Proles never get angry. They never get upset. The never truly question. They just remain optimistic and go along. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:55:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks richard...
...you just said what i was WAY too tired to say. The celebrity gossip never ends. It keeps them entertained. by waldopaper (15 articles, 3 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 609 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:05:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Let me second that Richard
Thanks. To those who believe Barack Obama is going to some how bring "Change" to this country? You've got a better chance at winning The Noble Peace prize. Eventually the sheople will see though this faux veneer. Regretfully, our moribund America has already "run into a brick wall." Sadly, most credulous Americans are simply too ignorant to understand, they simply turn a blind eye to the Billions borrowed each week from China and Japan which fund these illegal and horrid wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the attacks of September 11. Money I might add that could have been put to a much better and peaceful use here at home, such as rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure? That's makes too much sense though. So where's the outrage? There's none. This going along to get along ain't gonna mend our broken America. It's not! And if you'd like the true cost of this Iraq war I highly recommend Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes "Three Trillion Dollar War." And why it is that President-elect Barack Obama is determined to send more troops to Afghanistan? So we continue to bomb these poor innocent people, killing and maiming countless men, woman and children. In doing so, littering their country with yet more deadly depleted uranium. For what? Surly it couldn't have anything to do with the Caspian pipeline could it? Naaa! I'm being too cynical. Oh, I forgot, we gotta get Osama Bin forgotten. Isn't that what Obama said he wants to do? That's "Change?" Oy! Vey. And we wonder why our country is so dam screwed up. Instead, we have yet more war hawks heading for DC. More senseless death and destruction while the credulous Americans, many of whom who are too preoccupied watching football, gorging themselves with their favorite beverages and foods. "Hey, I can't see the carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq so why in the heck should I care?" Now pass me the chips. The song remains the same, only the faces have changed. by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:25:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: thanks Munich,
and what you say is precisely true. And I wonder each day, what do I have to do, what can I do, to help preserve or regain a piece of the world in which my son can thrive and live? Not being one of the 'elites' ... I simply cannot figure out a solution for him. It really doesn't matter for me anymore. Just for him. And for all of our children. Without changing the basic structure of the Empire ... actually, eliminating the 'Empire' (and all it entails), there can be no substantive change. And no substantive hope. By design, Americans (and others) are precluded from achieving the awareness (of just how truly terrible their circumstance is) that is prerequisite for them finally recognizing the need to act. They will never act. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:13:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So, are you kids gonna go at them with guns,...
or do you prefer to storm the Bastille with pitchforks and scythes? Maybe I am living in a world that I veil from myself by clinging to the illusion of change by electoral politics. We'll suppose that I am. We'll stipulate that the political landscape is as dark and hopeless as you present it. We'll assume that there are, indeed, plutocratic puppeteers whose nefarious reach allows them to control everything, and keep most of the six billion folks in the world unaware of their perfidy. Then what? How shall it be dealt with? Uprising? Armed conflict? Guerilla war? A united front of griping? Refusing to eat our vegetables? The reason I don't buy a lot of this grand conspiracy is that is seems so much like it started with the conclusion and worked its way back through the proof. By that standard, I can show that John F, Kennedy was murdered because I got a C on my sixth grade spelling test the day before. That doesn't make it true, no matter how elaborately I weave the supporting web. It is, at its essence, just undisciplined speculation, no more. Yes, I've heard how the conspirators use their ruthless power and fabulous wealth to keep the coverup lid on things, and have done so for most of the past century at least. But I still think that the only way two people can keep a secret for that long is if one of them is dead and the other mute. In any event, until I see irrefutable proof of the worldwide conspiracy, I'm going to have to continue to cling to my illusions. But thanks for the attempt at illumination. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:47:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Have you looked?
" ... until I see irrefutable proof of the worldwide conspiracy, I'm going to have to continue to cling to my illusions." Nice of you to admit you're delusional and that you'll cling to these illusions. Certainly makes my job easier. I have to assume you haven't looked very hard, if at all, into the proof of a worldwide conspiracy because not only is it all around us, many of those involved in it have written books about it, and expressed their intentions in articles and speeches, and with this wonderful tool called the Internet is very easy to research. So keep clinging to your illusions, as for the rest of us that deal in a more realistic approach to reality, we'll believe in facts and what we see, hear and touch. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:34:11 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And...
I still haven't heard what you intend to do to counter this conspiracy you're selling. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:18:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: John, if you read my last answer to Rob ...
... I stated that since the situation is beyond normally preconceived solutions that something else needs to be done to address it. And to be quit honest, I don't know what those solutions are outside of looking back in history and seeing that desperate times call for desperate measures. All this talk of whom Obama should pick is akin to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. This ship is sinking. And the ones that are making it sink are keeping alot of people busy doing everything but recognizing that while we're rearranging the chairs, they're lobing torpedoes into the ship. I refer to JFK's statement: "Those that make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." After 06' election it should have been clear to everyone that neither party gives a sh*t about us. As a people we should have simply turned our backs on them as surely as they did us. But, unfortunately once again, people tuned into their TV's, listened to the lies and fell yet again for the bullshit. We had a chance, slim that is was, to rise-up to the occasion and tell the establishment that we're not going to take it anymore. But no, false pragmatism in the form of propaganda infested the minds of otherwise sensible people. The system is broke beyond repair, that should be self-evident. If we could have picked-up that mantle and rejected the Elites dominance and control, we may have had a change for a peaceful revolution. I fear that time has passed and as things deteriorate on an increasingly rapid scale we're going to be forced into defending ourselves against the coming tyranny by any means possible. I'm sorry, I don't have any easy answers. I wish I did. We've used-up easy. From here on out it's going to be extremely hard, and frankly with so many still stuck on believing what they're told by a system that is hell bent on killing them, I don't hold out much hope of how things are going to turn out. I see alot of death, more than we've ever faced. You say you don't believe in conspiracy, I would ask you to watch this clip on CODEX, and Google: Emperor of the City II, Terrorstorm, Endgame, America: Freedom to Fascism, Project Paper-clip and so many other documentaries and try to make yourself believe that these things don't exist. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634 So, yes, I have my guns, I'm planting my gardens, securing water, trying to find out which of those I can trust, preparing for the worst and still leaving a little hope that things won't get as bad as I believe they will become. But that hope fades by the day when I witness those that refuse to see things as they are, and not as they would wish them to be. And in the meantime I will still keep searching for a peaceful solution as they force a violent one upon us. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:54:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: True that ...
There are so many times Richard says what I'm thinking that it would seem redundancy to post anything myself other than - "true that". by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:37:47 AM (0+)
|
|
and the drum roll
Mister Whittim said the most powerful loss we all feel. The loss of our Republic for once it stood. Our freedoms from the first, second, third and fourth, etc. amendments have been so intruded upon, they no longer exist. What Obama hasn't done is appoint some "anti" Patriot Act officials which have been named several times here on these threads. Feingold, Kucinich, and many others that voted against the Iraq war and against the Patriot Act and BAILOUT. Now just think, for a minute. Bush shoved through all these Acts that grant dictatorship in reality. Do you really believe that when the rubber meets the road that Obama won't use these great powers given our "Decider", President or what ever they call them. I urge those that haven't read about the PNAC (Project for New American Century) to do so as an urgency, top of the list. It's main purpose is to install, turn our country into a "One party country". Don't you hear and see this taking place? per "newspeak" type propaganda? He's more to the right they keep saying. McCain was more to the center..pull here and pull there and before you know it, we are all just "one party" all trying to get along like children CONTROLLED on a playground. Just ask Vietnam how that One Party country government that WE installed is working out for them? Hey, you don't have to worry about the politcal fighting...just OBEY the corporate KING and you will be a fine sheeple slave. Read Gerry Spence's book "From Freedom to Slavery"(published 1993). He hit the nail on the head along time ago. Hmmm, just wonder what right/left/center SCOTUS Justice appointments big O will go with, or will he just keep the conservative judges a rolling in? by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:26:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: After having seen
Obama's cabinet and transition appointments I am beginning to dread his first appointments to the Supremes. by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM (0+)
|
|
I repeat my comment from above
because I want the reaction, I want the position identified. I am very concerned about the way things are going on. Here is my diary entry on the subject: Werewolves in Power? I admire Mr.Leser for his loyalty to the cause but his articles more and more remind of self-convincing. I am sorry, Mr. Leser, cadres do decide everything, And in this particular case the people in the Cabinet reflect the desires and orders of those who apparently put Obama to power. We now see their goals- those are reflected in the unfortunate, totally useless opportunists coming to power, those who had lied so much that some of them cannot even look straight anymore like Hillary or Geithner ( he even looks grotesque). You can use the old Scottish verse here,' Yes , his eyes are truthful- they truthfully say that he is a damned crook.' Moreover, leadership matters, of course but culture works and in such country like USA the system presumes that no matter what a President is he follows the goals of those who put him there. I hope we are not naive people and understand that there IS a group and they did put a lot of money in Obama for a reason of their own. Now we see what they want. We see that through the people coming to power, through the party machine, through the KINDS of people reaping the harvest. IT IS A COVEN! No matter how we sympathise with Obama as a human being we MUST state the fact- the group which put him to power does not seem to have good and honorable motives. BTW, I suggested Vincent Bugliosi for AG, one of the several diplomats who resigned in prrotest against Iraq war to be a Secretary of State. I suggested a cabinet ot be young and I suggested to demolish the DHS- thus saving a LOT of money. That is for Rob Kall. Now, one more thing- Zbig B is nuts. He has been nuts since birthday. And his books are the books written by a nut. There are more and more nutty bastards in our power structure. BTW, if Obama is so much for peace why is that he had not even tried to meet Cindy Sheehan? Remember how Hillary treated her? Some of our folks here have short memories, really. Folks, I want to remind to all of you that you have a duty to the truth. Sympathy or not so far NONE of the Cabinet appointees worth a penny. NONE. You better say that loud and clear. If you now hide behind self-convincing and all those stories you will betray all the results of your struggle with the Bushies. The transfer from CABAL to COVEN is not what we anticipated. Here, I said it. And one more thing- for Steve- I had been working for a Fortune -500 Company for 18 years. Steve, corporation is not a democracy. Better use some other examples. Or better acknowledge the truth, please. With that adjourn by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:24:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mark, thanks for making that distinction ...
... between a corporation and a representative government. Leser is so ingrained with structured thinking he couldn't open up his mind if you split his head open with an ax. To him equating how a head of a company effects how things run is in direct opposition as to how a government should run. It is we that should be dictating to our representatives not the other way around. But Leser and others have been so long on the farm they've become the farm. Going into the city is out of the question, and all those of us that have left the farm are to looked upon as dumb, out of touch, or whatever ufanism they wish to use. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:10:16 AM (0+)
|
|
The President who will he become?
In my mind, Bush was a puppet of the rich and powerful and everything he did was for their benefit. He believed the Ronald Reagan ideology that providing economic benefits to big corporations would trickle down to produce jobs (for Americans). In short his idealogical beliefs drove his actions. At this time I believe Obama saw and understood that corporate profits are not necessarily beneficial for America and Americans. I believe that he is going into his Presidency with the intention of doing what is beneficial for all Americans. His background as a community organizer was to get people to work together to accomplish a goal that the community wants to achieve. I believe that he thinks he can bring together a group of people (his cabinet) who are capable of getting things done and who will work hard to accomplish the goals that are chosen. As a Constitutional scholar he looks for the peoples representatives to make wise choices and encourages the people to become more involved in the politics of change. In short, I see Obama as an idealist that looks to a bright future and as a pragmatist that understands that positive change requires making good choices and having a dedicated group (his cabinet) that will work hard to get choices accomplished. My question is after his entire cabinet is chosen does he have a group that: (1) represents a broad range of viewpoints (needed to make good choices). (2) have enough force (directed energy) to accomplish change. (3) not let their own egos interfere with accomplishing the task at hand. It remains to be seen as to whether or not Obama is able to motivate his team to give thoughtful discussion and then to fully support whatever decisions are adopted. By choosing strong personalities he can get a team that can bring all sides of an issue out in the open and make better, more intelligent, decisions. After decisions are made will they give their full committment to carrying out the decided tasks or will ego interfere. In addition to his cabinet how well can Obama and his team motivate Congress to support his goals. His idea to get the American people involved in order to get their representatives to support the direction and goals even when those are at odds with big corporate money and influence will be the big change needed to restore the American Republic. by Philip Pease (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 209 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:10:45 AM (0+)
|
|
help !
That last post by Philip has just induced me to scream outloud and scare the hell outta my two cats who went sliding and skidding over the hardwood floor in sheer panic. So many have talked about who really has the power over us. Mr M, the two Richards, boomerang and others but you guys don't seem to get it. Perhaps this will help. Did you see the movie the "matrix'? When I watched that movie I thought it was science fiction with a comment on society. But, that was before my great awakening after 9/11 and my journey down the rabbit hole commenced. Since then, I feel just like Neo after he swallowed the red pill and saw,for the first time, who was really pulling the strings. That movie has an entirely new meaning to me now. Obviously the Wachowski brothers who wrote it had done some research into "those that rule". Once you open your mind and really open your eyes and do some reading into what many of us have been talking about, you will never see the world quite the same way again. You can't. It's like walking around not knowing you need glasses, getting that eye exam and putting those glasses on for the first time. Damn, the things you can see so clearly now that you were unaware of before ! THe U.S. doesn't belong to you and me. It has been taken over in a bloodless coup by the wealthiest of the wealthy as Richard mentioned. Obama has been chosen by these people. Didn't you ever wonder how he came up in the ranks so damn fast? Doesn't it bother you that criminals like Kissinger are extolling his virtues and Zbignew Brezinski is his advisor? (Have you read Zbig's book "the grand chessboard"?) If not, ask yourself, why not and stop making excuses. As for what we can do about it. We are doing all we can in our power right now. Passing out literature, dvds and blogging to pass on what we have learned that so many americans have no knowledge of whatsoever. We can take our country back but only if we have the numbers. A complacent bunch of sheeple who just want to cheerlead because one from their team has the ball isn't gonna get us there. Keep in mind Germany in the 30's. Those people thought their leader was a man of the people who could do no wrong and would lead them to the promised land. And before you go saying I'm comparing Obama to Hitler I am NOT. I'm just saying that people hungry for something different can be easily fooled by a charismatic "leader". Those that rule, the elites, fear us. Why? Because in the end, there are more of us than them. But we need all of you to join us to defeat the real terrorists. This country wasn't founded by men who went along to get along. They spoke out and were critical and willing to fight for their beliefs and freedoms. Knowledge is power. Get your learn on and join the new american revolution. If you wait for Obama to start acting like the liberal you suspect him to be, it will be too late. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM (0+)
|
|
And another thing
I said I would answer the question and not micromanage Obama's personnel choice. However, I think no one has said much about Bill Richardson. Think meltdown, global economic crisis, and stimulus. I applaud the appointment of a recognized diplomat for Commerce, considering that world trade agreements will be central to much global consensus building. Personally, next to AG, I believe Labor (right from Perkins on down) is one of the most important cabinet posts. And coupled to that is whether Commerce will stay away from US Chamber of Commerce pitches. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:16:22 PM (0+)
|
|
at the end of a long train of comments
i like your analogy to your old boss, mr. lutchen. i think it is apt. look at what the general atmosphere in the country was post-election day. the same horrible news, war, economy, you name it. and yet people felt hopeful for the first time. i know this is true because i did, too. and i consider myself pretty cynical. let's give the guy a chance. i agree that he couldn't have appointed green newbies. so what does that leaves us with? let us hope that he fills the post with the same inspirational style that mr. lutchen did. we will all be better off for it.after eight long, dark years, we deserve to feel more confident, more hopeful. by Joan Brunwasser (206 articles, 3757 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 751 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:59:38 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
