Warning: Discussing politics can cause......
- Thread starter BobD
- Start date
- Messages
- 20,894
- Reaction score
- 8,126
The sad thing is that most people believe there are serious differences between the parties. It's just window dressing. As Lax pointed out, they're all corporatists interested in protecting their own jobs and increasing their own influence.
So Rhode, it may be perfectly logical to "vote the bums out", provided one is first educated on what kinds of policies could minimize the influence of special interests in Washington, and then voting against anyone who opposes them (i.e. everyone).
So Rhode, it may be perfectly logical to "vote the bums out", provided one is first educated on what kinds of policies could minimize the influence of special interests in Washington, and then voting against anyone who opposes them (i.e. everyone).
- Messages
- 20,894
- Reaction score
- 8,126
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
Agreed, and reps.
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
hah no I got it and that has always been a valid argument. But what happens when it gets to the point where we can't even manage to pay the interest on the debt?
- Messages
- 20,894
- Reaction score
- 8,126
Reps.
I've converted my parents after a long difficult battle. The key was getting them to realize that advocating one flavor of government paternalism while furiously denouncing another is kinda hypocritical. Just a little bit.
irishff1014
Well-known member
- Messages
- 26,509
- Reaction score
- 9,285
It doesn't matter anymore to them that these positions they hold are important. Once they get out all the smaller governments and work their way up they lose their heads.
Carlyle Javar Holiday
Banned
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 16
Ron Paul
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
I'm either a Democrat who believes in states' rights, being fiscally responsible, and could care less about unions.....or I'm a Republican who doesn't mind responsible regulation and taxes, doesn't think the Defense Department should have carte blanche, and wants to see the Drug War ended.
G
GBdomer
Guest
Ralph Nader for life.
- Messages
- 16,041
- Reaction score
- 5,491
So if we have a problem where these people are just trying to maintain their jobs and their income, why don't we as voters decide how much they get paid each year? Ya know? **** it.
I've been proud to bring you a 4:14 AM post.
I've been proud to bring you a 4:14 AM post.
no.1IrishFan
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,279
- Reaction score
- 421
Maybe not intentionally but MANY people do unintentionally, based on party lines. I honestly don't believe that people only vote for candidates based upon their intentions to better this country. I think that if people would stop looking at a candidate as red or blue, they might vote quite differently.
Although we see Mr. Rubio in two different lights, it's not his affiliation that has me supporting him.
M
Me2SouthBend
Guest
I'm pretty much in line w this kind of thinking. That would be called an Independent in my book. Voting strictly on party lines causes much of the gridlock we have today. When one party says that their number 1 stated goal is to make the current President a one term President and the other party spends money w seemingly no regard for long term effects, we end up where we are today. In the last few years it seems the word compromise has become taboo in Washington. Vote for those that are doing a good job or you believe will do a good job whether they have an R, D or I next to their name. Don't bitch if you don't vote.
I hate to say it but your (I'm Canadian) politicians, are owned by special interest group and stopped making decisions that would benefit the people a long long time ago. You're economy is no longer based on free enterprise nor is it capitalism anymore. The spirit that once made the US great has been gone for quite some time and is only now starting to be felt after having been hidden by a what has become an almost insurmountable wall of debt. Unfortunately, very few of your politicians seem interested and are too short sighted to make the tough changes that could bring you back on course. That being said, you're still better off than most...
Last edited:
Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
- Messages
- 8,965
- Reaction score
- 6,453
I can't imagine why anyone would want to label themselves a "Democrat" or a "Republican". Especially not intelligent persons who can think for themselves. Any restriction that one places on their own mind and decision-making as a citizen is BAD citizenship. Similarly, abrogating one's responsibility to become informed is, in my Cosmos, even immoral. What's the gift of mind, soul, and free will for anyway?
dshans said it a few posts earlier. What this did for me however was rather shocking. By being a scientist, and actually accumulating factual knowledge about the basis of certain significant issues involving technological systems and their effects, I discovered a non-bullsh!t awareness of just who was lying and how profoundly those lies were being spread. Sadly, this turned me into not only an independent, searching usually in vain for ANY politician who understood these complexities, but a not-welcome-at-dinner-parties radical.
The curse of knowledge is that you know something.
Then you have the moral responsibility to quit glazing your eyes and do something about it.
dshans said it a few posts earlier. What this did for me however was rather shocking. By being a scientist, and actually accumulating factual knowledge about the basis of certain significant issues involving technological systems and their effects, I discovered a non-bullsh!t awareness of just who was lying and how profoundly those lies were being spread. Sadly, this turned me into not only an independent, searching usually in vain for ANY politician who understood these complexities, but a not-welcome-at-dinner-parties radical.
The curse of knowledge is that you know something.
Then you have the moral responsibility to quit glazing your eyes and do something about it.
RallySonsOfND
All-Snub Team Snubbed
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 91
Herman Cain 2012.
It's about time we get some BUSINESSMEN in office. No more career politicians.
It's about time we get some BUSINESSMEN in office. No more career politicians.
NoJusticeNoPeace
Banned
- Messages
- 7,068
- Reaction score
- 410
RDU Irish
Catholics vs. Cousins
- Messages
- 8,622
- Reaction score
- 2,722
Wow, where to start. Sorry in advance for the long post, RallySonsofND hits it more suscinctly.
Drug war is stupid, stop criminalizing a health issue and filling our prisons with self destructive people. Then tax the hell out of it like cigarettes and alcohol and bring a black market into the real economy. If you run around high as a kite your kids will be taken away and put up for adoption, just like if you are a drunken mess.
Tax code puts too much power in Congress. A simple flat structure and I would link all rates together so that all go up or down equally so Congress can't pick and choose. 9% sales tax, 9% income tax, 9% corporate tax. (I would add a 9% dividend, capital gain and estate tax). This also eliminates PAYROLL TAXES (Social Security and Medicare - more later) which most people don't even realize their employer doubles their payment for a total government take of 14%+ on wages. Of course, "conservatives" say poor pay no tax, ignoring payroll taxes.
Confusing part to numbskull American Idol Americans is the PREBATE. All CITIZENS get a monthly check to offset a minimal amount of consumption, offsetting taxes on goods purchased and income taxed for a certain level. Also provides a marginal disadvantage to non-citizens in the US (legal or illegal).
Social Security and Medicare have never been an "investment", current workers pay for current recipients. Just change the dumb retirement age, increasing one year for every 5 years below age 50. (i.e. 66 over 50, 67 for 45-50, 68 for 40-45..... 72 for 20-25). Nobody in their 20s or 30s actually thinks it will be there anyway and they have plenty of time to plan on the change. Boom fixed, wasn't that hard?
The SS and Medicare "surplus" has been spent away so that the "trust fund" owns about 1/3rd of the national debt. To me that means we printed that money along with the $1 trillion owned by the Fed. Just write it off and our debt and interest costs are no longer so intimidating. All we are doing is printing money, this just admits it outright. Step one is admitting you have a problem right?
Department of Education - bu-bye. No need for a Federal department of Education. State issue only. If a state wants to give tax breaks for home school and private school, more power to them.
Get rid of the minimum wage. Seriously, this is just stupid. Why should someone in Idaho have the same minimum wage as NYC? Why should a 14 year old get paid as much as a 50 year old at minimum? The fact high school kids can go off and make $7 an hour with zero skills and responsibilities is absurd. That is $14,000 per year for a 40 hour per week job (taking two weeks off). If I would have skipped college and worked 60 hours per week (like most professional, educated people) at a minimum wage job, I would be making $21,000 per year. Add in my wife working the same hours and we are raking in $42,000 per year making the minimum the government requires of our employers (we would obviously have two jobs each since overtime REGULATION cuts our ability to do more for one employer).
Energy, so damn simple, drill everywhere. Get that dirty, awful coal/oil/whatever out of the ground and use it before something is invented to make it obsolete. These are use it or lose it natural resources! Cheap and abundant energy promotes economic growth. Strong economy = improved standard of living, cleaner environment, feeding the poor, national security..... It's the economy stupid! Plus, why do we trust Nigeria to get oil out cleaner and safer than the US?
Environment - Shut up about global warming. It is junk science, get educated if you disagree. Always something threatening our planet, how else do you get grants to do your research. I have enormous respect for Mother Nature (i.e. God) building a self correcting planet to sustain life. Read a book and realize the last Ice Age was not stopped by SUVs or dinosaur farts. Climate changes, it is a natural phenomenon and it is incredibly egocentric to believe we are really destroying this planet with CARBON of all elements!
Drug war is stupid, stop criminalizing a health issue and filling our prisons with self destructive people. Then tax the hell out of it like cigarettes and alcohol and bring a black market into the real economy. If you run around high as a kite your kids will be taken away and put up for adoption, just like if you are a drunken mess.
Tax code puts too much power in Congress. A simple flat structure and I would link all rates together so that all go up or down equally so Congress can't pick and choose. 9% sales tax, 9% income tax, 9% corporate tax. (I would add a 9% dividend, capital gain and estate tax). This also eliminates PAYROLL TAXES (Social Security and Medicare - more later) which most people don't even realize their employer doubles their payment for a total government take of 14%+ on wages. Of course, "conservatives" say poor pay no tax, ignoring payroll taxes.
Confusing part to numbskull American Idol Americans is the PREBATE. All CITIZENS get a monthly check to offset a minimal amount of consumption, offsetting taxes on goods purchased and income taxed for a certain level. Also provides a marginal disadvantage to non-citizens in the US (legal or illegal).
Social Security and Medicare have never been an "investment", current workers pay for current recipients. Just change the dumb retirement age, increasing one year for every 5 years below age 50. (i.e. 66 over 50, 67 for 45-50, 68 for 40-45..... 72 for 20-25). Nobody in their 20s or 30s actually thinks it will be there anyway and they have plenty of time to plan on the change. Boom fixed, wasn't that hard?
The SS and Medicare "surplus" has been spent away so that the "trust fund" owns about 1/3rd of the national debt. To me that means we printed that money along with the $1 trillion owned by the Fed. Just write it off and our debt and interest costs are no longer so intimidating. All we are doing is printing money, this just admits it outright. Step one is admitting you have a problem right?
Department of Education - bu-bye. No need for a Federal department of Education. State issue only. If a state wants to give tax breaks for home school and private school, more power to them.
Get rid of the minimum wage. Seriously, this is just stupid. Why should someone in Idaho have the same minimum wage as NYC? Why should a 14 year old get paid as much as a 50 year old at minimum? The fact high school kids can go off and make $7 an hour with zero skills and responsibilities is absurd. That is $14,000 per year for a 40 hour per week job (taking two weeks off). If I would have skipped college and worked 60 hours per week (like most professional, educated people) at a minimum wage job, I would be making $21,000 per year. Add in my wife working the same hours and we are raking in $42,000 per year making the minimum the government requires of our employers (we would obviously have two jobs each since overtime REGULATION cuts our ability to do more for one employer).
Energy, so damn simple, drill everywhere. Get that dirty, awful coal/oil/whatever out of the ground and use it before something is invented to make it obsolete. These are use it or lose it natural resources! Cheap and abundant energy promotes economic growth. Strong economy = improved standard of living, cleaner environment, feeding the poor, national security..... It's the economy stupid! Plus, why do we trust Nigeria to get oil out cleaner and safer than the US?
Environment - Shut up about global warming. It is junk science, get educated if you disagree. Always something threatening our planet, how else do you get grants to do your research. I have enormous respect for Mother Nature (i.e. God) building a self correcting planet to sustain life. Read a book and realize the last Ice Age was not stopped by SUVs or dinosaur farts. Climate changes, it is a natural phenomenon and it is incredibly egocentric to believe we are really destroying this planet with CARBON of all elements!
- Messages
- 37,544
- Reaction score
- 28,990
Love this post. I don't know if I read it close enough to say I agree with everything, but yeah... good ****.
By any chance have you read the FairTax Book? I think you would like it. The FairTax Book - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NDFANnSouthWest
We are ND!
- Messages
- 4,806
- Reaction score
- 199
No person/politician is perfect however, the one person I thought that could run the country is Colin Powell. You can agree or disagree- however please look below at his rules for leadership.
Source: Quotations from Chairman Powell: A Leadership Primer - Colin Powell quote, Colin Powell Leadership
Quotations from Chairman Powell: A Leadership Primer
By Oren Harari
Part 1 of 2
I have little interest in celebrities. If I were the rule rather than the exception, Hard Copy and People would go out of business fast. So, earlier this year, when General Colin Powell made the transformation from a human being to phenomenon, and when his nation-wide book-signing tour became a happening to frenzied masses—well, I paid little attention. I didn't buy the book, either.
Then I found myself on the same speaking platform as Powell. Charitably speaking, I was the opening act in front of 1,000 bankers who were there to see the main show. I stuck around to see it, too, and frankly, I was impressed. Powell was witty, erudite, insightful, articulate and self-deprecating. All commendable virtues. So I decided to buy the book. Am I glad I did! My American Journey is a marvelous work, and it provided an unexpected payoff. As I read it, I started to underline noteworthy phrases and sentences and soon realized that what I was underlining were gems of wisdom regarding effective leadership. In fact, when I was finished, I was ready to toss out every leadership book in my library.
I'd like to share with you a compendium of advice from the general. With the exception of the occasional paraphrase to keep grammatical consistency (which will be noted), I present Powell's words verbatim in bold—18 priceless lessons, to be exact. After each quotation from General Powell, I attach my own civilian commentary which I hope you will find useful.
LESSON ONE
"Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off."
Good leadership involves responsibility to the welfare of the group, which means that some people will get angry at your actions and decisions. It's inevitable if you're honourable. Trying to get everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity: You'll avoid the tough decisions, you'll avoid confronting the people who need to be confronted, and you'll avoid offering differential rewards based on differential performance because some people might get upset. Ironically, by procrastinating on the difficult choices, by trying not to get anyone mad, and by treating everyone equally "nicely" regardless of their contributions, you'll simply ensure that the only people you'll wind up angering are the most creative and productive people in the organization.
LESSON TWO
"The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership."
If this were a litmus test, the majority of CEOs would fail. One, they build so many barriers to upward communication that the very idea of someone lower in the hierarchy looking up to the leader for help is ludicrous. Two, the corporate culture they foster often defines asking for help as weakness or failure, so people cover up their gaps, and the organization suffers accordingly. Real leaders make themselves accessible and available. They show concern for the efforts and challenges faced by underlings—even as they demand high standards. Accordingly, they are more likely to create an environment where problem analysis replaces blame.
LESSON THREE
"Don't be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world."
Small companies and start-ups don't have the time for analytically detached experts. They don't have the money to subsidize lofty elite, either. The president answers the phone and drives the truck when necessary; everyone on the payroll visibly produces and contributes to bottom-line results or they're history. But as companies get bigger, they often forget who "brung them to the dance": things like all-hands involvement, egalitarianism, informality, market intimacy, daring, risk, speed, agility. Policies that emanate from ivory towers often have an adverse impact on the people out in the field who are fighting the wars or bringing in the revenues. Real leaders are vigilant—and combative—in the face of these trends.
LESSON FOUR
"Don't be afraid to challenge the pros, even in their own backyard."
Learn from the pros, observe them, seek them out as mentors and partners. But remember that even the pros may have leveled out in terms of their learning and skills. Sometimes even the pros can become complacent and lazy. Leadership does not emerge from blind obedience to anyone. Xerox's Barry Rand was right on target when he warned his people that if you have a yes-man working for you, one of you is redundant. Good leadership encourages everyone's evolution.
LESSON FIVE
"Never neglect details. When everyone's mind is dulled or distracted the leader must be doubly vigilant."
Strategy equals execution. All the great ideas and visions in the world are worthless if they can't be implemented rapidly and efficiently. Good leaders delegate and empower others liberally, but they pay attention to details, every day. (Think about supreme athletic coaches like Jimmy Johnson, Pat Riley and Tony La Russa). Bad ones—even those who fancy themselves as progressive "visionaries"—think they're somehow "above" operational details. Paradoxically, good leaders understand something else: An obsessive routine in carrying out the details begets conformity and complacency, which in turn dulls everyone's mind. That is why even as they pay attention to details, they continually encourage people to challenge the process. They implicitly understand the sentiment of CEO-leaders like Quad/Graphic's Harry Quadracchi, Oticon's Lars Kolind and the late Bill McGowan of MCI, who all independently asserted that the job of a leader is not to be the chief organizer, but the chief dis-organizer.
LESSON SIX
"You don't know what you can get away with until you try."
You know the expression "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission?" Well, it's true. Good leaders don't wait for official blessing to try things out. They're prudent, not reckless. But they also realize a fact of life in most organizations: If you ask enough people for permission, you'll inevitably come up against someone who believes his job is to say "no." So the moral is, don't ask. I'm serious. In my own research with colleague Linda Mukai, we found that less effective middle managers endorsed the sentiment, "If I haven't explicitly been told 'yes,' I can't do it," whereas the good ones believed "If I haven't explicitly been told 'no,' I can." There's a world of difference between these two points of view.
LESSON SEVEN
"Keep looking below surface appearances. Don't shrink from doing so (just) because you might not like what you find."
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the slogan of the complacent, the arrogant or the scared. It's an excuse for inaction, a call to non-arms. It's a mindset that assumes (or hopes) that today's realities will continue tomorrow in a tidy, linear and predictable fashion. Pure fantasy. In this sort of culture, you won't find people who proactively take steps to solve problems as they emerge. Here's a little tip: Don't invest in these companies.
LESSON EIGHT
"Organization doesn't really accomplish anything. Plans don't accomplish anything, either. Theories of management don't much matter. Endeavours succeed or fail because of the people involved. Only by attracting the best people will you accomplish great deeds."
In a brain-based economy, your best assets are people. We've heard this expression so often that it's become trite. But how many leaders really "walk the talk" with this stuff? Too often, people are assumed to be empty chess pieces to be moved around by grand viziers, which may explain why so many top managers immerse their calendar time in deal-making, restructuring and the latest management fad. How many immerse themselves in the goal of creating an environment where the best, the brightest, the most creative are attracted, retained and-most importantly-unleashed?
LESSON NINE
"Organization charts and hence titles count for next to nothing."
Organization charts are frozen, anachronistic photos in a workplace that ought to be as dynamic as the external environment around you. If people really followed organization charts, companies would collapse. In well-run organizations, titles are also pretty meaningless. At best, they advertise some authority—an official status conferring the ability to give orders and induce obedience. But titles mean little in terms of real power, which is the capacity to influence and inspire. Have you ever noticed that people will personally commit to certain individuals who on paper (or on the org chart) possess little authority—but instead possess pizzazz, drive, expertise and genuine caring for team-mates and products? On the flip side, non-leaders in management may be formally anointed with all the perks and frills associated with high positions, but they have little influence on others, apart from their ability to extract minimal compliance to minimal standards.
LESSON TEN
"Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it."
Too often, change is stifled by people who cling to familiar turfs and job descriptions. One reason that even large organizations wither is that managers won't challenge old, comfortable ways of doing things. But real leaders understand that, nowadays, every one of our jobs is becoming obsolete. The proper response is to obsolete our activities before someone else does. Effective leaders create a climate where people's worth is determined by their willingness to learn new skills and grab new responsibilities, thus perpetually reinventing their jobs. The most important question in performance evaluation becomes not, "How well did you perform your job since the last time we met?" but, "How much did you change it?"
LESSON ELEVEN
"Fit no stereotypes. Don't chase the latest management fads. The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the team's mission."
Flitting from fad to fad creates team confusion, reduces the leader's credibility and drains organizational coffers. Blindly following a particular fad generates rigidity in thought and action. Sometimes speed to market is more important than total quality. Sometimes an unapologetic directive is more appropriate than participatory discussion. To quote Powell, some situations require the leader to hover closely; others require long, loose leashes. Leaders honour their core values, but they are flexible in how they execute them. They understand that management techniques are not magic mantras but simply tools to be reached for at the right times.
LESSON TWELVE
"Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier."
The ripple effect of a leader's enthusiasm and optimism is awesome. So is the impact of cynicism and pessimism. Leaders who whine and blame engender those same behaviours among their colleagues. I am not talking about stoically accepting organizational stupidity and performance incompetence with a "what, me worry?" smile. I am talking about a guns ho attitude that says "we can change things here, we can achieve awesome goals, we can be the best." Spare me the grim litany of the "realist"; give me the unrealistic aspirations of the optimist any day.
LESSON THIRTEEN
"Powell's Rules for Picking People"—Look for intelligence and judgment and, most critically, a capacity to anticipate, to see around corners. Also look for loyalty, integrity, a high energy drive, a balanced ego and the drive to get things done."
How often do our recruitment and hiring processes tap into these attributes? More often than not, we ignore them in favour of length of resume, degrees and prior titles. A string of job descriptions a recruit held yesterday seem to be more important than who one is today, what she can contribute tomorrow or how well his values mesh with those of the organization You can train a bright, willing novice in the fundamentals of your business fairly readily, but it's a lot harder to train someone to have integrity, judgment, energy, balance and the drive to get things done. Good leaders stack the deck in their favour right in the recruitment phase.
LESSON FOURTEEN
(Borrowed by Powell from Michael Korda): "Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand."
Effective leaders understand the KISS principle, or Keep It Simple, Stupid. They articulate vivid, overarching goals and values, which they use to drive daily behaviours and choices among competing alternatives. Their visions and priorities are lean and compelling, not cluttered and buzzword-laden. Their decisions are crisp and clear, not tentative and ambiguous. They convey an unwavering firmness and consistency in their actions, aligned with the picture of the future they paint. The result? Clarity of purpose, credibility of leadership, and integrity in organization
LESSON FIFTEEN
Part I: "Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired." Part II: "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut."
Powell's advice is don't take action if you have only enough information to give you less than a 40 percent chance of being right, but don't wait until you have enough facts to be 100 percent sure, because by then it is almost always too late. His instinct is right: Today, excessive delays in the name of information-gathering needs analysis paralysis. Procrastination in the name of reducing risk actually increases risk.
LESSON SIXTEEN
"The commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise."
Too often, the reverse defines corporate culture. This is one of the main reasons why leaders like Ken Iverson of Nucor Steel, Percy Barnevik of Asea Brown Boveri, and Richard Branson of Virgin have kept their corporate staffs to a bare-bones minimum. (And I do mean minimum—how about fewer than 100 central corporate staffers for global $30 billion-plus ABB? Or around 25 and 3 for multi-billion Nucor and Virgin, respectively?) Shift the power and the financial accountability to the folks who are bringing in the beans, not the ones who are counting or analyzing them.
LESSON SEVENTEEN
"Have fun in your command. Don't always run at a breakneck pace. Take leave when you've earned it. Spend time with your families."
Corollary: "Surround yourself with people who take their work seriously, but not themselves, those who work hard and play hard."
Herb Kelleher of Southwest Air and Anita Roddick of The Body Shop would agree: Seek people who have some balance in their lives, who are fun to hang out with, who like to laugh (at themselves, too) and who have some non-job priorities which they approach with the same passion that they do their work. Spare me the grim workaholic or the pompous pretentious "professional;" I'll help them find jobs with my competitor.
LESSON EIGHTEEN
"Command is lonely."
Harry Truman was right. Whether you're a CEO or the temporary head of a project team, the buck stops here. You can encourage participative management and bottom-up employee involvement, but ultimately, the essence of leadership is the willingness to make the tough, unambiguous choices that will have an impact on the fate of the organization I've seen too many non-leaders flinch from this responsibility. Even as you create an informal, open, collaborative corporate culture, prepare to be lonely.
Source: Quotations from Chairman Powell: A Leadership Primer - Colin Powell quote, Colin Powell Leadership
Quotations from Chairman Powell: A Leadership Primer
By Oren Harari
Part 1 of 2
I have little interest in celebrities. If I were the rule rather than the exception, Hard Copy and People would go out of business fast. So, earlier this year, when General Colin Powell made the transformation from a human being to phenomenon, and when his nation-wide book-signing tour became a happening to frenzied masses—well, I paid little attention. I didn't buy the book, either.
Then I found myself on the same speaking platform as Powell. Charitably speaking, I was the opening act in front of 1,000 bankers who were there to see the main show. I stuck around to see it, too, and frankly, I was impressed. Powell was witty, erudite, insightful, articulate and self-deprecating. All commendable virtues. So I decided to buy the book. Am I glad I did! My American Journey is a marvelous work, and it provided an unexpected payoff. As I read it, I started to underline noteworthy phrases and sentences and soon realized that what I was underlining were gems of wisdom regarding effective leadership. In fact, when I was finished, I was ready to toss out every leadership book in my library.
I'd like to share with you a compendium of advice from the general. With the exception of the occasional paraphrase to keep grammatical consistency (which will be noted), I present Powell's words verbatim in bold—18 priceless lessons, to be exact. After each quotation from General Powell, I attach my own civilian commentary which I hope you will find useful.
LESSON ONE
"Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off."
Good leadership involves responsibility to the welfare of the group, which means that some people will get angry at your actions and decisions. It's inevitable if you're honourable. Trying to get everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity: You'll avoid the tough decisions, you'll avoid confronting the people who need to be confronted, and you'll avoid offering differential rewards based on differential performance because some people might get upset. Ironically, by procrastinating on the difficult choices, by trying not to get anyone mad, and by treating everyone equally "nicely" regardless of their contributions, you'll simply ensure that the only people you'll wind up angering are the most creative and productive people in the organization.
LESSON TWO
"The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership."
If this were a litmus test, the majority of CEOs would fail. One, they build so many barriers to upward communication that the very idea of someone lower in the hierarchy looking up to the leader for help is ludicrous. Two, the corporate culture they foster often defines asking for help as weakness or failure, so people cover up their gaps, and the organization suffers accordingly. Real leaders make themselves accessible and available. They show concern for the efforts and challenges faced by underlings—even as they demand high standards. Accordingly, they are more likely to create an environment where problem analysis replaces blame.
LESSON THREE
"Don't be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world."
Small companies and start-ups don't have the time for analytically detached experts. They don't have the money to subsidize lofty elite, either. The president answers the phone and drives the truck when necessary; everyone on the payroll visibly produces and contributes to bottom-line results or they're history. But as companies get bigger, they often forget who "brung them to the dance": things like all-hands involvement, egalitarianism, informality, market intimacy, daring, risk, speed, agility. Policies that emanate from ivory towers often have an adverse impact on the people out in the field who are fighting the wars or bringing in the revenues. Real leaders are vigilant—and combative—in the face of these trends.
LESSON FOUR
"Don't be afraid to challenge the pros, even in their own backyard."
Learn from the pros, observe them, seek them out as mentors and partners. But remember that even the pros may have leveled out in terms of their learning and skills. Sometimes even the pros can become complacent and lazy. Leadership does not emerge from blind obedience to anyone. Xerox's Barry Rand was right on target when he warned his people that if you have a yes-man working for you, one of you is redundant. Good leadership encourages everyone's evolution.
LESSON FIVE
"Never neglect details. When everyone's mind is dulled or distracted the leader must be doubly vigilant."
Strategy equals execution. All the great ideas and visions in the world are worthless if they can't be implemented rapidly and efficiently. Good leaders delegate and empower others liberally, but they pay attention to details, every day. (Think about supreme athletic coaches like Jimmy Johnson, Pat Riley and Tony La Russa). Bad ones—even those who fancy themselves as progressive "visionaries"—think they're somehow "above" operational details. Paradoxically, good leaders understand something else: An obsessive routine in carrying out the details begets conformity and complacency, which in turn dulls everyone's mind. That is why even as they pay attention to details, they continually encourage people to challenge the process. They implicitly understand the sentiment of CEO-leaders like Quad/Graphic's Harry Quadracchi, Oticon's Lars Kolind and the late Bill McGowan of MCI, who all independently asserted that the job of a leader is not to be the chief organizer, but the chief dis-organizer.
LESSON SIX
"You don't know what you can get away with until you try."
You know the expression "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission?" Well, it's true. Good leaders don't wait for official blessing to try things out. They're prudent, not reckless. But they also realize a fact of life in most organizations: If you ask enough people for permission, you'll inevitably come up against someone who believes his job is to say "no." So the moral is, don't ask. I'm serious. In my own research with colleague Linda Mukai, we found that less effective middle managers endorsed the sentiment, "If I haven't explicitly been told 'yes,' I can't do it," whereas the good ones believed "If I haven't explicitly been told 'no,' I can." There's a world of difference between these two points of view.
LESSON SEVEN
"Keep looking below surface appearances. Don't shrink from doing so (just) because you might not like what you find."
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the slogan of the complacent, the arrogant or the scared. It's an excuse for inaction, a call to non-arms. It's a mindset that assumes (or hopes) that today's realities will continue tomorrow in a tidy, linear and predictable fashion. Pure fantasy. In this sort of culture, you won't find people who proactively take steps to solve problems as they emerge. Here's a little tip: Don't invest in these companies.
LESSON EIGHT
"Organization doesn't really accomplish anything. Plans don't accomplish anything, either. Theories of management don't much matter. Endeavours succeed or fail because of the people involved. Only by attracting the best people will you accomplish great deeds."
In a brain-based economy, your best assets are people. We've heard this expression so often that it's become trite. But how many leaders really "walk the talk" with this stuff? Too often, people are assumed to be empty chess pieces to be moved around by grand viziers, which may explain why so many top managers immerse their calendar time in deal-making, restructuring and the latest management fad. How many immerse themselves in the goal of creating an environment where the best, the brightest, the most creative are attracted, retained and-most importantly-unleashed?
LESSON NINE
"Organization charts and hence titles count for next to nothing."
Organization charts are frozen, anachronistic photos in a workplace that ought to be as dynamic as the external environment around you. If people really followed organization charts, companies would collapse. In well-run organizations, titles are also pretty meaningless. At best, they advertise some authority—an official status conferring the ability to give orders and induce obedience. But titles mean little in terms of real power, which is the capacity to influence and inspire. Have you ever noticed that people will personally commit to certain individuals who on paper (or on the org chart) possess little authority—but instead possess pizzazz, drive, expertise and genuine caring for team-mates and products? On the flip side, non-leaders in management may be formally anointed with all the perks and frills associated with high positions, but they have little influence on others, apart from their ability to extract minimal compliance to minimal standards.
LESSON TEN
"Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it."
Too often, change is stifled by people who cling to familiar turfs and job descriptions. One reason that even large organizations wither is that managers won't challenge old, comfortable ways of doing things. But real leaders understand that, nowadays, every one of our jobs is becoming obsolete. The proper response is to obsolete our activities before someone else does. Effective leaders create a climate where people's worth is determined by their willingness to learn new skills and grab new responsibilities, thus perpetually reinventing their jobs. The most important question in performance evaluation becomes not, "How well did you perform your job since the last time we met?" but, "How much did you change it?"
LESSON ELEVEN
"Fit no stereotypes. Don't chase the latest management fads. The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the team's mission."
Flitting from fad to fad creates team confusion, reduces the leader's credibility and drains organizational coffers. Blindly following a particular fad generates rigidity in thought and action. Sometimes speed to market is more important than total quality. Sometimes an unapologetic directive is more appropriate than participatory discussion. To quote Powell, some situations require the leader to hover closely; others require long, loose leashes. Leaders honour their core values, but they are flexible in how they execute them. They understand that management techniques are not magic mantras but simply tools to be reached for at the right times.
LESSON TWELVE
"Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier."
The ripple effect of a leader's enthusiasm and optimism is awesome. So is the impact of cynicism and pessimism. Leaders who whine and blame engender those same behaviours among their colleagues. I am not talking about stoically accepting organizational stupidity and performance incompetence with a "what, me worry?" smile. I am talking about a guns ho attitude that says "we can change things here, we can achieve awesome goals, we can be the best." Spare me the grim litany of the "realist"; give me the unrealistic aspirations of the optimist any day.
LESSON THIRTEEN
"Powell's Rules for Picking People"—Look for intelligence and judgment and, most critically, a capacity to anticipate, to see around corners. Also look for loyalty, integrity, a high energy drive, a balanced ego and the drive to get things done."
How often do our recruitment and hiring processes tap into these attributes? More often than not, we ignore them in favour of length of resume, degrees and prior titles. A string of job descriptions a recruit held yesterday seem to be more important than who one is today, what she can contribute tomorrow or how well his values mesh with those of the organization You can train a bright, willing novice in the fundamentals of your business fairly readily, but it's a lot harder to train someone to have integrity, judgment, energy, balance and the drive to get things done. Good leaders stack the deck in their favour right in the recruitment phase.
LESSON FOURTEEN
(Borrowed by Powell from Michael Korda): "Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand."
Effective leaders understand the KISS principle, or Keep It Simple, Stupid. They articulate vivid, overarching goals and values, which they use to drive daily behaviours and choices among competing alternatives. Their visions and priorities are lean and compelling, not cluttered and buzzword-laden. Their decisions are crisp and clear, not tentative and ambiguous. They convey an unwavering firmness and consistency in their actions, aligned with the picture of the future they paint. The result? Clarity of purpose, credibility of leadership, and integrity in organization
LESSON FIFTEEN
Part I: "Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired." Part II: "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut."
Powell's advice is don't take action if you have only enough information to give you less than a 40 percent chance of being right, but don't wait until you have enough facts to be 100 percent sure, because by then it is almost always too late. His instinct is right: Today, excessive delays in the name of information-gathering needs analysis paralysis. Procrastination in the name of reducing risk actually increases risk.
LESSON SIXTEEN
"The commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise."
Too often, the reverse defines corporate culture. This is one of the main reasons why leaders like Ken Iverson of Nucor Steel, Percy Barnevik of Asea Brown Boveri, and Richard Branson of Virgin have kept their corporate staffs to a bare-bones minimum. (And I do mean minimum—how about fewer than 100 central corporate staffers for global $30 billion-plus ABB? Or around 25 and 3 for multi-billion Nucor and Virgin, respectively?) Shift the power and the financial accountability to the folks who are bringing in the beans, not the ones who are counting or analyzing them.
LESSON SEVENTEEN
"Have fun in your command. Don't always run at a breakneck pace. Take leave when you've earned it. Spend time with your families."
Corollary: "Surround yourself with people who take their work seriously, but not themselves, those who work hard and play hard."
Herb Kelleher of Southwest Air and Anita Roddick of The Body Shop would agree: Seek people who have some balance in their lives, who are fun to hang out with, who like to laugh (at themselves, too) and who have some non-job priorities which they approach with the same passion that they do their work. Spare me the grim workaholic or the pompous pretentious "professional;" I'll help them find jobs with my competitor.
LESSON EIGHTEEN
"Command is lonely."
Harry Truman was right. Whether you're a CEO or the temporary head of a project team, the buck stops here. You can encourage participative management and bottom-up employee involvement, but ultimately, the essence of leadership is the willingness to make the tough, unambiguous choices that will have an impact on the fate of the organization I've seen too many non-leaders flinch from this responsibility. Even as you create an informal, open, collaborative corporate culture, prepare to be lonely.
NDFan4Life
Forum Regular
- Messages
- 1,967
- Reaction score
- 254
I've been a big proponent of term limits, but recently came to the conclusion that this will never happen. If term limits did become a reality, there would be a few concerns that I have. What if someone was elected who actually listened to their constituents, and voted on bills that they thought would truly help the people? They would be voted out in 4 (or 6) years, so what's the point in even attempting to do anything?
Like someone said in another post, the politicians we have now are owned by special interests and lobbyists.
Like someone said in another post, the politicians we have now are owned by special interests and lobbyists.
TDHeysus
FLOOR(RAND()*(N-D+1))+D;
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 355
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6qfKornBBGg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
- Messages
- 8,965
- Reaction score
- 6,453
In an immense attempt to not say much about something just posted: I studied the Global Climate Change science for twenty years, and attended many top level science symposia about the data. It is slap-in-the-face real. Scientists across the planet were appalled and depressed to see how certain politicians created phony soap boxes in congress to allow alleged contrary experts the only say in the matter there. THAT is where the term "junk science" arose.
I was at WMU when one of these junk scientists came around on a lecture tour sponsored by AMAX Coal and Exxon. I had to write an essay in one of WMUs program bulletins to point out how many misrepresentations and fallacies he'd included in his talk [guy's name was Robert Balling from Arizona State]. Afterwards a WMU geologist was showing him around and he was laughing about his gravy train. He said that he wanted to get back to ASU as soon as possible because he was being paid several hundred dollars for every literature citation that he could come up with to claim that GCC was in error somewhere.
I also attended a talk by a person associated with the UVA, who though not allowed to claim his "thinktank" as having UVA sanction, went about in congress preaching similar junk science claims despite being in flagrant disagreement with 99% of peer-reviewed published computer and field work. [Guy's name was/is Pat Michaels]. His thinktank was/is entirely supported by the oil industry public relations consortium.
A third scientist who was frequently invited to Capitol Hill to give congressional testimony was former science advisor from the Nixon era, S. Fred Singer. He was the same guy who spoke similar drivel about there being no ozone hole over the Antarctic. When shown NASA imagery that there was, he backtracked and said that there were no measurements that the hole was letting in UV radiation and quoted data to "prove" it. He however chose to quote one instrument known to be defective and ignore the five instruments which were working properly and gave opposite results. He then argued that it couldn't be due to CFCs as there was no mechanism. Two chemists were at the time winning the Nobel prize for demonstrating the exact mechanism. He never apologized for any of his miscreant behavior, switched donors, and took up anti-GCC propaganda.
These pseudoscientific criminals take their money from precisely who you'd think they would, use pre-prepared talking venues, and because there's no law against lying, go about their happy ways. There's SO MUCH MORE to this embarrassment of intellectual dishonesty that just revisiting it makes my head, and heart, swim nauseously. The earlier comment about shutting up and going and reading a book----yeh, I've never done that. I've got your "shut up and read a book" right here.
I was at WMU when one of these junk scientists came around on a lecture tour sponsored by AMAX Coal and Exxon. I had to write an essay in one of WMUs program bulletins to point out how many misrepresentations and fallacies he'd included in his talk [guy's name was Robert Balling from Arizona State]. Afterwards a WMU geologist was showing him around and he was laughing about his gravy train. He said that he wanted to get back to ASU as soon as possible because he was being paid several hundred dollars for every literature citation that he could come up with to claim that GCC was in error somewhere.
I also attended a talk by a person associated with the UVA, who though not allowed to claim his "thinktank" as having UVA sanction, went about in congress preaching similar junk science claims despite being in flagrant disagreement with 99% of peer-reviewed published computer and field work. [Guy's name was/is Pat Michaels]. His thinktank was/is entirely supported by the oil industry public relations consortium.
A third scientist who was frequently invited to Capitol Hill to give congressional testimony was former science advisor from the Nixon era, S. Fred Singer. He was the same guy who spoke similar drivel about there being no ozone hole over the Antarctic. When shown NASA imagery that there was, he backtracked and said that there were no measurements that the hole was letting in UV radiation and quoted data to "prove" it. He however chose to quote one instrument known to be defective and ignore the five instruments which were working properly and gave opposite results. He then argued that it couldn't be due to CFCs as there was no mechanism. Two chemists were at the time winning the Nobel prize for demonstrating the exact mechanism. He never apologized for any of his miscreant behavior, switched donors, and took up anti-GCC propaganda.
These pseudoscientific criminals take their money from precisely who you'd think they would, use pre-prepared talking venues, and because there's no law against lying, go about their happy ways. There's SO MUCH MORE to this embarrassment of intellectual dishonesty that just revisiting it makes my head, and heart, swim nauseously. The earlier comment about shutting up and going and reading a book----yeh, I've never done that. I've got your "shut up and read a book" right here.
M
Me2SouthBend
Guest
There you go again Mike, turning to that Left Wing Liberal group NASA to site facts. Nice post. That's my sarcasm font for those that don't recognize it.
RDU Irish
Catholics vs. Cousins
- Messages
- 8,622
- Reaction score
- 2,722
OMM - I respect you and your opinions on here. If you have some links to good global warming information I will be curious to research more. People smarter than me in the realm of science, scientists nontheless, respectfully disagree with you after pouring over the same crapload of information out there. Somehow, folks act as if this THEORY is a PROOF. I learned the difference between those in high school and I fully appreciate my opinion is just that, not a fact.
What about global cooling a few decades back? That was equally "real" and urgent. Ozone and acid rain was pretty bad too. Those both got "solved" by recognizing the real (and unintended) consequences of economic advancement. Oh wait, global cooling wasn't real, it was replaced by global warming, I'm sorry, now it is climate change. No $hit the climate changes!
What about sun spot activity? What about natural phenonmenon that can disrupt global climate faster than anything? I just don't buy that there is a "normal" global temperature or that a half degree change in this temperature is catastrophic. Won't tundra thaw and trees grow to naturally turn CO2 back into C and O2? Call me stupid, but wasn't all this carbon once free to roam the earth before being trapped for many millenia until now? Are we really unable to adapt to a warmer environment over 100 years? What if a super volcano blows its top and the climate is really FUBAR for a decade or ten? As Darwin would say, adapt or die.
Disclaimer - As a North Carolina resident on the Piedmont I am financially motivated to see rising sea levels turn my neighborhood into beach front property.
What about global cooling a few decades back? That was equally "real" and urgent. Ozone and acid rain was pretty bad too. Those both got "solved" by recognizing the real (and unintended) consequences of economic advancement. Oh wait, global cooling wasn't real, it was replaced by global warming, I'm sorry, now it is climate change. No $hit the climate changes!
What about sun spot activity? What about natural phenonmenon that can disrupt global climate faster than anything? I just don't buy that there is a "normal" global temperature or that a half degree change in this temperature is catastrophic. Won't tundra thaw and trees grow to naturally turn CO2 back into C and O2? Call me stupid, but wasn't all this carbon once free to roam the earth before being trapped for many millenia until now? Are we really unable to adapt to a warmer environment over 100 years? What if a super volcano blows its top and the climate is really FUBAR for a decade or ten? As Darwin would say, adapt or die.
Disclaimer - As a North Carolina resident on the Piedmont I am financially motivated to see rising sea levels turn my neighborhood into beach front property.
RDU Irish
Catholics vs. Cousins
- Messages
- 8,622
- Reaction score
- 2,722
I can argue that just as many scientists are financially motivated to show global warming/climate change to get grant money for their project. A lot easier to raise money to save mankind from imminent destruction than a potentially inconvenient thing that may or may not happen depending on the assumptions one uses.
As if government doesn't regulate enough, now we are going to trust them to regulate global temperatures? Seriously, that is the next logical step after accepting climate change is a real problem that needs attention.
As if government doesn't regulate enough, now we are going to trust them to regulate global temperatures? Seriously, that is the next logical step after accepting climate change is a real problem that needs attention.
Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
- Messages
- 8,965
- Reaction score
- 6,453
RDU: I REALLY don't want to get into what would have to be a semester's course in GCC science with you on this board. It's not what this board is for; it's far more complex than simplistic commentary can honestly deal with; and I'm retired. But in the interest not of convincing you of the reality of GCC but rather that there might be a lot more to this than meets the eye [and I have closely studied much of it], I'll belabor our dear IE brothers with a few further remarks:
A). Everyone in the atmospheric sciences community knows why there was a downtick the temperature rise curve following the June 1991 eruptions of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Pinatubo was a very "dirty" volcano and distributed its ash in the high atmosphere and it quickly encircled the planet. This created a "sunshield" with the power to reflect sunlight, and thereby heat, back into space and this was calculated roughly. The diminuition of incoming solar radiation easily was linked to the global temperature drop. There are perhaps thousands of papers on the effects of the volcano. Once the aerosol particles cleared out of the atmosphere [this will take one-to-three years depending upon the volcano], the measured surface temperature "caught back up" as the fundamental situation of greenhouse gas burden had not changed. EVERYONE in science knows that this is what happened. Even the folks who aren't worried about GCC say that even if we start getting out-of-control we can employ the technological fix of IMITATING such volcanoes [an aerially deposited "soot shield"] ... an idea INSPIRED by Pinatubo itself. If I were you, I'd ask myself who it is who fed me this global cooling business as an anti-GCC argument when it is transparently bogus. I'd begin to distrust THAT source rather than simple science facts. AND I'd even be a bit p!ssed at someone manipulating me.
B). the sunspot activity argument was respectfully and seriously assessed by a great number of atmospheric physicists, the solar input graphs were analyzed ad nauseum, and it was found that the argument didn't hold. This too has been the subject of hundreds of papers, because real scientists actually want to know these things. Some deniers by the way later have stated that they no longer hold their former opinions. The Danish guy [Lonborg, I think] was an anti-GCC darling for about three years and has now admitted that he's changed his assessment.
C). CO2 does not "naturally" turn back into C and O2. This is fundamental chemistry and hearing such statements tells me that I cannot possibly lay in enough basic science education to illuminate this situation for you. CO2 is a low energy state for the combination of C and O. The C+ 2O ---> CO2 is a oneway chemical reaction which does not oscillate under any ordinary circumstances to go the other direction even if the mass balances in your chemistry pot would be far to the right of the equation. The only thing which breaks CO2 down to anything like its elements is life. That called being a plant basically, but it's WAY more complicated than that. You'd be more informed to try to defend the argument that maybe Earth-based plants might bail us out and absorb the extra CO2 we create by stored Carbon burning. There's WAY more to it than that. A recent NYT article is just the latest "popular" attempt to educate the public on why the forests won't save us, and will be the latest one which will be utterly ignored. With respect, your ability to create good sentences indicates that no one should call you "stupid", but the content of your "arguments" indicate that you are in fact "ignorant" of the science and mere factual basis you need to be [rather loudly] making the declarations you do.
D). again there's so much more that it's a lost effort by me. Take the fact that on mountainsides the ecosystems change as you go up the mountain due to the temperature change with altitude. There are researchers who have studied mountainside ecologies for years. They are reporting guess what? The ecosystems are migrating up the mountains as the subtleties of fractional degrees urge them to move to their desired new ranges. In certain ranges, the topmost ecosystems have been pushed right off the top. They don't exist there anymore. Bird breeding ranges are sensitive to fractional seasonal degrees. Several species are moving northward and abandoning old areas. These are simple observable facts by macrobiologists who receive no funding for atmospheric science. They are just reporting what they see. The same thing is happening due to warming waters off the pacific coast for some offshore ecosystems there. You can say "Who cares?" but the point here is that it shows that the GCC trend is sensed by the world's ecosystems clearly. I HAVE found it to be generally true that anti-GCCers don't care squat about such matters.
I'm going to stop. Frankly, your level of willingness to make powerful opinion declarations based on information far beneath what is needed to even have a humble opinion about these matters, gives me no hope that I am doing anything but wasting my time. Maybe some of the other guys reading this [if any] got something out of it.
Sigh.....
A). Everyone in the atmospheric sciences community knows why there was a downtick the temperature rise curve following the June 1991 eruptions of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Pinatubo was a very "dirty" volcano and distributed its ash in the high atmosphere and it quickly encircled the planet. This created a "sunshield" with the power to reflect sunlight, and thereby heat, back into space and this was calculated roughly. The diminuition of incoming solar radiation easily was linked to the global temperature drop. There are perhaps thousands of papers on the effects of the volcano. Once the aerosol particles cleared out of the atmosphere [this will take one-to-three years depending upon the volcano], the measured surface temperature "caught back up" as the fundamental situation of greenhouse gas burden had not changed. EVERYONE in science knows that this is what happened. Even the folks who aren't worried about GCC say that even if we start getting out-of-control we can employ the technological fix of IMITATING such volcanoes [an aerially deposited "soot shield"] ... an idea INSPIRED by Pinatubo itself. If I were you, I'd ask myself who it is who fed me this global cooling business as an anti-GCC argument when it is transparently bogus. I'd begin to distrust THAT source rather than simple science facts. AND I'd even be a bit p!ssed at someone manipulating me.
B). the sunspot activity argument was respectfully and seriously assessed by a great number of atmospheric physicists, the solar input graphs were analyzed ad nauseum, and it was found that the argument didn't hold. This too has been the subject of hundreds of papers, because real scientists actually want to know these things. Some deniers by the way later have stated that they no longer hold their former opinions. The Danish guy [Lonborg, I think] was an anti-GCC darling for about three years and has now admitted that he's changed his assessment.
C). CO2 does not "naturally" turn back into C and O2. This is fundamental chemistry and hearing such statements tells me that I cannot possibly lay in enough basic science education to illuminate this situation for you. CO2 is a low energy state for the combination of C and O. The C+ 2O ---> CO2 is a oneway chemical reaction which does not oscillate under any ordinary circumstances to go the other direction even if the mass balances in your chemistry pot would be far to the right of the equation. The only thing which breaks CO2 down to anything like its elements is life. That called being a plant basically, but it's WAY more complicated than that. You'd be more informed to try to defend the argument that maybe Earth-based plants might bail us out and absorb the extra CO2 we create by stored Carbon burning. There's WAY more to it than that. A recent NYT article is just the latest "popular" attempt to educate the public on why the forests won't save us, and will be the latest one which will be utterly ignored. With respect, your ability to create good sentences indicates that no one should call you "stupid", but the content of your "arguments" indicate that you are in fact "ignorant" of the science and mere factual basis you need to be [rather loudly] making the declarations you do.
D). again there's so much more that it's a lost effort by me. Take the fact that on mountainsides the ecosystems change as you go up the mountain due to the temperature change with altitude. There are researchers who have studied mountainside ecologies for years. They are reporting guess what? The ecosystems are migrating up the mountains as the subtleties of fractional degrees urge them to move to their desired new ranges. In certain ranges, the topmost ecosystems have been pushed right off the top. They don't exist there anymore. Bird breeding ranges are sensitive to fractional seasonal degrees. Several species are moving northward and abandoning old areas. These are simple observable facts by macrobiologists who receive no funding for atmospheric science. They are just reporting what they see. The same thing is happening due to warming waters off the pacific coast for some offshore ecosystems there. You can say "Who cares?" but the point here is that it shows that the GCC trend is sensed by the world's ecosystems clearly. I HAVE found it to be generally true that anti-GCCers don't care squat about such matters.
I'm going to stop. Frankly, your level of willingness to make powerful opinion declarations based on information far beneath what is needed to even have a humble opinion about these matters, gives me no hope that I am doing anything but wasting my time. Maybe some of the other guys reading this [if any] got something out of it.
Sigh.....
Rhode Irish
Semi-retired
- Messages
- 7,057
- Reaction score
- 900
Are we really debating the scientific evidence of climate change? OMM, I appreciate your effort here - you have far more patience than I - but I just assume we not validate the argument with a legitimate response. To me, there are certain issues that represent a threshold for credibility. Evolution and climate change are at the top of that list. If you find yourself questioning either of these things, look into it yourself and read up on the science behind them. If you still question their validity, you're hopeless and there isn't anything left to discuss. You should just be written off as willfully ignorant or incapable of understanding, and in either instance you aren't worth the time it would take to explain it to you. These are not theories, anymore than gravity or the idea the earth orbits the sun, rather than the other way around.