Here They Go Again

For the last few months, the country has been anxiously awaiting the progress report on Iraq by General David Petraeus in September. The Bush Administration and the Republican supporters of the war hope he will say that the surge in troop levels has been effective. The Democrats hope he will say the entire thing is a disaster and we should leave immediately. Everyone acknowledged when he took the job that as the US Army’s top counter-terrorism expert, he was the appropriate and best man for that job.

When Petraeus arrived in Iraq, he completely changed coalition strategy. Instead of operating out of isolated Forward Operating Bases, Petraeus instead has the troops interacting more with the local Iraqis in the population centers. This has led to more intelligence gathering as the locals begin trusting the troops and has also established working relationships between the local tribal leaders/warlords with the US troops. The result has been local cooperation and even fighting between the local population and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been mostly driven out of several of the formerly hottest provinces due to the cooperation of the local leaders. Even Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and no friend to the Bush Administration, recently returned from Iraq saying that significant military progress had been made. The Democratic presidential candidates admit progress has been made. I can tell you since I am deployed out here seeing what is happening that they are correct in their assessment. We are making a lot of progress.

With that as a background, what do CNN and MSNBC do? Because the anticipated report by General Petraeus is now widely expected to be different than the networks own agenda, they are starting a campaign to impugn General Petraeus’ integrity before he arrives to give the report. The same guy who was the best great hope a few months ago has these same network hacks saying he is a partisan lackey and has no credibility. These people are so transparent and vile that it should surprise no one that they have less and less viewers all the time.

I wrote a piece a while back about how the other news network anchors, particularly the ones with obvious agendas, constantly publicly trash Fox News. However, on one recent ratings night, the viewer numbers were:

FNC O'REILLY 2,260,000
FNC SHEPPARD SMITH 1,308,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,286,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,278,000
FNC GRETA 1,031,000
CNN DOBBS 813,000

No wonder they trash Fox News. They are being whipped like a Michael Vick dog. Like most liberals, their inflated egos lead them to believe that the people are stupid and are being led around by Fox and the evil Rupert Murdoch. They can’t imagine that most people are fed up with their trashing of the American system and character assassination tactics. In one of the seemingly hundreds of Democratic debates, Hillary Clinton recently said about her negative numbers in polls that any of the other Democratic candidates will have high numbers after the “Republican hate machine” gets through with them. She won’t acknowledge that maybe people just don’t like her or maybe people actually loathe her. In typical liberal fashion, it couldn’t possibly be her fault. Well, folks, keep railing on. People will vote with their remote controls and MSNBC, CNN and the other left agenda news organizations that purposely trash America will continue to wither on the vine. Rush Limbaugh calls them the “drive-by” media for their tactics. I will now refer to them as the “Raisin media” because they are drying up so fast.

ESPN Jumps the Shark

When did ESPN jump the shark? What was originally a sport reporting network now almost uses sports as a background for their own network self-promotion. In a period of very busy sports activity (major league baseball, football training camps, professional golf events, the Tour de France, major soccer, etc.), what does a significant portion of the hour go to? The “Who is more Now?” contest. First of all, what the heck is “now” anyway? More importantly, who CARES? The anchors at ESPN have fallen into the trap historically set for ministers and politicians who believe that they personally are more important than what or who they represent. The network has gone the way of the National Basketball Association in not promoting its product but rather its individual performers. And performers are what they are, not reporters. Each anchor has an obligation to come up with his/her own catch phrases and uniquely quirky delivery so as to become personalities rather than reporters. I personally want to know the outcome of the sporting event and don’t care to hear the next addition to the sporting lexicon. We are returning to the days of the “Battle of the Network Stars” where sporting events are not covered, they are created, like the reality shows on every network now. I would appreciate it if the people at ESPN could go “back back back back back…” to the days where they reported on sports events instead of trying to be the show themselves.

What Men Really Want

I have theory about the difference between men and women in one great respect. This is not exclusively a male characteristic but it almost always holds true. What is it that men really want? My theory is this: It doesn’t matter if you are talking about a sexual relationship, a job, a vehicle, a night out, car repairs, lawn maintenance, wives, friends or anything else. What men want most is: NO HASSLE.

There is a certain amount of hassle that is just associated with living. If you expect a paycheck, you need to show up for work. If you want to drive a car, you have to occasionally stop to get gasoline. Men can deal with those hassles because they are a given and come as part of the package. What inflames men more than anything else is: unnecessary hassle. Things that are made more complicated than they need to be or require more than an appropriate amount of effort. One of the reasons that all houses of married couples are decorated the way the wife wants it done is that women will always win any argument about things the man has little interest in because women can dial up the hassle meter until the man inevitably says “screw it” (or words to that effect). In any relationship, the last thing a man wants to hear is, “We need to talk”. That phrase always means there is some sort of mental hassle awaiting. Men don’t like deep complicated movies or dramas because it is too much hassle to worry about the feelings of the characters. That is why simple blow up the bad guy, attractive naked women movies do so well. When the check is for $31.95, the man throws in $40 and doesn’t worry about the appropriateness of the tip because he doesn’t want to have to worry about it. There are guys with calculators and a change purse, but we don’t talk about them (don’t ask, don’t tell). I would rather throw away semi-valuable things from my garage to finally be able to walk in it than hassle with a yard sale to make some not worth my time amount of money.

In the male community, those who make things simple and easy are well thought of and those who create hassle are shunned. It is a badge of honor to be someone who makes things go smoothly. So, despite being occasionally accused of being a simpleton, most guys would gladly rather have that accusation than go through the hassle of proven the critics wrong.

I was once in a discussion about how much money I wanted to make. My answer was this: I don’t know how much in actual dollars but what I want is: when I turn the key, my car starts; when I feel like Chinese food, I buy some and don’t worry about not paying my car payment; when someone calls and wants to have a picnic, I go get some munchies and go; when I pull in the driveway, I am happy to live where I do. That is what I want, an income that produces a hassle-free life. So just like all guys, the avoidance of hassle is the ultimate goal.

Cheaters Again

I wrote an earlier piece about how cheating doesn’t seem to bother people anymore. Now, on the verge of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s home run record and the Tour de France scandal of 2007, it seems appropriate to revisit the issue. One of the things I have always admired about real golfers, not the weekend kind who cheat endlessly, is how they would rather lose than win dishonestly. In almost all other professional sports, the coaches and athletes will wink at missed calls and clear cheating and call it “part of the game”. The coaches who were really good at mentally working over referees were against instant replay. Why would anyone interested in fairness be against something which reveals the truth? Calls are not overturned without convincing credible evidence. I read an article pointing out the hypocrisy of Americans jeering the Tour de France while cheering for Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Shawn Merriman, and the other well-known cheats. Her point was valid. The Tour de France is being transparent and looking for cheats instead of ignoring or praising them. That is actually refreshing. There is a philosophy of “anything you can get away with is okay”. This is not confined to sports. Routinely, Congressmen use the phrase “I did not break any law” when justifying actions which are clearly unethical and wrong. They skirt the edge of legality and use that phrase to “prove” they did nothing wrong. Even when caught breaking the law (e.g, Bill Clinton), supporters quibble about the law. It is okay to perjure oneself as long as the subject is correct.

In the service, we use the code words of Honor, Courage and Commitment. Despite that, there are people like John Kerry saying that military members were too stupid to choose to do anything else. When 70-80% of officers have postgraduate degrees, it is hard to make that argument. In this case, though, consider the source (a proven liar).

I cannot cheer for steroid, human growth hormone using freaks of nature in baseball and football, teams using illegal components in auto racing, or erythopoetin using bicycle racers any more than I could cheer for sailors who gun deck log books or leave their post while on watch. Until the public stops rewarding the athletes who cheat by refusing to pay to attend the games and stop making money for the owners of the teams, the doping will never stop. There will always be someone of low enough moral fiber to break the rules of decency.

Brown Nosing and the Destruction of an Organization

Where is the line between enthusiasm and brownnosing? It is like the quality of a great painting. It is difficult to define but we all know it when we see it. A big part of the impression comes from what we think of the individual’s personality. People that are not well-liked are construed to have ulterior motives just because we don’t like them. It is fuel for the fire. But what is it that tips the balance? Is it one act or a series of smaller things? Most people who develop the reputation, at least in my observational experience, set a pattern but it is usually one event that seals the deal. There is a common measure of what is expected in a co-worker. All jobs have some inherent unpleasant things which need to be done. It is the nature of work. People expect that. Most people want to get the job done and go home where the enjoyment is located. The brownnoser is different. An extra duty, particularly a “face time” event where it is generally considered a pain to participate finds the brownnoser overwhelmingly excited to be able to attend. That is one of the recognizable differentiating factors which identify the individual. Another identifying factor is the desire of those individuals to stop at any moment and tell anyone at great length how valuable the brownnoser’s efforts are and how the organization would be doomed without those efforts. Other co-workers contributions are recognized but one gets the sense of a grudging acceptance and feigned over-enthusiasm rather than real enthusiasm. In order to make themselves part of the “in-crowd”, the brownnoser always speaks to others in a “just between us people in the know” attitude in order to give the impression that they are part of the inner circle. This usually involves dropping names of the powerful in the organization. This sucker fish approach to riding on the coattails of power is an attempt to leverage the brownnoser into a position of more power in the organization. In Washington, DC, the saying is “The appearance of power is power”. That is because if someone thinks you are powerful, they will treat you with the proper deference, and therefore you are powerful because you get what you want. The brownnoser uses name-dropping to associate themselves with the powerful in order to appear to be part of that group.

The error in this approach with a smart boss is that the experienced intelligent boss also recognizes brown-nosing for what it is. Unfortunately, brownnosing often works. I remember an engineering job years ago where a peer that was universally regarded as a weak performer by his entire group of peers, with good reason, was rated number one in potential by management primarily on the basis of his organizing golf tournaments which had nothing to do with his job. That is a recipe for poor morale and disgruntled employees. A number of excellent engineers left the organization because of that situation. Communism was ultimately doomed to failure because it flew in the face of human nature. If there is no incentive to work harder, why would anyone do it? The brownnoser does the same thing to an organization. If the brownnoser succeeds preferentially, the other employees stop performing because they recognize their legitimate efforts are in vain. Their only defense is to begin brown-nosing as well and you end up with an organization consisting of two factions: the competing brownnosers and the disgruntled employees doing the minimum to maintain their jobs. Unfortunately, most of us have been in an organization like that at some point. The only way to maintain your drive is to find another place to work. In fact, the most likely people to leave are the best performers because they are in the best position to get better jobs. You cannot work for long for people you don’t respect and those who unwittingly respond to the brownnoser are not respected. Therefore, to maintain the quality of an organization, managers must recognize the brownnoser and not allow their actions to reap favoritism. Only by avoiding that mistake will productivity and morale be sustained.

Leadership Skills

What has happened to leadership skills? I’ve noticed a great tendency toward non-confrontational leadership recently. There is a widespread philosophy of what I call “Punish the innocent for the offense of the guilty”. I noted this process a lot in the military, particularly during my time with the Marine Corps, but it is also present in the Navy and in civilian settings as well. The scenario is usually like this: 1) Something happens which causes some angst for the boss or gets noticed; 2) a knee jerk policy is put in place to prevent anyone from making the same misjudgment even though only one of 10,000 people did it. A more specific example: A large group of military members goes out in town in a foreign country. Of the huge crowd, one or two, misbehave. Therefore, leadership doesn’t allow any else to go out, punishing the 99% who behaved responsibly for the crimes of the one or two who didn’t. Another example: One person abuses a phone privilege. Therefore, no one can use the phone. Once again, punish the innocent. Last example: A specific individual makes an obvious error in judgment or omission. Therefore leadership states, “It is a process problem” and appoints a team to study the process and make recommendations, instead of confronting the specific individual.

Why does this happen? The first reason is laziness. Rather than investigate and hold the specific individuals accountable, it is easier to make a blanket policy despite it being the wrong course of action. The second reason is to avoid uncomfortable confrontation. I am not sure whether people are scared or wimps but sometimes leadership means getting in someone’s face and calling them to account. The R. Lee Ermey style in Full Metal Jacket is extreme but you get the picture. Wimps are terrible leaders, particularly in the military. Individual responsibility is a key to success. I find it ironic that the Marine Corps, which does individual responsibility better than anyone, uses the mass punishment a lot. By using these techniques and a “one strike, you are out” policy, our society creates a group of never make a decision, never take a chance, always form a committee leaders who are ineffective. They are always late with decisions because they run them past everyone who will listen before a decision is made. The decision is usually issued with disclaimers in case anyone doesn’t like it. I heard someone say once, “I am not sure what the path to success is but the sure path to failure is trying to please everyone”. People like Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, George Patton, etc. who were politically incorrect would not do well in today’s leadership models.
Leadership positions are lonely and involve pissing people off on occasion. I look at it this way: You can either occasionally take a turn taking on the responsibility for driving the bus or you have no right to complain when it shows up someplace you didn’t want to go. Authority and responsibility go hand in hand. One cannot be held responsible for something one has no control over. One cannot have power and not be held accountable for actions taken with that power. It is not enough to walk around with a business card that says you are a leader. The skills must be exercised daily. You don’t have to tell people if you are a leader, they will know by watching you.

Fooling Them Most of the Time

An interesting Zogby poll came out in the last couple of days which shows some of the influence of the main stream media and in some ways how it causes results it doesn’t desire. While the networks and cable outlets have been trashing the Bush Administration for years and managed to get the approval rating for the President down to the lower 30s, the approval ratings for the Democrat-led Congress they favor is down to a historically low 18%. The House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi has effectively done nothing and the Senate is the same under Harry Reid. Both leaders spend all their time making speeches about how bad the current administration is but never seem to offer more effective alternatives. In the public’s view, the Democratic Party is determined to lose the war without regard to consequences and they plan to lose it as a way to gain political power. This is clearly not the way to win in November 2008. The latest stay up all night and debate Iraq stunt was seen for the inane political theater it was and the public does not seem to be pleased. I have no idea who is advising Harry Reid but, whoever he is, his former career as a grocery bagger seems a safe bet in the near future. Reid, one of the two Senators from “the state which shouldn’t even be a state” (almost all federal property), is the poster child for inability and distasteful politics. The best thing for the Republicans to do between now and November 2008 is to have Reid and Pelosi on television as much as possible. By constantly giving coverage to these two shrill whiners, the networks have created a result they clearly don't want.

The other interesting item from that poll is how about 60-70% of people polled were quite content with their personal finances. However, despite all-time record high stock market closings, low unemployment, record home ownership, etc., only 20% thought the US economy was doing well. Let’s see if I have that straight: most feel they are doing well, almost everyone has a job and has a place to live, stocks are booming but the economy stinks. That demonstrates the mainstream media in action. They rave about how good the economy was at the end of the Clinton presidency, which was not nearly as strong as today’s, but at the same time say today’s economy stinks. These are the same people who lambaste Fox News and claim that they themselves have no political agenda. There are a lot of ill-informed and gullible people in this country but I don’t think there are enough for the Democrats to pull this off. At least I hope not.