The 4 Answers Response Leaders Know Before Everyone Else?

FREE Email Course

  • 4 Days
  • 4 Emails
  • Instant Leadership Improvement

Sign up to keep up, today!

Powered by ConvertKit

16 January 2009

Adios Amigo

Who watched the President say farewell to the nation last night? Not many it seems.

This morning's arm chair quarterbacks are criticizing him or underplaying his description of the troubled economy and for overplaying his role in the war. Of course they are in the news-selling business so it would be expecting too much for them to just be "okay" with whatever the soon-to-be-former President said, right? Advocates for and against are weighing in on what he said and didn't say in his farewell remarks. Because that is what advocates do you know.

I am reminded of one of my own coming-to-age moments when former President Reagan left office after 8 years and was also lambasted for his absentee mention of the Iran-Contra Affair and other less than glorious aspects of his presidency. My takeaway was that it was his story, and when people get to tell their own story, seldom will they allow it to be dominated by their shortcomings or perceived failures. I don't recall former President Clinton's farewell, but I am certain that it did not include a, uh, blow by blow account of the Monica Lewinsky incident.

I didn't always agree with Bush, but sometimes I did. He earned my vote twice in part because no other party could present a candidate that could convince me of enough of anything that was important to me and in part because Bush did less pandering while being more in line with some - but not all - of my core interests.

One of his strongest attributes was also one of his most criticized. He was often down right unapologetic when he made a leadership decision. And many people hated that about him. They wanted him to waver, to succumb, to reflect a position more like their own, of course. And in a society where we are used to complaining to get our way from pandering leaders, his approach to leadership was not very well received.

"No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair." - George S. Patton

President Bush did not curry enough favor among the politicos though to be an effective politician and his record will surely reflect that. Only the shadow knows what the long term effects of his leadership will reveal but having more than a superficial understanding of security matters, I am confident that among other things, the my family was much safer under Bush's leadership than anyone else's. Many will of course predictably disagree.

So now we begin a new presidential chapter, in which the same people who scream for EQUALITY and the now the same ones screaming how SPECIAL Obama's presidency is because he is, you know, black. A disturbingly ridiculous irony that I look forward to our nation getting past. (Yeah right). President Obama has lots of work to do and he should get busy while he is still popular.

As my President, he will also have my support and I hope his administration does well.

And when it is his time to go, let's not be surprised if he does not demonstrate too much contrition, okay?

14 January 2009

Telephones are Absurd

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication."
Western Union memo, 1876

Not only did the landline telephone revolutionize communication after being patented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876, a recent study now reveals that 3 out of 10 people receive all of their telephone calls on their cell phone and nearly 8 out 10 of all Americans carry a cell phone.

After all, almost 20% of US households only have cellphones, with no landlines whatsoever. That marks a 2% increase since last year. Aren't we glad some people embraced innovation?

The National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the CDC also found that:

  • Low-income people are likelier than the more affluent to have only cell phones.

  • About a third of those under age 30 only have cell phones.

  • Households with both cell and landline phones who rarely or never get calls on their landlines tend to be better educated and have higher incomes.

  • About 2 percent of households reported having no telephones.

How was this information gathered? In person of course, since pollsters are largely prohibited by federal law to call cell phones unsolicited. Such irony.

So what is up with those sage prognosticators at Western Union these days? As can be predicted, companies that take such a narrow view of innovation do not progress too far. I find it remarkable that the company with virtually the only means of communication since 1851 (telegrams) and the industrialized monopoly to go with it, did not parlay that market presence into the next generation of communication. It was their game to lose. And of course lose out they did. After hemorrhaging money and gathering debt for years due to their continued investment in under performing businesses, they shuttered all of their interests and started focusing on sending money out of the country. Remember their ad?: "The fastest way to send money...worldwide".

They crept their original mission of relaying messages between faraway people in faraway places to relaying money between faraway people in faraway places. Or more specifically, between the US and Central America.

Western Union currently does about $4 Billion US in revenue each year. As mentioned, The bulk of that is from remittances from the US back to Mexico. US citizens can therefore be assured that Western Union is actively or passively lobbying to keep illegal aliens alive and well in this country. In fact they proudly boast the following:

"Our citizenship efforts help to amplify the impact of remittances, a powerful force for social good".

Whose "social good" though? If you are in Mexico, you love what Western Union does because they bring money (remittances) into your country faster. If you are a host country, then it is insane to think that funnelling money out of your society without reciprocity is a good thing. And even some of their very own remittance sending patrons agree. In late 2007, an immigrant rights group initiated a boycott against Western Union claiming that they were be charged too much to send their money back home.

To make nice and to protect their nut, Western Union established several grant programs whereby they are "devoted to empowering the people and communities we serve". While their community programs are purported to being worldwide, each of their reported community partnerships consist of Mexican interests. They even give money to an organization in Mexico that helps Mexicans start their own business. Really?? Look no further than the Billions of dollars in US to Mexico remittances as the source of capital for these Mexican start-ups.

Global citizenship is important, without a doubt. Let's just not be fooled however by the self sustaining, self serving methods of companies like Western Union who are doing more to erode our country's infrastructure than they are in strengthening it.

Let's recap this trail of Absurdity: An American Company, who should have been out of business years ago, is now solely focused on expediting US currency out of this country, which hurts our economy and reinforces illegal immigration (and yes permissible and legal immigration too). The immigrants (legal and illegal) have now banded together to demand the right to not pay too much to this American company so they can send even more money back to their home country. The company acquiesced and not only lowered their money transfer rates but also is now sending some of their own corporate foundation money to these foreign countries to help build their infrastructure and to increase the demand for more remittances. Wow!

Viva la Free Enterprise!