Holographic Virtual Reality Hologram Technology for Presidential Diplomacy

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The annual Coachella Festival is in full-swing, sold-out again, and this time they doubled up the event, 2-weeks instead of one. If you think this is all about Woodstock West re-runs of hippies, drugs, and free-love, guess again. This year's music was very computerized, techno, and had some high tech features that would blow you away - they even brought back a Rapper from the dead - well almost - they brought back his hologram. Yah, that was cool. Okay so let's talk shall we?

In case you missed the news or the viral videos of this high-tech show, you might wish to go to YouTube and search "Tupac and Hologram" or go read the article online on the Wall Street Journal Website titled; "Rapper's De-Light: Tupac Hologram May Go on Tour," by Ethan Smith. Well, I'd say that title says it all and that we haven't seen the last of holographic projection on the music stage, in fact, this is only the beginning. Indeed, I've been predicting for years the holographic era of entertainment.

Did you know that IBM is spending $5 Billion on Holographic and Spectral Imaging Research as we speak, and that Google X-Labs, Apple, Microsoft, and countless other tech sector companies are also thinking about this future? Hollywood and the entertainment industry are hardly alone in these endeavors. Still, I'd like to reiterate a concept I had spoken about years back at our think tank - which is in line with the whole concept of holographic meetings and communication - a takeoff of the Star Wars hologram cell phone device that debuted in the Trilogy Series.

You see, recently there was an unfortunate scandal in Columbia as our nation's chief executive visited the Americas Summit meeting of 2012, no the commander in chief was not in danger, but it left many wondering about the reality of his safety during such diplomatic events. In case you missed the news of that ordeal, please read; "New Details in Secret Service Case - At Least 20 Women Involved, Chief of Agency Tells Congress; Questions Arise About Earlier Trips," by Evan Perez and Jose DeCordoba.

Now then, what if we simply eliminated the need for the President to be there in the first place, we'd save 100s of millions of dollars yearly in tax payer's money. Is that even possible? Absolutely it is. This is why I am calling for a solution - Holographic Virtual Reality Hologram Technology where the leader of our nation can send in his virtual holographic self in place of his human body. We merely send in the Secret Service to set up the equipment;

Mylar Screen
High Definition Projector
High Speed Satellite Relay

The President remains at home, safe, and meets with the foreign leaders saying a ton of taxpayer's money and travel time so he can work on important things such as making good on all the promises he's made and fulfilling his duty to ensure that the government runs efficiently and not burdened media scandals of improprieties or wasteful partying. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Hologram Music Entertainment. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

The Broad We

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Nobody's perfect, the boss will make misstatements. Sometimes big, sometimes small. There are only three ways to deal with misstatements.

(1) Do nothing
(2) Retract
(3) Reinforce

If nothing is done, the silence endorses what was said and to the public is communicated that the boss stands by what he said and is satisfied with the reaction and interpretation circulating the airwaves. Yes, all of that just by doing nothing.

If the statement is retracted then great, but the handling of the retraction will discern the sheep from the goat. With retraction, the intent is to press the reset button, not to add fuel to the fire. This means that first you apologize, at the very least for the misunderstanding; then you withdraw (or deny what was said if the law demands), and/or any combination of the above as the circumstances warrant.

Now comes the tricky part. What do you do when you have no choice but to spin the boss out of this mess he got himself into by the slip of the tongue. There is always an escape route. The escape route lies in what I call "the broader we." Almost every discussion can be broadened and almost every person can be expanded.

For example, "I" can become "we." "He" or "she" can become "they."

"You" is a beautifully ambiguous word that can be plural or singular.

In the White House Press Briefing of March 7, 2011, Press Secretary Jay Carney for some reason does not want to say President Obama is an active candidate for the Presidential elections of 2012, but denying it would make him look like a bigger fool. So he smartly refers all "campaign" questions to the campaign office.

Still, a journalist with a point to make can be like a dog with a bone. So at the briefing, a reporter asks Carney, "But how can he go out and say we want to win in 2012? Is he an uncandidate, or what's the status?"

To which Carney replies, "Well, I believe he was there at the event you're referring to, campaigning for Senator Nelson and Democrats in general. So there's a broad 'we' there."

Broaden the discussion, broaden the group, find the broader we and the bail out will be staring you in the face if there is one. Semantics will only get you so far and will only work with a minor issue.

Therefore there will not always be a way out. There will be times the only way to press the reset button is to give a little. Show that you are human and make mistakes too.

Before taking any action, ask yourself, "What would it take to press the reset button?" Then and only then, start to plan. Saying sorry does not mean you lose and most of the time it does not cost a cent. Keep your eyes on the goal. Once you are able to reset the relationship, you win.

Aleem Khan is a Director of Corporate Communications (1999) Limited. He is a former communications advisor to two Government Ministers and an ACS Secretary General. A journalist by profession, he writes at http://www.news.co.tt/

View the original article here

Local Politics on the English Riviera

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The mayoral elections for Torbay of 2011 produced a clear victory for the Conservative candidate Gordon Oliver. He had successfully wielded the knife and dispatched his rival for the Conservative candidacy (the incumbent mayor Nick Bye). His election provoked strong reactions not least from those who had worked closely with him and who felt he would be a disaster for the Bay and its towns of Torquay, Paignton and Brixham. The local newspaper, the Herald Express also seemed to feel that this was a man who lacked vision and whose term in office would see the local area slide backwards.

A year on, the direst predictions have obviously not come true. The Local Authority continues to function and the ruling Conservative group appears to be as united as it is ever likely to be. Furthermore, the Council has continued to press ahead with eminently sensible policies such as the installation of parking meters at key points around the Bay. At a time of a squeeze on public spending it seems right that Torbay Council is following just about every other major town and city where free parking disappeared many years ago. Roads are a community asset and it is entirely right that where possible they can be used to generate community revenue. The current administration has also taken forward a policy of reducing the charges in town centre car parks to assist local traders. Long overdue repairs to Torquay's promenade have now begun with a completion expected in June. The current Mayor has also safeguarded the promenade near the Pavilion from any intrusive development. Planting of new palms along the road by Torre Abbey meadows have resulted in a much enhanced appearance whilst also ensuring reduced maintenance costs because of the removal of unsightly shrubbery.

However, these modest successes cannot mask the fact that the current mayor, Gordon Oliver has apparently failed to articulate a vision for his term in office. This was something that was highlighted by the very moderate head of the Torbay Civic Society in 2011 and repeated again by him at the beginning of 2012. People just do not know where Torbay is headed under Mr Oliver. He and his senior colleagues may well blame a hostile local press for his inability to get his message across but he refused the opportunity to have a weekly column in the Bays local paper something that is perverse in the extreme for a politician. There has also been a sense that with the new administration has come a much more hostile attitude to developers. True or not, there is a perception that some big developments have been lost as a result. The issue of the English Riviera Conference Centre has also proved to be a thorny one. The previous administration had indicated a willingness to see some form of redevelopment by a private company thereby relinquishing the ratepayers of the annual £600,000 subsidy required to run it. Mr Oliver has made it clear that the taxpayers must continue to fund the centre since the collective economic benefits it brings far outweighs the costs of maintaining it. A private sector redevelopment now seems unlikely.

Mr Oliver has also had a difficult time when it comes to the policy that he claims is closest to his heart; tourism. His long held antagonism towards the English Riviera Tourism Company (ERTC) and his hostility towards many involved in the industry have meant that he often appears to be on the margins when it comes to tourism. Very early into his mayoralty he tried and failed to change the policy allowing change of use for no longer viable guest houses and B&Bs, he also tried and failed to take direct control of the ERTC and to impose a distracting review on it after only one year's operation. This effort was effectively scuppered when his own council colleagues refused to back him after effective lobbying from the industry.

Many in the local tourism industry have noted Mr Oliver's complete absence from important tourism events. There have been two conferences held by the ERTC since his election and he has attended neither, he has not attended the Devon Awards for Tourism Excellence, the South West Tourism Awards for Tourism Excellence (both of which were held at the Riviera Centre in Torquay) nor the first ever Devon Tourism Conference held at the Westpoint Centre near Exeter. Some have questioned his ability to act in the interests of the industry.

A major embarrassment for the Mayor was his attempt to advertise the Bay on television. It appears that he went ahead without properly consulting the ERTC and had an advert transmitted which resulted in just 10 phone calls one of which was for the contestant line for the X Factor TV programme. Estimates as to how much this advert had cost the council taxpayers ranged from £16,000 to £8,000.

2012 provides the Mayor with a much needed opportunity to prove himself in the tourism field. He has taken control of the celebrations to mark the Queen's diamond jubilee and has once again made it clear that he wishes to see a growth in the number of Cruise ships entering the Bay. Successes in both of these endeavours will do much to mend fences with an industry that largely remains suspicious of his intentions. One glaring paradox does exist though with the Mayor's effort to bring Cruise Ship passengers into the Bay; he commissioned a consultation document from Councillor Hill in which there was a recommendation that the Bay pursued coaching holidays and abandoned its drive for quality. Cruise ship passengers and coach trip passengers are at opposite ends of the spectrum and this has tended to underline the muddle headed thinking of the Mayor.

One curious setback for Mr Oliver is that his cherished and stated policy of abolishing the post to which he has been elected looks as if it will be thwarted since the Government seems keen to see an extension of directly elected mayors rather than their disappearance. He may therefore have the uncomfortable dilemma at the end of his period in office of having to stand down or else break a clear election promise and stand again.

For fans of local politics Torbay and the English Riviera are a fascinating case study. However, Torbay offers much else to visitors; whether they are searching for a grand hotel or a more humble family guest house there is something for everyone. Torbay's unique micro climate and all year round visitor attractions help maintain the English Riviera as one of the UK's leading seaside resorts and make it ideal for visitors on short breaks.

One of the best torquay hotels in the Bay is The Somerville. This award winning Boutique Torquay Hotel was the South West's B&B of the Year in 2011 and continues to set the pace when it comes to redefining standards in seaside accommodation. Its newest accolade is to be listed in the top 25 B&B's of the world by Tripadvisor 2012. Rooms range from economic standard rooms to sumptuous suites. It is centrally located just a short walk from Torquay's harbourside and benefits from free parking in its own car park.

View the original article here

Embracing True American Equality

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

One of the fundamental pillars of American society has come to be the unwavering desire to promote and achieve equality. Unfortunately, we as Americans have strayed from this founding principle and have tried to make equality a man made endeavor. Through unorthodox practices such as affirmative action in education and the workplace and the progressive tax system, America has abandoned equality as an entire entity. In order to get back on the right track we as Americans must insist that our elected representatives promote the undying and righteous principle of equality of opportunity.

In order to accept equality, we as humans must first accept the fact that humans are inherently unequal. Some of us are taller, smarter, and more athletic, than others. The only equal thing about us are that we are given an opportunity though God himself to live on this planet. The idea that humans are inherently unequal is one that should be embraced because it represents the uniqueness of our world, and in particular American society where the individual is free to pursue whatever endeavors he or she chooses. The cliché phrase of "leveling the playing field" is unnecessary in America because we as Americans already have an even playing field because we live in the United States of America. However, there are serious social injustices that exist in this country that threaten our sense of equality.

The first obstacle that we face as a society is that of the progressive income tax system, which allows some people to not contribute to funding government and for others to contribute too much. It is a mask that hides the socialist enterprise of redistribution of wealth. The progressive tax system is a form of taxation that allows people who make little to no money to be taxed at a lower tax rate than those who earn a lot of money. Essentially, as a person's income grows so does their rate of taxation. The basic theory behind the progressive tax system is twofold. On one hand it theorizes that individuals who are of the highest income bracket should carry a heavier burden of taxation than those individuals of the lowest income bracket. On the other hand it supports the notion that individuals who make the same amount of money should be taxed the exact same amount.

At first glance, the progressive tax system may seem far and just, but it is in fact promoting dramatic inequality. In some instances the progressive tax system has some individuals paying 20% more in taxes than other individuals. Some people argue that this is fundamentally fair because those who earn money have a higher ability to pay than those who don't. The basic problem is that it creates disdain between individuals of the various income brackets as some pay a great percentage of their income than others, and receive exactly the same public services. The only solution to correct this massive injustice is the flat tax.

A flat tax system is a form of taxation that taxes individuals' income at the exact same rate. For example, in a flat tax system, individuals could all be taxed 15% of their income, regardless of their income bracket. Through taxing everyone the exact same rate, we would be making critical strides towards embracing true equality. Furthermore, we would eliminate the disdain between the classes, because everyone would be paying the exact same percentage of their income in the form of taxes. The difference in treatment by the government in the realm of taxation would become nonexistent, and equality in taxation would be attained.

The next fundamental injustice that must be addressed is that of affirmative action in education and in the work place. Affirmative action is a policy that gives people of certain racial and physical characteristics preference in admission to academic institutions and preference in employment opportunities, regardless of their merit. The basic theory behind affirmative action is that it provides a remedy to the injustices of the past against racial minorities and women. It is undeniable that certain groups, specifically, women and African-Americans once faced intense and unrivaled discrimination and harassment in the past, but is affirmative action really the answer to correct these past wrongs? Furthermore, is it ever okay to defy the Constitution of the United States in order to correct wrongs of the past? In my humble opinion the answers to the previously proposed questions is unequivocally no.

The basic issue with affirmative action policies is that it eliminates equality of opportunity in favor of man made equality. It propels those with subpar credentials to positions of prestige and power, while leaving extremely qualified individuals behind. The United States is supposed to be a color and gender blind nation, where race and genitalia does not matter as long as you can get the job at hand done. Inevitably, there will be racism and discrimination along the way from naïve and ignorant individuals, but we do not expect the Government to engage in that type of behavior. Affirmative action has become reverse discrimination where people are unjustly suffering because of our society's past wrongs.

The only way to promote equality in our society is to open it up fully to equality of opportunity. We must ensure that individuals in this society advance based on merit and only upon merit, or else we will have failed as a civil society. Race and genitalia have no place in determining who advances and who does not advance in this country. Equality of opportunity is the only way, but it is sadly escaping from our grasp.

So how do we proceed in promoting true equality in this country? The first steps must be to eliminate the progressive tax system in favor of a flat tax system and to completely eliminate all affirmative action policies in the United States. Once these are achieved we will not only have begun to return to our founding principles, but we also will have made critical strides in embracing true and serious equality in the United States. The United States is a country where anyone regardless of race, gender, and financial wealth, should be treated equally by the government. Equal treatment is a foundational principle of our constitutional republic, and it is time that we as Americans embrace that principle, and thus embrace the true essence of equality.

View the original article here

What Do Health Care and the Mega Millions Lottery Have in Common?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

As a lifelong student of leadership, I enjoy looking at the events that capture national attention and examining what they say about who we are as a society and how we are leading in our lives.

It seems nothing is as riveting as the Affordable Care Act's three-days at the Supreme Court. The debate over healthcare or as some have dubbed it "Obamacare" has galvanized the nation along its well-know red and blue partisan divisions. How is it that the world's most affluent country, with the most expensive health care system still has a dismal record on health care with tens of millions of people unable to access it?

While I completely conquer with the assessment by Auerback and Wray that health insurance is not synonymous with health care and that a single-payer system, while politically untenable is the more economically sound approach, at its core the health care dispute is at the place where America is stuck on many policy fronts. That is, there is an unresolved tension between what we want for ourselves as individuals and what we want for our community and country.

Some indisputable facts:

• Everyone consumes health care.

• No one knows if they will require a little or a great deal of care or when they will need it.

• When someone needs care they want to get it right away.

• As a society, we have already agreed that anyone who needs care will receive it if they get themselves to an Emergency Room.

• Most people always assume that "bad things" happen to other people until they are the ones faced with chronic illness or a catastrophic accident.

• Untreated sick people can become a threat to public health.

• For most services where there are free riders and when individual access has both personal and community implications (e.g. it is impossible to have an army that only defends a certain portion of the population) the government is the provider because it is the entity that best balances the interests of personal and public without a profit motive.

From the left and the right, health care is in a ditch because of two key factors: on the right the vitriol has become so heated around the interests of the individual that they have dismissed all sense of connection and the inevitable consequence of one person's behavior on another; and on the left, lack of inspired leadership in government has created a bureaucracy of mind-numbing regulations that now hinder one of its central functions of balancing personal and communal needs in a vibrant and responsive way. Take any issue, education, environment, economy they are all stuck because we have polarized the choices to such extremes that for the bulk of Americans neither path is palatable.

So what does all this have to do with the lottery? It is a fascinating juxtaposition of these issues. As the jackpot grew, millions of Americans were willing to shell out one to hundreds of dollars for the minuscule chance to become a mega-millionaire. Contribution to the lottery was justified because there was the possibility that they could be the one who would win it all. No one forced them; in fact, most people were positively giddy about the opportunity of winning and the chance to free themselves of ever having another financial concern. Yet, the suggestion that everyone would pay into a system that would guarantee health care for all who need it, in hopes that it would never be them, seems to be akin to sidling up to the devil himself. Why is it so easy to open our pocketbooks for the slim chance to be a millionaire and yet we are revolted by the notion of contributing to health care for those who may need more of it than they can afford-including ourselves?

Which brings us to an important insight into our national psyche, and perhaps that of most human beings, we don't like to be told what to do and we don't like to feel as if we don't have a choice. The Affordable Health Care Law has become the punching bag of the right over this issue alone. Any time someone unfurls the banner of "government good" the right goes after it like a dog with a bone.

So how does health care become like the lottery, where people actually want to participate? In a word-leadership.

While the intricacies of how to accomplish this cannot be detailed in a single article, the strategy of getting there is straightforward. Leadership is about helping people reconcile their conflicting beliefs so that individual values are aligned and are shared throughout communities. Because elected officials fear this challenging conversation, they would rather deal with the details of who pays for what, when and how rather than working with the public to get to a point where everyone can see the benefits, personally and societally of a well-functioning health care system.

Ask anyone and they will be able to come up with a list of obvious ways to improve health care. It is a system where no one, other than the insurance executives and their shareholders, are satisfied. Before we can get to the concrete work of improving the quality of what is offered, it is important to come to a fundamental understanding and agreement to the facts listed at the beginning of this article. Without an agreement around the basics and a reconciliation of the desire to "get government out of my life" while wanting the benefits of living in a well-functioning society we will never get anywhere.

Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision in June to uphold the health care law or not, we will still be a long way from true change-and with a good majority of the country enraged by the pronouncement. Without a leader willing to engage in a substantive dialogue our health care system will continue to deteriorate.

Perhaps the best we can do is to keep buying those lottery tickets hoping we are the lucky winner who needn't every worry about health care costs. Or maybe we can feel good about building a system where everyone contributes what they can in hopes they will never need it and knowing it will be there if they do. Now that's a lottery where everyone wins.

Kathleen Schafer is at the forefront of leadership development with more than 20 years experience. Grounded in the rough and tumble world of politics, experienced in business, honed in academia and broadened by her own journey to create a balanced life, she brings remarkable insights on how individuals can develop their leadership potential to successfully create productive and fulfilling lives. Kathleen's personal presence in one-on-one coaching, seminars, and keynote presentations transforms people's perspective on what they can accomplish and how to walk it in the real world everyday. Her leadership tools are simple, easy to understand allow you to quickly integrate them into your life, starting now!

If you are interested in creating change in your life, your organization or your community, please visit http://www.leadershipconnection.net/ for additional resources, podcasts, on-line courses, and tools to start your leadership journey today.

View the original article here

Divisiveness, Politics, and a Philosophy for Change!

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The political climate of the United States is a reflection of the political climate changes affecting the entire world. While others point in disgust and dismay at the evolutions of the Republican nomination, as well as the enormous gaps between Republican and Democrat, our issues are not so very unique.

As a planet, we appear to have evolved socially to the point where the main arguments revolve around our sense of responsibility for each other. Who owns the responsibility to make decisions for others and to what degree?

Should we have national health care? Should we involve ourselves in the affairs of others? Are we responsible for removing dictators from power when they abuse their populations? Do we, or do we not, impose our beliefs on those who are less trained? How are we using our sophisticated weapons and who has the right and the responsibility to do what? Who is responsible for the overuse of debt as a means to finance what we cannot afford, and who will pay the debt so we can get on with our lives?

We Are All Responsible

Our issues are not about who we should blame for our potentially catastrophic choices. These choices and their consequences are natural results of how the human being reacts to stimuli. We need to make the next leap in our evolution, own the entire mess as a jointly created consequence of being imperfect, and figure out what to do about it in a much more holistic way.

Certainly we can round up and punish everyone at the top responsible for creating financial tools that were self-serving and destructive. We can identify the extremists and attempt to take them out one at a time. We can bomb others for their gall in thinking that they have the right to create weapons like our own. At the end of the day, we will have solved NOTHING and we will have created the reasons for the next big divide.

We are all a part of this shift and we are all responsible for its pain. Do you not also react in fear when you are not making your numbers, pleasing your boss, having trouble paying your bills? Do we not all hope for someone to step in and save us from the precipice? Think of the choices you make every day, that in essence, are not so different from the choices that our politicians, whom we elect, are making for us.

It is not that we have all made the SAME mistakes. The nature of the mistakes we make is all the same. We are all, no matter where we live or what political party we follow, designed to react to perceived threat and perceived gain by protecting our own best interests. In attempting to maximize our individual and group existence, we take short cuts at the expense of others. Our understanding of what is good for us varies and that is a part of the dilemma.

Defining Where We Are!

We can look at any pocket of humanity and come to different conclusions about our level of enlightenment. If you look at some of the violent, war lord situations in various parts of the planet, one might think we have learned nothing. To observe Shock and Awe, we might come to the same conclusion. The future for mankind may well look bleak indeed. When observing the corruption in our political and economic systems, we again wonder how we can create any future for next generations.

That's the dark side.

The very nature of our political impasse however, speaks to something much more hopeful, particularly if we can step above our diversity and find the common ground. We fight over whether or not there should be government mandated health care. We debate, rather endlessly, whether it is good or bad to bail out failing companies. Our discussions about whether we should build a wall along the Mexican border are more than intense. They are personal and emotional.

Why? Each person's experience of the past causes him or her to form a fear. That fear, based on a concern that someone is abused, is the reason for the bias. We take sides about who needs protection from whom.

In the following examples, there is no judgment of right and wrong. These examples are offered simply to help define the problem.

Examples:

1. Does the baby need protection from the mother's will to extinguish its existence? Does the mother need protection of her right to choose the kind of life she wants?

2. Do the residents of this country need protection from illegal immigrants because they take jobs, resources, etc. away from our own needy? Do the immigrants need protection from intolerable situations which cause them to risk everything to come to the United States?

3. Do we need protection from extremists? Do extremists exist to protect their sense of abuse at the hands of us?

4. Do corporations need protection in order to save the jobs of the innocent? Do overwhelmed taxpayers need protection against poor leadership in corporations?

5. Do we need to protect our energy reserves for the future? Do we need to develop them now to protect us now?

These are just a few of the diverse ideas that are driving us further and further apart throughout the world. The more extreme the response, the more fear behind it. The things, about which we are most divided, have RIGHT on both sides of the issue. The problem is that when we take sides, we diminish our capacity to resolve these issues, and we spin in our righteousness, with the problems continuing to build and gather the energy to take us all down.

As We Mature....

This spinning over old problems is a symptom of our need to evolve to the next level with our humanity. We must recognize that we are all afraid.

Basically we all want the same things. We want to be safe, healthy and free to pursue our own ideas and agendas. While we particularly do not want to suffer, we really don't want others to suffer. We want to have enough to eat and a place to turn when things go wrong.

Making it more specific, we could focus on what divides our politics in this country. There will be few who would say that it is appropriate for a person not to have medical care. The issue may not even be about who pays for it, as you might think. The dividing line is in the execution. Those who are too lazy to do their part often ruin it for everyone. No one really wants to pay for someone who has decided that others should pay for them and then chooses not to work when they are quite capable. We want to be treated fairly, but it seems that we have failed miserably to create and enforce a fair system where individuals know that they will be covered, AND expected to contribute what they can.

In other words, if we simply take one of the multitudes of issues facing us, and find a way to determine what we want and don't want, we are really all on the same side.

It was more than a little interesting to see how the public related to Newt Gingrich during the brief time frame when he described us as one group and suggested that we had the power to solve all of these problems together. He offered logical solutions to the problems of our social systems: take the corruption out of health care, develop enough natural resources not to be perceived as dependent, put kids to work that want to work, allow people to choose where to put their retirements, and so on. We all want health care, we all want retirement options, we all want our kids to be responsible adults, and we all want to be independent, etc. How we get there is the question. People "heard" Leadership and responded strongly.

Suddenly, he went back to divisive messages and the large group that had perked up their ears to his strong message of collectiveness, retreated. It is possible that his temporary following should tell us something about politics that the polarizing data fails to capture. Many people, who are not necessarily the active political people with a much articulated agenda, want to step up to the next level.

Resonance and Its Importance to Solving Big Problems

Really sophisticated leaders learn early the importance of creating messages that resonate. A message which resonates is one which is easily discernible as wisdom. It removes argument and friction in its clear ability to override the areas of conflict.

How do these leaders find these resonant positions? They step back and look at the problems from a distance. They ask the question, "Which problem are we actually trying to solve?"

The word AND becomes very important in this quest for solutions. For example, when you look at whether or not you bail out the large company which has made multiple bad decisions over time, you must clearly state what problem you are attempting to solve in a way that causes everyone to appreciate what you are trying to do. Where people get stuck is because they see the problem as a question of either/or. "Either we save the company and let all these bad leaders get away with their behaviors or we let a lot of innocent people go down." Some can tolerate the innocents going down because their sense of outrage at the bad leaders is greater than their need to protect those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And others write off the bad leadership in their need to keep the company afloat.

If the question becomes, "How do we protect the jobs of innocent people AND make sure that bad leadership is not rewarded?" you are solving a different problem. In the outrage over the bailouts, that was the missing piece. Good leaders would have ensured that the decision makers were not rewarded for their idiocy, while at the same time they protected the company. Had they done so, the backlash would have been minimalized.

When attempting to find resonance, it is often a useful exercise to find the divide, and place the word AND between the root needs of the audience. First you must identify the root needs. "We need everyone who needs health care to be covered." "We do not want to become a welfare or socialistic state."

Where the separation occurs is when the participants assume it is either or. If we cover everyone, we become a welfare state. Or we do not cover everyone and we maintain our capitalistic society. What if the problem we were trying to solve was, "we will find a way to make sure that people get health care and we will do so in a way that protects the values of those who fear socialism." Again, we are solving that problem vs the problem of making sure everyone has health care. We are quite capable of solving any problem. We need to be sure we define our problems in a way that is inclusive as opposed to divisive.

A good leader must also assume that most of the people they address are ultimately good people. They will respond to TRUTH. It takes courage to move beyond the repetitive assertions of being right on an issue to look for solutions which solve the problems and meet your opponent's needs as well.

What we seem to lack are the leaders (and followers) who see the whole picture. We have become so completely divided that we no longer seem to remember which problems we were attempting to solve. Letting go of conflict-ridden beliefs, and reviewing intentions might help us all to create a bridge between us.

Yes, there are definitely bad people in the world. With any evolution, there are always thought leaders attempting to pull everyone along to an understanding of a kinder, gentler potential. Good leaders are not naïve. They recognize that they must adjust for those who have not evolved past the understanding that violence and clever conniving are the means to the end. A good leader will find a means to isolate those persons' ability to harm the rest and will continue to trust that a large portion of humanity is ready to move on!

Toni Lynn Chinoy has written multiple texts on leadership, bullies, power games and more. She is the founder of Harlan-Evans, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in organizational change and leadership development. Go to our web site to watch a short video on coping with difficult times and to sign up for our free newsletter addressing common professional issues. web site: http://www.harlanevans.com/

View the original article here

Politics Are the Ultimate Distraction - Turn That Crap Off

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

They say that politics in any society is nothing more than sound and fury, and chaos and controversy promoted to extreme by the mass media. Indeed, I believe if you would think about this for second, you would certainly agree with what I am saying, as well as those famous political philosophers that have come before me. Perhaps one of the biggest and most important questions right now, as we head into the 2012 presidential election season is; do we really need to listen to all this political rhetoric?

Shouldn't we be keeping our eye on the ball? Why all the Distraction, what is everyone hiding, and why can't we look at the performance of various individuals seeking reelection, and look at the issues, without the political rhetoric and bantering back and forth to no avail. After all, it doesn't really matter if we are playing the game of "he said, she said" or looking for the best "gotcha" points on Facebook or Twitter - we have a country to run, along with our state and local governments, all of this other nonsense is really a waste of time.

Yes I know, it is human nature to want to bitch and moan, complain, and carry-on and commiserate with those you feel a bonding with, and to take all this nonsense and controversy and use it to build your team against the so-called enemy, which is actually your neighbor next door, across the street, or of a different political party. Not long ago, there was a combat veteran running for Mayor in San Diego, and he made an interesting statement he said;

"I've been to war, I've seen the enemy, I fought the enemy, and I guarantee you those of the other political party are not our enemy, they are nothing like our enemy, there are fellow citizens, our friends, and we must work together to make this a better place."

All the while, he was doing just that, and wishing to distance himself from all the political nonsense. We all ought to have a lot of respect for people like that, those who will push the politics aside, and just talk about the issues without the blame games, and without trying to up the ante or destroy the reputation and credibility of those they are running against in their political campaigns. After all, people usually don't run for election unless they see something they feel is wrong, and they would like to fix.

That is not to say once in office they don't decide that it's fun having this power trip, and therefore do everything they can do collect political contributions to stay in power. Yes, I know that happens too.

Nevertheless, I would submit to you that politics are the "Ultimate Distraction" and any time someone puts up a distraction, we need to immediately dismiss whatever they just said, and go investigate deeper, and find out what's really going on because that should be a tipoff and a clue right away. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative eBook on 2012 Politics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here