Today is a remembrance of a personal milestone.
25 years ago tonight I was getting grilled, hounded, and interrogated as part of my Eagle Scout District Level Review Board. No ... the experience was not that bad, just questions about what I had accomplished, my Eagle service project, and insightful questions on what I really had learned from Scouting. Yes, that was 25 years ago, and I marvel at what I learned then I still apply today. Many great memories come from that journey to achieve Scouting's highest honor; I could fill several pages of stories from campouts which would range from serious to hilarious, valuable to pointless. And I wouldn't trade any of it for anything.
Scouting set me on a path where I would learn the skills and traits needed to transition from a boy to a man. The Scout Law, which is: "A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent" (Yes, I still know it after all these years) are words to live by for every person, not just Scouts. Having the opportunities to learn responsibility, teamwork, and survival in an environment where I could make mistakes without catastrophic results taught me lessons which helped form my very character.
After High School I entered military service, where I believe the character qualities I learned as a Scout were forged like slip in a kiln. Trustworthy and Loyal evolved into what I know as integrity today, and the other points of the Scout Law took on more robust meaning as well. But Scouting's qualities aren't needed just for military men--but men of all types in all professions. All professions must exercise those qualities of the Scout Law to be successful (some more than others), whether that be point by point or in harmony. One area of successful harmony of the Scout Law is leadership.
Today I must acknowledge that Scouting developed any leadership qualities I have more than the military ever has or will. As adults, the finer points of leadership are hard to attain because of the burden of dealing with the dimension of "management." I believe leadership can be taught, but it's next to impossible with the preoccupation of ... management. To me, leadership is that quality "between the lines" of administering management. Looking out for your people through listening to them, taking up their cause, seeing their potential, giving them opportunity aren't explicit tasks in any job. Making these actions a part of your modus operandi will build rapport and loyalty with subordinates--you will be seen as a leader.
Today I'm doing what I can with those leadership qualities as I serve on my son's Troop Committee as Treasurer. It's a start to give back to the organization that played a major role in making me who I am today. I can only hope and pray my son will stick with Scouting so he can learn the same lessons I did, and reap the benefits throughout his life.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Call Me If You Need Me?
Among all of the financial mess, most of which I don't have a clue about, I do think it will take an "Act of Congress" to save our economy from a ruin which will extend to the far reaches of the planet (i.e., lost credit). And congress--every one of them--should be working together, representing the people who elected them, to find the most fair and equitable solution--not just for political expediency, but for the security of our Nation's economy for years to come. This stands far above all the other mundane duties of a member of congress--this is critical!
Senator John McCain made a risky, tough call to suspend his presidential campaign to do what he gets paid $160,000 a year to do--represent the citizens of Arizona in the U.S. Senate. His actions vaidate his past statement of, "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war." I don't think any politician is "100% pure", but at least he is making the effort to fufill the obligation of when he was "called" to deal with the Nation's problems in the Senate on behalf of the state of Arizona. I can respect that.
What I have a hard time respecting is anyone who blows off his/her job in favor of some personal interest. Can you imagine school teachers saying to his/her students: "Our education in this country is in a dire state and needs a significant overhaul. Since I have more pressing matters, you have your textbooks and you can figure out what you need to know. If you need me, call, and I'll be right here." Or in my own job as a consultant to the government: "OK, I got you all the information you need. You can put it all together yourselves--you're smart people. If you need me, I'm available, so please call."
I think everyone knows what I'm leading to with Senator Obama. Essentially his Presidential campaign must go on and his job--representing the people of Illinois in the United States Senate--needs to take a back seat right now. That tells me this country's grave crisis should take a back seat as well from his perspective. At least he did respect the request of the President and stop by the White House; afterward, he took questions and McCain slipped out--possibly to get back to work.
This blog is not about being Republican or Democrat, but doing the job you are elected to do. Excuses like, "We're Presidential candidates and all we'll do is distract from the process" comes across as pretty weak (to me). Wish I could use that excuse if I get a bad haircut, as I'm sure that would only distract from whatever process I'm supporting (and explain the funny looks).
So, all excuses aside, Senator Obama was called and needed when he was elected to the Senate by the people of Illinois, and he is not doing his job. I wonder if he's thinking McCain is looking for an excuse to not debate him. What's next? Will we hear from Senator Obama: "Senator McCain is too chicken to debate me Friday night, he's hiding out in Washington." Actually, he's hiding out in the Senate doing his job, like you should be.
Senator John McCain made a risky, tough call to suspend his presidential campaign to do what he gets paid $160,000 a year to do--represent the citizens of Arizona in the U.S. Senate. His actions vaidate his past statement of, "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war." I don't think any politician is "100% pure", but at least he is making the effort to fufill the obligation of when he was "called" to deal with the Nation's problems in the Senate on behalf of the state of Arizona. I can respect that.
What I have a hard time respecting is anyone who blows off his/her job in favor of some personal interest. Can you imagine school teachers saying to his/her students: "Our education in this country is in a dire state and needs a significant overhaul. Since I have more pressing matters, you have your textbooks and you can figure out what you need to know. If you need me, call, and I'll be right here." Or in my own job as a consultant to the government: "OK, I got you all the information you need. You can put it all together yourselves--you're smart people. If you need me, I'm available, so please call."
I think everyone knows what I'm leading to with Senator Obama. Essentially his Presidential campaign must go on and his job--representing the people of Illinois in the United States Senate--needs to take a back seat right now. That tells me this country's grave crisis should take a back seat as well from his perspective. At least he did respect the request of the President and stop by the White House; afterward, he took questions and McCain slipped out--possibly to get back to work.
This blog is not about being Republican or Democrat, but doing the job you are elected to do. Excuses like, "We're Presidential candidates and all we'll do is distract from the process" comes across as pretty weak (to me). Wish I could use that excuse if I get a bad haircut, as I'm sure that would only distract from whatever process I'm supporting (and explain the funny looks).
So, all excuses aside, Senator Obama was called and needed when he was elected to the Senate by the people of Illinois, and he is not doing his job. I wonder if he's thinking McCain is looking for an excuse to not debate him. What's next? Will we hear from Senator Obama: "Senator McCain is too chicken to debate me Friday night, he's hiding out in Washington." Actually, he's hiding out in the Senate doing his job, like you should be.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Patriotic Taxation?
Senator Joe Biden just told me in order to be patriotic, I need to pay more taxes. Are you kidding me? I suppose he thinks no one will argue against his statement if he tags "patriotic" with it. Patriotism means loving your country; I don't equivocate country with government.
When my kids ask me for money (which really isn't that often), I always end up asking them what it will be for, why they need it, etc., and chances are I will give them the money if they make a semi-decent case. I don't just give them the money because I love them ("patriotism"), but because I know how it will be used. (Of course, on occasion, they get money just to have fun--but with an understanding that all other obligations are met). Where's the government's "parents"?
I have a different perspective on taxes and patriotism. How about enabling those who are "rich" and have businesses to expand and create ... new tax payers. By creating a new tax payer, that's a new source of taxes besides me and everyone else who already pays. That's giving that new tax payer a job and an opportunity to pursue his/her own American Dream. And to me that is one of the most patriotic things to do--in terms of money, business, and taxes. Business in this country is not a zero-sum game, which redistributing wealth implies. Do people get rich in the United States by making other people poor?
If I collected $1 from a million people, I would be a millionaire. Now are all those people poor from losing a dollar? Of course not. Now extrapolate that thinking to exchanging goods and services, covering your business costs and making a fair profit. Wealth in the United States is created and should not be redistributed.
We live in the greatest nation the world has ever known. Yet there are those individuals who continue to look at the rest of the world and not learn the lessons from their government approaches and mistakes. And like a stubborn child, those "patriotism through higher taxes" folks must live the lessons out themselves--I just don't want to be forced to live those lessons out with them.
When my kids ask me for money (which really isn't that often), I always end up asking them what it will be for, why they need it, etc., and chances are I will give them the money if they make a semi-decent case. I don't just give them the money because I love them ("patriotism"), but because I know how it will be used. (Of course, on occasion, they get money just to have fun--but with an understanding that all other obligations are met). Where's the government's "parents"?
From the article I read, Biden proclaimed : “We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people ... It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”
So, Senator Biden, when in America's history has it taxed itself into prosperity?
I have a different perspective on taxes and patriotism. How about enabling those who are "rich" and have businesses to expand and create ... new tax payers. By creating a new tax payer, that's a new source of taxes besides me and everyone else who already pays. That's giving that new tax payer a job and an opportunity to pursue his/her own American Dream. And to me that is one of the most patriotic things to do--in terms of money, business, and taxes. Business in this country is not a zero-sum game, which redistributing wealth implies. Do people get rich in the United States by making other people poor?
If I collected $1 from a million people, I would be a millionaire. Now are all those people poor from losing a dollar? Of course not. Now extrapolate that thinking to exchanging goods and services, covering your business costs and making a fair profit. Wealth in the United States is created and should not be redistributed.
We live in the greatest nation the world has ever known. Yet there are those individuals who continue to look at the rest of the world and not learn the lessons from their government approaches and mistakes. And like a stubborn child, those "patriotism through higher taxes" folks must live the lessons out themselves--I just don't want to be forced to live those lessons out with them.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
A "Task from God"
I could not help but become a bit irritated by a recent letter to the editor in my local newspaper where a citizen misquoted Governor Sarah Palin's address to a church school graduating class. The author of the letter called Gov. Palin's statement (out of context) unimpressive patriotism. Conveniently, this quote of Gov. Palin stops at "Task (that is) from God." The quote in its full text reads:
“Pray for our Military men and woman who are striving to do what is also right for this Country. Pray that our leaders, our National Leaders, are sending them on a task that is from God. That is what we must pray for. That there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan. So bless them with your prayers - prayers and protection over our soldiers.”
Now leaving off everything after "God" puts the quote in the entirely wrong context. Quoting partial statements to make a personal point is pure misrepresentation. Period. I don't care what side does it, let's just be objective with the facts, and have personal interpretation after that.
What really rubbed me the wrong way was that patriotism would be questioned because of a reference to following God's plan. I don't know if many are like me, fed up with this "separation of church and state" line which isn't in the U.S. Constitution. Let's review the First Amendment, which reads:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The intent of the first amendment was that the government would not establish a state religion and force everyone to be a part of it. There's nothing there that says people cannot have religious views and work in government. There's nothing there that says God should not be included in our government activities--to include decision making. And, there's nothing there that says we can't honor God in our schools--making laws against such things prohibits the free exercise of religion, if you ask me.
I remember a TV show that talked about when the laws disallowing Bible reading and prayer in school were made in the 1960s. A quote from one of the Supreme Court Justices was, "If we keep saying 'separation of church and state' is in the Constitution, people will believe it." And they have, to the detriment of all.
“Pray for our Military men and woman who are striving to do what is also right for this Country. Pray that our leaders, our National Leaders, are sending them on a task that is from God. That is what we must pray for. That there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan. So bless them with your prayers - prayers and protection over our soldiers.”
Now leaving off everything after "God" puts the quote in the entirely wrong context. Quoting partial statements to make a personal point is pure misrepresentation. Period. I don't care what side does it, let's just be objective with the facts, and have personal interpretation after that.
What really rubbed me the wrong way was that patriotism would be questioned because of a reference to following God's plan. I don't know if many are like me, fed up with this "separation of church and state" line which isn't in the U.S. Constitution. Let's review the First Amendment, which reads:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The intent of the first amendment was that the government would not establish a state religion and force everyone to be a part of it. There's nothing there that says people cannot have religious views and work in government. There's nothing there that says God should not be included in our government activities--to include decision making. And, there's nothing there that says we can't honor God in our schools--making laws against such things prohibits the free exercise of religion, if you ask me.
I remember a TV show that talked about when the laws disallowing Bible reading and prayer in school were made in the 1960s. A quote from one of the Supreme Court Justices was, "If we keep saying 'separation of church and state' is in the Constitution, people will believe it." And they have, to the detriment of all.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Careful with your tactics ...
While I am a conservative, hopefully that doesn't diminish my pointing out the obvious.
Sarah Palin has been all the buzz and her opponents have pointed to the fact she doesn't have the experience, whether that be the type of experience or the volume of experience. OK, is that really smart to say that when your own candidate has less experience than the candidate you are critiquing? Obama's experience is: supporting the community and being paid for it, state legislator, and junior U.S. Senator from Illinois (who has spent most of his Senator time on the campaign trail). Ms. Palin started as a councilwoman, but progressed to Mayor of her town and then to Governor of Alaska. Mayor and Governor are "in charge" jobs where the fine art of balancing leadership and management will be scrutinized by all. Voting "present" most of the time is not an option. So do the Democrats really want to attack experience (mistake 1) of the opposition number 2 when clearly their number 1 does not have the experience to match (mistake 2)?
The recent talking point is, "Let's face it, Sarah Palin is not ready to be President." In light of that statement, why should I think Barack Obama is ready to be President?
Now Senator John McCain is being attacked for being in Washington too long. When Senator McCain was in Vietnam, Joe Biden was in the Senate. Joe Biden has been in Washington longer, and what is even worse is that he was in the party in power the majority of the time! Now who has had the most time on the ground with the best chance of infecting change? Careful--More attention on Joe Biden might highlight the fact he asked a wheelchair bound State Senator to stand up while on the campaign trail.
Personally, I would like to see more debate on the issues instead of these basic attacks on experience--both ways. General approach would be good enough--then let's match up what they say to their past actions and/or what they've said already. Will we find consistency?
Sarah Palin has been all the buzz and her opponents have pointed to the fact she doesn't have the experience, whether that be the type of experience or the volume of experience. OK, is that really smart to say that when your own candidate has less experience than the candidate you are critiquing? Obama's experience is: supporting the community and being paid for it, state legislator, and junior U.S. Senator from Illinois (who has spent most of his Senator time on the campaign trail). Ms. Palin started as a councilwoman, but progressed to Mayor of her town and then to Governor of Alaska. Mayor and Governor are "in charge" jobs where the fine art of balancing leadership and management will be scrutinized by all. Voting "present" most of the time is not an option. So do the Democrats really want to attack experience (mistake 1) of the opposition number 2 when clearly their number 1 does not have the experience to match (mistake 2)?
The recent talking point is, "Let's face it, Sarah Palin is not ready to be President." In light of that statement, why should I think Barack Obama is ready to be President?
Now Senator John McCain is being attacked for being in Washington too long. When Senator McCain was in Vietnam, Joe Biden was in the Senate. Joe Biden has been in Washington longer, and what is even worse is that he was in the party in power the majority of the time! Now who has had the most time on the ground with the best chance of infecting change? Careful--More attention on Joe Biden might highlight the fact he asked a wheelchair bound State Senator to stand up while on the campaign trail.
Personally, I would like to see more debate on the issues instead of these basic attacks on experience--both ways. General approach would be good enough--then let's match up what they say to their past actions and/or what they've said already. Will we find consistency?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11 Remembered
What was I doing September 11th, 2001? I was working in a vault when a colleague told me while checking e-mail that an airplane hit one of the World Trade Center buildings. I thought he was kidding and found it unbelieveable when I found it to be true. Really couldn't get anything else done that day ... I was working at Wright-Patterson AFB and it took a while to get home.
Looking back, all the pro-USA emotion after the tragedy seemed to fade like the many flags that were put out in the name of patriotism. This day will pass for many without significance. But all our lives changed that day--to many a lot of inconveniences, and to others an embarking upon responding to a war that was started against us years earlier.
As a Reservist in our Armed Forces, and one who stands ready when called to defend the Constitution of the United States, allow me to relay what the first great American commander, General George Washington, addressed the Continental Army:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight--nothing more than his own personal safety--is a miserable creature who has no chance of being made and kept free except for the exertions of better men than himself."
Is this "War on Terror" worth fighting? Would you rather be running around wondering when the next terrorist act will occur in this country? The USA is playing an "away game" right now--let's keep it that way and bring home victory and peace!
Looking back, all the pro-USA emotion after the tragedy seemed to fade like the many flags that were put out in the name of patriotism. This day will pass for many without significance. But all our lives changed that day--to many a lot of inconveniences, and to others an embarking upon responding to a war that was started against us years earlier.
As a Reservist in our Armed Forces, and one who stands ready when called to defend the Constitution of the United States, allow me to relay what the first great American commander, General George Washington, addressed the Continental Army:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight--nothing more than his own personal safety--is a miserable creature who has no chance of being made and kept free except for the exertions of better men than himself."
Is this "War on Terror" worth fighting? Would you rather be running around wondering when the next terrorist act will occur in this country? The USA is playing an "away game" right now--let's keep it that way and bring home victory and peace!
Just Getting Started
Looks like I've found a place to pontificate, and who knows if this will be interesting or how often I will do it. Expect to see streaks on subjects and somewhat traditional, conservative opinions. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)