#leaders #tyrants #leadership #power #servants #sychophants Leaders look for win-win situations. Tyrants always want to win and always want their opponents to lose. Leaders build teams and help each member of the team succeed. Tyrants acquire servants, whose only job is to please the tyrant. As tyrants acquire servants, leaders serve their teams. Leaders don’t care whether they get credit for success. They ALWAYS take the blame for failure. Tyrants only want all the credit for success and none of the blame for failure. Leaders’ strength is not always shown, and they are OK with that. They are never cruel. Tyrants love to show “strength” through cruelty, implying that everyone else is weak. Leaders always want to accomplish, whether the accomplishments are obvious or not. Tyrants always want the “show” of success, regardless of whether what they are doing accomplishes anything worthwhile. Leaders look for good, qualified people, regardless of their opinions about the leader. Tyrants look for sycophants, whose main qualification is an opinion that matches the tyrant’s. Leaders make mistakes and admit to them. Tyrants, in their minds, make no mistakes. Only others make mistakes. Leaders create worlds around them in which everyone benefits, regardless of how much the leader benefits. Tyrants create worlds with them at the center, with only the tyrant and those loyal to the tyrant benefiting. Leaders give and get. Tyrants only take. Leaders know that helping others succeed is the only way to their success. Tyrants only want others to help THEM succeed. Leaders never look over their shoulders. If someone better comes along, so be it. The leader likely helped that person succeed. Tyrants always look over their shoulders. If someone better comes along, he or she is a fraud, in the tyrants’ minds. Who would you prefer at the top? Sometimes, what is an obvious answer does not translate as such to the populace. But, as the populace is fooled, they can then get hurt. It’s always best to choose those who know how to succeed properly. It’s always best to choose the unselfish, servant leader. Peter
#principles #ResigningOnPrinciples #ResigningOnPrinciple #jobs Many government employees are resigning because their bosses want them to violate their principles. Such behavior deserves admiration, but not everyone can afford to do it. Many people so desperately need their jobs they can’t just say, “I quit.” If the violation of principles is so extreme, it might be better to let the boss fire you without legitimate cause, because you’ll have better standing in court, should you go that route. If you have a job that is in great demand, then quitting on principle is indeed the right thing to do. The federal government is undergoing extreme turmoil. Many believe it is totally unnecessary. People are being fired without going through the necessary process. Those doing the firing are just flying by the seat of their pants, without careful analysis and without regard for the consequences to the agencies they are cutting. As a result, they are trying to rehire some of those employees after realizing they had made a mistake. Certainly, everyone wants the government to be as efficient and as cost-effective as possible. But, everyone also wants a government that works. Despite a lot of anti-government rhetoric, most people in the U.S. depend on their government for something, even if it’s just safety and security in their lives. We don’t live in a nation of hermits. Frustration with government procedure is common, but few people who think about the issue want to see those services go away. The principles come in when those doing the firing violate the way the agency(ies) they are cutting are supposed to work. Many agencies operate independently, without favor to anyone and for the best results for everyone. It seems that those doing the firing want these agencies to be more selective about who they are serving. If you have a relatively low-level job in these agencies, you may have little choice but to follow orders, even if those orders are coming from someone who may not be entitled to give them. Or, you can say NO, or even HECK NO, and accept the consequences. If you consider yourself a good, principled person, this may be difficult. Your principles may indeed be worth more to you than your livelihood. But, you also must understand that not everyone can feel that way, even if they want to. So, if you can, stick to your principles. They have served you well throughout your life and career. If you can’t, you must do what you must to survive. Will all this have a good result in the end? No one knows. But, for the short term, there will be chaos and personal disruption. Here’s to hoping everyone lands on his or her feet, no matter what happens. Peter
#economy #government #GovernmentEmployees #tariffs #inflation #eggs Egg prices are soaring because of the bird-flu spread. That is likely to affect prices diners will pay in restaurants. If the market doesn’t bear those higher prices, restaurants could go out of business. Then, if a number of federal employees lose their jobs, unemployment could go way up. If those workers do not have paychecks, they won’t spend as much. It could put other stores out of business. Will those furloughed federal workers find private-sector jobs? Perhaps some will. Perhaps others may have to take jobs that don’t pay as well as their government jobs, or do not have the same benefits they had with the government. That will affect their spending, which could trickle down to other businesses. When tariffs are added to the mix, they will raise the cost of many other goods. Most, if not all, of those increased costs will be passed on to consumers. Much of this economic turmoil is government inflicted. Much of it is unnecessary. Most people want to see government run as efficiently as possible. Many want to see less government overall. Almost no one wants to see a broken government – particularly one that was broken deliberately. The act of breaking government eventually will affect most, if not all, U.S. citizens and residents. Even if you believe government needs to be overhauled, there are ways to do it that are both legal, humane and proper. They do not involve potential invasions of individual privacy. Objections to what is going on are largely not objections to efficiency and lowering costs. They are over the manner in which they are being accomplished. Perhaps some good will come from this turmoil. Perhaps we will be in a better place after the operatives are finished. But, in the meantime, the economy – and the personal wealth and well-being of many individuals—could be adversely affected. If you don’t like what’s going on, tell your representatives. Their jobs are on the line if the outcome is not good. It’s easy to be frustrated, exhausted and demoralized by what is happening. But, as with most adversity, one has to look for what is good in one’s life, what can’t be taken away and what each person can do to improve his or her own future. It takes great personal strength to do that during these times. Here’s hoping that everyone finds that strength and uses it to better his or her own life, and the lives of others. Things are what they are, but they don’t have to be this way. Peter
#children #IndependentChildren #SeeSomethingSaySomething #AdultSupervision A boy, 11, walks to the store alone, about a mile from his home in North Georgia. A neighbor sees him without an adult and reports his mother to authorities. The mother is arrested. The boy was not in danger and was not doing anything wrong. In decades past, giving children some independence was not only allowed but encouraged. Those of a certain age remember being dismissed from the house on Saturday or summer mornings and told not to come back until lunchtime. No parents were watching them. They could, essentially, do what they wanted, with whom they wanted and go wherever their legs could take them for a few hours. If they got in trouble, they paid for it later. If they got lost, they had to find their way back home. Today’s climate requires, in many cases, more scrutiny of children. There is much more trouble they could get into today than children could in the past. More prevalent today are pitfalls of drugs, violence, gangs and even non-custodial parents that could pose a threat to children. In the North Georgia case, those pitfalls may have been less of a threat. As discussed last week, it’s difficult to be an independent person today, even as a young adult. It’s difficult to create a life without help. Does the lack of independence as a child contribute to that phenomenon? That’s a difficult question. Make no mistake. It’s important for neighbors to look out for each other. If you see something wrong or threatening, say something. It’s also important that if you see nothing wrong or threatening to mind one’s own business. Authorities should judge reports of child neglect carefully. Perhaps, if they are called to a scene, they should be inclined to watch the child for a time to see whether there is a problem. If they see no problem, they, too, should drive away. If they see something that may be amiss, it’s OK to ask the child whether everything is OK. If the child says yes, and they still suspect something, keep watching. Children have to learn to navigate life on their own, even at a young age. They also should learn to be aware of their surroundings, know the risks and dangers of certain activities and know what or who would be a threat to their well-being. Small risks are OK. Skinned knees are not life-threatening. And being encouraged to take small risks can encourage them to take bigger risks as adults. Life is not without risk and parents need to help prevent risk aversion as their kids grow. The lesson here is to let kids be as independent as possible within their confines. Neighbors should be watchful but not intrusive. We all benefit when independent children become fully independent adults. Peter
#aging #demographics #BeingYoung #BeingOld #children #families China, Japan and other countries are seeing their populations age. The U.S. is also heading in that direction. How and why is this happening? People are getting old and dying, but fewer young people are having children to make up for it. There are all kinds of blame for this to go around. China, for example, once had a one-child policy to control overpopulation, as many of its baby girls were sent elsewhere for adoption. That policy apparently is now backfiring on the Chinese. In the U.S. and other developed countries, more young people are putting off having children, or even getting married. The largest percentage of college students in the U.S. is women, implying that women suddenly are more interested in establishing careers than motherhood. There are reasons for this. First, many marriages do not last, and women do not want to be left with no way to make a living if a marriage fails. Second, if a marriage survives, or, even, thrives, two incomes are needed to build a decent life. Even with two incomes, young people are paying a lot more for necessities than their parents or grandparents did. Housing, no matter where it is, is in short supply and is expensive. Food costs a lot more than it once did. Consider how the price of eggs affected the last presidential election. So, being a young person in his or her 20s just beginning adulthood is not necessarily an enviable place. These circumstances have older people celebrating that they are old. The biggest family expense may be children. They need to be fed, clothed, kept healthy and educated. Even in countries in which the government helps considerably with those expenses, it’s still difficult for young people to have and support families. In countries in which the government declines to provide sufficient help to families, the challenge is much more difficult. When both parents work, children need to be cared for. Such childcare often goes unsubsidized, so the parents decide whether one of their jobs is worth that expense. If the answer is no, they are likely to put off having children or quit a job and suffer financially. Longing for past eras, in which partners played specific family roles, will not bring back those old days. In short, countries are aging because it is difficult to be young today. If governments want their demographics to improve, they must take action to help young families. It’s great to give young people the freedom to create their own lives, but, today, more often than not, they can’t do it without help. Moms and dads are finding their financial ties to their children last well into adulthood. This may prevent some from living out their elder years the way they would like. When mom and dad are gone, their children may miss that support. So, countries will continue to age. They will continue to struggle finding young workers. They’ll continue to see many family units with only one or two people, and no or few children. If it’s seen as a problem now, time will only make it worse unless some intervention occurs. Trying to bring back life from decades past is not a solution. Governments will have to adjust policies to make and grow young families. If they don’t, the old will continue to age and the young will continue to struggle. Peter
#education #PublicEducation #bathrooms #BookBans #pronouns #SchoolSports It’s tough to improve public education when officials – many of whom are elected – talk more about bathrooms, book bans, pronouns and whether transgender students should play on girls sports teams. No one seems to be talking about things like middle school design, high school size and pupil-teacher ratios, as they had in the past. But, maybe that’s the point. If officials focus on seemingly extraneous issues, public education will go away, and students will be left to fend for themselves in the private school market. Maureen Downey, recently retired education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, addressed this in her November 26, 2024, column. On the federal level, there’s a push to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Of course, the states do not want to see the federal education money dry up, but they just don’t want all the regulations that may come with that money. Besides, the bathroom and book-ban talk gets many voters riled up, Downey points out. Regardless of what anyone thinks of public schools, they have to take every kid. Private schools can discriminate about which kids they take. And, if public schools are underfunded, the students are very likely to be less well educated, especially when school officials focus more on extraneous, but provocative, issues more than they focus on student achievement, getting the best teachers and having everything students need to get the best education possible. But, some elected officials don’t necessarily want smart kids. The smarter the kid, the smarter the adults they will become. They may actually see the extraneous issues for what they are, and vote out some of these elected officials. These officials may prefer to simply teach obedience rather than creativity. They see danger in encouraging kids to have minds of their own. These same officials also oppose widespread immigration. If the children we are educating don’t have the smarts it will take to do the jobs of tomorrow, those brains may have to come from other countries. Many highly technical U.S. jobs are held by people with very foreign-sounding names. Some of these are American, but some are not. As Downey points out, 56 percent of Georgia students test below proficiency in algebra. Algebra is the beginning of more advanced math, which is and will be required for the jobs of the future. As discussed here previously, there’s a desire to control smart people, including teachers. Discrediting their work, creativity and ingenuity enhances desired political narratives. If children become too smart, they can discredit and disprove those desired political narratives. Therefore, highlighting extraneous issues in education creates the anger the officials want and makes it easier to dismantle public education. So, if these officials succeed, if you have a student with disabilities or other learning issues and you are forced into the private market to educate them, good luck finding a school that will take them. If your child is shut out of the private education market, it won’t matter what bathroom or pronoun that student uses. Peter
#ClimateChange #Greenland #PanamaCanal #ClimateChangeHoax Recently, we mentioned that spoken falsehoods often lead to contradictions. There are many who will tell you they believe climate change is a hoax. Yet, some of those same people are advocating for the U.S. to buy Greenland. Why? The world anticipates that the ice melt resulting from climate change will lead to a transcontinental waterway across the Arctic that will connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Our adversaries are already making plans to utilize it. Advocates for buying Greenland say we need to get a piece of that waterway for financial, strategic and security reasons. Greenland will be at the forefront of that ice melt. Buying Greenland – which is largely independent but under the security control of Denmark – would give us a large position for access to that waterway. Also, there are rare minerals underground in Greenland – which would be more easily accessed if the ice melted — which would help our high-tech manufacturing sector. This begs the question: if climate change is a hoax, why would we go through the trouble of buying Greenland? In short: climate change is not a hoax and those who say it is know that, too. It will not be easy to buy Greenland. Denmark isn’t selling it. Would we just take it by force, even though it’s not ours? We are also hearing discussion of taking back the other Atlantic-Pacific shortcut, the Panama Canal. The stated reason: too-high fees to get ships through. Yes, the U.S. built the canal, but transferred control of it to Panama decades ago. Panama is not likely to give up that control willingly. Also, south of the canal is the Darien Gap, a 66-mile treacherous jungle that connects Panama to Colombia. Walking through that jungle is the only way for South American immigrants, and others who would infiltrate the groups of immigrants, to get to the United States strictly on foot. Would we then set up troops along the Canal Zone to stop those immigrants? Would we build a wall there? Incidentally, the exorbitant shipping fees through the Panama Canal are largely the result of reduced water levels, meaning that fewer ships physically can get through on any given day. What caused those reduced water levels? Drought and climate change. Climate change has been cited as a big reason more immigrants from South America, and elsewhere, want to leave their countries. They can no longer easily live off the land because of drought, storms, rainforest deforestation for luxury developments etc. The rhetorical hoax of climate change is rearing its ugly head. Therefore, those who promoted the hoax are telling us that we should now take advantage of climate change’s effects. Takeover of Greenland or the Panama Canal will NOT be quick and easy. Many say it will be impossible. But, don’t underestimate those who would lie to us to try something, well, ill-advised. Let’s hope the rhetoric is much more bluster than intended action. Peter
#HappyNewYear #2025 #GoodReturns #truth #science #leadership #peace Happy New Year! May 2025 be a year of good returns. We are not talking about unwanted holiday gifts or even investments, though we could wish good investment returns for everyone. We are talking about the returns of truth, science, leadership and peace. Truth has largely disappeared from much recent discourse. Inconvenient truth, to borrow a phrase from former Vice President Al Gore, is replaced by falsehoods explained away by something other than documented evidence. Just because one may hear these falsehoods over again doesn’t make them true. So, if one hears or reads something they may even want to be true, look for the documentation and proof. If you don’t see it, don’t believe it. Dovetailing with truth is science. Again, inconvenient science is being replaced by theories (not science) that may sound better to many. But, these theories have not been scientifically proved, and are often downright wrong. It’s gotten to the point at which legitimate scientists are being criticized, persecuted, fired or even prosecuted for doing their jobs. Doctors can’t practice medicine according to scientific principles in some places. Teachers can’t teach real science in some places, lest it conflicts with some religious beliefs. Faith is good, even virtuous. But faith, by definition, is the belief in something that may or may not be provable. Science is the act of taking a belief and proving veracity — or not. Leadership is doing the right thing by others, often without notice. Leaders let their actions tell their story. Too many pseudo leaders of today tell their great stories, making sure actions – whether for the good or not – are on display. These pseudo leaders don’t often think through decisions, or even get good advice. They do what, in their gut, looks good at the time. This behavior produces many contradictions: For example, you may hear statements about not wanting to teach sexuality in school, but, at the same time, wanting more young women to have babies – wanted or not. How can one expect anyone to make good decisions about having children without knowing all the facts? Leaders create an atmosphere in which their teams, and those they are supposed to lead, can make good decisions for themselves, while helping those who need it. Often, leaders do what they do without much notice. We all wish for peace, whether it is among warring factions abroad, or quarrelling factions at home. Family dinners that once were civil, pleasant or even delightful have become less so, even provocative. Peace is not just the absence of fighting. It is the function of everyone having everything that is rightfully theirs. No unprovoked invasions of countries. No uncalled-for criticisms of one’s life endeavors. Peace is everyone living with what is rightfully theirs, without infringement from others. So, as we embark on a new year, may it bring everyone good returns. May those returns bring blessings upon all. Peter
#RaiseRetirementAge #RetirementAge #retirement #jobs #work Some who want to govern us have proposed raising the retirement age to, say, 70. These ideas are forged as the country grapples with the rising costs of Social Security, Medicare and the deficit federal spending they cause. At first blush, it looks like a good solution. When Social Security was created (Medicare came later), it adopted 65 as the age one can begin collecting. Over time, Congress played with the Social Security fund until it merged with the entire federal budget. Back when the retirement age was set at 65, many, if not most, people did not live much beyond that. Working life took a lot out of people, and untreatable diseases caused early deaths. Today, however, people are living longer, because of advances in medical care, treatment and prevention. They are staying retired for decades. Many are healthy enough to work in some capacity. So, for the financial good of the country, why not have people work a few more years? Here’s the rub: employers, in many cases, want people gone as soon as possible. Even though the “official” retirement age is 65, once people start approaching age 50, employers want to phase them out. In fact, they want them gone long before 65. There are laws preventing employees from age discrimination, but companies usually find other ways to phase people out. If these companies provide health benefits for employees (fewer and fewer are doing that), they know older employees will use those benefits to a higher degree. Older employees with seniority in the company also make a lot of money and, in some cases, are less productive than younger workers. They have more vacation time, in many cases. There is a labor shortage in many industries, and older workers could help ease that. But, the extra costs older workers put on employers can negate the needed help they are providing. Certainly, some older workers want to keep working. But, if they have a stressful job, that stress may not be good for them. Ideally, if employers could phase out older workers by putting them in less stressful jobs, that may ease the problem. But, most employers simply cannot do that. Also, older employees often have old skills that are no longer needed, or have been replaced by machines. Many don’t easily adapt to newer skills as companies evolve. So, the idea of people working longer may have some appeal on paper, but, as a practical matter, may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. If you are a worker, are you going to regret on your death bed that you didn’t work more? That would be unlikely. We should have a system of labor in the U.S. that allows people to work as long as they want to, within reason. But, that may not be practical. As a worker, you need to plan correctly, presuming your job will go away at any time. It may not go away at a time of your choosing. Peter
#leaders #bullies #leadership #success Leaders don’t have to know everything. They only have to know what they don’t know, find people who do know and create a space/atmosphere for them to do their best work. A leader doesn’t have to be an expert in the company/agency he or she is leading. He or she has to make sure the people he or she is leading – the actual experts – have what they need to do their best work. The leader also may have to defend and support the work being done in the company or agency. A leader also has to embrace the mission of the company/agency he or she is leading. Bullies, on the other hand, do not lead. They tear things down. They denigrate the people within the company or agency. They don’t embrace the agency’s or company’s mission. In fact, they want the agency or company to do the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Strong leaders don’t always show their strength. They often exercise strength behind the scenes, and always in an effort to help those they are leading. Bullies want their “strength” on display. They often deploy their “strength” by acting against those whom they are supposed to lead. In such a situation, people usually get hurt and the company or agency crumbles. Leaders know their success doesn’t come strictly on their efforts. They know it takes a team to pull off success, and are eager to credit that team with the success. If there are failures along the way, leaders take the blame themselves, and take responsibility for the repairs. Bullies believe they are the only ones who can achieve success, and those under them merely do as they say. They credit no one but themselves for success, and only blame others for failures. While the leaders work diligently to help others succeed, bullies work only to help others fail, so they can claim success. Leaders lift people up. Bullies beat people down, to paraphrase a campaign theme from the recent U.S. election. Bullies are skilled at breaking things. They are less skilled at building, or rebuilding, things. Leaders try not to break anything, but, instead try to build or rebuild with existing structures, materials and people. Indeed, some things must be torn down to rebuild. Bullies do that for sport. Leaders do that only when necessary, to try to save as much of what was there as possible. Most of us have worked for leaders. Some of us have worked for bullies. If you are an aspiring leader working for a bully, you may have to cut your losses and find a leader(s) to work for. You’ll learn from a bully how not to be, and learn from a leader how to be. The bully’s apparent “strength” hides overwhelming weakness. Over that so-called muscle is very thin skin. Bullies have to look over their shoulders constantly, lest they be sabotaged. Leaders have to observe their teams constantly so they can learn more, support more and advocate more. If you are put in charge of something, choose to be a leader. It’s safer for you and better for your organization. In golf, the player lets the club do most, if not all, the work, while providing the best swing possible. In leadership, the leader lets the team do most, if not all, the work, while providing the best atmosphere possible.
