56. Do we follow non-leaders

I am not much of a fan of reality television; however I must admit to watching the last two seasons of ‘The Apprentice.' Even though Donald Trump represents most of what I am against, I enjoy the business/marketing plans executed each week by competing teams. It is similar to the computer simulated "Marketing Game" that teams in my graduate school participated in to test marketing plans in competition against each other. On ‘The Apprentice,' the losing team has one of its members fired. The last person standing earns a job with Donald Trump.

I found a recent episode to be disheartening and with it, I considered the differences in leadership values. One team had arranged to purchase some megaphones to use in the promotion of their product. The other team, which waited too long to place a similar order, essentially, and consciously, stole the identity of the first team and purchased the megaphones from underneath them. The retail store, of course, did not know one team from the other and mistakenly sold the megaphones to the wrong team.

Leadership is a highly sought-after quality in employees- and businesses, as well as business schools, invest heavily in the "teaching" of leadership. My first class in graduate school was "Leadership and Teamwork," and I also participated in Leadership Lorain County. Inevitably the discussion circulates around what makes a great leader, that is, what are the leadership qualities that we all envy? The study includes leadership styles, techniques and the lives of great leaders.

The discussion is an interesting one; consider the different leadership styles of our founding fathers, presidents and leaders of other nations. Likewise, consider the leadership styles of the progressives and revolutionaries such as Martin Luther King Jr., and Gandhi. Finally, sports fans will note the similar success of very different coaches, such as Bobby Knight, Rick Pitino and Mike Krzyzewski.

The success of very different leadership styles might cause one to wonder, or ask, what makes a great leader. For if both authoritative and empowering styles prove successful in the same business by different individuals, how can one be determined to be better than the other? Leadership training can be equally confusing, for one theory is to be a "risk-taker," while the other will be conservative, urging individuals to "stick to their core values." We learned to be "detail-oriented," while at the same time, "not to sweat the small stuff." Some say success lies in "outworking" your competitors, while others urge the healthiness of a balanced lifestyle.

I think one of the biggest mistakes in understanding leadership is the perception that those with power, either authoritative or financial, know what leadership is. It is similar to believing that the majority is right about an issue just because it is in the majority. Some will say that people want to be led- to be told what to do, what to think. However, just because people are following, it does not necessarily mean they are being led. I think powerful people sometimes begin to be viewed as leaders simply because of the steady flow of demands and requests they receive and decisions they make. There is a difference between running an organization and leading one. Those that have experienced both clearly understand the difference.
From week to week on ‘The Apprentice,' it is interesting to watch each competitor's perception of leadership as they attempt to lead his or her team to victory. But the fact is that leadership is an inconsistent idea. Often we see a leader ask for input from his or her team. When the team wins, it is because the leader took the advice of his or her teammates (empowered them). When the team loses, the same act is viewed as being indecisive and weak. Teams that argue and win are "engaging in healthy debate;" those that lose are "selfish and unmanageable," even if the difference between the two are but a few (statistically insignificant) dollars. Apparently the only solution to the no-win situation is to win.

Donald Trump and his "loyal advisors" (Bill and Carolyn) both found the act of "theft and impersonation" to be a clever move on the part of that team that swooped in and swiped the megaphones- despite the fact that that might have been the difference between one team winning and the other losing. I personally found the act deplorable, and to me it demonstrated the type of actions these individuals might engage in when desperate for success. Trump apparently only cares about winning and losing; I would have fired them both, on the spot.

Two quotes from my 2006 Monthly Planner aptly summarize my perception of the situation. Robert Freeman is quoted to say, "Character is not made in a crisis- it is only exhibited," while Lily Tomlin notes, "The trouble with the rat race is that even when you win, you're still a rat."

55. Expose can't get exposure

"Congrats on your 5th Best Feature Film honor.  We loved your movie and it rated higher than any movie we have screened in the last eight months.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that we will have to pass.  You made a great movie with excellent acting and production values.  But the country is in a very conservative time now.  Our company, and probably most others, can't afford to risk marketing funds for a controversial film that deals with religious zealots.  My advice is to build your Internet support until the buzz about the quality of your movie rises above the concerns of the number crunchers.  When it does, we hope to be able to make you an excellent distribution offer."

The movie is “Heart of the Beholder,” and as the distribution company notes, it has won five Best Feature Film awards around the country.  But, for the reasons described in the statement above, nobody will distribute it.  

The movie is based on the true story of video store owners Ken and Carol Tipton.  The Tipton’s started their video rental business when the debate was still about VHS or Beta.  From there they grew into a multi-million dollar company with franchises in Missouri, Texas and Illinois, and developed the “Movie Machine.” 

Their troubles began when the National Federation for Decency (NFD), now the American Family Association, began picketing their stores for renting movies such as “Taxi Driver,” “Blazing Saddles,” “Animal House” and “Mr. Mom.”  They even protested the movie “Splash” because it “promoted sex with animals.”  The issue reached a breaking point when the Tipton’s were the only St. Louis area video store to offer for rent “The Last Temptation of Christ.” 

They were harassed to the point that they received death threats, including the threat to send their daughter “…back to God to be reborn to parents who worship the Lord.”  The NFD, by blackmailing the prosecuting attorney, were able to bring obscenity charges against the Tipton’s.  The Tipton’s won their court cases, but lost everything- including each other.

The movie, written by Ken Tipton, details the experience and by all accounts and recognition is well done and deserving of distribution.  It must be an eerie irony in realizing that the same religious atmosphere that unfairly put him out of business is now responsible, if indirectly, in preventing the release of the story itself.       

Mike Furches, a “follower of Jesus Christ,” and movie reviewer for HollywoodJesus.com, writes,

“This movie has been winning film festivals across the country. I for one believe that trend will continue, and I personally hope that more film festivals will allow the movie to be juried in and eventually that the film is picked up for wide distribution. I will assure you that once it does, the protests will likely start up again. That is unfortunate, because of the lessons we can all learn from the film, whether one be a Christian or not.”

Interestingly, individual ‘religious’ reviewers differed in their opinions. Some noting, as Furches did in his full review, that the story is troubling, but that it shows both sides of Christianity.  Others, again as Furches predicted, are ready to begin the protesting (and name calling).  Comments from the movie’s website follow:   

“I just knew this movie would trash Christians, but it didn't. As a true believer, I was totally entertained.  Lots of twists and turns.  Very well done.” 

Conversely,

“I dont [sic] know what kind of sick, sadistic, satanic, idol worshipping people you are. But i do know a thing or two myself about religion and I know that that movie you have created is an abomination and that you are all going to Hell. I'm sorry. If you want more info on how to repent from your sins and recieve [sic] the forgiveness which is in the name of the lord jesus christ [sic], then email me back. and i will show you what we are talking about. PS I have never seen such a sick movie, and you have cursed the name of the almighty God.”  

 

I will take the liberty in making the assertion that it is the second comment that has distributors concerned.  The first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, but as we also saw last year with Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” it does not guarantee distribution.  Ideological expression seems to be controlled by those who are financially at the mercy of conservatives.  My objection is not conservative opinion, rather the attempt to censor ideology that differs from theirs.  I have always believed in presenting both sides of an issue to the public and affording individuals the right to decide for themselves.  What a shame that such an award-winning film may not ever be seen by most Americans.

54. Teaching science intelligent choice

To the surprise of almost no one in the scientific community, President Bush came out in support of teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution in high school science classes. The President believes that schools should teach Intelligent Design, "so people can understand what the debate is about." Unfortunately, it appears that the President himself does not understand, not only what the debate is about, but also, and more importantly, what is at stake.

As an issue, Intelligent Design is one of a number of subjects highlighting the "culture war" that has engaged our country, most significantly in the separation of church and state. I have previously written specifically on the issue of Intelligent Design and its impact on education in Ohio, so I will only summarize the idea again here.

Intelligent Design is the proposition that life is too complicated to have evolved on its own, that is, without divine intervention. Despite the fact that evolution is one of the most fundamental ideas in science, the same science that allows us to compare the DNA of species across millenniums, build skyscrapers high into our horizons and fly defiantly into outer space, it has been enthralled by religion as both contrary to the Biblical stories of origin and void of the idea that humans have been employed on the earth as something greater than animals. In that Intelligent Design is impossible to prove, it is not a scientific theory as much as it is a "default" idea. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), petitions the notion, "Such unscientific attitudes belong in the Dark Ages, not America's classrooms."

However, greater than the issue of Intelligent Design, the concern is the poor performance of American high school students in comparison to students in other developed countries- especially Asia. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Science asked, "How can it be that the nation that leads the world in science and technology still graduates a high school class, which in international comparisons, ranks very near the bottom in science and mathematics accomplishments?"

Moving forward, scientific knowledge is pertinent to the issues surrounding not only this country, but also around the globe. As science progresses, many social, economic and ethical questions are going to have to be considered. Inquiry into the social questions involving nuclear weapons, economic questions that weigh scientific exploration against social welfare, and ethical questions encompassing cloning and stem cell research are going to continue through the next decades. To properly consider these questions, and the many more forthcoming, Americans are going to have to receive a much better education in science than they have been afforded in the recent past. CSICOP harshly, but straightforwardly, concurs, "A public ignorant about the principles of biology is incompetent to make reasonable well-informed decisions on crucial personal, social and economic issues." Consequently, to continue to waste valuable resources in discussing the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside evolution not only demonstrates a lack of knowledge in science, but it also hinders scientific study and continues to divide American culture.

The issue should not be about separating church and state, for even if the metaphoric wall between the two did not exist, Intelligent Design would still have no claim to the science curriculum. Moreover, the issue should not be made to be a religious or political matter- further dividing Americans across the political spectrum. Finally, it is not an issue of equality or debate, as the President suggests. It is an education issue, specifically a science education issue- a discipline in which American education has greatly suffered.

President Bush also said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." I agree with this statement to a point, but does that suggest that science should also teach that the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits around the Earth, and that rain dances may succeed in times of drought? With enough "schools of thought," and outdated ideas, we might not ever actually get around to teaching science.

53. Self-interest drives country

Greek philosopher Protagoras is credited with the phrase, "Man is the measure of all things," meaning that individuals are the ultimate source of value, and that they create standards based on an ideology that most reflects their belief in and of society. Essentially that it is man, or should be man, that decides what is important. We decide what to care about, and, just as importantly, when to care.

Too often individuals only care about the things that have an impact on their lives directly or that adhere to their life agenda. For a variety of reasons, including disinterest, loyalty to a person or party, or ideological differences, individuals often remain uninformed or uncommitted to principles outside of what affects them directly. In the same manner, too often individuals only care when it has an impact on their lives or when they have seen the impact that not caring has on other individuals.

For, few seemed to care when President Bush was rewarding unqualified political supporters with government positions. It was accepted, to the extent that "to the victors go the spoils," and the appointments were largely ignored.

Only when millions witnessed the deplorable effort by FEMA that left thousands stranded did Americans question "cronyism." And only now that President Bush has nominated a judge, whose qualifications seem to include mostly that she is religious and a close personal friend of the President, have both liberals and conservatives expressed outrage at a process that has gone on for five years now.

Few seemed to care about energy conservation when Americans were throwing themselves, one after another, into gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles as a measure of lifestyle. Few demanded that American automobile manufactures invest their resources in energy-saving alternatives, such as hybrids. Few care that Americans use 18 million barrels a day, which is 21 percent of the world's output- despite having only 5 percent of the world's population.

Only when gas prices rise and it affects both individuals and the economy, do Americans suddenly become outraged at our dependence on foreign oil, and insist that measures be taken to maintain American affluence. Only when China, now the number two oil consumer and with over one billion people, starts competing for foreign oil do we care what the rest of the world might be doing in their plight for energy.

Few seemed to care when the invasion of Iraq was portrayed as an act of patriotism, a fight against terrorism, and a search for weapons of mass destruction. Few seemed to care when it seemed like an easy victory, and the vogue thing to do was slap a yellow ribbon supporting the troops on their car- as though that protested the war did not. Few were interested in demanding answers to the tough questions.

Only when America became an international embarrassment and Americans started to suffer numerous causalities, for a fading cause, did we admit, among other things, the immorality dispensed on the thousands of Iraqis civilians. Only then did we ask ourselves the questions we should have asked from the beginning- how reliable was the information, was Iraq really involved in September 11, 2001, do we have an exit strategy?

Few seem to care about global warming when it is made to appear as though it is a scientific uncertainty. Few care that our government, despite the protest of hundreds of scientists, continued to blatantly employ flawed scientific studies to promote their economic programs. Few care whether the administration arrogantly dismisses International environmental agreements or not- as long as business is not affected.

Only when hurricanes and Tsunamis began to hit in record numbers and leave thousands dead did we consider the possible impact of global warming. Only when, as the New York Times recently noted, the once frozen North Pole may soon be acting like an open sea much of the year, do individuals seem willing to acknowledge the phenomenon.

Few seem to care about the overpopulation of our planet when American lifestyles continue to be among the most affluent in the world. Most are oblivious not only to the poverty in this county, let alone the third-world countries. Most do not consider the impact of overpopulation on future generations, or on our natural resources.

Only when other countries, such as China with their population of over one billion, begin to consume natural resources in increasing amounts, proportional to their development, and thus increasing demand, and prices, do we care. Only when American companies take advantage of desperate conditions in other counties, to both employ labor at reduced costs and use the full benefit of lax environmental regulations, and it leads to significant job loss in America, do we seem to care.

Few seem to care about the distribution of wealth as long as their middle-class life is unaffected. Most individuals remain uninterested in the fact that those who have the greatest need for representation in government have nearly no voice, and certainly no lobby. Americans sit motionlessly as wealthy corporations and well-funded special interest groups fight for their significance in government.

Only when Hurricane Katrina unearthed a population that most did not even know existed, and less even cared about, did Americans take notice- even if they were called "immoral and welfare-pampered."

Few seemed to care about the pollution to our water and air when the proper disposal of such pollutants was regarded as an economic cost.

Only when cities became engulfed in smog, a river caught on fire and fish suffered ghastly mutations did we demand that the government place a value on clean air and clean water and hold businesses accountable.

Unfortunately, in the examples above, the pattern is that most people will sit silent and not make personal commitments until the problem or issue inflicts them directly. That it not to say that there are not a number of incredibly dedicated individuals that are willing to sacrifice time, money and lifestyle for principle- there are. There are just not enough of them.