Showing posts with label ecofrenworld. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ecofrenworld. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Thursday, March 8, 2012
They’ve Taken Emotional Intelligence Too Far
They’ve Taken Emotional Intelligence Too Far
The author of Emotional Intelligence explains how this popular concept has been overused
By Daniel Goleman
Have you heard? They say that your EQ counts more than IQ for success. In fact, they say, EQ accounts for 80% of success. As the person who wrote Emotional Intelligence, the book that put the concept on the map, I can tell you that they are dead wrong.
(MORE: The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books)
This and other myths about emotional intelligence constantly float around the blogosphere and get spouted by management consultants. The misinterpretation started nearly the moment TIME put the question, “What’s Your EQ?” on its cover when my book Emotional Intelligence was published in 1995. And by now we are long past the time when it should be put to rest for good.
Here are the facts. There’s no question IQ is by far the better determinant of career success, in the sense of predicting what kind of job you will be able to hold. It typically takes an IQ about 115 or above to be able to handle the cognitive complexity facing an accountant, a physician or a top executive. But here’s the paradox: once you’re in a high-IQ position, intellect loses its power to determine who will emerge as a productive employee or an effective leader. For that, how you handle yourself and your relationships — in other words, the emotional intelligence skill set — matters more than your IQ. In a high-IQ job pool, soft skills like discipline, drive and empathy mark those who emerge as outstanding.
(MORE: The IQ Gene?)
Companies know this. Corporate surveys find that more than two-thirds of major businesses apply some aspect of emotional intelligence in their recruiting, in promotions, and particularly in leadership development. But that emphasis has created a mini-boom in emotional intelligence consultants who too often ignore what the data tells us to make unfounded claims that will sell their services.
One of these fanciful claims is the often-repeated mantra that such personal skills “account for 80%” of business success. This particular myth may stem from a misreading of the studies I’ve written about in my books that look at how much of career success is accounted for by a person’s IQ alone. Most researchers conclude that IQ accounts for between 10 to 20 percent. That, as I’ve pointed out, leaves room for a wide range of other factors — everything from the family or social status you’re born into, to luck, to emotional intelligence, to name but a few. But people seem to jump to the conclusion that EQ alone makes up that 80% gap — and it does not.
The wish to believe EQ offers a magical alternative to IQ no doubt has multiple drivers. For some, it may be a consolation for poor school grades; for others a code for humanizing the workplace. Still others see EQ as an argument for more women in leadership. All those reasons may, one day, find hard data to support them — but we are not there yet. To be sure, we are seeing a slow aggregation of data supporting the added value of EQ, particularly for leaders, but these are typically small studies. The slow march of research lags far behind the hype of EQ marketers.
Goleman is a psychologist and author of 12 books including Leadership: The Power of Emotional Intelligence. The views expressed are solely his own.
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/01/theyve-taken-emotional-intelligence-too-far/#ixzz1ob1iB700
The author of Emotional Intelligence explains how this popular concept has been overused
By Daniel Goleman
Have you heard? They say that your EQ counts more than IQ for success. In fact, they say, EQ accounts for 80% of success. As the person who wrote Emotional Intelligence, the book that put the concept on the map, I can tell you that they are dead wrong.
(MORE: The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books)
This and other myths about emotional intelligence constantly float around the blogosphere and get spouted by management consultants. The misinterpretation started nearly the moment TIME put the question, “What’s Your EQ?” on its cover when my book Emotional Intelligence was published in 1995. And by now we are long past the time when it should be put to rest for good.
Here are the facts. There’s no question IQ is by far the better determinant of career success, in the sense of predicting what kind of job you will be able to hold. It typically takes an IQ about 115 or above to be able to handle the cognitive complexity facing an accountant, a physician or a top executive. But here’s the paradox: once you’re in a high-IQ position, intellect loses its power to determine who will emerge as a productive employee or an effective leader. For that, how you handle yourself and your relationships — in other words, the emotional intelligence skill set — matters more than your IQ. In a high-IQ job pool, soft skills like discipline, drive and empathy mark those who emerge as outstanding.
(MORE: The IQ Gene?)
Companies know this. Corporate surveys find that more than two-thirds of major businesses apply some aspect of emotional intelligence in their recruiting, in promotions, and particularly in leadership development. But that emphasis has created a mini-boom in emotional intelligence consultants who too often ignore what the data tells us to make unfounded claims that will sell their services.
One of these fanciful claims is the often-repeated mantra that such personal skills “account for 80%” of business success. This particular myth may stem from a misreading of the studies I’ve written about in my books that look at how much of career success is accounted for by a person’s IQ alone. Most researchers conclude that IQ accounts for between 10 to 20 percent. That, as I’ve pointed out, leaves room for a wide range of other factors — everything from the family or social status you’re born into, to luck, to emotional intelligence, to name but a few. But people seem to jump to the conclusion that EQ alone makes up that 80% gap — and it does not.
The wish to believe EQ offers a magical alternative to IQ no doubt has multiple drivers. For some, it may be a consolation for poor school grades; for others a code for humanizing the workplace. Still others see EQ as an argument for more women in leadership. All those reasons may, one day, find hard data to support them — but we are not there yet. To be sure, we are seeing a slow aggregation of data supporting the added value of EQ, particularly for leaders, but these are typically small studies. The slow march of research lags far behind the hype of EQ marketers.
Goleman is a psychologist and author of 12 books including Leadership: The Power of Emotional Intelligence. The views expressed are solely his own.
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/01/theyve-taken-emotional-intelligence-too-far/#ixzz1ob1iB700
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Can Capitalism Save the World?
Can Capitalism Save the World?
by Patrick Ercolano
Steve Forbes looked every inch the battered capitalist. Before an audience of 300 at his June appearance in the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School’s “Leaders + Legends” lecture series, the media mogul and former presidential candidate opened by mentioning the back surgery he had undergone weeks earlier. Thus, he explained, the large, uncomfortable-looking brace around his neck.
“I just want to show you,” he deadpanned, “I’m feeling the pain of what the economy is going through.”
The recent period of worldwide economic discomfort is hardly the first time the free-market system has been the target of dark humor and derision. And yet, Forbes argued, despite the “ill repute” in which capitalism is sometimes held, it remains “a moral system. It has been the best poverty fighter in human history, the best system that allows for innovation and invention and creativity.”
The case for the virtues of capitalism has been made before. Perhaps it was made most famously by Adam Smith when, more than 200 years ago, he wrote in The Wealth of Nations of the “invisible hand” by which even the most self-interested businessman benefits society because his products are tuned to society’s desires—even if such a benefit was not his intention. “By pursuing his own interest,” Smith wrote of the 18th-century capitalist, “he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
A moral philosopher by training, Smith still couldn’t help but have doubts about this modern system of commerce and investment that had begun to emerge in Western Europe a century earlier, observes one expert on the history of capitalism. “Adam Smith hated the idea that there was this intrinsic materialism in what he would have called economic growth—people buying trinkets and baubles,” says Joyce Appleby, professor emerita of history at UCLA and author of The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism (W.W. Norton, 2010). “But he thought that the new way was so much better than the [pre-industrial] age in which you had no economic progress and people were indolent and the aristocrats and royals who guided society were rapacious and warlike. Smith thought it was worth the moral trade-off.”
The tension within the trade-off between the positive and negative effects of the free market is captured in 20th-century economist Joseph Schumpeter’s well-known phrase “creative destruction.” As the Austrian-born Schumpeter saw it, capitalism “incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” Old industries, old lifestyles, and old cultures are reduced to ash, but from the ash heap grow new industries, lifestyles, cultures. The old order’s pain gives rise to the new order’s prosperity.
And often prosperity is accompanied by another kind of pain, as in the slavery, sweatshops, low wages, monopolies, and environmental degradation associated with economic successes over the centuries. Appleby notes this pattern in The Relentless Revolution, writing, “One cannot celebrate the benefits of the capitalist system without taking account of the disastrous adventures and human malevolence that this wealth-generating system has made possible and sometimes actually encouraged. … ‘Can the globe sustain these capitalist successes?’ has become an urgent question.”
Despite such misgivings, Appleby says she maintains a firm belief in the capitalist system, mainly for two reasons: the freedom it grants individuals to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams, and the creation of wealth that spawns the capital that fuels innovation upon innovation. The difficulty, she states in her book, is to have a thriving system that includes “the moral base of capitalism, which depends upon men and women’s meeting obligations, managing resources prudently, valuing hard work, and treating others fairly.”
Some businesspeople have begun to recognize the necessity of this moral base. They are taking a more visible, more active hand in a social-minded capitalism, consciously creating products and services that turn a profit while also benefiting humanity. Altruism is part of the motivation. But so is the belief that the global marketplace will provide greater profits for businesses if more of the globe’s inhabitants are carrying expendable cash. To these entrepreneurs, capitalism is a positive force, and success is impossible in a failed society.
http://carey.jhu.edu/one/2010/fall/can-capitalism-save-the-world/
by Patrick Ercolano
Steve Forbes looked every inch the battered capitalist. Before an audience of 300 at his June appearance in the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School’s “Leaders + Legends” lecture series, the media mogul and former presidential candidate opened by mentioning the back surgery he had undergone weeks earlier. Thus, he explained, the large, uncomfortable-looking brace around his neck.
“I just want to show you,” he deadpanned, “I’m feeling the pain of what the economy is going through.”
The recent period of worldwide economic discomfort is hardly the first time the free-market system has been the target of dark humor and derision. And yet, Forbes argued, despite the “ill repute” in which capitalism is sometimes held, it remains “a moral system. It has been the best poverty fighter in human history, the best system that allows for innovation and invention and creativity.”
The case for the virtues of capitalism has been made before. Perhaps it was made most famously by Adam Smith when, more than 200 years ago, he wrote in The Wealth of Nations of the “invisible hand” by which even the most self-interested businessman benefits society because his products are tuned to society’s desires—even if such a benefit was not his intention. “By pursuing his own interest,” Smith wrote of the 18th-century capitalist, “he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
A moral philosopher by training, Smith still couldn’t help but have doubts about this modern system of commerce and investment that had begun to emerge in Western Europe a century earlier, observes one expert on the history of capitalism. “Adam Smith hated the idea that there was this intrinsic materialism in what he would have called economic growth—people buying trinkets and baubles,” says Joyce Appleby, professor emerita of history at UCLA and author of The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism (W.W. Norton, 2010). “But he thought that the new way was so much better than the [pre-industrial] age in which you had no economic progress and people were indolent and the aristocrats and royals who guided society were rapacious and warlike. Smith thought it was worth the moral trade-off.”
The tension within the trade-off between the positive and negative effects of the free market is captured in 20th-century economist Joseph Schumpeter’s well-known phrase “creative destruction.” As the Austrian-born Schumpeter saw it, capitalism “incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” Old industries, old lifestyles, and old cultures are reduced to ash, but from the ash heap grow new industries, lifestyles, cultures. The old order’s pain gives rise to the new order’s prosperity.
And often prosperity is accompanied by another kind of pain, as in the slavery, sweatshops, low wages, monopolies, and environmental degradation associated with economic successes over the centuries. Appleby notes this pattern in The Relentless Revolution, writing, “One cannot celebrate the benefits of the capitalist system without taking account of the disastrous adventures and human malevolence that this wealth-generating system has made possible and sometimes actually encouraged. … ‘Can the globe sustain these capitalist successes?’ has become an urgent question.”
Despite such misgivings, Appleby says she maintains a firm belief in the capitalist system, mainly for two reasons: the freedom it grants individuals to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams, and the creation of wealth that spawns the capital that fuels innovation upon innovation. The difficulty, she states in her book, is to have a thriving system that includes “the moral base of capitalism, which depends upon men and women’s meeting obligations, managing resources prudently, valuing hard work, and treating others fairly.”
Some businesspeople have begun to recognize the necessity of this moral base. They are taking a more visible, more active hand in a social-minded capitalism, consciously creating products and services that turn a profit while also benefiting humanity. Altruism is part of the motivation. But so is the belief that the global marketplace will provide greater profits for businesses if more of the globe’s inhabitants are carrying expendable cash. To these entrepreneurs, capitalism is a positive force, and success is impossible in a failed society.
http://carey.jhu.edu/one/2010/fall/can-capitalism-save-the-world/
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Angry Bird
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/this_urban_jungle/770318/inconsiderate_commuters_this_chicken_will.html
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Management skills by john wooden
http://www.maximisepotential.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/pyramid-of-success-by-John-Wooden.jpg
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Intel: Human and computer intelligence will merge in 40 years
Intel: Human and computer intelligence will merge in 40 years
On the company's anniversary, a future of sensors, robots and new thinking
By Sharon Gaudin
July 23, 2008
Computerworld - At Intel Corp., just passing its 40th anniversary and with myriad chips in its historical roster, a top company exec looks 40 years into the future to a time when human intelligence and machine intelligence have begun to merge.
Justin Rattner, CTO and a senior fellow at Intel, told Computerworld that perhaps as early as 2012 we'll see the lines between human and machine intelligence begin to blur. Nanoscale chips or machines will move through our bodies, fixing deteriorating organs or unclogging arteries. Sensors will float around our internal systems monitoring our blood sugar levels and heart rates, and alerting doctors to potential health problems.
Virtual worlds will become increasingly realistic, while robots will develop enough intelligence and human-like characteristics that they'll become companions, not merely vacuum cleaners and toys.
Most aspects of our lives, in fact, will be very different as we close in on the year 2050. Computing will be less about launching applications and more about living lives in which computers are inextricably woven into our daily activities.
"What we think of as a computer and what we think of as IT, in general, is likely to change," said Rattner, who has been at Intel for 35 of the company's 40 years. "The intelligent systems will move from being information systems to intelligent systems that will carry out a whole variety of tasks that we just won't think of as computing tasks.... The technology will find its way into so many things we do, and we won't even think about it. The explicit way we've done computing in the past will be there, but it will be a very small subset of what we'll be doing."
Intel hit its 40th anniversary last Friday. The company launched its first microprocessor in 1971, developed a processor with more than 1 million transistors in 1989, and late in 2007 packed 820 million transistors onto a single chip.
While chip advancements will continue throughout the semiconductor industry, technology advancements in general will start to change, according to Rattner.
"When you think back on where we were [decades ago] ... computers were still things that largely sat in big rooms behind big windows and were attended to by computing gurus or priests," he added. "In the 40 years, we've just completely changed the way people think about computers and computing. It's gone from a very expensive, very exclusive kind of technology to something that is unquestionably ubiquitous -- from the computers on our desks to the computers in our cell phones."
In the next 40 years, computer chips will extend beyond our computers and phones, as people want to become more entrenched in virtual worlds and computers learn to react to our motions and thoughts.
"When you see how intense the reaction is to things like the iPhone, with its use of touch and its sensitivity to motion, you begin to get a sense of, 'Gee, if machines understand the physical world and were capable of reacting to our voices, to our movements and gestures and touch, how much closer would we feel to them?'" asked Rattner. "At the same time, of course, we would like the ability to become more a part of these artificial or virtual worlds that are created entirely within the machine. We're starting to see, with things like Second Life and now Lively from Google, the ability of these machines to create these worlds that are much more comfortable for us to experience and be a part of."
As machine learning and computer perception progresses, machines will take on more and more human-like characteristics, he added. Recently, scientists have been putting electrodes into living neurons in living brains, but some researchers are working on ways to transfer brain waves and organic information without the electrodes, which wouldn't be physically intrusive.
"You can imagine a future where, in fact, not just our very senses will be engaged, but our thoughts will drive machine behavior," said Rattner. "You can see how that boundary starts to soften and begins to blur.... There's no question in my mind that the technology will bring these two unique and distinct forms of intelligence together."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9110578/Intel_Human_and_computer_intelligence_will_merge_in_40_years
On the company's anniversary, a future of sensors, robots and new thinking
By Sharon Gaudin
July 23, 2008
Computerworld - At Intel Corp., just passing its 40th anniversary and with myriad chips in its historical roster, a top company exec looks 40 years into the future to a time when human intelligence and machine intelligence have begun to merge.
Justin Rattner, CTO and a senior fellow at Intel, told Computerworld that perhaps as early as 2012 we'll see the lines between human and machine intelligence begin to blur. Nanoscale chips or machines will move through our bodies, fixing deteriorating organs or unclogging arteries. Sensors will float around our internal systems monitoring our blood sugar levels and heart rates, and alerting doctors to potential health problems.
Virtual worlds will become increasingly realistic, while robots will develop enough intelligence and human-like characteristics that they'll become companions, not merely vacuum cleaners and toys.
Most aspects of our lives, in fact, will be very different as we close in on the year 2050. Computing will be less about launching applications and more about living lives in which computers are inextricably woven into our daily activities.
"What we think of as a computer and what we think of as IT, in general, is likely to change," said Rattner, who has been at Intel for 35 of the company's 40 years. "The intelligent systems will move from being information systems to intelligent systems that will carry out a whole variety of tasks that we just won't think of as computing tasks.... The technology will find its way into so many things we do, and we won't even think about it. The explicit way we've done computing in the past will be there, but it will be a very small subset of what we'll be doing."
Intel hit its 40th anniversary last Friday. The company launched its first microprocessor in 1971, developed a processor with more than 1 million transistors in 1989, and late in 2007 packed 820 million transistors onto a single chip.
While chip advancements will continue throughout the semiconductor industry, technology advancements in general will start to change, according to Rattner.
"When you think back on where we were [decades ago] ... computers were still things that largely sat in big rooms behind big windows and were attended to by computing gurus or priests," he added. "In the 40 years, we've just completely changed the way people think about computers and computing. It's gone from a very expensive, very exclusive kind of technology to something that is unquestionably ubiquitous -- from the computers on our desks to the computers in our cell phones."
In the next 40 years, computer chips will extend beyond our computers and phones, as people want to become more entrenched in virtual worlds and computers learn to react to our motions and thoughts.
"When you see how intense the reaction is to things like the iPhone, with its use of touch and its sensitivity to motion, you begin to get a sense of, 'Gee, if machines understand the physical world and were capable of reacting to our voices, to our movements and gestures and touch, how much closer would we feel to them?'" asked Rattner. "At the same time, of course, we would like the ability to become more a part of these artificial or virtual worlds that are created entirely within the machine. We're starting to see, with things like Second Life and now Lively from Google, the ability of these machines to create these worlds that are much more comfortable for us to experience and be a part of."
As machine learning and computer perception progresses, machines will take on more and more human-like characteristics, he added. Recently, scientists have been putting electrodes into living neurons in living brains, but some researchers are working on ways to transfer brain waves and organic information without the electrodes, which wouldn't be physically intrusive.
"You can imagine a future where, in fact, not just our very senses will be engaged, but our thoughts will drive machine behavior," said Rattner. "You can see how that boundary starts to soften and begins to blur.... There's no question in my mind that the technology will bring these two unique and distinct forms of intelligence together."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9110578/Intel_Human_and_computer_intelligence_will_merge_in_40_years
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Why a big salary won’t make you happy
Why a big salary won’t make you happy
by Jane Baker on 17 July 2010
Find out why having control over your finances is far more important than a fat pay cheque.
Happiness and self esteem are influenced by our sense of financial control and not what we earn. That’s according to the recent Feel-Good Insight study by Aviva which proves that money really doesn’t buy you happiness. In fact, people with a sensible financial plan in place are happier regardless of their salary.
The stats
The study revealed that 85% of people with high self esteem said they also felt in control of their finances. By contrast, 70% of those with low self esteem haven’t got to grips with their finances and no one in this particular group feels happy about their financial situation. Interestingly, the study revealed that 22% of people earning more than £50K suffer below average self esteem.
How do you take control of your finances?
If your finances are causing you stress, it’s time to do something about it. Quite simply, this means drawing up a good budget, identifying your financial goals and putting a plan in place to achieve them. Then, after you’ve done all that, all you need to do is keep an eye on your finances to make sure everything is ticking over nicely.
Draw up a budget
If you have no idea where your money goes or, you’re running short before pay day arrives you’ll need to take the budgeting bull by the horns. Everyone needs a budget regardless of how much they earn as this is the only way to guard against spending more than you should.
We tend to raise our spending aspirations the higher our income, so good budgeting is important even if you have a healthy salary. I can assure you that people with six figures earnings who haven’t accumulated any savings whatsoever are more common than you might realise.
Aviva’s study revealed that 42% of people with low self esteem fail to stick to a budget, but it’s easy to take control if you have the right tools at your disposal.
There are five simple steps to good budgeting. I’ll run through them briefly here, but read Five simple steps to good budgeting for more details.
The first step is to get together all your paper work including your bank statements, bills, credit card statements, pay slips and so on. Get into the habit of filing them away properly every time a new one arrives.
The next step is to start a spending diary where you simply record every single purchase you make. This will help you build up an initial picture of your spending behaviour. You may be surprised by the results.
After that, it’s time to make a list of your earnings and outgoings. This will immediately identify your surplus income which you can use a base figure to calculate a weekly or monthly spending budget once all your essential expenditure has been paid. If this exercise shows you have an income shortfall then you’ll need to make urgent cutbacks to avoid mounting debt.
And finally, if you have a surplus after you’ve worked out your regular budget, you should think about starting to save. You can choose a market-leading savings account at the lovemoney.com savings centre.
http://www.lovemoney.com/news/debt/improve-your-finances/5174/why-a-big-salary-wont-make-you-happy
by Jane Baker on 17 July 2010
Find out why having control over your finances is far more important than a fat pay cheque.
Happiness and self esteem are influenced by our sense of financial control and not what we earn. That’s according to the recent Feel-Good Insight study by Aviva which proves that money really doesn’t buy you happiness. In fact, people with a sensible financial plan in place are happier regardless of their salary.
The stats
The study revealed that 85% of people with high self esteem said they also felt in control of their finances. By contrast, 70% of those with low self esteem haven’t got to grips with their finances and no one in this particular group feels happy about their financial situation. Interestingly, the study revealed that 22% of people earning more than £50K suffer below average self esteem.
How do you take control of your finances?
If your finances are causing you stress, it’s time to do something about it. Quite simply, this means drawing up a good budget, identifying your financial goals and putting a plan in place to achieve them. Then, after you’ve done all that, all you need to do is keep an eye on your finances to make sure everything is ticking over nicely.
Draw up a budget
If you have no idea where your money goes or, you’re running short before pay day arrives you’ll need to take the budgeting bull by the horns. Everyone needs a budget regardless of how much they earn as this is the only way to guard against spending more than you should.
We tend to raise our spending aspirations the higher our income, so good budgeting is important even if you have a healthy salary. I can assure you that people with six figures earnings who haven’t accumulated any savings whatsoever are more common than you might realise.
Aviva’s study revealed that 42% of people with low self esteem fail to stick to a budget, but it’s easy to take control if you have the right tools at your disposal.
There are five simple steps to good budgeting. I’ll run through them briefly here, but read Five simple steps to good budgeting for more details.
The first step is to get together all your paper work including your bank statements, bills, credit card statements, pay slips and so on. Get into the habit of filing them away properly every time a new one arrives.
The next step is to start a spending diary where you simply record every single purchase you make. This will help you build up an initial picture of your spending behaviour. You may be surprised by the results.
After that, it’s time to make a list of your earnings and outgoings. This will immediately identify your surplus income which you can use a base figure to calculate a weekly or monthly spending budget once all your essential expenditure has been paid. If this exercise shows you have an income shortfall then you’ll need to make urgent cutbacks to avoid mounting debt.
And finally, if you have a surplus after you’ve worked out your regular budget, you should think about starting to save. You can choose a market-leading savings account at the lovemoney.com savings centre.
http://www.lovemoney.com/news/debt/improve-your-finances/5174/why-a-big-salary-wont-make-you-happy
Monday, April 11, 2011
Why a Donald Trump Presidency will Trump All
Why a Donald Trump Presidency will Trump All
Alan Dunn | Apr. 11, 2011, 1:28 AM
When it comes to choosing political parties I have been Democrat since the time I was allowed to vote. My family has different party affiliations and the people in my life choose one party over the other for reasons of their own. Ultimately no one forced me to become a Democrat, it just happened.
Under George W. Bush the Republican Party reminded me of exactly why I choose to be Democrat yet the Obama presidency has left me to wonder why I choose any party at all.
Politics may be very well about choosing a side and making sure the stars line up to have your side collectively come to a decision but when it comes to getting things done we need someone who has experience on the street, after all how worse can things get?
When the Yankees are down 3-1 in the 9th inning you can bet a designated hitter may be called up. Well, we are down 16 Trillion dollars so don’t you think it’s time to vote someone in office who has a hit home run or two?
Donald Trump may not be the best candidate for president however do we need another politician in charge or someone who is actually aware of the financial mess America is in and has a personal interest in making the country whole again?
Some of the most successful political and global leaders in the world have all come from men and women with entrepreneurial backgrounds yet in America we hardly ever ask questions about a political candidate’s actual experience and vote based on how they make you smile, what party they are affiliated with and more unrelated factors to the actual ability of the person to do the job.
"American no longer needs a figurehead – we need a designated hitter"
The only way to getting people more interested in politics is to bring somebody in we all want to be. There is not a single person in America who would not want to be a part of the Trump lifestyle and that alone will get people talking politics again.
The housing market is essentially gone in many areas of America, we are a bankrupt nation and the government was actually even talking about shutting down. Personal consumer bills like car insurance, gasoline, property tax and food all continue to escalate however unemployment is still at the highest levels in decades.
This is not the American Dream
So many people are having their own personal crisis they simply can’t get mad about the country’s financial mess. Sadly the reaction among many seems to be a common “of course we are in a mess” feeling but everybody goes on with their day since somewhere, someone will just create new credit for the government and life will go on as normal again. If only life was that easy for citizens and small business.
What is the Plan? Continued “prosperity” created by adding to a national debt? This bubble has already busted - The country needs to change.
Donald Trump is well known to everyone. He has had many public failures but every time rebounded with the glory we all wish we had. His successes are so well known that the Trump family name is not just a name but a brand of power, luxury and dreams.
If America, Inc. was part of the Trump family we certainly would not be as broke as we are today.
At the end of the day Donald Trump may be republican but he is also an undeniable leader, a respected businessman, a financial wizard and a global brand.
This time around it’s a wise decision to bet on the man, not on the party.
On the other hand, if Mr. Trump decides not to run I wouldn’t blame him either.
After all, who really wants to be in charge of this mess?
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a-donald-trump-presidency-will-trump-all-2011-4
Alan Dunn | Apr. 11, 2011, 1:28 AM
When it comes to choosing political parties I have been Democrat since the time I was allowed to vote. My family has different party affiliations and the people in my life choose one party over the other for reasons of their own. Ultimately no one forced me to become a Democrat, it just happened.
Under George W. Bush the Republican Party reminded me of exactly why I choose to be Democrat yet the Obama presidency has left me to wonder why I choose any party at all.
Politics may be very well about choosing a side and making sure the stars line up to have your side collectively come to a decision but when it comes to getting things done we need someone who has experience on the street, after all how worse can things get?
When the Yankees are down 3-1 in the 9th inning you can bet a designated hitter may be called up. Well, we are down 16 Trillion dollars so don’t you think it’s time to vote someone in office who has a hit home run or two?
Donald Trump may not be the best candidate for president however do we need another politician in charge or someone who is actually aware of the financial mess America is in and has a personal interest in making the country whole again?
Some of the most successful political and global leaders in the world have all come from men and women with entrepreneurial backgrounds yet in America we hardly ever ask questions about a political candidate’s actual experience and vote based on how they make you smile, what party they are affiliated with and more unrelated factors to the actual ability of the person to do the job.
"American no longer needs a figurehead – we need a designated hitter"
The only way to getting people more interested in politics is to bring somebody in we all want to be. There is not a single person in America who would not want to be a part of the Trump lifestyle and that alone will get people talking politics again.
The housing market is essentially gone in many areas of America, we are a bankrupt nation and the government was actually even talking about shutting down. Personal consumer bills like car insurance, gasoline, property tax and food all continue to escalate however unemployment is still at the highest levels in decades.
This is not the American Dream
So many people are having their own personal crisis they simply can’t get mad about the country’s financial mess. Sadly the reaction among many seems to be a common “of course we are in a mess” feeling but everybody goes on with their day since somewhere, someone will just create new credit for the government and life will go on as normal again. If only life was that easy for citizens and small business.
What is the Plan? Continued “prosperity” created by adding to a national debt? This bubble has already busted - The country needs to change.
Donald Trump is well known to everyone. He has had many public failures but every time rebounded with the glory we all wish we had. His successes are so well known that the Trump family name is not just a name but a brand of power, luxury and dreams.
If America, Inc. was part of the Trump family we certainly would not be as broke as we are today.
At the end of the day Donald Trump may be republican but he is also an undeniable leader, a respected businessman, a financial wizard and a global brand.
This time around it’s a wise decision to bet on the man, not on the party.
On the other hand, if Mr. Trump decides not to run I wouldn’t blame him either.
After all, who really wants to be in charge of this mess?
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a-donald-trump-presidency-will-trump-all-2011-4
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Google's April Fool's Day Joke
Google's April Fool's Day Joke: Gmail Motion (VIDEO)
http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2011/04/coming-soon-google-docs-motion-beta.html
Top 5 Viral Pictures of 1911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNm8ZCJ7Fx8&feature=player_embedded
http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2011/04/coming-soon-google-docs-motion-beta.html
Top 5 Viral Pictures of 1911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNm8ZCJ7Fx8&feature=player_embedded
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Amazing but true
This is a true story that had happened in 1892 at Stanford University . Its moral is still relevant today.
A young, 18-year-old student was struggling to pay his fees. He was an orphan, and not knowing where to turn for money, he came up with a bright idea. A friend and he decided to host a musical concert on campus to raise money for their education.
They reached out to the great pianist Ignacy J. Paderewski. His manager demanded a guaranteed fee of $2000 for the piano recital. A deal was struck. And the boys began to work to make the concert a success.
The big day arrived. Paderewski performed at Stanford. But unfortunately, they had not managed to sell enough tickets. The total collection was only $1600. Disappointed, they went to Paderewski and explained their plight. They gave him the entire $1600, plus a cheque for the balance $400. They promised to honour the cheque soonest possible.
"No." said Paderewski. "This is not acceptable." He tore up the cheque, returned the $1600 and told the two boys "Here's the $1600. Please deduct whatever expenses you have incurred. Keep the money you need for your fees. And just give me whatever is left" The boys were surprised, and thanked him profusely.
It was a small act of kindness. But it clearly marked out Paderewski as a great human being. Why should he help two people he did not even know? We all come across situations like these in our lives. And most of us only think "If I help them, what would happen to me?" The truly great people think, "If I don't help them, what will happen to them?" They don't do it expecting something in return. They do it because they feel it's the right thing to do.
Paderewski later went on to become the Prime Minister of Poland. He was a great leader, but unfortunately when the World War began, Poland was ravaged. There were over 1.5 million people starving in his country, and no money to feed them. Paderewski did not know where to turn for help. He reached out to the US Food and Relief Administration for help.
The head there was a man called Herbert Hoover - who later went on to become the US President. Hoover agreed to help and quickly shipped tons of food grains to feed the starving Polish people. A calamity was averted.
Paderewski was relieved. He decided to go across to meet Hoover and personally thank him. When Paderewski began to thank Hoover for his noble gesture, Hoover quickly interjected and said, "You shouldn't be thanking me Mr. Prime Minister. You may not remember this, but several years ago, you helped two young students go through college in the US . I was one of them."
The world is a wonderful place. What goes around usually comes around.
A young, 18-year-old student was struggling to pay his fees. He was an orphan, and not knowing where to turn for money, he came up with a bright idea. A friend and he decided to host a musical concert on campus to raise money for their education.
They reached out to the great pianist Ignacy J. Paderewski. His manager demanded a guaranteed fee of $2000 for the piano recital. A deal was struck. And the boys began to work to make the concert a success.
The big day arrived. Paderewski performed at Stanford. But unfortunately, they had not managed to sell enough tickets. The total collection was only $1600. Disappointed, they went to Paderewski and explained their plight. They gave him the entire $1600, plus a cheque for the balance $400. They promised to honour the cheque soonest possible.
"No." said Paderewski. "This is not acceptable." He tore up the cheque, returned the $1600 and told the two boys "Here's the $1600. Please deduct whatever expenses you have incurred. Keep the money you need for your fees. And just give me whatever is left" The boys were surprised, and thanked him profusely.
It was a small act of kindness. But it clearly marked out Paderewski as a great human being. Why should he help two people he did not even know? We all come across situations like these in our lives. And most of us only think "If I help them, what would happen to me?" The truly great people think, "If I don't help them, what will happen to them?" They don't do it expecting something in return. They do it because they feel it's the right thing to do.
Paderewski later went on to become the Prime Minister of Poland. He was a great leader, but unfortunately when the World War began, Poland was ravaged. There were over 1.5 million people starving in his country, and no money to feed them. Paderewski did not know where to turn for help. He reached out to the US Food and Relief Administration for help.
The head there was a man called Herbert Hoover - who later went on to become the US President. Hoover agreed to help and quickly shipped tons of food grains to feed the starving Polish people. A calamity was averted.
Paderewski was relieved. He decided to go across to meet Hoover and personally thank him. When Paderewski began to thank Hoover for his noble gesture, Hoover quickly interjected and said, "You shouldn't be thanking me Mr. Prime Minister. You may not remember this, but several years ago, you helped two young students go through college in the US . I was one of them."
The world is a wonderful place. What goes around usually comes around.
New Calculator of Income Tax Scenarios in 2011 Gets Good Press
July 29, 2010
New Calculator of Income Tax Scenarios in 2011 Gets Good Press
by William Ahern
Our new calculator of potential 2011 income tax liabilities at MyTaxBurden.org got a good technical review from a blog that builds and evaluates online utilities, many of which concern economics and public finances.
The blog is Political Calculations, which calls itself the blogosphere's toolchest. Here are some excerpts from their review:
We found it very easy to understand what kind of data we were supposed to enter as well as what the output results communicated.
We therefore find the compromise between a complicated user interface and the detailed results of the tool to be justified, ...
We're also fans of the tool's automatic update feature, which users have the option of disabling (by unchecking a box). This is a really nice touch, making it possible for users to change a number of fields without the distraction of having the output fields flicker and change with each edit. ...
The bottom line? The MyTaxBurden calculator is a very well done tool that will allow its users to obtain high quality information of special relevance to them.
The MyTaxBurden calculator, created by Nicholas A. Kasprak, therefore earns our second-highest online tool design award: the Silver Standard. The only thing keeping it from earning our Gold Standard is its very time-specific focus-it will only produce relevant results for the individuals who might use it in 2010 and 2011.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26563.html
New Calculator of Income Tax Scenarios in 2011 Gets Good Press
by William Ahern
Our new calculator of potential 2011 income tax liabilities at MyTaxBurden.org got a good technical review from a blog that builds and evaluates online utilities, many of which concern economics and public finances.
The blog is Political Calculations, which calls itself the blogosphere's toolchest. Here are some excerpts from their review:
We found it very easy to understand what kind of data we were supposed to enter as well as what the output results communicated.
We therefore find the compromise between a complicated user interface and the detailed results of the tool to be justified, ...
We're also fans of the tool's automatic update feature, which users have the option of disabling (by unchecking a box). This is a really nice touch, making it possible for users to change a number of fields without the distraction of having the output fields flicker and change with each edit. ...
The bottom line? The MyTaxBurden calculator is a very well done tool that will allow its users to obtain high quality information of special relevance to them.
The MyTaxBurden calculator, created by Nicholas A. Kasprak, therefore earns our second-highest online tool design award: the Silver Standard. The only thing keeping it from earning our Gold Standard is its very time-specific focus-it will only produce relevant results for the individuals who might use it in 2010 and 2011.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26563.html
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Inner Peace: This is so true
Inner Peace: This is so true
If you can start the day without caffeine,
If you can always be cheerful, ignoring aches and pains,
If you can resist complaining and boring people with your troubles,
If you can eat the same food every day and be grateful for it,
If you can understand when your loved ones are too busy to give you any time,
If you can take criticism and blame without resentment ,
If you can conquer tension without medical help,
If you can relax without liquor,
If you can sleep without the aid of drugs,
...Then You Are Probably .........
The Family Dog!
If you can start the day without caffeine,
If you can always be cheerful, ignoring aches and pains,
If you can resist complaining and boring people with your troubles,
If you can eat the same food every day and be grateful for it,
If you can understand when your loved ones are too busy to give you any time,
If you can take criticism and blame without resentment ,
If you can conquer tension without medical help,
If you can relax without liquor,
If you can sleep without the aid of drugs,
...Then You Are Probably .........
The Family Dog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
