Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 18 June 2011

America has been at war for nearly ten years and two presidential administrations. Responding to 9/11, the U.S. initiated military operations in Afghanistan October 7, 2001. Thus far, the War in Afghanistan has cost 1,623 American lives, with over 10,000 wounded.

Not quite two years later, March 20, 2003, the Bush Administration decided to go after “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, to later take down dictator Saddam Hussein, and later still to defend freedom and re-establish stability in the region. The weapons of mass destruction proved not to exist, Saddam is gone, freedom is tenuous, and stability is a non-starter. To date, 4,462 Americans have lost their lives in the Iraq War and more than 33,072 have been wounded.

On March 19, 2011, with NATO the Obama Administration launched “Operation Odyssey Dawn” air strikes over Libya. Ostensibly no American casualties have yet occurred in Libya, but it depends upon how you count.

The cost thus far of these wars is about $424,820,059,200 in Afghanistan, $783,721,570,100 in Iraq, and $608 million so far in Libya. The costs are increasing so fast a dollar estimate is incorrect as soon as it's printed.

You’d be forgiven for asking, “All this for what?” Today in Washington, D.C., as well as amongst the Republican aspirants to the presidency, no political leader can give you a clear answer, just politics-speak. None of the worn out arguments any longer hold water.

President Barack Obama won office in part because he voted against the Iraq War and in part because he promised to bring troops home from Iraq and draw them down in Afghanistan. He hasn’t delivered, and then he started his own military action in Libya, defended by liberals who had verbally assaulted President George W. Bush for doing the same thing in Iraq.

Obama Got Osama May 2, 2011, the Al Qaeda terrorist we’ve been chasing for a decade. He’s a goner, but we’re still fighting.

Recent CBS and “USA Today” surveys respectively indicated 51% and 59% of Americans believe it is time to end the War Without End. I agree.

It’s time to bring American troops home safe, sound, and soon. Not soon, now.

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 18 June 2011

Big Blue celebrates its one hundredth anniversary this week, quite an accomplishment for any business, even more so one in technology. IBM’s four full pages in “The Wall Street Journal” acknowledged where the company made mistakes, what it learned, and how it tried to create a culture oriented to the long-term.

Out of 25 top United States corporations in 1900, only 2 continued in operation in 1960. Of the top 25 companies in 1961, only 6 still exist today. So IBM’s 100 years is indeed impressive.

What did IBM learn? “Not to confuse charisma with leadership,” “Leadership often requires shedding emotional attachment to (its) heritage,” and “Leaders must show up in defense of the future.” Notice all these points are about leadership. IBM learned and demonstrated that leadership that grows, that looks proactively forward, that acts with integrity reinforces a company’s potential for surviving and thriving.

Leadership is not the end of an organization, but it is most certainly one of the key and essential means to determining the end of the organization. Leaders must be future-oriented or by definition function behind the curve. On behalf of their organizations leaders must stir and stimulate their organizations even to the point of discomfort—that is, if they and others within truly want the organization to improve by competing with itself.

Thomas Watson, Sr and Thomas Watson, Jr set IBM on a path to greatness that faltered. Louis V. Gerstner, Jr rescued and resuscitated IBM, putting it back on track. Gerstner wrote about IBM’s radical self-induced culture change in one of the best leadership books I’ve ever read, Who Said Elephants Can’t Dance? Inside IBM’s Historic Turnaround.

Leadership involves more courage than most people think. It’s easy to slide, to duck, to wink at percolating problems. It takes courage to tackle them head on. IBM has been blessed with more such leaders than most organizations can claim. Consequently, it’s celebrating its one hundredth birthday.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 14 June 2011

“McEnroe/Borg: Fire and Ice” is one of HBO’s “Legends and Legacies” summer documentaries. I watched it earlier this week and recommend it highly. It’s 60 minutes of interviews and matches worth watching; indeed, if you like tennis, it’s downright enjoyable.

Bjorn Borg is the stoic Swede who took the tennis world by storm as a teenager with Viking good looks and an even more stunning game. He won six Wimbledon tennis championships in a row and dominated tennis during ten years of sensational baseline tennis in the 1970s and early 1980s.

John McEnroe is the volatile New Yorker who took the tennis world by storm as a teenager with long frizzy hair and a frenetic energy that burst from both his racket and his mouth. He eventually ended Borg’s Wimbledon run and beat him in the U.S. Open final in exceptional serve and volley, yell-at-the-umpire (“You can’t be serious), incredible tennis.

Nothing surpasses Borg and McEnroe’s 1980 Wimbledon final on Centre Court at the All England Club. McEnroe saved 7 match points and finally won the 4^th set tie-breaker 18-16 in what is yet today considered one of the game’s most riveting, indeed one of sport’s most spellbinding, events. Borg came back to win the decisive 5^th set 8-6, and with that, the championship. They went on to split other matches, but Borg soon retired and McEnroe followed not long thereafter. Neither man won a major championship after the age of 25. Like Ali and Frazier, McEnroe and Borg needed one another.

Borg and McEnroe’s rivalry is compelling in part of course because of the highest level of tennis excellence they consistently drew out of each other, but also because of their friendship. As they both said in the documentary, they liked and respected each other from the beginning. Now they use the term “love.”

I watched nearly all their matches over five years including every point of the 1980 Wimbledon final. There’s not been another rivalry like them. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have produced some great matches, including especially the 2008 Wimbledon final. But they do not have the personalities of McEnroe and Borg and they have not made the same kind of impact upon the game, much less beyond it.

Watching “Fire and Ice” brought back a lot of memories. I was 28 in 1980, not too much older than the players. McEnroe and Borg’s antics, excellence, and accomplishments, their contrasting styles and personalities, their resolve and friendship were and are inspiring. Their head-to-head rivalry ranks with Palmer and Nicklaus. The fact they’ve survived various life and business foibles with their friendship flourishing represents what sports at their best are about.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 14 June 2011

I recently watched HBO’s new documentary “Bobby Fischer Against The World.” It’s an interesting but sad review of the anguished genius’s life.

Bobby Fischer (1943-2008) was clearly a prodigy, perhaps the greatest chess master in history, one who shot to worldwide fame at just 14 years of age when he became the youngest US champion in history. He played in 8 US Chess Championships in a row, winning them all. At 16 he published his first book becoming the youngest author in chess history.

At age 29 in 1972 in Reykjavik, Iceland, Fischer reached his peak by playing Russia’s Boris Spassky for the World Chess Championship. It was the Cold War: Russia versus the United States without fighting. The entire world watched a series of chess matches that Fischer came from behind to win spectacularly, sealing his fame forever.

If Fischer’s life had ended there it might have been to his good, but he lived to age 64, along the way by turns becoming a religious fanatic, conspiracy theorist, anti-American fugitive, and an anti-Semite. The last one was the most odd because Fischer was Jewish. After 9/11 he said the chickens had come home to roost for America and he later wrote a letter to Osama bin Laden claiming they had a lot in common against America.

Fischer was a prodigy. He was anguished lonely loner, and eventually, he evidenced clear and repetitive signs of paranoia and mental illness. He was a tragic genius in every sense of the phrase.

In the summer of 1972 I was in college between my sophomore and junior year. Watching the documentary, sobering though it was, brought back a lot of memories: the weird clothes and long hair, the cars, the sideburns, the news anchors and public personalities. I remember following Fischer and Spassky too.

I played chess through high school and much of college. In high school Physics class several of us played every day. During my undergrad years I came in second in the college tournament two years in a row, beaten both years by my roommate Timothy Barker. We enjoyed the mental challenge of the game, liked the strategy, and followed the Fischer saga for part chess, part patriotic reasons.

Fischer’s story is one of what might have been. What might he have become if he’d not lost his father at a young age and his mother hadn’t abandoned him when he was a teenager? What chess majesty might have been his had he been able to overcome his volatility and emotional pain to play competitively for the next fifteen years after winning the World Championship? What even greater greatness might he have enjoyed had he been able to function as a sociable champion? What would have been his larger impact upon the game of chess if he’d been able to teach, play more, or become an ambassador for the game? Unfortunately we’ll never know.

Just three years ago Fischer died of renal failure in Iceland, refusing treatment and reputedly uttering as his last words, “Nothing is as healing as the human touch.” His life is an American tragedy with a high watermark in the early 1970s.

Details: Written by: Dan; Published: 11 June 2011

I'm not a hunter. However, I am against unnecessary government regulation. Hunting without baiting involves a rifle, ammunition, trail cameras, portable food and water, scent-blocking clothing, night vision, a vehicle to get to the hunting spot, GPS, maps, and a number of other types of assistance. The sport of hunting pits man against animal. Part of man is his brain and his productive resources. Bait is part of that. The point at which "hunting" becomes "unfair" or "unbalanced" is subjective. I personally hold the opinion that all of the advantages listed above make hunting non-competitive, which is why I don't hunt. And some others will not use GPS. Some won't use scent-blocking suits. Some won't use trail cameras. Again, the line is subjective. To legislate where that line should be is over-legislation and an unnecessary infringement upon natural freedom. All of the other opinions ("natural resource scientists", "environmentalists or conservationists" and "most hunters") can be held and acted upon by those who hold the opinion, but should not be forced on anyone else.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 11 June 2011

Michigan has lifted its ban on deer baiting. Too bad. This relatively new hunting habit should be banned for good in Michigan and in every other state. Currently, 28 states ban deer baiting, 8 others limit the practice.

Baiting is the practice of placing carrots or sugar beets or some other food product in piles in the woods to attract deer (or bear) to the food source. Hunters set up nearby and wait for deer, conditioned after a few days of finding food in this spot, walk into range of hunters’ firepower.

Deer baiting seems to me to remove much of the challenge or sport of hunting deer. Unsuspecting deer become ducks in a barrel. The hunter doesn’t have to take time learning deer’s habits, tracking them, or finding the place to stand that most probably will offer a shot opportunity later in the day. Apparently my view is shared by some who support baiting because one of their arguments is that they “don’t have time” to do “real hunting.” No, with baiting, hunters simply bait-and-wait. Doesn’t seem like much of a sport to me.

Banning deer baiting helps reduce the possibility of the spread of disease like bovine TB or chronic wasting disease, which is why Michigan banned the practice for the past few years. Baiting increases likelihood of disease because animals are eating in one place rather than multiple places across the landscape. Now, though, because of political pressure, baiting is back.

Deer baiting is generally not supported by natural resource scientists or their scientific studies. It’s not supported by environmentalists or conservationists. It’s not even supported by most hunters, just a minority who apparently believe they cannot hunt deer in any other way.

I’m not against hunting. Actually, I think baiting harms hunting because it removes much of the need for hunters to spend time in the craft and improve their hunting skills. To put it bluntly, about anyone can sit with a gun and shoot when a target comes in view. That’s not hunting. It’s a carnival shooting gallery.

Baiting should be banned for hunting of any and all animals in all states. Banning baiting for good would be better for not just the animals, or for the sensibilities of the modern public, but for hunters and hunting too. What’s not to like about that?

Subcategories