A Systems View of the Organization

Guiding organizations through choppy waters is what leaders do. Some are more successful than others. You are charged with maintaining and growing the viability of the business regardless of events you seemingly have no control over. The question is how you go about that.

There has been a lot of talk about strategic thinking and planning. However, when faced with slumping sales and rising costs, management tends to look within and focus on examining existing operations, to try to find ways to reverse the trend. It typically starts with a meeting with sales and marketing, to get a more accurate feel for the market and to adjust sales projections. Armed with this new revenue number, an in depth auditing of each department will follow looking for new efficiencies, new ways of doing business, or anything that can help the company hit the new numbers, the new fixation of the business. When money is tight you cut back right? It seems only logical.

But if you stop and think about it for a moment, is that really the best way to analyze the situation? For example, when an auto manufacturer experiences a downturn in sales the automatic response is to slow or stop production. This is not adapting to the market it's reacting to the market.

Couldn't the real problem possibly be that the auto company didn't fully understand what kind of car the market wanted, how many and at what price point? Undoubtedly they spent a great deal of time and resources gathering intelligence on the competition, which is a good thing to do, and they should do it. But remember, the competition doesn't buy cars. Shouldn't the company also understand the environment that their customers live in? Shouldn't they also know and appreciate what constraints that environment might place on their customers' buying decisions? The real problem isn't that the company didn't sell enough cars; that is just the end result. The real problem is that they made more cars than the customers wanted to buy or could afford buy, or simply made cars that the customers didn't need or didn't want.

It's the understanding that the company must have of the external driving forces, their inter-relationships, and the impact these have on the company, that should determine what it must deliver to be competitive or simply remain relevant. And it is this understanding of what it must deliver that then determines how the company's internal systems (and their inter-relationships) need to be designed and operated.

The Systems View

This idea of looking outward, of looking beyond the walls of the company office building is not new. What is relatively new to many executives, is the idea of looking at the world as a collection of systems that create a whole and examining the relationships between those systems to determine how they affect the whole. Systems Theory, as applied to organizational management, puts forth the premise that all organizations are systems, and all systems are part of larger systems. How a subsystem fits the needs of the larger system ultimately determines if that subsystem prospers or is left to wither on the vine.

It's this concept that the adept leader can use to get a more "holistic" view of his organization. Understanding how the company relates to the larger system in which it exists and operates, and then how the company's internal systems contribute or detract from that larger relationship can provide a more relevant analysis.

It really isn't as esoteric as it may sound. Once you grasp the concept it will be easy to see how it applies to your organization. Let's spend a moment on a definition and then we can address application.

In Systems Theory, a system is defined in two ways:

• Externally, by its purpose. Each system has a role that it plays in the higher-level system in which it exists. Using the auto company example we can say that the auto company is a system whose role is to provide cars to the next higher-level system, the auto market. The auto market in turn has its multiple roles that it plays in the next higher-level systems of transportation and national economy and so on.
• Internally, by its subsystems and internal functions. Each system is made up of components and sub-systems that interrelate and contribute to the overall purpose of the parent system. In the auto company those components might consist of engineering, production, marketing, finance, human resources and sales all of which should be supporting the system's purpose of providing cars to the higher system, the auto market.

Systems Theory in Managing Organizations

Defining the Higher-Level System and the Organization's Role in It

So for a leader, the first step in developing a holistic view of the organization is to define the higher-level system in which it exists/operates, and its role/purpose in that higher-level system. Where does it fit? What kind of role does it play and what value does it bring to the purpose of the higher-level system? If a company does not have a role to play in the higher-level system, then it does not belong in that system; and if it cannot find a role in any higher-level system, it is in effect redundant and will ultimately die. Additionally, and sadly more common, if a company cannot accurately define what its role is in the higher-level system, even if it has something relevant to offer, it will be treated as if it had no role at all.

If a higher-level system cannot perceive value by including a particular sub-system, it will ignore that sub-system. This typically means the end of that sub-level system's participation in the higher-level system. That's the reason nobody makes buggy whips or vinyl music records anymore.

Designing the Internal Functions and Subsystems of the Organization

Once you have defined the higher-level system in which your company operates, and established your company's purpose within it, then it's time to look at the components or subsystems of your organization. These subsystems and components, knowingly or unknowingly, all interact and play a part in achieving or detracting from the company's purpose. Ideally of course, these subsystems and their interrelationships should be designed and organized in a way that collectively promotes the organization's purpose, and achieve zero or sustainable negative entropy for the organization. While there is much to discuss about entropy and organizations, a simple macro explanation is that entropy occurs when a system's resources are depleted over time and its subsystems descend into chaos. Zero entropy is thus a state where resources do not deplete over time, and negative entropy where resources increase over time; in both cases with the subsystems maintaining current relevance and focus on the system purpose.

In the auto company example, it needs to define its market, the range of products and services for that market, and how to produce and deliver those products and services in an exchange with the auto market, in a way that its resources do not get depleted. When it achieves that, the auto company will have reached a state of business sustainability. Of course all companies would like to grow, and not just maintain the business; however we all know that growth needs to be kept sustainable or the result could be detrimental. For example, if the auto company increases its market share so rapidly, that it is unable to match that pace with getting the people and systems it needs in place to ensure good quality control, then it could get into problems. In Systems Theory, when we talk about negative entropy in successful systems, it is always about sustainable negative entropy.

It can be argued that assuming the organization knows its true purpose, then how that organization's subsystems are organized will determine the success or failure of the organization. Subsystems, functions, and their inter-relationships are thus optimized to achieve the organization's purpose; this is distinct from optimization of subsystems for their own purposes. Consequently, if a subsystem does not have a role in the organization's purpose, then it does not belong in the organization system.

It kind of sounds like we are back to the traditional response of auditing departments doesn't it? But did you note the difference? This time we defined a purpose first. We identified what our role is in the higher-level system. We know what we must do to succeed in that higher-level system. It's only after we have that firmly established that we use it to determine the organization and effectiveness of our subsystems.

Outside-Inside

Let's ratchet this up a level and get you thinking in even broader terms. We talked about finding our purpose in the next higher-level system but it really doesn't stop there. The effective leader has to look beyond the immediate higher-level system, and get an appreciation for how the next-higher-level system and even-higher-level systems and so on, can impact the purpose of the organization.

Say for example, the green environmental movement successfully lobbied to legislate that all cars will be required to double their kilometers per liter rating in 5 years, while at the same time reducing emissions by 50%. This is a political/regulatory factor driven by the inter-related forces of ecological imperatives and the collective awareness of consumers, etc., that now directly impacts the auto company. This factor, which the auto company has no control over, effectively changes what the company must deliver to fulfill its purpose in the higher-level systems in which it operates. The successful auto company, with enlightened management adopting the systems perspective, would have seen this decision coming by identifying the inter-related driving forces leading to this decision, well ahead of their competitors; it would have already began redefining its outputs and reorganizing its subsystems and their inter-relationships for this new reality.

It's important to view business as a part of larger systems. Business does not exist in a vacuum. The arrogance of some organizations, particularly those too big to fail, is disturbing and it's obvious that they have not learned from past lessons. One only has to look at the auto industry worldwide, the railroad industry in the United States, and the steel industry generally to see examples of once powerful and rich organizations who ultimately didn't understand, or care, about what their purpose was in the higher-level systems. Today many former giants in those industries are shells of what they were, replaced by organizations who understood what the system needed and where they fit in.

Systems Theory and the Leader

Systems Theory is a powerful tool that will take your thinking to an entirely new level. It is an exceptionally honest and effective method for understanding the purpose of an organization and for performing an effective analysis of its subsystems. However, without an advocate, it remains just a theory. That's where your responsibility as a senior level leader begins.

Systems Theory when applied to human organizations is the only management concept rooted in natural science! It makes perfect sense and is really logic and common sense driven. Commit yourself to view everything you do and see in terms of interrelated systems.

Start by defining the higher-level system that your organization serves. What purpose, what value, and what fulfillment of needs does your organization offer that system? What products or services does your organization offer that best fills the purpose? Are you offering products or services that don't serve this system but may serve another?

All successful living systems are open systems, and information and resources flow across them. Closed systems, i.e. systems that insulate themselves from, and do not interact with, the higher-level system or other systems, are destined to fail. One of the reasons, though not the only one, is that if they do not interact with other systems, how will they be able to adjust to the evolving purposes of the higher-level-systems and hence define their useful role?

To keep your system healthy, what information (business or market intelligence, etc.) do you need to gather from your higher-level system? What information (marketing, communications, etc.) do you need to send to the higher-level systems? What resources (raw materials, component parts, etc.) do you need to acquire from the higher-level systems and the other subsystems within it? Are there resources (shared services, collective bargaining, etc.) that can be shared with other subsystems? What useful resources (products, services, etc.) can you provide to the system and its other subsystems that they need and that you do best in?

Lastly you have to organize your subsystems to promote your purpose. A prime directive in Systems Theory is that every subsystem must contribute to the success of the system's purpose. Teams, managers and individual workers are all subsystems, and components of subsystems. If the guy on the loading dock, or the lady at the front desk, does not understand how he/she is promoting the purpose then he/she cannot be as effective a member of your system as he needs to be.

Once your organization is focused on and designed for purpose, you as the leader have to spend time interacting with other systems in the higher-level systems. Obviously you want to spend time within your immediate higher-level system, because that's where your organization operates. However, you need also to involve yourself with even-higher-level systems like your community and its NPOs, and society. In the inter-connectedness of the world, the health of your community will in the end have a direct impact on your organization's purpose.

Conclusion

Ultimately, we all need to view ourselves and our respective organizations as parts and subsystems of the successively higher-level systems, our roles in the purposes of those successively higher-level systems, and how we all contribute or detract from the success of the highest-level system we live in, namely the eco-system of earth. That will make the discourse over sustainability in its widest definition a whole lot easier, but that is another subject for another time. For a start, let's start thinking in systems, so that we and our organizations can be more effective and successful.

Through applying Systems Theory to management and leadership you will serve not only your company but your entire environment. That's what exceptional leaders do.

For over twenty three years, Stephen has helped businesses, government agencies and non-profits organizations in Asia to learn and apply Strategic Management and Innovation to their organizations to sustain and improve long term performance. He has successfully led and facilitated numerous "live" strategic planning efforts and in-company senior management development programs, for a wide range of organizations including multi-national companies, small-medium enterprises and government agencies. As an international consultant, Stephen has led public workshops/seminars on key strategic management topics such as strategic thinking and planning, change management, leadership and innovation, in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Dubai, China and the USA. He has trained hundreds of managers in workshops and seminars, with consistently excellent evaluations by the participants, who come from a wide range of industries in both the private and public sectors.

The Pendulum Effect in American Politics: 1974-2010

One of my favorite movie quotes is from Back to the Future when Christopher Lloyd, as Doc Brown, challenges Michael J. Fox's Marty McFly in 1955 to prove his preposterous time-travel story by naming the president in 1985. When Marty replies, "Ronald Reagan," Doc Brown hoots and says, incredulous, "Ronald Reagan, the actor? Hah!"

Before the 1980 presidential election, there were many Americans of the same opinion as the good doctor. Jimmy Carter's presidency may have been weakened by the Iran hostage crisis, a stubborn recession and the second energy crisis of the decade, but the conventional wisdom after the primaries was that GOP candidate Ronald Reagan didn't have a prayer. What he did have, however, was devout support from the defiantly religious, rapidly rising and well-financed "New Right." When this movement helped steer Reagan into the White House, their influence went on to shape American politics and policy for a dozen years. The pendulum had swung dramatically to the right. Progressives and moderates were stunned. Back to the Future, indeed.

But those who were shocked either had short memories or were too young to remember another dramatic swing--to the left--in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, preceded by two years of a "national nightmare" and the birth of unabashed investigative journalism, gave rise to a deep and enduring distrust of government by the press and the public. This collective rejection of presidential arrogance, coupled with outrage at Ford's pardon of Nixon, propelled a bevy of freshly minted Democrats (including Jimmy Carter) into Washington.

Let's return to the much-touted Reagan Revolution. Characterized by trickle-down economics whose terminus mysteriously eluded its promised beneficiaries, it started to dim under the presidency of George H. W. Bush. While his prosecution of the Gulf War met with generally high marks, Bush's tin ear toward the recession of the early 90s became his downfall. The clever and charismatic Bill Clinton wrested the presidency away from the Republicans for the first time in twelve years. While Clinton ushered in the era of the "New Democrat" that rejected some of the more liberal policies of the party's past, the pendulum had undeniably swung back to the left.

Two short years later, Newsweek ran an article with a beleaguered Clinton on its cover accompanied by the title, "The Incredible Shrinking President." Hobbled out of the gate by embracing the worthy but narrow issue of gays in the military, the resulting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy proved unpopular with all sides. Most critically, it was a dangerous distraction from the average voter's primary issue: in the immortal words of James Carville, "it's the economy, stupid." Enter (stage right) firebrand Newt Gingrich, The Contract with America and the GOP takeover of both houses in the mid-term election of 1994. The future looked bleak for the New Democrats.

Reports of their demise, of course, were greatly exaggerated. Two years later, Clinton's serendipity was personified by GOP presidential candidate Senator Bob Dole. Dole's laconic style and tepid campaign skills enabled an impeached president who had barely survived a seismic sex scandal to win the election decisively. He was greatly assisted by the hubris of the insurgent Republicans, who wrongly believed in their absolute power and greatly underestimated the rage of the American public when they shut down the federal government. That infamous standoff provided the perfect foil for Clinton, and may have been an object lesson in the benefits of enemies behaving badly.

The 2000 Supreme Court decision Bush vs. Gore, handed down by an increasingly conservative bench, effectively shifted the country back to the right. There it stayed through 9/11, two wars, an unprecedented economic trajectory and a dizzying plummet to earth. Bush's approval ratings descended almost as quickly, and the contagion spread to GOP candidate John McCain. Suddenly the boom years of the mid-2000s turned into the worst economy since the Great Depression. This was fertile ground for Barack Obama, a relatively new face on the national scene, who first unseated the heretofore presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. Obama then proceeded to rouse the spirits of the nation--and the ire of his opponents--by evangelizing the redemptive power of hope. Progressives rejoiced as Americans embraced his promise of change.

Mario Cuomo once observed, arguably from personal experience, that politicians campaign in poetry but govern in prose. The Obama administration took on the herculean task of the failing economy, rising unemployment, and the desperately dysfunctional health care system all within the first eighteen months. Ambitious? Foolhardy? Recipe for a rout in the mid-terms? Perhaps all. The rise of the Tea Party was fueled by raging opposition to the bank bailouts, TARP, and "Obamacare." It is no small irony that the first two were on Bush's watch, a fact quickly forgotten due to an acute case of national amnesia. Blamed for an anemic stimulus effect and unemployment entrenched at nearly 10%, Democrats "took a shellacking" in the 2010 mid-terms. Only twenty-four months after Obama's historic victory, The Economist's post-election issue proclaimed over a picture of an approaching posse: "The Republicans ride in."

The ebb and flow of American politics is not unlike the old adage about weather in New England: if you don't like it, wait five minutes. Reagan's and Clinton's approval ratings were both lower that Obama's two years before their re-election. Clinton, Truman and Eisenhower all suffered similar losses in their mid-terms and were re-elected. If history is prologue, and the pendulum is primed, there may be hope yet for Obama in 2012.

An Educational System On Life Support

I had a very interesting conversation a couple of weeks ago with my father in law. While I consider him to be an educated man, I was nevertheless astounded that he did not know that public schools are primarily financed by the property taxes of the area surrounding them. This fact came up in our conversation as he maintained that everyone in the United States has access to the same education.

To begin with, I should let you know that I consider myself an Independent, or as I used to call it, a Democrat with Republican tendencies. What does this mean? Well it means that I don't believe in big government and I certainly don't believe that our taxes should benefit programs that either don't work or are so bureaucratic that nothing ever gets done. I believe that if you accept welfare or food stamps, you should be obligated to work in some type of volunteer capacity for the many needs of people that cannot help themselves due either to a particular handicap or mental disorder. I believe that each government agency, whether federal, state or local should be held accountable to "success" measures like most private companies are. Basically, they should prove that they are having success in their chosen field of endeavor through customer feedback and choices. I feel that teachers should be held accountable in the same way, by holding them to a standard of success in the children they are given to educate.

The political climate in this country is the worst I believe I have ever seen, with the strict polarization across party lines and the policy of politics so many of our elected officials continue to represent in the face of stark opposition from the right and the left. At the end of the day, it must be nice to be an elected official, because they all do a lot to remain in power. Yet, while so many are squabbling about the latest gaff or poll, our country continues to deteriorate, both physically and mentally. Our infrastructure is so outdated, we teeter on the edge of a third world country in many counties across the US. Crumbling bridges, decades old transportation systems, inadequate power grids are just a drop in the bucket of the many problems that exist in our country. This is to say nothing of the failing mental capacity of our population.

Like many people, many of our senators and congressmen and women fail to understand the big picture and live only for their political lives today. Beholden to their large lobbyists and campaign contributors, they make decisions that are based upon what will help them win the next election rather than what will help our children achieve the education they will require to be prepared for the next century. If I had an analogy, it would be like that kid you knew in school that had the cool looking car that was always breaking down. It had a gleaming paint job and nice aluminum wheels, but he never changed the oil or bothered to work on the things that are not always glamorous, but always necessary.

Unfortunately, we are creating our own self fulfilling prophecy. As the population of our country becomes increasingly ignorant due to lack of appropriate education and self examination, it becomes increasingly easy for our politicians to lie to them. To tell them tales and spin events, knowing that most people do not have the capacity to discern what is truth and what is fabrication.We would rather place an earbud in our ear, close our eyes, and pretend the Matrix truly exists. Rather than arming ourselves with headphones that will make use of technology to teach us more, we hopelessly drown ourselves in uninspiring reality TV shows, continually wasting our lives watching the wasted lives and drama of others, never knowing we are contributing to our own eventual demise.

If we do not do what is needed to stay in the race for the education of our populous, we will surely perish. It is said that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. We don't have to go far back to understand that we are on the road toward a country that will one day be run by a dictator, and our population will all gleefully and ignorantly cheer to the end of democracy.

Are Canadian Politicians Losing Their Political Minds?

Generally I do not write about politics or religion, but this time I'm not holding back. In my opinion our political party leaders have their own personal agendas using poor Canadians as pawns to advance themselves. After watching question period in the House of Commons the other day, I almost needed a Gravol to stop from regurgitating my lunch. It was like watching a bunch of spoiled brats throwing temper tantrums, accomplishing absolutely nothing for the citizens they represent. Their biggest concern that day was who was going to be king of the castle. We Canadians voted in a Prime Minister just a few months ago, and now the other poor sport parties want to take over the very government the people elected in.

Presently we have this wonderful alliance of our other significant political parties known as the "Coalition" trying to over through the current administration. A separatist party, a socialist party, and our outstanding liberal party who contributed for many years to assisting us into the financial mess we are in today. Perhaps we could call them "The three stooge's party". Maybe it is their legal right to do this coalition, but morally we Canadians have spoken, and the elected party is not slaughtering the people in the streets, or planning on setting off a nuclear bomb. They are just doing what every other party has done in the past, which is nothing significant or at all to better the Canadian way of life.

I have often wished we had leaders like the American ones who are strong, charismatic, and at least work hard to keep the American value system in place. The one thing all Americans will say is that they are American. Many Canadians no longer identify themselves as being Canadian, instead by the province they live in, their religion, or the country they migrated from. With the exception of traveling to a foreign countries because we are respected in other lands. Our leaders our failing to unify this country making people feel proud to be part of this great land we live in. To do this they would need to make hard choices, not always favorable, working always towards the greater good of all our people and the provinces. We only have ten provinces a few territories, the Americans have fifty states plus, I do not hear of too many Americans wanting to separate from their country, there is a reason for that, which is strong leadership. I'm not saying it perfect over there either, just more unified as a people.

In my opinion in order do this here we need to start by reducing tax deductions on wages, ensuring Canadians the ability of paying their bills at weeks end. Then if we are going to provide a medical system making sure that there are enough doctors, equipment, and diminishing the waiting times in our emergencies. The future of our children has always been based on a solid educational background. With that said, how about our government supplying schools with funding to purchase new text books, equipment, and classroom space with the tax dollars remitted. Any Canadian who can not afford a university education should once again have available to them the resources for loans and bursaries. Afterwards assuring that Canada has an economy where that higher education can be put to good use.

The next area that I think should be tackled is the business one. I am not Harvard graduate just an ordinary citizen who can see the changes we need in our business climate as well. It would seem Canada is no longer a manufacturing country, but a service one particularly were jobs are concerned. The reason for that is our powers at be must of thought that allowing foreign companies and chain stores to take over our landscape would be more profitable tax wise, then actually investing in our own people who want to start companies. Why not invest some of the Government run casino profits back into new business development. Putting into legislation that any foreign or domestic chain stores must carry at least 60% of Canadian made products. . If the government can do this with cable television content why not here too. Personally I do not see the advantage of free trade because it has sent jobs everywhere else, and is not doing much here to stimulate the economy.

On that note I think we need to level the business playing field by allowing Mom and Pop businesses to have a chance. The way to do this is by manufactures and wholesale companies being required to set a fair profitable wholesale price, and allowing larger stores volume discounts in their purchasing like the old days, if they want to increase their profits. This way if you are a huge store or small one everyone can make a living; the distinction is how one is served, and where a customer is situated.

My final thought on changes dealing with putting some of the world and social issues on the back burner, just until we get back on our feet. Let's make sure every Canadian can make a living, put food on the table, have a place to live, get their education, and have more immediate medical services.

While You Were Out - A Memo To The American Political Class

While you were all out campaigning over the past month or so, the following events happened that might be of interest to you and which you may not be aware of or sensitive to:

- While you were out campaigning, many of you spending millions of dollars of your own wealth to get jobs that generally pay less $200,000 a year, more than 50 U.S. troops were killed in action in Afghanistan, bringing to 417 that have been killed there so far this year (Source: iCasualties website)

- While you were out campaigning and spending billions of dollars of other people's wealth to get jobs that generally pay less than $200,000 a year, the Federal government probably added another $110 billion to the national debt, over $900 worth of debt burden for every U.S. household.

- While you were out campaigning and slinging mud and childish accusations at each other, at least six American citizens were killed as a direct result of the Mexican drug cartels, 105 tons of marijuana bound for the United States was seized by Mexican police in Tijuana, Mexico, and a major drug smuggling tunnel, running from a warehouse in Mexico under the border to a warehouse in the U.S. was shut down.

- While you were out campaigning for jobs that will put your salary into the upper 95% percentile of all American workers, over 1.8 million newly unemployed Americans filed first time unemployment claims.

- While you were out campaigning to keep a plush job you already have or get a plush job from another politician, over 14 million Americans still have no job.

- While you were out campaigning, preening in front of all varieties of news media, most American students suffered through another month within a failing public education system.

- While you were out campaigning, flying and driving to numerous campaign stops, the country went another month without a comprehensive national energy strategy that reduces our dependence on foreign energy supplies while being kinder to the environment.

- While you were out campaigning and telling us how much you supported the middle class, you neglected to renew the expiring tax cuts before you left town that will add thousands of dollars to middle class tax bills in 2011.

- While you were out campaigning, posturing and "energizing your base," America became more divided as ever as a result of your actions, words, slurs, insults, attack advertising and the derogatory efforts of your respective "friends" in the media.

But most importantly, while you were out campaigning, Americans started to realize that whether you are in Washington or not, nothing ever changes. This past month when you were not in session was really not any different than when you are in session. Issues are rarely ever addressed, reality based solutions never materialize, and those legislative actions that you do somehow pass such as health care reform, financial regulation reform, and economic stimulus packages have proven to be failures or are well on their way to failure.

We suggest that when you do decide to mosey on back to your jobs in D.C., you consider moving on some of the steps laid out in below:

1) Start reducing the Federal budget by 10% a year for the next five years in order to get the national debt under control so that each American household is not on the hook for another $900 every month that you do not act.

2) Reinstate the expiring tax cuts and make them permanent, returning our wealth to working Americans, the ones that worked and earned it, and helping to starve the Federal bureaucracy of funds so that it shrinks to do only the most essential tasks needed by its citizens.

3) Enact campaign finance reforms that can withstand a legal challenge and which allow only individual Americans to contribute to election campaigns, essentially freezing out corporations, unions, PACS, and other organizations from the campaign funding cycle. It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to attain political jobs that pay so little in relation to the amount spent to get the jobs.

4) Enact a comprehensive, non-political problem solving process to finally develop an effective national energy strategy and policy.

5) Enact a comprehensive, non-political problem solving process to finally develop an effective national drug policy that balances freedom, protection, and treatment while bankrupting the violent drug cartels around the world.

6) Enact a comprehensive, non-political problem solving process to finally fix the failure that are most of our public schools.

7) Enact a comprehensive, non-political problem solving process to develop a real solution to the problem of escalating health care costs in this country, identifying the true root causes and attacking those root causes with the right solutions, a process not undertaken under Obama Care.

8) Start bringing back the majority of U.S. troops stationed overseas and develop a realistic and workable Afghanistan strategy. This strategy needs to take into account the recently disclosed close ties of the Afghan government with Iran, the rampant corruption within the Afghan government, and the double dealing of the Pakistan government which says they are our allies but who secretly support terrorist groups and individuals fighting our ground troops across the border.

9) Require all members of the political class to take and pass a basic course on economics in order to avoid implementing the failed economic stimulus programs of the past few years such as Cash For Clunkers.

While you were out, it has gotten really crazy, with ordinary Americans finally demanding real answers and real solutions. It does not look like they are willing to accept the same old behavior that we have been giving them over the past decades. Thus, while you were out, the American public started to tune in to your shortcomings and failures. Hurry back soon or they may decide they do not need you at all.

Political Correctness and Truth

Political correctness has and always will be wrong, as in never right. No it is not one of the sides as in liberal or conservative.

Truth is what matters, nothing else. Some ask is it ever OK to tell a lie? No it is not, no lie will ever amount to the truth, actually all the lies just add up to a greater lie, along with the obvious ignorance of those telling or believing the lies.

Some believe, or seem to believe PC came from politics or politicians, perhaps to a point they are correct, yet in reality it seems the practice has and or does come from the interests of special groups who want you to believe their views and if you do not, you are an idiot.

What special interest groups? Take the ACLU or LAMBDA which work hand in hand or foot in hand, whichever is preferred. Rights of all people need to be respected as to the Constitution of the United States, yet when we give special rights to individuals who already have the rights granted by the Constitution we throw the Constitution out of the window. Framers of the Constitution would be and are appalled at the utter lack of intelligence of most in the Government in present day America, along with some of the regular day to day folks, especially when items are not even voted on, just legislated by the few who take the money and play deaf, not to mention our judicial system.

What, it is not OK to tell anyone who is weird that they are in fact idiots in ones' own opinion? Freedom of speech ought to be just that, freedom to speak an opinion, even if others do not like it or agree with it. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me, or something like that? PC says everyone just goes, oh it is OK to do whatever you want; our kids do not know how to think for themselves anyway, at least in the last twenty five to thirty years or so.

Say what? Well it is true, how many people today seem to make a decision based on their own true opinion? Maybe sixty five per cent, maybe a bit more actually have the nerve to tell the truth? Statistics are not always correct, especially when we go to vote on any issue, which is why many people do not want some items up for a vote, especially when it is a liberal issue.

Force is not meant to be used in the political arena, yet it is. Financial force is still force, just perhaps not as violent as the force of muscle. Much more subtle, though much more corrosive and coercive, not to mention the corruption it breeds. Political correctness is bought and sold through and with the use of power and the financial backing of the power, which is of course the problem, even with the so called regulation. Who is supplying the finances to play? Why?

Regulation is the fallacy, meaning who is doing the regulating and who is paying for it? Who is your power broker? Playing only on your side, or both? Apathy and complacency are the rampant players in the PC arena, like ants on Prozac, what a picture.

It is not suggested or implied that ants need or ought to be given Prozac, as they work hard without a whip or drugs, and they actually communicate with each other, without any lies or political correctness.

Political Debates Are Often More Theater Than Substance

Few objective observers would claim that the American political system operated optimally, or that there are numerous flaws in most of our elected officials. There have been numerous attempts to "fix" the problem, but like most of the political solutions, they were either ineffective or had huge loopholes in them, that made them nearly useless. Our campaign finance laws are weak and ineffective at best, ridiculous at worst. This has led some to call for more debates between candidates, but often the structure, format, moderators and rules of these debates diminish any substantial true debate from occurring.

Recently, the candidates for Governor from the State of New York participated in a debate, held at Hofstra University in Long Island, and televised only on Cablevision's owned News12. Obviously, televising it exclusively on only one cable service provider's network, although the largest provider in the state, effectively eliminated anyone with other systems throughout the state, including Time Warner, Comcast, DISH, DirectTV, FIOS, etc.

Even worse, however, was that, even though only two of the major candidates, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Carl Paladino, have any type of realistic chance of victory, and most of the other candidates represent what many would refer to as "fringe" beliefs, all candidates, major and minor party, realistic chance of becoming Governor or "no shot," were all invited to participate.

While some explained that all were invited because in a democracy, all voices should be heard, since there are so few debates, this obviously diminished any type of realistic and substantive discussion by either major candidate, either in depth on issues, or regarding certain campaign claims that have been made. What makes this even more unfortunate is that much of the campaign advertising has been exploitive and some would say unsubstantiated and "dirty politics."

When one of the minor party candidates is a man running on the "Rents are too damned high" party, and another was a former (and perhaps still) madam running on the "Anti-Prohibition" party, it is easy to see why this format might provide some entertainment value and great one-liners. However, unfortunately, especially in these times of economic uncertainty and high joblessness, under-employment, and unemployment, and the public's concern and disgust about high taxation with limited perceived value or benefit, would the public not have been better served by a face-to-face in-depth true debate between the two major party candidates, one of which will become Governor of the second largest state in our nation.

Granted, reality shows have, fortunately or unfortunately, for a variety of different reasons, become the most profitable and prevalent form of television entertainment. I suppose the format that this debate followed was in line with the supposed public demand for reality shows. Yet, is it only me, or are others also concerned that voters who might really want to have an optimum chance of making a decision about voting for the candidate that best meets their views and needs, are being deprived of true information to base such a decision.

This is not a situation that is occurring solely in one state. Slick, negative advertising has become more the rule than informative debate. This will continue until the public creates an uproar!