Friday, October 5, 2012

BloggeRhythms 10/5/2012

It seems I’ve been starting a lot of entry’s lately by writing that I’m confused. And today’s another such time. Because people everywhere, on both sides of the aisle, claim they’re astounded that the incumbent did such a lousy debating job. However, I’m not surprised at all.
 
I’ve mentioned several times in the past about a tip I received way back when beginning my career from a highly successful veteran salesman. He suggested that when calling on accounts I pay close attention to the employees I meet at every level, aside from the person at the top. Because their work attitudes, demeanor, degree of professionalism and manner will tell me a lot about the leader’s philosophy regarding business practices.
 
Therefore, if the surroundings are crisp, clean, well-maintained and precisely functional, they suggest someone whose mind works the same way, as does the reverse. Because management style generally reflects individual's preferences and behavior which can then be used to guide your own conduct in dealing with them. 
 
So, if you apply the preceding guidelines and look at the nation’s condition, you see failure in every single aspect of governance that can be measured. From unemployment, business growth, education, health care, natural resource development, military strength, welfare reform to massive over-regulation, nothing performs in a positive manner. And whereas the reason for that sub-standard record stems directly from the top, obviously the leader’s a failure himself.
 
Consequently, if well-documented results illustrate poor performance clearly in every other instance, why shouldn’t debating ability be consistently weak as well? And especially in cases like this one where the performer has no personal knowledge base of success to draw on in the subjects in question at all.
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment