Why?

LEADERSHIP
1. the position or function of a leader:
2. ability to lead: She displayed leadership potential.
3. an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction: They prospered under his leadership.
4. the leaders of a group: The union leadership agreed to arbitrate.

Synonyms: administration, authority, capacity, command, conduction, control, conveyance, direction, directorship, domination, foresight, hegemony, influence, initiative, management, power, preeminence, primacy, skill, superiority, sway

Personal Touch: In my opinion, the skill and ability to influence others, whether directly or indirectly, to perform at or above their potential.

INTEGRITY
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition

Synonyms: candor, forthrightness, goodness, honesty, honorableness, incorruptibility, incorruption, principle, probity, purity, righteousness, sincerity, straightforwardness, virtue

Personal Touch: In my opinion, integrity means always doing the right thing, the same way, whether you are being watched or not. Strength is added to the term by preceding it with the word personal.

HONOR
1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
2. a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.
3. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.
4. such respect manifested: a memorial in honor of the dead.
5. high public esteem; fame; glory: He has earned his position of honor.

Synonyms: account, adoration, adulation, aggrandizement, apotheosis, approbation, attention, canonization, celebration, confidence, consideration, credit, deference, deification, dignity, distinction, elevation, esteem, exaltation, faith, fame, fealty, glorification, glory, greatness, high standing, homage, immortalization, laud, laurel, lionization, notice, obeisance, popularity, praise, prestige, rank, recognition, renown, reputation, repute, reverence, tribute, trust, veneration, worship, wreath

Personal Touch: In my opinion, honor can not be learned; it must be instilled, nurtured, and revered as an individual standard in order for it to have any value. It is an all or none prospect.


COURAGE
1. the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.

Synonyms: adventuresomeness, adventurousness, audacity, backbone, bravery, bravura, daring, dash, dauntlessness, determination, endurance, enterprise, fearlessness, firmness, fortitude, gallantry, gameness, grit, guts, hardihood, heroism, intrepidity, lion-heartedness, mettle, nerve, pluck, power, prowess, pugnacity, rashness, recklessness, resolution, spirit, spunk, stoutheartedness, temerity, tenacity, valor, venturesomeness, élan

Personal Touch: In my opinion, this definition is not entirely correct. I believe fear is an integral part of courage, as courage cannot exist where there is no fear. Additionally more needs to be said about the differences between foolhardy courage and genuine bravery.

---

Forgive the length, but this post is not intended to be an English lesson, and I am well aware that most of us have a fair handle on what each of these words means. This minor civics lesson is a friendly reminder about how absent these words are from our daily vernacular. Worse still is their absence from our personal life toolboxes. How often do we see these words in genuine action? How many people do we know that regularly exhibit these qualities? How many of us have a list of friends that may describe us using these words?

It is important that these life qualities never be given in any self-description. A large part of the value of these qualitiess is gained by having another person use them to describe someone. When used in self-description not only do the words lose value, but one begins to question the user as well. Adding insult to injury, the user ends up appearing vain in the process, a quality that does not mix well with the others.

To the question at hand: why not? Why aren’t these qualities as sought after as they were in the past? Why aren’t they more regularly exhibited by the people we know that have the opportunity to exhibit them? Has our society changed so much, that these are no longer required? What makes someone with the position, power, and ability; strike these qualities from use? I make many posts here, most about current events, or something that bothers me or moves me to write. I am so moved today, but today is different, because today I have questions. The questions I have require thoughtful input from reasonable people. If you are up to the challenge, feel free to respond with your thoughts. Why?

Prosecution Gone WILD!

see http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/090326_NJ_Teen_Arrested_After_Posting_Nude_Pics for more...

In yet another case of impulsive prosecution, the Passaic County Sherriff has arrested and charged a 14 year old girl with distribution of child pornography. The victim in this case is the same 14 year old girl. Of course they don't publish her name....she is too young. But that leads me to my point, she is too young to have her name and face plastered all over the news, but not too young to go to jail for 17 years and be registered as a sex offender? Let's be clear, what she did was wrong, and I'm relatively sure a bunch of kids ran home to delete some of their pictuires after hearing the story, but thats it. Doesn't intent play into any of this? She is not some 50 year old man in a wife beater trolling the internet, or trying to meet youngsters at the mall. This is a kid doing the stupid, sometimes illegal, things that kids often do. Yes, make a big deal of it...yes scare the pants off..(bad analogoy)...., but to mark this child with a scarlet letter for the rest of her life is unnecessary, and over the top. I was happy to hear later in the day that the charges would not be filed.

I don't get, why they don't get it.

They didn't get it in 2006, they certainly didn't get it in 2008, and they still just don't get it. The American people want more from their leadership than lip service and ideology to a fault. They want plans, alternatives, and in the end; results! Its really not too much to ask for.

For whatever stubborn reason the conservative/republican party continues to this day to offer more of the same. Less than a hour after Obama completed his successfully informative news conference, one of the potential psuedo leaders of the Republican opposition puts out the call to his fellow republicans to oppose Obama if you don't agree.

"We are now in the position of being the loyal opposition," Jindal said at a Republican congressional fundraising dinner that only by coincidence fell on the same night as Obama's news conference. "The right question to ask is not if we want the president to fail or succeed, but whether we want America to succeed."..."the time for talking about the past is over," Jindal said




Well I'm not a politician, but how can you ever get anything done like that? Whatever happened to compromise? Whatever happened to offering alternative plans? It is hard to believe that they still don't get it, and by the way, they wont get it in 2012 either.

footnote: Adding insult to injury, Mr. Jindal, after the media entertained a short-lived debate about Obama's laughing during his 60 minutes interview, made a joking reference to his previous speech, and torture at GITMO...do these guys ever want to win?

'Fundamentaly sound' - exposed

There has been much ado about those two words of late, but before people go off cocked (or half-cocked), it is of the utmost importance that we review the context in which these statements were made. The words were used basically three times, first-during the presidential campaign by John McCain, second this past week by President Barack Obama, and most recently by economic adviser Christina Romer on Meet the Press. Lets break down all three so we can all be clear about what was said, apparently using this same phrase.

As Senator McCain was campaigning, during one of his famous town-hall meetings, in an attempt to diminish the value of the imploding economy, he stated that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong". Taken at face value, in the context of his speech, it is clear that he meant the basic principles that support our economy are in good shape. That statement of course, is not entirely true. While there very well may have been some portions (such as the resolve of the American people, the willfullness of the American worker, or the indominable American spirit) that were ok, the basic fundamentals, that is those blocks that are (were) on the bottom were crumbling at best.

President Obama used the same words, but in a slightly different context. His statement came in the form of an If/Then statement, specifically IF we pay attention to those underlying building blocks that support our economy that are currently strong, THEN "we'll get through this"...clearly, not the same statement. Obama's statement is conditional.

Now, Christina Romer - "The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology," she said. "We know that - that temporarily we're in a mess, right? We've seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. So certainly in the short run we're in a - in a bad situation." She clearly laid out and explained her answer as she made the statement, not as some post furor damage control. AND she used at least one of the same concepts McCain used when he did try to clean up the egg he laid.

In truth, these two words used together in a sentence have become taboo, at best they are capable of giving anyone a false sense that things just aren't that bad. At worst, they show how detatched the utterer may be from the crux of the issue at hand. Either way, the three statements are NOT the same.

Our Borough President

just got body-checked by the NY Daily News


It appears as though he has been acting as a one-man stimulus package for some pricey friends. See - http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/03/15/2009-03-15_staten_island_borough_president_james_mo.html

Now I don't personally have the investigative power to raise the question, but the first thing I would look at is his end-run around competitive bidding...and why. $70,000 to one firm, in one year, for photography?!?! Correction, for Information Technology and video equipment (I hope it was at least a purchse, and if it was, where is it now?)

I don't deny that Staten Island is very lacking in the tourism department, and that the Island could use some promotion. However, most of the promotion is self-promotion. These photos are not going to tourist centers or information kiosks, they are being passed out at his events, events where there are likely very few tourists.

It is this type of shady dealings that highlight the need for reforms and transparency at every level of government. By the time these issues are brought to light, the money is long spent, and the memory of just how things went down dims. I have seen some factions on the blogs calling for the elimination of this position altogether, and this behavior backs up that desire. So the question I put to my fellow Islanders is simple...What do we need a Borough President for?

Cramer vs Stewart; win, lose, or draw?

Just wrapped up watching the, hopefully, final segment of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart in which he finally got Jim Cramer to come on the show. Jon let loose on Cramer in a no-holds-barred street brawl...and Cramer begged for more. The real winners here are the viewers of both shows. Stewart gains a little more in the respect and accountability department, while viewers of "Mad Money" will likely take Cramer's advice with some extra grains of salt going forward.

Jon Stewart not only lambasted Cramer for allowing the network to portray him as a financial guru, he let loose on the network (CNBC) as well. He called them to task to be more investigative and less schmoozy with the financial world. While he did not specifically blame them for any part of the financiial crisis, he did make it abundantly clear that if there was any network that could be in the position to know what was coming, it should have been CNBC. They either sat on the sidelines, or worse, at times, cheered them on as the powers that be raped and pilaged.

The sad part is that this one show will likely result in little if any changes. But in the meantime, kudos Jon, you represented the 'little guy', and you did it with fortitude and dignity.

Ahh St. Patrick's Day...what does it really mean?

Year after year, generation upon generation we continue to "religiously" (pun intended) celebrate holidays with little if no regard for their purpose or true meaning to our lives. Take the recent St. Patrick's Day festivities... we see the traditional trappings of a parade and "wearin' o' the green", sweaters, corned beef and cabbage specials, and shammrocks everywhere, but do participants really honor the day, or is it a good reason to get plastered and raise a glass (as if some of us even need a holiday for that). First some history...I promise to keep it short. St. Patrick's day is originally a Holy day of obligation for Catholics, usually observed on March 17th, except when it may interfere with Holy week days. The feast/celebration is so important that bishops have been known to lift meat restrictions implemented for Lent in order to allow the feast to occur. The holiday is to honor, of course, St Patrick. The patron saint of Ireland. Sounds like serious stuff so far... So what is with the drunkfest? and the hooliganism? What part of that honors the Saint? As my wife passed around the back of the parade route, she observed NYPD vehicles with coolers in the trunk (emergency water of course), a psot-parade tour of Forest avenue found bars with the majority of the patrons on the sidewalks and standing room only inside. Loud? yes, Drunk? certainly, Celebrating the patron Saint of Ireland? I didn't see it. Well as luck would have it, Staten Island experienced very few incidents as a direct result of this years revelry (past years were not as fortunate). But in Hoboken- well those guys know how to PARTY! Hoboken experienced 80 injures and police issued 376 siummonses, worse than last years numbers...but not as bad as 2006. I write all this just to make a simple request. If you are going to celebrate anything, know what it is you celebrate and why...maybe, just maybe...we'll begin to celebrate just a little bit differently.