Leader of the Free World ?

Two of the top five reasons I didn’t vote for President Obama were expectations that he would take an extremely liberal approach to:

• national security
• foreign relations

Recent events in Iran are providing President Obama one of his first high-profile opportunities to demonstrate his approach to foreign relations and national security. Unfortunately, his response thus far is confirming my worst fears.

Soon after taking office in January, President Obama commented, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us".

Like most Republicans and conservatives, I did not disagree with this comment. If fact, we hold the very same hope, that Iran’s current leadership will recognize the error of their ways, soften their stern grimace to the world, embrace human rights and democratic freedoms, accept Israeli sovereignty, relinquish their uranium enrichment program or open it up to full inspection/validation of energy production, and stop arming Hezbollah and Hamas.

Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives all want the very same thing . . world peace and freedom for all. So, obviously, the difference is in their beliefs and approach to how the “leader of the free world” should work towards these ends.

History is extremely clear on the record of dictators, tyrants, fascists, and oppressors. They pursue their own deluded beliefs and self-interests, often at the expense of their own people. They can not be negotiated out of these beliefs. They do not respond to diplomacy. They lie, cheat, steal, and murder to further their own agenda, in complete disregard to their own people’s wishes and the rest of the world alike.

How can anyone believe that today’s tyrants will act differently, especially those that have already demonstrated the same patterns for decades?

Throughout the entire George W. Bush administration, Tehran made promise after promise to Secretary of State, Collin Powell and President Bush. They committed to temporary suspensions of uranium enrichment, to honor the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and to open their nuclear program to inspections.

Based on history’s lessons, I simply never believed any of it . . and true to history, Tehran never meant any of it.

On March 19th President Obama released a “Nowruz Message” to Tehran and the Iranian people. In it he made the following statements:

• "This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."
• "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right - but it comes with real responsibilities."

Once again, this was a very eloquent proclamation of what every American and most other countries and citizens of the world want. President Obama’s initiative to open a dialogue and extend a “firm” hand is understandable and his renewal of US Sanctions against Iran just days before this message release was almost universally supported.

However, Tehran’s response to President Obama’s “extended hand” was provided to the world press by Ali Akbar Javanfekr, senior advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In his response he stated:

• “the US had to recognize its past mistakes if it wanted to engage Iran”
• "By fundamentally changing its behavior America can offer us a friendly hand”
• “What is the new administration actually offering, that George Bush didn't?“

Does this response offer any signs that Tehran is willing to engage in open and honest dialogue in working towards a diplomatic solution that would involve their cessation of:

• Nuclear program/technology development?
• Arming Hezbollah and Hamas?
• Ending human rights violations?
• Accepting Israeli sovereignty?

OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THE FREE WORLD

The stage was now set for the coming showdown of freedom vs. tyranny!

Could it have been any more obvious that the June 12, 2009 Iranian presidential elections would not be fair?

I literally laughed out loud as I watched pre-election interviews of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking proudly of the democratic presidential election process in Iran and his commitment to it. Conversely, I felt the building anguish of reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi as he released his carefully crafted, optimistic messages to the Iranian people and the world with muted concerns for the post-election future of Iran, should Ahmadinejad “win”.

The election day allegations of irregularities and fraud were immediate. The landslide victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in stark contrast to all polls and statistically valid predictive measures taken prior to the election..

Immediate protests erupted, most non-violent, some not so much. Tehran Police and Ahmadinejad supporters engaged immediately and with force. Protests quickly became riots, including violence, destruction, injuries, and death.

If President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was truly committed to the democratic election process, why were they not open to neutral Iranian and international observers?

NOW was the time for the “Leader of the Free World to lead!” . . . to insist President Ahmadinejad accept the international community’s (not the US alone) assistance with investigations into election irregularities and ensuring a truly free and transparent election process be provided for the Iranian people. This was an opportunity to truly stand-up for the Iranian people and for freedom and democracy all over the world.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case with a liberal foreign policy approach, President Obama did not lead the free world on this occasion. Instead, he once again made a simple public declaration of what he, all Americans, and free nations and people around the world believe. You can watch it here . . . http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/president_obama_s_statement_on_iranian_presidential/

President Obama did not seize the opportunity to stand with the people of Iran and the free world to stare down tyranny and oppression.

Again, history has proven that liberal foreign diplomacy with dictators does not work. Successful diplomacy with oppressors only happens when the price of failed diplomacy is severe and believed by the tyrant. With the obvious perfect example of this having been played out on the world stage so recently by President Ronald Reagan, I am completely befuddled as to why our current sitting president prefers to ignore history’s lessons and believe he will be the first in history to reform global bullies by simply preaching goodness.

Surely John McCain, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan would have taken more action than releasing yet another soliloquy.

What is the conservative foreign policy difference? Diplomacy backed-up by real consequences. There can be no doubt in the minds of the world’s dictators and tyrants that the “Leader of the Free World” will act when that moment in history arrives.

Well, that moment just arrived, and passed by President Obama, spurring him into the only action he seems capable of . . pontification of the obvious.

I can only hope that the Iranian people are better students of history than President Obama. History shows the way to freedom through true “leaders of the free world”, like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. . . with or without the current sitting American President at your side.

Set-Up Success

FOLLOW-UP #2 TO: “WHY WE RACE”

A couple years ago at an SCCA Southwest Division National Race one of my top rivals (and good friend) beat me. It’s not that getting beat is unusual or surprising. It’s how my good friend and rival won the main event that Sunday that has always stuck with me and motivated me on to some victories of my own.

The race was the annual “Sunburn Grand-Prix” at Texas Motor Speedway (TMS). I consider TMS my home track. It’s 20 minutes from my house, I have a fast set-up for the track, and I hold the track record for our class. I start each TMS race weekend with more confidence than usual and feel I have a better than normal chance to win.

Like many amateur racers, my friend Cory’s crew is whatever family and/or friends he can line-up for the weekend and convince to work their butts off for food and beer. Some crew may be “regulars” and thus familiar with the car and race weekend routine. Others may be new and needing much guidance. Either way, the amateur racer is often in the role of crew chief, mechanic, and driver. In Cory’s case, “driver” also includes driving the trailer from his home in Memphis to Ft. Worth.

The weather was not perfect, but very nice for racing. During practice the car felt good and I was running within one second of the track record. However, a former dirt tracker named Chris from San Antonia recently joined our class and was very fast out-of-the-box. He was running the fastest laps in Friday practice, .5 seconds quicker than me, and had my attention. Meanwhile, another rival, Jack, from St. Louis was just a couple tenths behind me, promising to capitalize on my mistakes as he had done many times in the past.

As the weekend progressed, I was focused on catching Chris and staying ahead of Jack. This was a classic set-up, strategy, and driving battle to find that extra couple tenths of a second that will make the difference.

My friend and rival, Cory, was several seconds off the pace with a fairly new car and in a near-by garage stall. Sincerely wanting to help, I asked what the problem was. He said the car was well sorted and prepared, the handling felt good, and the engine felt good, but he believed the CVT clutching was not putting the power down.

CVT Transmission is one of the unique characteristics of our small formula cars. They are highly efficient and effective when properly set-up. However, proper set-up is a bewildering exercise of matching spring rates with cam shapes and weights, helix angles, etc. CVT Clutching is so complex, you’re more likely to get it wrong than right. Therefore, many in our class find one clutching set-up that works good (not great) at all the tracks, and stick with it. However, for those who study clutching, work hard at it, practice, test, tune, tweak, repeat . . . it can become a competitive advantage.

Having heard that Cory was chasing a clutching issue, I wrote him off as a serious competitor for the weekend. I assumed there was just not enough track time for him to test the set-up combinations he would need to find the optimum settings. Furthermore he did not have any crew that new a thing about clutching, so he would have to do it all himself. Being my “home track”, I had my best crew with me, but none who knew about clutching since I choose to stick with my “good, not great” clutching set-up and spend wrenching time elsewhere.

When changing set-up at the track in search of a few tenths of a second, you must be careful not to make the car worse/slower by changing a setting too much or by changing too many settings in combination. Minor tweaks were made to carburetor jetting, ride height, tire pressure, etc. With these relatively minor adjustments made and comfortable with our car for the Friday afternoon session, we all went to lunch. Cory was unable to join us because he had too much clutch work to do. When we returned from lunch Cory was still clutch tuning. And so went the weekend . . he worked non-stop on his clutch set-up while the rest of us enjoyed what seemed like a “smooth weekend” with comfortable time to tweak the set-up.

Throughout the weekend Cory made progress on his clutch set-up and went a little quicker each session. We were glad to see his hard work paying off to some extent, but it still looked like he wouldn’t have time to really get it right in time for the Sunday race.

Chris, the dirt tracker from San Antonio, grabbed pole on Sunday with a new qualifying lap record. I was along side on grid in 2nd with Jack in third a few tenths off my Qual lap. Cory was in fourth, but over two seconds back during Qual. There were a few cars behind Cory that ran a similar pace in Qual. I assumed the race would unfold into two battles, the three top qualifiers fighting for the podium spots and Cory and the rest fighting it out for 4th on...

When the green flag fell, Jack got the jump on me and passed me in turn one while Chris sprinted off into the distance. This is the natural order of things . . being a dirt tracker, Chris had tremendous car control and is very fast on cold tires . . and Jack has always been exceptionally good at the start and first couple crowded laps. I’ve always been the opposite of both...a bad starter, slow on cold tires, but fast and consistent when the tires come in. I’ve been able to run both these rivals down in the past, and was counting on doing so again to fight for the win. I was able to catch and pass Jack within the first couple laps and then turn my concentration to running down Chris, who had opened a large gap. I focused hard enough to set a new race lap record in pursuit of Chris. However, Chris was running fast and consistent also, and the gap was no closing fast enough. Then lady luck intervened and handed me the lead...Chris’ crew had made a mistake in refueling and he had run out of gas.

I quickly reassessed my situation. I was now leading the race with just several laps to go. My car was working well. I looked into my mirrors to gauge my lead. I had to look past a white Formula Vee (another class in our race group) to see Jack several hundred yards back on the front straight. After pushing so hard to catch Chris for many laps, I had opened up a comfortable lead over Jack. I relaxed a little to ensure I could cruise home safely to victory. It was only then that I realized I had not recently passed a white Formula Vee, which are much slower than our class/cars! It was already too late...Cory, in his white F500, was inside me in turn 1. Being surprised and now off-line, I lost momentum and fell back. Cory completed his pass before turn two.

I quickly tried to regain my focus, remain calm, and figure out where and how I would catch and pass him back. However, Cory laid down three very fast laps, making my job difficult. He maintained a gap of several car lengths until a double yellow flag came out for a crash in turn 7, which became a red flag, making his victory complete.

We climbed out of our cars at tech , both with a huge grin from ear to ear. I was literally smiling so hard, I couldn’t speak...Cory spoke first...“I got the clutching right!”

Racing is a Series of Accomplishments

FOLLOW-UP #1 TO: “WHY WE RACE”

In explaining “why we race” I distinguished between “drivers” and “racers”. Racers love the competition and love to win. They will do whatever it takes to win or at least beat that guy/gal that’s finished just ahead of them the last couple races. Winning might be a personal best or beating a rival or friend, regardless of the final finishing position.

I also described racing as a “series of accomplishments”. Successful racers think critically, plan thoroughly, and execute completely. When these activities are focused on making the car/driver combination go faster, they are collectively referred to as “development”. Along with routine maintenance and repairs, development is a constant in motor racing, and by far the most rewarding and enjoyable of the three. Development requires deep thought, creativity, innovation, trial and error, and provides the opportunity for invention and accomplishment (speed). Racers and teams work hard to maximize their time and resources spent on development, making the car/driver go faster. This is why crashes and mechanical failures are so costly, because they take time and resources away from development.
It’s important to note the reason I always say the “car / driver” combination. This is because the driver is often the most important variable in the speed equation. Every driver has preferences and a style. Every driver goes fast differently. One driver may prefer oversteer, a low steering ratio, and firm suspension vs. another driver who likes understeer, high steering ratio, and soft suspension. Of course these are just a few of dozens of car/driver factors, all of which are relative measures.

Many racers classify development activities into four categories:

1. Engineering – car design, redesign, strengthening, lightening, improving in every way.
2. Preparation – ensuring the car/driver are in optimal condition (mechanical/operational/mental) for the upcoming session/s in their current form. This involves checking EVERY nut & bolt on the car, wear items like belts, hoses, brake pads, checking for cracks in chassis, rotors, calipers . . . so basically checking every single piece of the car to ensure it is in proper/optimal working condition. However, driver preparation is also critical . . studying the track/line, notes from previous sessions, planning for driving improvements (where/how you will go faster than last time out), mentally preparing for the expected competition, weather, etc.
3. Set-up – the search for the optimal combination of mechanical and aerodynamic settings that result in the lowest lap time. Common set-up factors include: tire compound, suspension settings, camber/caster/toe, ride height, wing angles, etc.
4. Driving – The constant struggle of the driver to optimize his inputs (steering, throttle, clutch, brake) to the car/package he has resulting in the lowest possible lap time. This includes optimizing the racing line, braking/turning marks, braking/turning style . . threshold braking, trail braking, early/late apexing, and managing traffic . . passing, defending, etc.

It is the ever-growing list for each of these areas from which the “series of accomplishments” is generated. There is always twice as much to do as time or money to do it. Strategy is required. Prioritization is crucial. Planning essential. Time management pivotal. The final accomplishment, winning, makes it all worth while.

Leading by example

FOLLOW-UP COMMENTARY TO: “CASTING STONES”

I was happy to hear the news about President Obama’s Commencement Address at Notre Dame.

This is the season for commencement speeches and sitting Presidents often leverage a high-profile Key-Note invitation as an opportunity for public address. What makes the Notre Dame ceremony special is that President Obama was invited in the first place, and second, that he accepted.

In case you’re somehow unaware, Notre Dame is the most prominent Christian and conservative university in the country, and one of the most famous in the world. The university administration’s ideology and political positions are well established, well known, and mostly opposed to President Obama’s. The majority of the student body is not only conservative, but among the most active Christian proponents in the country.

Knowing this, President Obama accepted the invitation to deliver the key note address at the Notre Dame Commencement ceremony. He undoubtedly had dozens of invitations to choose from for a high profile public address. Yet, he chose to accept the invitation from the university/constituency most opposed to his views and platform.

BRAVO PRESIDENT OBAMA

At this point, it’s important to point out that I am also opposed to most of President Obama’s policies, positions, ideology, and values. I’m a Christian conservative, did not vote for Mr. Obama, and am quite sure I never will.

Nevertheless, I have always had much respect for Mr. Obama’s intelligence, commitment, and willingness to openly discuss and debate the important issues. I recognize him as a fellow “lifetime student” who never misses an opportunity to discuss, debate, and learn. . especially from the opposition.

His speech was not particularly insightful, original, or moving. However, it did hit the mark on the most important point for stimulating positive public debate on these important and divisive issues. That point is that both sides of an issue should commit to attacking the issues and working hard to find common ground. This, as opposed to attacking the opposition themselves, as was the unfortunate case for Carrie Prejean and Bristol Palin the last couple weeks.

Positive public debate has many benefits:
• Identifying common ground / areas of agreement
• Stimulating critical thinking in defense and promotion of each side’s positions and ideas
• Giving a public voice to the experts and thought leaders on the subject/s
• Removing or reducing the emotion from both sides
• Educating the public on the facts, positions, pros & cons to help them form their own opinions.
• Enabling policies, programs & processes to operate amidst a divided public and leadership
• Changing minds and moving a population towards consensus.

Same-sex marriage, birth control, and abortion are just a few examples from the long list of divisive left vs. right type issues. These issues are polarizing and tend to elicit strong emotions. As any successful business leader knows, emotions can derail a productive debate, thwart progress, and prevent both sides from realizing the benefits listed above.

These issues are not easily solved. In fact, if a “solution” is defined as agreement or strong consensus and support by a large majority, they may never be solved. Again, as any successful leader (or marriage counselor) knows, agreement may not be the proper immediate goal for the most divisive issues. Instead, a positive debate may identify just enough common ground to allow both sides to better appreciate each other’s position and “agree to disagree”. With respect and open communication, both sides can work to maximize the common ground and minimize the factors causing contention (i.e. teen & unwanted pregnancies).

Business people often use the term “Co-opetition” to describe business agreements where competitors cooperate on areas of mutual interest/benefit, while competing in other areas. In some cases, competitors work together to grow a market (mutually beneficial) while continuing to fight it out in that very market for each customer, new or existing.

Co-opetition between conservatives and liberals could serve to minimize the need for solutions they disagree on. Over time, this type of positive working relationship between rivals usually serves to accelerate innovation and creativity which can further minimize the conflict or even result in major discoveries that may eliminate it altogether.

As a business leader, I’ve always been a firm believer and proponent for applying “best practices” whenever possible. American capitalism and competition has created an enormous wealth of proven strategies and tactics for almost every situation.

Although I will not soon agree with President Obama’s philosophies and direction for our country, I hope to see many more examples of sound leadership from the White House.