In Pursuit of Potential by Dr. John C. Maxwell
The enemy of great is good. The primary reason so few leaders or organizations ever become great is because they get good and then stop. They stop growing, learning, risking, and changing. They use their track record or prior successes as evidence that they've arrived. Believing their own headlines, the leaders in these successful organizations are ready to write it down, build the manual, and document the formula. This mentality shifts their business from a growth to a maintenance mindset.
Neither you nor your business ever "arrives." We never get to the place where there's nothing more to be done and nothing more to be said. In the words of my friend Dave Anderson, "Yesterday's peacock is tomorrow's feather duster." What you strutted yesterday; the next day is just cleaning dust off of shelves.
I like to distinguish between a "goal mindset" and a "growth mindset." A person with a "goal mindset" has very tangible, numerical goals to achieve over a specific period of time. Nothing is wrong with clearly defined goals, but there's a better way of thinking that I call a "growth mindset." A growth mindset recognizes goals on the journey, but only as part of a process—not as the end results.
When goal-oriented people hit a milestone, they have tendency to settle very quickly, but when growth-minded individuals hit a goal, they blow right on by because they're constantly learning and growing.
Success has a brutal side: It can make you arrogant, it can make you complacent, and it can close your mind. To survive the temptations of triumph, we must realize that success is not the point and should never be the ultimate objective of an enterprise. The goal of business is to strive to reach full potential. I define full potential as focusing on seeing how far you can go, how good you can get, and how many people you can bring with you. Reality dictates that you will most likely never reach your full potential, but the journey keeps you humble, hungry, and focused. What you become in the process helps you and your organization make the leap from good to great. Use your success as a stepping stone, not a pedestal.
Leaders of successful organizations are tempted to stop working on themselves. They continue to work hard on their job, but they have a tendency to neglect personal growth. They use their experience and track record as a license never to read another book and an excuse never to attend another developmental course in their field. They point to their acclaim and accomplishments and decide to rely on the skills they have learned in the past to run the rest of their career. They develop an arrogance of intelligence that creates a disabling ignorance. This ignorance disables them, their people, and, as a result, their business.
Growing people grow people. But when you don't grow, you plateau. It's just a matter of time. Once this happens, you plateau everyone working for you. When I as a leader go flat, my influence with everybody in my organization fizzles and fades. When the leader doesn't grow, the people don't grow. It's the Law of the Lid; a stagnant leader stunts the growth of the organization.
Let me give you four benefits of pursuing your potential, even during seasons of success.
• We have higher self-esteem. People that are constantly learning and growing have a good self-image.
• We are willing to change and risk. One of the obvious evidences of growing people is that they are constantly changing and risking. Show me a person that doesn't change, that doesn't risk, and I'll show you a person that's not growing.
• Our passion increases. When we begin to grow personally, our passion for life and learning begins to increase proportionately.
• We lift the lid for others. What a leader does determines what everybody else is going to do. The people don't pass the leader. An organization's growth doesn't outpace the leader's progress. As I lift the lid for myself, I lift the lid for others.
One of the most amazing things to me is how much room there is at the top. On the other hand, it's jam-packed and crowded at the bottom. On the streets of average, there's traffic and congestion, but success has so few people on the roads. It's amazing how the higher you go, the less people there are. Three percent of the people in the United States have a library card. Six percent of Americans believe Elvis is still alive. Trust me, there's a lot of room at the top.
As a leader you should learn like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow. Either way, you're covered.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Criminals Don't Obey Laws
“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.”
William J. Brennan, Jr. quotes
“Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions. But no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”
Bernard M. Baruch
I am a strong supporter of owning firearms for home protection, personal concealment for public protection, and recreational use like hunting and tactical training etc. But, I am a devil’s advocate and love a good debate. So let’s review the facts.
We must first start with the 2nd Amendment. It states
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Do not let people use it as it is commonly misused and out of context, “A right to bear arms”. It is not a right to bear arms just because I am a civilian in the U.S. It clearly states a well regulated militia for the security of a free state.
Now some of the controversy comes from people like me who try and dig into things a little deeper than necessary. What is written and approved by congress and the senate was not the same grammatical writing of what was dispersed to the states. I think this argument is total BS. But we will acknowledge it anyway.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, it is clear there is a difference in punctuation. What are the meanings and what is really supposed to be emphasized? Whether the word “people” is capitalized or not, you can’t argue that the first 4 words are not in the mix. And that is where I stand. Again, a well regulated militia. So what is a militia…well there are several changes to what it is over the last 230 years. State militia’s eventually evolved into the National Guard. There is a strong movement going on now to return back to militias regulated by civilians because the guard is beginning to be an army too controlled by the federal government. Militias are for civil protection against governments, and yes that includes the United States of America. You can read more about them here on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
Let me ask how many of you belong to a well regulated militia? How many times have other states come to your town to take over? Have you ever used your gun to defend your free state? This “right” is clearly used in the wrong context.
Now let’s move on to my own personal beliefs about the rights of Americans. This amendment has been in effect and has shaped our country for too long now to just go and say civilians who do not belong to a militia can not own firearms. Too many have guns and it has shaped our lives that we as civilians can own guns. The more and more rights we are used to having that get slowly taken away will create a huge problem. The government will continue to take and take and take. That is the one thing I do not believe is right. But I do think the laws regarding firearms should be reviewed for the current lifestyle we live in. So screw the damn debate and make new legislation that is for the protection of the people against criminals. Gun laws do not stop criminals. They help them.
The debate is also over whether assault rifles should be legal. I do not think it is necessary to own an assault rifle. They should be banned. They aren’t for home protection; they are for tactical assault and should only be issued by government agencies for such. Most attacks aren’t from assault rifles except in gang/drug related instances. Most are for handguns and hunting rifles. Handguns account for 81 percent of all murders. I would hate to live in D.C and not have the ability to own a handgun in my home and let a robber come in to rape my wife and she can’t protect herself because it is illegal to own handguns in the D.C. That law was past some 32 years ago. D.C. is continuously on the top 5 murder rate cities in the country. That is not right! They should be able to have one. The law is clearly not making a dent on the crime rate there.
Gun related crimes in Texas are lower (keep in mind the size of our state and the fact we have 3 major cities with over a million in population, and one very close to it) than any other state. Most states require you to attend a class, get a certificate/license and several week background checks before you can purchase a handgun. Here in Texas all you need is a driver license. You walk into a store, they will run a 20 minute background check, you sign some forms and pay. You can literally walk out the door in 30 minutes with your gun. Does the thought of how easy it is to own a handgun in Texas deter people from committing gun related crimes wondering if this person or that person might be carrying? I think it does. Not to mention we have the highest number of concealed permits here too. Just a plug, California has more cities in the US on the top 65 list of crime rate. Is it due their gun bans and “hippie” left wing mentality? I am all for peace. I would love to have no violence but I also believe in the devil and know it is not possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Now I am not saying we should have a complete arsenal in our house for protection. If the argument is you need a gun to protect yourself then you should be able to purchase one for that. If you want to go hunt deer or shoot birds then you should be able to purchase that. Maybe even get 2 or 3 guns for different areas of your house. I think your gun should be legal, certified, numbered and registered. I do not think you need an AR-15, a 50 caliber Desert Eagle, an M-16, an SKS, a 1911 45, 4 different gauge shotguns, a 30/30, a 30/6, a Glock tactical 9mm, and a .380 scattered throughout your house for home protection. That is BS. Get your certifications, get your concealment license, take some shooting classes and have a limit on how many guns civilians are allowed to own if you want to protect yourself. If you want to hunt, get a rifle and do it. That is what I feel. Guns deter crimes though. Look at the difference between the Virginia Tech shootings and the Appalachian School of Law Shooting. It was the difference between 32 dead because nobody was prepared and 2 dead because others went to their cars and had firearms to assist.
Your 2nd Amendment isn’t to bear arms wherever you please. The amendment is if you are in a well regulated militia, your militia can provide you arms for protection of your state against governments looking to overtake your state (again this includes your own government). So stop stretching it to do whatever you please and use this right to bear arms crap. That is not what the right is, but I do think we should have the right to guns but have a limit and a use. It is time to change the laws for the people.
Here is a link to the preceedings of the Supreme Court yesterday and several great points were made. They are viewing this Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. But one justice said "I can not imagine that in those days, the father would tell the son to get his arms to go and hunt some food." The word arms is for protcetion of country. Not for protection of your house. I am on the fence here. I do not believe the amendment is valid at all. I think new legislation shoudl be written to protect the people who wish to safeguard their belongings and safehood.
Enjoy article and podcast.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16476741
William J. Brennan, Jr. quotes
“Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions. But no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”
Bernard M. Baruch
I am a strong supporter of owning firearms for home protection, personal concealment for public protection, and recreational use like hunting and tactical training etc. But, I am a devil’s advocate and love a good debate. So let’s review the facts.
We must first start with the 2nd Amendment. It states
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Do not let people use it as it is commonly misused and out of context, “A right to bear arms”. It is not a right to bear arms just because I am a civilian in the U.S. It clearly states a well regulated militia for the security of a free state.
Now some of the controversy comes from people like me who try and dig into things a little deeper than necessary. What is written and approved by congress and the senate was not the same grammatical writing of what was dispersed to the states. I think this argument is total BS. But we will acknowledge it anyway.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, it is clear there is a difference in punctuation. What are the meanings and what is really supposed to be emphasized? Whether the word “people” is capitalized or not, you can’t argue that the first 4 words are not in the mix. And that is where I stand. Again, a well regulated militia. So what is a militia…well there are several changes to what it is over the last 230 years. State militia’s eventually evolved into the National Guard. There is a strong movement going on now to return back to militias regulated by civilians because the guard is beginning to be an army too controlled by the federal government. Militias are for civil protection against governments, and yes that includes the United States of America. You can read more about them here on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
Let me ask how many of you belong to a well regulated militia? How many times have other states come to your town to take over? Have you ever used your gun to defend your free state? This “right” is clearly used in the wrong context.
Now let’s move on to my own personal beliefs about the rights of Americans. This amendment has been in effect and has shaped our country for too long now to just go and say civilians who do not belong to a militia can not own firearms. Too many have guns and it has shaped our lives that we as civilians can own guns. The more and more rights we are used to having that get slowly taken away will create a huge problem. The government will continue to take and take and take. That is the one thing I do not believe is right. But I do think the laws regarding firearms should be reviewed for the current lifestyle we live in. So screw the damn debate and make new legislation that is for the protection of the people against criminals. Gun laws do not stop criminals. They help them.
The debate is also over whether assault rifles should be legal. I do not think it is necessary to own an assault rifle. They should be banned. They aren’t for home protection; they are for tactical assault and should only be issued by government agencies for such. Most attacks aren’t from assault rifles except in gang/drug related instances. Most are for handguns and hunting rifles. Handguns account for 81 percent of all murders. I would hate to live in D.C and not have the ability to own a handgun in my home and let a robber come in to rape my wife and she can’t protect herself because it is illegal to own handguns in the D.C. That law was past some 32 years ago. D.C. is continuously on the top 5 murder rate cities in the country. That is not right! They should be able to have one. The law is clearly not making a dent on the crime rate there.
Gun related crimes in Texas are lower (keep in mind the size of our state and the fact we have 3 major cities with over a million in population, and one very close to it) than any other state. Most states require you to attend a class, get a certificate/license and several week background checks before you can purchase a handgun. Here in Texas all you need is a driver license. You walk into a store, they will run a 20 minute background check, you sign some forms and pay. You can literally walk out the door in 30 minutes with your gun. Does the thought of how easy it is to own a handgun in Texas deter people from committing gun related crimes wondering if this person or that person might be carrying? I think it does. Not to mention we have the highest number of concealed permits here too. Just a plug, California has more cities in the US on the top 65 list of crime rate. Is it due their gun bans and “hippie” left wing mentality? I am all for peace. I would love to have no violence but I also believe in the devil and know it is not possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Now I am not saying we should have a complete arsenal in our house for protection. If the argument is you need a gun to protect yourself then you should be able to purchase one for that. If you want to go hunt deer or shoot birds then you should be able to purchase that. Maybe even get 2 or 3 guns for different areas of your house. I think your gun should be legal, certified, numbered and registered. I do not think you need an AR-15, a 50 caliber Desert Eagle, an M-16, an SKS, a 1911 45, 4 different gauge shotguns, a 30/30, a 30/6, a Glock tactical 9mm, and a .380 scattered throughout your house for home protection. That is BS. Get your certifications, get your concealment license, take some shooting classes and have a limit on how many guns civilians are allowed to own if you want to protect yourself. If you want to hunt, get a rifle and do it. That is what I feel. Guns deter crimes though. Look at the difference between the Virginia Tech shootings and the Appalachian School of Law Shooting. It was the difference between 32 dead because nobody was prepared and 2 dead because others went to their cars and had firearms to assist.
Your 2nd Amendment isn’t to bear arms wherever you please. The amendment is if you are in a well regulated militia, your militia can provide you arms for protection of your state against governments looking to overtake your state (again this includes your own government). So stop stretching it to do whatever you please and use this right to bear arms crap. That is not what the right is, but I do think we should have the right to guns but have a limit and a use. It is time to change the laws for the people.
Here is a link to the preceedings of the Supreme Court yesterday and several great points were made. They are viewing this Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. But one justice said "I can not imagine that in those days, the father would tell the son to get his arms to go and hunt some food." The word arms is for protcetion of country. Not for protection of your house. I am on the fence here. I do not believe the amendment is valid at all. I think new legislation shoudl be written to protect the people who wish to safeguard their belongings and safehood.
Enjoy article and podcast.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16476741
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Who Determines A Hero?
“We Can’t All Be Heroes Because Someone Has To Sit On The Curb And Clap.”
Will Rogers (1879-1935)
From CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/nz.whales.ap/index.html
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) -- A dolphin swam up to two distressed whales that appeared headed for death in a beach stranding in New Zealand and guided them to safety, witnesses said Wednesday.
The actions of the bottlenose dolphin -- named Moko by residents who said it spends much of its time swimming playfully with humans at the beach -- amazed would-be rescuers and an expert who said they were evidence of the species' friendly nature.
The two pygmy sperm whales, a mother and her calf, were found stranded on Mahia Beach, about 500 kilometers (300 miles) northeast of the capital of Wellington, on Monday morning, said Conservation Department worker Malcolm Smith.
Rescuers worked for more than one hour to get the whales back into the water, only to see them strand themselves four times on a sandbar slightly out to sea. It looked likely the whales would have to be euthanized to prevent them suffering a prolonged death, Smith said.
"They kept getting disorientated and stranding again," said Smith, who was among the rescuers. "They obviously couldn't find their way back past (the sandbar) to the sea."
Along came Moko, who approached the whales and led them 200 meters (yards) along the beach and through a channel out to the open sea.
"Moko just came flying through the water and pushed in between us and the whales," Juanita Symes, another rescuer, told The Associated Press. "She got them to head toward the hill, where the channel is. It was an amazing experience. The best day of my life."
Anton van Helden, a marine mammals expert at New Zealand's national museum, Te Papa Tongarewa, said the reports of Moko's rescue were "fantastic" but believable because the dolphins have "a great capacity for altruistic activities."
These included evidence of dolphins protecting people lost at sea, and their playfulness with other animals.
"We've seen bottlenose dolphins getting lifted up on the noses of humpback whales and getting flicked out of the water just for fun," van Helden said.
"But it's the first time I've heard of an inter-species refloating technique. I think that's wonderful," said van Helden, who was not involved in the rescue but spoke afterward to Smith.
Smith speculated that Moko responded after hearing the whales' distress calls.
"It was looking like it was going to be a bad outcome for the whales ... then Moko just came along and fixed it," he said. "They had arched their backs and were calling to one another, but as soon as the dolphin turned up they submerged into the water and followed her."
After the rescue, Moko returned to the beach and joined in games with local residents, he said.
Well Mr dolphin man, I am clapping. What a hero. What a story. I truly wish all news around the world was more like this. It may get numb but it sure is ispirational. In spire, in spirit. I wish I was there to witness such an act. Dolphins are an amazing species with huge hearts. I can not wait until the day I take a trip to New Zealand off of the western coast to a place called Milford Sound. It is just north of Fiordland National Park and is the one the most peaceful places on earth. This place has not been touched by any development and probably will never. You go here and it looks the same as it did 10,000 years ago. What is really cool though is that the hum of the motorboat brings in dozens of dolphins to play and swim with. I look forward to the trip. Here is a picture of the Fiord National Park, New Zealand. 
Will Rogers (1879-1935)
From CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/nz.whales.ap/index.html
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) -- A dolphin swam up to two distressed whales that appeared headed for death in a beach stranding in New Zealand and guided them to safety, witnesses said Wednesday.
The actions of the bottlenose dolphin -- named Moko by residents who said it spends much of its time swimming playfully with humans at the beach -- amazed would-be rescuers and an expert who said they were evidence of the species' friendly nature.
The two pygmy sperm whales, a mother and her calf, were found stranded on Mahia Beach, about 500 kilometers (300 miles) northeast of the capital of Wellington, on Monday morning, said Conservation Department worker Malcolm Smith.
Rescuers worked for more than one hour to get the whales back into the water, only to see them strand themselves four times on a sandbar slightly out to sea. It looked likely the whales would have to be euthanized to prevent them suffering a prolonged death, Smith said.
"They kept getting disorientated and stranding again," said Smith, who was among the rescuers. "They obviously couldn't find their way back past (the sandbar) to the sea."
Along came Moko, who approached the whales and led them 200 meters (yards) along the beach and through a channel out to the open sea.
"Moko just came flying through the water and pushed in between us and the whales," Juanita Symes, another rescuer, told The Associated Press. "She got them to head toward the hill, where the channel is. It was an amazing experience. The best day of my life."
Anton van Helden, a marine mammals expert at New Zealand's national museum, Te Papa Tongarewa, said the reports of Moko's rescue were "fantastic" but believable because the dolphins have "a great capacity for altruistic activities."
These included evidence of dolphins protecting people lost at sea, and their playfulness with other animals.
"We've seen bottlenose dolphins getting lifted up on the noses of humpback whales and getting flicked out of the water just for fun," van Helden said.
"But it's the first time I've heard of an inter-species refloating technique. I think that's wonderful," said van Helden, who was not involved in the rescue but spoke afterward to Smith.
Smith speculated that Moko responded after hearing the whales' distress calls.
"It was looking like it was going to be a bad outcome for the whales ... then Moko just came along and fixed it," he said. "They had arched their backs and were calling to one another, but as soon as the dolphin turned up they submerged into the water and followed her."
After the rescue, Moko returned to the beach and joined in games with local residents, he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)