Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
I know a lot of people have been spending a lot of time on Iran - me notsomuch.
The reason is that I have long held that if the Iranians really want a free society, then they need to earn it just like America did - revolution.
They blew it with the '79 revolution, so they shouldn't expect anyone else to correct their mistake.
I wish the young Iranians well, but they will need to do this themselves. I'll support them, but that is about it. I don't want my nation doing much more than that either. No one will thank us for it in the long run if we did anyway.
Like a car, you will enjoy and take better care of something you buy yourself. The price of freedom is always paid in blood.
Stage 1 is hubris born of success. The company's people become arrogant, regarding success as virtually an entitlement.
Stage 2 is the undisciplined pursuit of more — more scale, more growth, more acclaim. Companies stray from the disciplined creativity that led them to greatness in the first place, making undisciplined leaps into areas where they cannot be great or growing faster than they can achieve with excellence, or both.
Stage 3is denial of risk and peril. Leaders of the company discount negative data, amplify positive data and put a positive spin on ambiguous data. Those in power start to blame external factors for setbacks rather than accept responsibility.
Stage 4 is grasping for salvation. Common "saviors" include a charismatic visionary leader, a bold but untested strategy, a radical transformation, a "game changing" acquisition or any number of other silver-bullet solutions.
Stage 5 is capitulation to irrelevance or death. Accumulative setbacks and expensive false starts erode financial strength and individual spirits to such an extent that leaders abandon all hope of building a great future. In some cases their leaders just sell out. In other cases the institution atrophies to utter insignificance.
The comparisons are inexact and there is some overlap. All stages could be argued in time and space, but I don't think you can argue that we are not fully in the tail end of Stage 3 with parts of Stage 4 already up on step.
Stage 5, when does that start -- and more importantly, how do you stop a decline?
If you remember the great comment thread from last week on LCS here and at USNIBlog on LCS - I think this quote hits the 10-ring.
"The signature of mediocrity," Collins concludes, "is not an unwillingness to change. The signature of mediocrity is chronic inconsistency.
If you work for a Flag Officer who has either of Collins's works in his office, get him a copy of the new one. If you have the inclination, send one to the CNO and COM NAVSEA.
Commander, Naval Surface Forces, is overseeing the development of a revolutionary training process for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) called Train to Qualify (T2Q) that will enable LCS’s hybrid Sailors to be fully trained before reporting to the ship. ... Once a Sailor has been chosen to fill the LCS billet, their individual training track will then be made up for them and train them on the skills they are lacking. This will be completed by a combination of online, classroom and simulator training since they will be required to step aboard LCS ready to stand watch.
Every qualification will be performance-based, with set standards for timeliness, accuracy and quality applied to every critical task.
“The standard has to be very high for Sailors coming off of shore duty, so the ships have confidence that what they get is really a person that has received a qualification level of that fully supports taking the watch upon reporting aboard,” said Renshaw.
Yes, anytime you hear "revolutionary" - be worried.
The Navy’s heavy reliance on computer-based training is producing sailors who aren’t ready for their jobs at ships and squadrons, don’t grasp basic Navy concepts and could endanger the long-term health of the service, according to an internal report obtained by Navy Times.
Building on failure? Why this is a shock to anyone is, well, a shock to me. You simply cannot substitute underway training. SIM and CBT are nice secondary tools in some areas - but are weak cheese at best when it comes to actually doing it 24/7 at sea.
My money is on the prospect that once again the revolution failed where the evolution would have created process improvement.
Personally - I think part of our problem is in our inability to be honest with ourselves and be satisfied with simple, evolutionary, process improvement - a problem that comes from how we write FITREPS .... but that is a subject for a different day.
Where can we find someone with a proven track record of fixing economic and programmatic cock-ups and has a track record of fighting spending and budget goofs?
Yep, Mitt Romney.
Four years from now, Mitt Romney will be president of the United States.
My reasoning is as follows. Point One: The Obama team, while still basking in honeymoon-level approval ratings today, has pointed itself in a direction that will result in disappointed hopes for the American people. They have drastically overpromised, and their policies—even if they are not outright disastrous—will end up inciting more passionate discontent than passionate support. Point Two: The Republicans always nominate for president the candidate who’s next in line, even if that person is deeply unpopular (e.g., the GOP base’s hatred for John McCain did not prevent him from being nominated; he was the guy who lost to Bush in 2000, ergo…). In 2008, the runner-up was Romney. Add to that frontrunner status the fact that Romney has credibility on economics and budgeting, and he’s the prohibitive favorite. Add Point One to Point Two, and the result is a Romney presidency.
A preemptive rejoinder, lest anyone dismiss this prediction as Romney propaganda: I supported McCain over Romney in 2008, and am nowhere near deciding whom to support in 2012.
Perfect? No. No one is. Right man at the right time to fix the fiscal house of disorder?
I can't think of anyone better - can you - I can't?
I've had to move things around a bit this morning. My commentary on the CNO's Battle of Midway speech has been moved to WED AM to make room for something that just cannot wait for Diversity Thursday.
One of my spies tipped me off to this yesterday and it simply has to be given above the fold treatment on HighTrafficMonday.
Do you remember Professor Bruce Fleming from Annapolis - we had a little fun with him last month. He comes out with an absolute powerhouse of an OP-ED in the Annapolis paper, The Capital.
Enough of the spin, time for some truth. Read it all - but here is the meaty bits.
A "diverse" class does not mean the Naval Academy recruits violinists, or older students (they can't be 23 on Induction Day), or gay people (who are thrown out) or foreign students (other than the dozen or so sent by client governments).
It means applicants checked a box on their application that says they are Hispanic, African American, Native American, and now, since my time on the Admissions Board of the Academy, where I've taught for 22 years, Asians.
Midshipmen are admitted by two tracks. White applicants out of high school who are not also athletic recruits typically need grades of A and B and minimum SAT scores of 600 on each part for the Board to vote them "qualified." Athletics and leadership also count.
A vote of "qualified" for a white applicant doesn't mean s/he's coming, only that he or she can compete to win the "slate" of up to 10 nominations that (most typically) a Congress(wo)man draws up. That means that nine "qualified" white applicants are rejected. SAT scores below 600 or C grades almost always produce a vote of "not qualified" for white applicants.
Not so for an applicant who self-identifies as one of the minorities who are our "number one priority." For them, another set of rules apply. Their cases are briefed separately to the board, and SAT scores to the mid-500s with quite a few Cs in classes (and no visible athletics or leadership) typically produce a vote of "qualified" for them, with direct admission to Annapolis. They're in, and are given a pro forma nomination to make it legit.
Minority applicants with scores and grades down to the 300s with Cs and Ds (and no particular leadership or athletics) also come, though after a remedial year at our taxpayer-supported remedial school, the Naval Academy Preparatory School.
... All this is probably unconstitutional. That's what the Supreme Court said about the University of Michigan's two-track admissions in 2003.
Once at Annapolis, "diverse" midshipmen are over-represented in our pre-college classes, in lower-track courses, in mandatory tutoring programs and less challenging majors. Many struggle to master basic concepts. (I teach some of these courses.)
Of course, some minority students are stellar, but they're the exception. Despite being dragged toward the finish line, minorities graduate at about a 10 percent lower rate than the whole class, which of course includes them (so the real split is greater).
Don't want to believe me? Have a lawyer sit in on a year's worth of Admissions Board deliberations. Or better still, pray that one of the stellar white students rejected to give a seat to a "diverse" candidate sues us. That's the only way taxpayers will ever fully understand the price to them of "putting diversity first."
Show your support for Professor Fleming. Follow the link to the OP-ED, register, and comment. After you register you can rate the comments. Through Sunday, I could already see the Diversity Bullies trying to spike supportive comments with negative ratings on supporting comments. Show your support. Register and vote on comments.
If you like the cut of his jib, visit his website here. If you are interested in his books, you can find links to them there or at the widget below, or here.
As I have stated before when it comes to double standards, there is also a fair bit of intellectual cowardice and professional buck-passing by leadership for not having one standard for all. Those who thrive on their Diversity fetish can preen about their entrance numbers - damn the consequences for the individuals and institution. You can fudge a lot of things, but when people get to the fleet, especially in low margin for error areas - eventually people will have to perform.
When as a group you do not come in with a equal set of tools as everyone else, you won't perform as well as a group either. You won't get ranked as high as a group. You will wash out at a higher rate as a group. The individuals hurt most are the ones who were given special treatment in the first place - they will have wasted years pursuing a career they never had a chance to excel in compared to their peers.
When we get to that point, do you have a right to accuse a CO of racism because his minority officers, on average, take longer to qualify and have a higher wash-out rate? Or, do you force him to push his problem on to the next UIC? The road to h3ll is paved with good intentions.
The one of the most injured parties however, are those who could enter and qualify on their own merits regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin. They will forever be tainted by the paternalistic racism that is a double standard. They will always know that most will wonder if they got in on their own merits or were given special consideration based on nothing but their genetic background. That is the tragedy of affirmative discrimination. Almost as bad as those who are not selected in the zero-sum-game that is admissions, simply because of their genetic background.
For an institution that likes to think of itself as a meritocracy, this dual track system is a great shame on us all.
Professor Fleming is speaking for those who cannot. Watch, learn, and if you are in a position, support. Facts and truth are rare and precious things. The Diversity Brown Shirts will be coming after him with renewed vigor. Once again, show him the support he deserves.
When someone answers, "Chief Vanderberg" --- you know that you won't have any more trouble with that Sailor.
First impressions are so important. I think he is happy and having a good time in this picture, with friends and family.
Now, imagine you are a 19-yr old Sailor who just became a post-0645-phone-call-from-the-CMDCM-to-the-Power-Plants-shop, "Administrative Burden." Ah, the efficiency of Navy Chiefs.
.
.
