“Flip-flopping” may not have been invented by the media, but its continued presence in political debate is certainly connected with media’s use of it. Accusing a politician of being a “flip-flopper” provides pundits with a humorous opportunity to consult the treasure trove of video archive. Today’s media environment is one of endless archival footage. One person’s every comment and appearance is not only archived and readily available, but also indexed for easy access and utilization. Today’s political candidate must bear witness to a collection of flubs and statements.

Expecting an individual to have unwavering opinions is dangerous. One’s flip-flop demonstrates an evolution in thinking and is a testament to learning. We are best served by an expectation that opinions will expand in complexity as more information is gathered and digested. The best leader is one who responds to the crisis in the moment. Existing “in the now” is all that we can ask of our leaders. Be aware and develop as material comes in. Be wary of old opinions and always be open to new ideas. These are not unreasonable expectations; instead they are reasonable measures of the human being and complicated tasks of leaderships.

Whereas behaviors like smoking and gambling can be avoided or replaced by other activities, dieting demands deeper obsession with the habit.

Imagine the perils if this requirement existed for drug addiction: focus more thinking on drugs or make them an even greater source of obsession in your day. The repercussions could only be disastrous. Dieting presents a unique moment of behavior wherein the individual dieting must invest greater focus on the item he or she needs to avoid. It seems backwards that in trying to lose weight we must make it a greater part of our thinking. One loses weight not simply by avoiding its presence in our existence. Instead, due to its requirement in our life and constant presence in our day, we must pay more attention to the foods we eat. Is this inability to simply “look away” as one can do with other undesirable habits the reason why dieting so often fails?

All jobs are either quantitative or qualitative in nature. One classifies a position in this paradigm by considering the employee’s daily tasks. A worker who is expected to produce fifteen widgets per hour functions in a quantitative environment. He or she likely finds a similar day to day experience when he job market spoils a new position at the candy factory becomes primary employment. Now fifteen widgets are fifteen candy bars and the hourly expectation which defines the procedures of the day strikes him or her as common and comfortable.

This clear-cut expectation provides clarity for the worker and he or she may find the daily operations in the office above the candy store to be very confusing. In this office the marketing department does not have a common daily list of chores. The marketing department that simply arrives, produces fifteen posters and then leaves for home is failing at its responsibility. A day may have its countable expectations, for example the need call three executives for a meeting or a need for two new campaign ads but these quantitative components are only ingredients in a system of qualitative functioning.

I argue that all jobs can be categorized according to this paradigm or quantitative or qualitative means. A job’s daily list of chores defined by a numerical measurement of accomplishment is quantitative in nature. Employees who function in this environment have the potential to clearly define a successful a day and, if the expectation to produce fifteen candy met, a distinct sense of accomplishment. This sense is not present in the qualitative job. An employee working here cannot enjoy a sense of completion on a daily basis. In this job environment there are projects beyond completion and the overarching sense of “even more to do.” A qualitative job requires each employee to define his or her contribution and, via bittersweet empowerment leaves productivity in the hands of each worker.

While empowered, the employee functioning in the qualitative environment may rarely or never feel a sense of accomplishment. Each day may feel wasted as the employee simply inches forward on a project. This lack of clear lines of accomplishment may strike a worker more familiar with quantitative jobs as lacking or emotionally vacant. As our society moves away from quantitative labor due to technology’s ability to compete these chores more quickly and safely, our population becomes one of increasing qualitative employees. One wonders how this transition will take place within the emotions of these workers or if it may ever be known. I argue that this transition will be a difficult for quantitative-familiar workers and, though we may never explicitly hear of it, our culture may struggle deeply with the emotional variances at play in this distinction. Worker unhappiness may be less about pay and conditions and more about the psychological dynamics of each day and the inherent lack of success present in jobs qualitative in nature.

Good fortune often strikes those who least see it coming. Though most things are random and all things we desire are controlled by other agents (hence our desire),there remains a great power in being open to new experiences. Staying loose allows one to respond to this variety. Often our deep desire is translated into a need for control and the false sense that if we focus more we can attain it. Of course we cannot and this tighter focus only serves to remove us from the capability to catch a random perk. There is great hazard in tightening down- stay loose, stay open.

With this at play, a speaker’s ability to communicate clearly is the single point of evaluation for a leader. If he or she can’t make sense its a lost cause. If one wants to lead one must communicate effectively. Forms of failure come in varied forms: lack of clarity, poor examples or simply muddled explanation give way to the ultimate cause of failed communication: reinterpretation by another.

Chief victim to these other voices is President Obama. His failure to deliver clarified messages has become his defining characteristic and tasked with a cadre of critical moments, his presidency (and the country) has suffered significantly from these failed communications. His continual failure to explain has created communication vacuums easily filled by anyone with an audience. At play are not only his political enemies but also his allies, his pundits and the electorate whose own notions and conceptions of reality carve new sense out of Obama’s hunk of muddled text.

This plan would work better than the mailed check format because it denies the consumer the ability to save the money. The online market also has the benefit of being a mini market whereby consumer demand can be maintained. Each gift card recipient has options and can choose which company he or she would like to spend the allotted amount.

One can find many similarities among the seven figures profiled in Orizio’s text. Each seems obsessed with personal glory and distorting the historical events that gave way to his or her removal. Each figure views history from a subjective lens whereby misfortune and failure are mere temporary hiccups on the path to eternal glory. Eternity and time is likewise a major factor with each of these figures: each perceives his or her existence as an eternal journey whereby greatness is achieved through arduous battle and sacrifice.

Pain surrounds each of the seven figures. Each disposed of those who choose to disagree with policy or who openly challenged his or her established power. There is blood all over these figure’s hands: death via darkness and mystery is a constant companion and the concern for maintaining power is a major talisman for each. Once established each figure functioned less as an advocate for the nation and more as a personal advocate whose grip on power only grew stronger with time and vanquished challenges.

Reading Orizio’s text, one perceives the inherent weakness in human psychology. One may consider the text as a revelation that human beings are inherently incapable of being sole leaders of major countries. Is the text a document explaining the benefits of a shared (democratic) system? The text does not suggest such notions; though, present in each story is a narrative of personal struggle and slaughter focused largely on maintaining personal power. Absolute power may not corrupt all, but Orizio shows us seven figures whose destruction came largely with the provision of power. Are these figures any different than the rest of the population?

Now that the Libyan rebels have taken control of the communication medium we can confidently assert their success. The previous regime’s loss of the means of communication is truly the final blow. It is only when one has lost the ability to reach the public in mass that one is truly defeated. The greatest asset for any group is the ability to reach ears and brains beyond the immediate scenes of action. Branching out and spreading one’s message gives one the tools for inspiration and a crucial device in seeking out further assistance for a cause.

Perhaps human kinds greatest asset is its diversity of expertise. Howard Gardner’s theory of “Multiple Intelligences” always strikes me as the greatest defense or source of pride for anyone who has ever felt insignificant or stupid. Gardner argues that each human being has an individualized expertise and a skill set that effectively makes him/her capable of expertise in a field. The work is ours to complete, but biologically each of us possesses the tools needed to be an expert at something.

Herein lies my question: What is an expert? Often we unload our questions onto our experts and chore them with educating us. We expect answers from experts because, well, they’re the experts. Expectation precedes the expert and our very search for answers directs us to these figures. Expertise is an earned title with varied avenues of receivership. Some are classified as experts merely by having experience of documentation of extensive study. Though possessive of the knowledge we seek, not every expert is capable of communicating that information in a way that connects with the audience. Many experts are locked up by an inability to communicate with those beneath his or her cognitive abilities. These are common limitations but factors that hinder the role of expertise and create an important lesson for us to remember: the endless depths of human limitation.

Paradoxically, our own limitations seem to seep deeper as we become experts. Extensive study can make us experts whose possession of information and understanding of complex ideas leave us a rare breed of understanding. Such expertise may dramatically exceed any other human being but an inability to communicate this expertise may leave our expertise limited to our own brains. What use is our expertise if we cannot communicate it? Suddenly our hard work becomes a selfish exercise in futility. Without the ability to communicate our knowledge our greatest achievements are merely personal endeavors and trophies for a personal hall-of-fame.

Communication is the key skill essential for all human functioning. Garder’s multiple intelligences may ring true but if we are unable to communicate our unique skill set we are inherently useless to society. Great minds may vary and society may benefit immensely from our diverse skill sets but if we are unable to share what we know we face even greater dangers. A failure to share information eliminates the evolution of information and great blossoming that comes from sharing ideas and perspectives. Expertise is a closet of understanding whose only breath of fresh air comes with the process of sharing. Communication is the means of sharing and the essential procedure by which humans grow and extend our expertise to even greater discoveries.

In this sense, major moments take on “major” status only after we undergo this procedure. Our outer shells are essential for our interpretation and as we consider and re-hash our notions we begin the gradual process of understanding. This may be obvious, but while the common perspective that experience develops instantaneously it is only our personal explanation of our experience that determines reactions.

These “personal” responses are only part of the process. We also are subject to the responses of others and tailor our perspectives to the responses of those around us. While earlier generations had limited outside influences, contemporary culture is defined by the plethora of perspectives available. One could absorb and consider different perspectives forever, creating a situation where a definitive position is impossible. Given that this option is available, do we exist in a culture where definitive perspectives must come at a point of selective ignorance? Must we decide that our absorption of information is suitable for our reaction? It is impossible to gather all perspectives and though they are available, we must choose to disregard certain pieces of information in order to make a decision.

This act of filtering is a new process that contemporary society has imposed on citizens. Largely at the hands of technology, this responsibility to look away from the information is a symptom of our incredible progress as a society. Paradoxically this need to disregard info comes from a cadre of tools that provide too much information at too fast a rate for our brains to consider. Our brains are far behind the capabilities of technology. Media often muses on technologies power over users but I would argue that the power struggle has long been handed to technology. In terms of information reception, gadgets are capable of doing far more faster than its humble users.

Though power has been lost, users have the ability to filter information. This is the saving grace for human kind: the ability to turn off or tune out is the key ability in the battle. Utilize a filter and make a decision. Though you don’t know every detail, rest confidence in your sense of knowing enough and the eternal possibility of revision. The info is always there and waiting for attention.