 |
|
« The State of Renewable Energy | Main | RFID: EZPass and SpeedPass Poised to Bypass All that Is Right and Good with the World? »
March 16, 2005
It's Tough to Find a Good, Nonpartisan Motivational Speaker
No matter what your field, from engineering to publishing, we've all seen them: motivational speakers. Some earn our time, some give us no choice but to douse ourselves in Poland Spring just to stay awake. Still others—the rare, chosen few—actually motivate.
Okay. I'm a liberal. There. I said it. Some will no doubt
see such an admission as worthy of an intervention. "Hello. My name is Mark and
I have a conservative problem." Others may see it as terrorism of a sort.
Perhaps I'm evil. Yeah, that's it. I enjoy NASCAR and Bill Maher. There's no
other reasonable explanation: I must be evil. Moderately evil.
Recently, I attended a conference that was to be keynoted by 4-star General Tommy Franks. In my best, internalized impression of American Idol's Simon Cowell, I thought "Oh, my Gawd! This is going to be horrible! Just bloody awful!" Making matters worse, I'm a Stormin' Norman fan. Norman Schwarzkopf: Now there's a general. "Who's this Tommy Franks upstart?," I scoffed. Poser. Wannabe.
Before Gen. Franks ever made it to the stage, the rocket's red glare assaulted every widened eye in the audience from three, 20 ft-wide screens—together showing an orchestrated barrage of both moving and still images. Subwoofers shook the ballroom area with enough power to impress even the neighbor kid with the fart-mufflered Honda. Machine gun-style September 11 references made me wonder if I'd stepped back slightly in time to the Republican National Convention. It was spooky, I tell you. Just freakin' spooky.
Gen. Franks appeared at just about the moment I was wondering, "What the heck does any of this have to do with office equipment?" At first blush, I was unimpressed. I mean, Clint Eastwood or even Robert Redford appear to be good generals when in character. I'm expecting George C. Scott and out comes General Alfred E. Neuman.
Turns out, not surprisingly, that I was wrong. Horribly, bloody awfully wrong.
Five minutes into his presentation about leadership, the audience was captivated. This guy is a formidable presence: charismatic, commanding, affable, funny, smart, confident, comfortable, motivational. The thought of a regular person presenting on-stage for a solid half-hour is enough to make most of us urp on our Hush Puppies (or wingtips). Franks made an hour and a half look easy. The time literally flew by, leaving the audience wanting more.
Televised CNN CENTCOM briefings did not do the General justice. Every person—every single person of the several hundred in that room—was energized and motivated by the time Gen. Franks left.
Wait. He's not left. He's right. But
Oh, well. I'm still a liberal. I applauded heartily, however, shoulder to shoulder with conservatives and liberals alike during the Standing O for General Franks. You know, motivation might just be our last nonpartisan issue.
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
10 CommentsMotivational speeches notwithstanding, the invasion (I refuse to call it a war) has been a disasterous waste of 1600 U.S. lives and nothing more then a thrust to protect U.S. oil interest in Iraq.
March 18, 2005 9:10 AMWhy must motivational speakers be non-partisan? I'm sick of all this yearning for middle-of-the-road people, from Congress' faux claims of bipartisanship to this very article. I'd rather listen to a speaker I disagree with (and try to debate them afterwards) than listen to someone who panders to both sides OR doesn't take a position OR pretends like a middle ground actually exists. IMHO.
%===================%
As for the previous comment by Mr. Reynolds, I only ask for one bit of PROOF that the Iraqi liberation was about oil.
Have we nationalized their oil supplies to the USA? NO.
Have we helped them rebuild the rigs so Iraq will be self sustaining in the future? YES.
Interesting you don't take any satisfaction in the liberation of the Iraqi people. I suspect that if it was your wife or daughter in a rape room, you'd feel much differently about the 'invasion' to remove a murderer from power.
Liberals will stop an economy to save a bird but won't lift a finger to rescue fellow humans. And they are supposed to be the champions of human rights??
I will again restate my request for one bit of proof to back up your statement. It is easy to say, impossible to substatiate.
March 24, 2005 11:42 AMDitto, Nathan!
March 24, 2005 4:46 PM"Liberals will stop an economy to save a bird but won't lift a finger to rescue fellow humans."
posted by Nathan -
A curious comment for one demanding "proof" of US intent regarding Iraqi oil. Indeed, a set of curious comments.
Try reading Mike Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" for a set of "proofs" regarding past and current US actions relative to oil and war.
March 24, 2005 5:07 PMWell, I still didn't see a response. Can you not offer such proof yourself?
Why are my comments "curious"? What does "curious" mean? If you disagree, please state why. If it's proof you want, I'll make a simple comparison. Liberals consistently defend the rights of animals and nature and so forth, often to the detriment of humans and their endeavors (e.g. taking over of private land to prevent harm to some creature). Take note, I don't disagree with maintaining a healthy balance in this regard, but my point is, liberals consistently will go to great lengths to save animals, but will turn a blind eye to human plight such as in Iraq. When other humans intervene and provide liberation (which I thought liberals would be in favor of, since they consistently support liberation of animals in plight), the liberators are accused of oil-grabbing when there is no proof to the accusation.
Again, if you disagree, why refer me to some text when surely you can paraphrase it yourself? Or better yet, come up with your own argument!
March 25, 2005 2:46 PM
