Bill Gates Reinvents Himself
The last day at work can be a melancholy business as well as the springboard for a new career. But what if the person in question is one of the most successful entrepreneurs the world has ever known? Is there any way he can reinvent himself to compare with what he has already achieved?
If anyone can pull it off, it is Bill Gates. Today is his last day at Microsoft. From now on, Gates will dedicate himself to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and to his stated aim to rid the world of deadly diseases and malnutrition through a combination of technology, medicine, money, management and expertise. That, plus improve the state of K-12 public education in the United States where a million kids drop out of schools every year, plus ensure that teachers have the right tools to motivate and inspire, plus …
“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” Robert Browning’s exhortation to attempt the impossible resonates with all but only a few get to experience it. Gates has the passion, the commitment and, of course, the resources to succeed but even if he is partially successful in his “Mission Impossible,” he will have touched people’s lives on a scale that may surpass what he accomplished through Microsoft.
Microsoft will continue to be a dominant technology player for years to come but the truth is that the torch has passed to a new generation of technology visionaries, epitomized by a company called Google. You can take on the new competitors, or you can take on an even bigger challenge – to prove through action that “every life has equal value.”
Is this the road less traveled by that, in the end, will have made all the difference? Who can say? What is clear is that Bill Gates has chosen to make a difference in the lives of people around the world who desperately need a helping hand simply to survive, and that transcends technology, software, and the demands of an unforgiving marketplace.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Future of Tiger Woods
"The world breaks everyone, and afterward, many are strong at the broken places." Hemingway’s observation is insightful but not always true , especially when considered in a literal sense. This is the thought that came to me after it was disclosed that Tiger Woods would have a season-ending knee surgery following his epic U.S. Open victory. He had arthroscopic surgery on his left knee last April and after the five-day, 91 holes of grueling and painful golf at the U.S. Open this month, he couldn’t continue playing without causing permanent injury to his leg. Given his fierce competitiveness and single-minded pursuit of excellence, the end of the 2008 season must have caused him as much mental anguish as his left knee caused him physical pain.
The compelling question is: Can Woods break Jack Nicklaus’s record of 18 major championships? With 14 championships under his belt already, the answer may have seemed obvious (yes!) but that was before the the fragile state of his left knee became known. Now it has become a more pertinent question and the shadow of doubt has crept in.
This is what I think will happen. Woods will adjust his game to accommodate whatever toll surgery takes on his knee and that will still be good enough to beat the rest of the world’s golfers. He will win 6 more championships to bring his total to the nice round number of 20 and then he will be forced to retire because his leg will just not be able to hold up any longer. This will only underscore his status as the best golfer to have played the game. There will always be that ‘what if’ scenario to excite the imagination whenever the name Tiger Woods comes up, but that will only serve to keep his legend alive for decades to come.
"The world breaks everyone, and afterward, many are strong at the broken places." Hemingway’s observation is insightful but not always true , especially when considered in a literal sense. This is the thought that came to me after it was disclosed that Tiger Woods would have a season-ending knee surgery following his epic U.S. Open victory. He had arthroscopic surgery on his left knee last April and after the five-day, 91 holes of grueling and painful golf at the U.S. Open this month, he couldn’t continue playing without causing permanent injury to his leg. Given his fierce competitiveness and single-minded pursuit of excellence, the end of the 2008 season must have caused him as much mental anguish as his left knee caused him physical pain.
The compelling question is: Can Woods break Jack Nicklaus’s record of 18 major championships? With 14 championships under his belt already, the answer may have seemed obvious (yes!) but that was before the the fragile state of his left knee became known. Now it has become a more pertinent question and the shadow of doubt has crept in.
This is what I think will happen. Woods will adjust his game to accommodate whatever toll surgery takes on his knee and that will still be good enough to beat the rest of the world’s golfers. He will win 6 more championships to bring his total to the nice round number of 20 and then he will be forced to retire because his leg will just not be able to hold up any longer. This will only underscore his status as the best golfer to have played the game. There will always be that ‘what if’ scenario to excite the imagination whenever the name Tiger Woods comes up, but that will only serve to keep his legend alive for decades to come.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Confessions of an Insider
Scott McClellan’s “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” is the buzz of the week. The former White House press secretary’s revelations, however, are not new. Seriously, is there anyone on earth who doesn’t yet know that George Bush is not inquisitive, that he doesn’t have an analytic bend of mind, that he stubbornly refuses to admit mistakes, that he is deceitfully self-delusional, that he gave free rein to the diabolical Dick Cheney to call the shots in major strategic decisions, that the Iraq war was a “solution” in search of a problem from day one of his presidency?
But even without any shock value, the book deserves attention. As the president’s long-time confidant, McClellan’s memoir offers a fascinating glimpse into the conflicting demands of loyalty and conscience and the dueling instincts of self-preservation and the urge to speak truth to power.
But first things first. Was McClellan motivated, to some extent at least, by money? Sure. Wanting to cash in while the opportunity lasts is an ancient human instinct. Just ask Bush memoirists Paul O’Neill, John Dilulio, Larry Wilkerson, Richard Clarke and others. Many more tell-alls are likely to appear after Bush leaves office but by then interest in his presidency will fade. If one had to make a bundle before it was too late, it had to be now, and McClellan used the opportunity.
As to the charge of hypocrisy that his conscience was fine towing the official line for nearly three years but that it began to weigh on him only after he resigned in 2006, there is also some truth to it. However, McClellan is no Archibald Cox, and to demand of him integrity that animates only the rarest among us is itself hypocritical.
The point, however, is that McClellan’s conscience, even if tainted, eventually caught up with him. “What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary,” is how he sums up his telling, if belated, insight.
What also emerges from several published reports is that the act of writing the memoir was cathartic for McClellan. It liberated him from his own delusions. Putting pen to paper, or keystrokes to word processor, brought to light what lay buried in his mind.
The central question that the memoir raises is this: Why did Bush do what he did? What drove him to create, in the words of novelist and essayist David Foster Wallace “an unmitigated horror show of rapacity, hubris, incompetence, mendacity, corruption, cynicism and contempt for the electorate”?
There is a key sentence in McClellan’s book that, I think, answers it. “The president promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do …” In other words, Bush Jr. was driven primarily by one goal: to outdo Bush Sr. That he wanted to outdo his father vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein is known but it also extended to his other presidential acts, in the way he dealt with his political adversaries and the illegal privileges he showered on his sycophants. (The presidency of George Bush should convince voters that they must give thumbs down to presidential dynasties in modern times).
At a personal level, there is no doubt that George Bush is a kind and compassionate man. When McClellan handed his resignation in April of 2006 as the White House press secretary, “tears were streaming down (Bush’s) both cheeks.” Those were genuine tears. But Bush is also a man with severely flawed instincts and judgments. Combine this with his overpowering need to prove his superiority at any cost over the old man, another president who also happened to be a domineering dad once, and you have a recipe for rapacity, hubris, incompetence, mendacity, corruption, cynicism and contempt for the electorate.
“What Happened” will contribute to our understanding of why historians are already labeling George Bush’s presidency as among the worst in American history, alongside the presidencies of James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Warren Harding (1921-1923), a verdict that is likely to stand the test of time.
Certainly no profile in courage, Scott McClellan has nevertheless given us an honest account of his White House experience that revealed its meaning to him only upon later reflection, and for that we applaud him.
Scott McClellan’s “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” is the buzz of the week. The former White House press secretary’s revelations, however, are not new. Seriously, is there anyone on earth who doesn’t yet know that George Bush is not inquisitive, that he doesn’t have an analytic bend of mind, that he stubbornly refuses to admit mistakes, that he is deceitfully self-delusional, that he gave free rein to the diabolical Dick Cheney to call the shots in major strategic decisions, that the Iraq war was a “solution” in search of a problem from day one of his presidency?
But even without any shock value, the book deserves attention. As the president’s long-time confidant, McClellan’s memoir offers a fascinating glimpse into the conflicting demands of loyalty and conscience and the dueling instincts of self-preservation and the urge to speak truth to power.
But first things first. Was McClellan motivated, to some extent at least, by money? Sure. Wanting to cash in while the opportunity lasts is an ancient human instinct. Just ask Bush memoirists Paul O’Neill, John Dilulio, Larry Wilkerson, Richard Clarke and others. Many more tell-alls are likely to appear after Bush leaves office but by then interest in his presidency will fade. If one had to make a bundle before it was too late, it had to be now, and McClellan used the opportunity.
As to the charge of hypocrisy that his conscience was fine towing the official line for nearly three years but that it began to weigh on him only after he resigned in 2006, there is also some truth to it. However, McClellan is no Archibald Cox, and to demand of him integrity that animates only the rarest among us is itself hypocritical.
The point, however, is that McClellan’s conscience, even if tainted, eventually caught up with him. “What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary,” is how he sums up his telling, if belated, insight.
What also emerges from several published reports is that the act of writing the memoir was cathartic for McClellan. It liberated him from his own delusions. Putting pen to paper, or keystrokes to word processor, brought to light what lay buried in his mind.
The central question that the memoir raises is this: Why did Bush do what he did? What drove him to create, in the words of novelist and essayist David Foster Wallace “an unmitigated horror show of rapacity, hubris, incompetence, mendacity, corruption, cynicism and contempt for the electorate”?
There is a key sentence in McClellan’s book that, I think, answers it. “The president promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do …” In other words, Bush Jr. was driven primarily by one goal: to outdo Bush Sr. That he wanted to outdo his father vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein is known but it also extended to his other presidential acts, in the way he dealt with his political adversaries and the illegal privileges he showered on his sycophants. (The presidency of George Bush should convince voters that they must give thumbs down to presidential dynasties in modern times).
At a personal level, there is no doubt that George Bush is a kind and compassionate man. When McClellan handed his resignation in April of 2006 as the White House press secretary, “tears were streaming down (Bush’s) both cheeks.” Those were genuine tears. But Bush is also a man with severely flawed instincts and judgments. Combine this with his overpowering need to prove his superiority at any cost over the old man, another president who also happened to be a domineering dad once, and you have a recipe for rapacity, hubris, incompetence, mendacity, corruption, cynicism and contempt for the electorate.
“What Happened” will contribute to our understanding of why historians are already labeling George Bush’s presidency as among the worst in American history, alongside the presidencies of James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Warren Harding (1921-1923), a verdict that is likely to stand the test of time.
Certainly no profile in courage, Scott McClellan has nevertheless given us an honest account of his White House experience that revealed its meaning to him only upon later reflection, and for that we applaud him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)