The " Boiled Frog Phenomenon "

The " Boiled Frog Phenomenon "

As (Polard, 2004) Mentioned, If you take a frog and put it in a pot of extremely hot water, it's obvious that frog will jump and try to get out of the water. However, if you put that same frog in a pot of water that is tepid, and turn the heat on very low, that frog will lay there very quietly; and as the water gradually heats up the frog will calmly fall into a state of unconsciousness. and eventually allow itself to be boiled to death.

The " Boiled Frog Phenomenon "

The " Boiled Frog Phenomenon "

---

The " Boiled Frog Phenomenon "

The " Boiled Frog Phenomenon "

Now many of us maybe asking why didn't the frog jump out of the pot. After all, there was no barrier between him and his freedom. Well a big reason why the Frog did not jump is due to the fact his threat sensing capability is generated by unexpected changes, not the slow ones but changes that are gradual. His survival threat was below his abilityto identify those changes.

The inference of the frog metaphor for organizations is that we as a whole should try and identify the threats of our survival at an early sTAGe when we still have time to plan rather than react to that particular threat; which will be too late. Furthermore, we must also learn how to reduce our threshold of change in order to be able to identify smaller changes that are occurring in our environMent.

A perfect example of the Boiling Frog would be our governMent; they continue to ignore continuous threats to our economy survival. Our government tends to react only to sudden changes and situations. If we look back at September 11, 2001 that particular incident was a perfect example of the Boil Frog. According to many, the government had greatunderstanding and knowledge on terror attacks; however they failed to plan ahead and at the same time very careless about information's they had. As a result, disaster strikes which finally leads them to make better changes.

If we dissect the term "The Boil frog Phenomenon" in business situations, it will show how organization are not able to identify slow and gradual threats within the organization and of course react only to sudden changes. By organizations focusing only of the satisfaction of key consumers, they failed to detect the continuous threats that the opposition is putting out there; which could play a huge role in the market dynamics in a short period of time (David, 2007). If we really think about it, we don't have enough proof that key consumers will alwaysstick around when our competitors are putting better products out in the market.

As a result, organizations should react at an early sTAGe when there's still time to plan rather than finding themselves in a difficult situation at a later stage. Organization should try their best to not get caught up in the boil frog phenomenon. In fact, it would be to their advantage if they could try recognizing threats that could be harmful to the organization otherwise the survival for such organization could be extremely difficult in today's very competitive industry.

The " Boiled Frog Phenomenon "

Capitalism, Socialism, or Social Protection?

Capitalism: Economic system where property is owned by individuals. An economic system in which property, businesses, and industry are owned by individual people and not by the governMent.

Capitalism, Socialism, or Social Protection?

Capitalism, Socialism, or Social Protection?

---

Capitalism, Socialism, or Social Protection?

Capitalism, Socialism, or Social Protection?

Socialism: a political moveMent based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers.

Let's see: President Obama has been accused of socialistic tendencies, of advocating socialist measures, such as health care insurance for all Americans. According to the above definitions, the president has not proposed to abolish private property of insurance or of any other industry. He has simply tried to make it fAirer and more equitable, more affordable to all citizens. Social Security, for example, is a socialprogram designed to help those who paid into the system during their working years so as to make their reTireMent years less stressful income-wise. For any politician to call Social Security and Medicare to socialist plot to eliminate private property is simply absurd and a good reflection of their profound ignorance. Ask the common man and woman what they think about these social safety nets and they will respond vigorously in favor.

Public education is another target of those who advocate the end of social programs; they want the State to give every parent to voucher so as to choose any private school of their choice. That proposal smacks of socialistic tendencies; use tax Dollars from the rich and give that money to the less fortunate? Wasn't John McCain candidate deriding Obama'ssuggestion to tax rich people and give it to the poor? To spread the wealth as the Republican candidate called it? Isn't the school voucher, favored by many Republicans, precisely that, spreading the wealth?

It's a shame when fire breathing politicians hoping to appear knowledgeable confused social safety nets with socialist politics; or maybe they know the difference but simply act in bad faith. After all, they have hundreds of researchers who are most likely better informed. They even accuse Obama of "Europeanizing" America; would that be so bad? Don't they have a free market society on the Old Continent? Shouldn't we imitate what works for other countries?

Do we really want to return to savage capitalism, to robber barons, and to heartless factory owners who gleefullyexploited children, men, and women in the early 1900 's? Look at the faces of those victims in early photographs and you will thank your stars that you are not living during that period.

No sane American wants to end the free enterprise system; we all saw what happened in the Soviet Union and, nowadays, in Cuba. Even the Chinese communist junta recognized the need to introduce private ownership and a market driven economy. We all accept that savvy individuals can flourish when allowed to invent and invest; but we must also recognize that not all citizens are gifted, whether intellectually or economically. A free market society must establish a safety net for those less able to provide for themselves. It is a profound shame that the most powerful nation on earth allows people to get"kicked out of their homes and thrown, literally, into the streets with their meager possessions. It's a shame when uninsured American citizens lose their savings and their lives due to a severe illness. It's shame to let homeless people freeze to death or starve in the pitiless streets of our rich cities.

It is time to regain our original dream, to make America once again the country of the free, the country of the compassionate, the country of the just. How many politicians are willing to espouse such lofty ideals? Are you, personally, willing to write about it, to work in your community to make it a better place to live and work?

Let me know, my email is at your disposal.

Capitalism, Socialism, or Social Protection?

Was Adolf Hitler A Right-Wing Ruler?

The 1930s produced one of histories most infamous and destructive maniacs. The name of this maniac was Adolf Hitler who founded Nazi Germany (1943-1945). Tens of millions of people perished before his twelve-year reign ended. Many people today refer to his Nazi governMent as a right-wing organization. Let us examine the facts carefully to see exactly what form of governMent Hitler created and envisioned.

Was Adolf Hitler A Right-Wing Ruler?

Was Adolf Hitler A Right-Wing Ruler?

---

Was Adolf Hitler A Right-Wing Ruler?

Was Adolf Hitler A Right-Wing Ruler?

The letters in the name USSR actually represented the official name the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR was a Progressive Communist system founded upon principles as stated by the 1880s German philosopher Karl Marx. The official name of the Nazi Party was National Socialism. Both the USSR and the founders used the Nazi Socialist founders name todescribe their governMents.

Another case in point is that the background color of the National Socialist flag of Germany was Socialist red and that Mao's Chinese Communist governMent used the same colored flag and as well as the Bolshevik government flag of Lenin and Joseph Stalin. Once again it appears that the Nazi Party was a left-wing government.

The German government had a Secret Police department named the Gestapo whose role was to enforce unity without dissent. The Soviets had a Secret Police department named the KGB and the KGB's role was also to enforce unity without dissent. Both the Gestapo and KGB readily used violence to ensure compliance of their government's respective policies.

The Soviet system created a structure where the government had completeownership of the land and all means of production. The Soviet government determined the type and quantity of products. The government determined the size of the workforce. The government also determined how much the workers were to be paid. The Soviet Regime also determined who was to receive the produced items. The Communist government set the price of the items. The Nazi system allowed for the private sector to own the businesses and keep all of the profits but the Nazi's controlled the market place. The Hitler Fascist controlled the means of production in the same manner as the Communist did. Hitler and his subordinates had complete control of the same elements of production as Stalin did in the USSR.

Most of the top leaders in the German Fascist Regime wore military styleuniforms. Most of the Chinese, North Korean, Soviet, Cuban and Communist leaders also wore military uniforms. If wearing a military uniform is the true test for a right-wing government then all government leaders that wear a military uniform must be right-wing in nature. The Communist leaders that wear a military uniform must be right-wing if the Nazi's that wore a military uniform were right-wingers.

Social justice is the backbone of all socialist forms of government. Social justice was the theme of Communism and Fascism during the Twentieth Century. This is the same social justice theme of the Progressive Socialist of today. The actual actions of the Nazi's in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s appear to have been actions of a left-winged forms of administration. Why does thecontradiction exists about what form of government ruled in Germany over three score years ago?

The Nazi handbook stated that you had no comrades. Everyone was expendable in the pursuit of social justice. "Rules for Radicals" was an infamous Socialist book written by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky's book became popular in America during the late 1960s. Alinsky proposed similar tactics as those used by the Communist and Fascist governments in gaining power. It appears that the progressives felt that Hitler and his henchmen that proposed social justice were also expendable in order to preserve social justice for the future. The leftists apparently are attempting to rewrite the facts of history once again.

The facts about Adolf Hitler and his cronies support the concept that Germany had aprogressive (socialist) system that led the German people to ruin. I have my own opinion about whether or not Hitler was a right-winger. You are entitled to your own opinion.

What do you think America? It's something for you to ponder over

Was Adolf Hitler A Right-Wing Ruler?