Orrin Woodward on LIFE & Leadership

Inc Magazine Top 20 Leader shares his personal, professional, and financial secrets.

  • Orrin Woodward

    1
    Former Guinness World Record Holder for largest book signing ever, Orrin Woodward is a NY Times bestselling author of And Justice For All along with RESOLVED & coauthor of LeaderShift and Launching a Leadership Revolution. His books have sold over one million copies in the financial, leadership and liberty fields. RESOLVED: 13 Resolutions For LIFE made the Top 100 All-Time Best Leadership Books and the 13 Resolutions are the framework for the top selling Mental Fitness Challenge personal development program.

    Orrin made the Top 20 Inc. Magazine Leadership list & has co-founded two multi-million dollar leadership companies. Currently, he serves as the Chairman of the Board of the LIFE. He has a B.S. degree from GMI-EMI (now Kettering University) in manufacturing systems engineering. He holds four U.S. patents, and won an exclusive National Technical Benchmarking Award.

    This blog is an Alltop selection and ranked in HR's Top 100 Blogs for Management & Leadership.

  • Orrin’s Latest Book








  • 7 Day Free Access to Leadership Audios!

  • Email Me

  • NY Times Bestselling Book


  • Mental Fitness Challenge

  • Categories

  • Archives

Author Archive

The American Form of Government

Posted by Orrin Woodward on February 12, 2009

Here is an informative video that describes our American form of government.   I believe that the more we learn about our past, the less susceptible we will be government promises.  Government has a few specific task to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  But government was never designed to provide for their citizens.  I will paraphrase what the founding father’s said, “Any government big enough to give you everything you need, is also big enough to take everything you have.”  Our local communities must learn to work, think and provide for ourselves.  If someone needs charity, then let’s provide this through private funding – not government funding.  The only thing saving us from the totalitarian power of our government is its inherent bureaucratic inefficiencies!  The Bible is clear on providing for those in need, but nowhere does it tell the government to take from one group and give to another.  It needs to be freely given from those who are blessed by the fruits of their labors.  Charity must be freely chosen or it is not charity.  To have the government create laws that give them permission to steal from one group to give to another is a double loss.  Three things wrong with this: government siphons off most of the actual money intended for those in need, it steals the sense of giving from those who desire to give, and it steals the thankfulness of those who receive the love offering.  It turns the people who receive the charity from a thankful spirit into a posture of charity as a God-given right provided by the paternal government.  Charity is not a right, but should be a gift from those who have to those who truly need. 

The long-term plan should be to give them a hand up not a hand out.  The fact that third and fourth generations of welfare recipients are now multiplying is clear evidence that government handouts do not work!  The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different result and based upon the overwhelming evidence – our government is insane!  It is time for the citizens to demand a balanced budget and force the politicians to lead as they were elected to do.  Every single family reading this article understands that they must balance their family budget or face the consequences of debt and eventual loss of freedoms.  Debt is a form of bondage and ought to be treated as a cancer in the body.  Debt in the home must be eradicated.  Debt in our government must be eliminated to ensure our children and grand-children enjoy the same freedoms that we have.  How can any honest American believe that it is right to hand over trillions of dollars of debt as our the only inheritance that we leave to the next generation?  God forbid that we behave so irresponsibly!  These are points to ponder as we slide closer and closer to an all powerful government.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxdQjOq1U9A&w=425&h=344]

Posted in Finances, Freedom/Liberty | Comments Off on The American Form of Government

Education Precedes Activism – Stephen Palmer

Posted by Orrin Woodward on February 11, 2009

 

Here is an extremely well written impressive piece on the need for education in our communities inside and outside of the MonaVie Team business.  I sat down to write an article on the strong need for the media war in our nations when an email came in from team members Ted and Vickie that nailed it.  Stephen Palmer is a hungry learner on a mission to bring the founding father’s principles back to America and to the world.  His writing style is hard hitting, concise and entertaining.  It is thanks to Americans like Stephen Palmer that I believe we can win the Media War and teach the founding principles that made America the last great bastion of hope for mankind!  What part are you planning on playing on the Media Team? God Bless, Orrin Woodward

By Stephen Palmer

“Force without wisdom falls of its own weight.” – Horace

 A few years ago, I was teaching a class on the constitution where I witnessed a sad, though interesting, phenomenon.

To give context, this was a room full of people wholly dedicated to the cause of liberty — the people who “get it.”

I asked the class, “How many of you agree with William Gladstone’s quote that the Constitution is ‘…the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the mind and purpose of man’?”

100% of the attendees raised their hands.

I told them to keep their hands raised, then asked, “How many of you have actually read it?” A few hands dropped.

“Of you who have actually read it from beginning to end,” I continued, “how many have read it within the last six months?”

Still more hands dropped. I persisted. “Of those who still have their hands raised, how many of you can tell us what Article III talks about?” More hands dropped. By this time only about half of the room had their hands raised. 

By the time I asked who knew what habeas corpus means and what bills of attainder are, not a single person in the room had their hand raised.

Mind you, these are the same people who had just said that they agreed with Gladstone’s quote, yet very few of them could answer the most basic questions about the Constitution.

What would you guess is the most recurring criticism I receive from subscribers and website visitors?

Contrary to what you might think, it’s not from people who take polar opposite positions from the Cause of Liberty content. It’s from freedom-loving patriots who believe that my recommended action steps are “benign.” For example, they tell me that reading classics will do little to solve our looming problems.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for these devoted people. We need many more just like them. But I do have a different perspective on what needs to happen for our Republic to be restored.

America is primed for a French Revolution scenario. To take it even further, we exhibit many of the qualities of German civilization prior to World War II.

We’re a highly-trained, yet poorly-educated populace. We’ve lost our sense of true education. Furthermore, we have staggering discrepancies in wealth distribution. We’re primed for a lot of chaos and pain.

Plainly put, we don’t have enough widespread education to sustain an anger-driven revolution. The People trying to fight Washington and other power interests right now is like replacing a strip club with a flea market.

There’s no use in fighting unless we have quality replacement options. It’s not enough to just be mad — we must also be wise. And turning inward is the beginning of wisdom.

Confucius said it best in his classic essay The Great Learning:

The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.


Not only does turning inward lead to wisdom
, but it also leads to power. This is the core message of the Cause of Liberty. Fixing ourselves as individuals is what fixes the world.

If this sounds “benign” to you, I probably can’t convince you otherwise. But I would point out that the most influential leaders, from Jesus Christ to Gandhi, have taken this approach. And they seemed to have done a pretty good job of improving the world.

There are others who say, “Yeah, we get it. But what do we actually do about it?”

To those I humbly repeat, “Continue working on yourself and your education.” If our education was deep and broad enough we wouldn’t have to ask that question.

I accept that this message may disappoint many. It may seem too simplistic. It may seem to be too little, too late. I’m probably starting to sound like a broken record.

But it’s the light that animates everything that I do and everything I aspire to. It’s the spiritual beating of my heart, the passion blood flowing through my veins, the mission muscles that keep me moving forward.

I’m fed up with the Federal Reserve. But I also don’t have a complete grasp on how our monetary system should operate in the 21st Century, nor do I have a solid plan for making a transition.

So I don’t march on Washington to spit at the Federal Reserve; I stay at home and read everything I can find on monetary policy.

I’m sick and tired of weaseling, compromising, ignorant, money-and-power-grubbing politicians. So I prepare myself to be a political leader with integrity, knowledge and wisdom.

I’m dismayed by the decay of the family. But I’m further dismayed by the times when I’m angry and impatient with my wife and children. So I focus my dismay on doing all I can to improve as a husband and father.

This is what the Cause of Liberty stands for. This is the message you’ll hear for as long as I have breath.

And when you see me march on Washington, it won’t be because I’m “angry as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” It will be because I actually have real, sustainable solutions and the ability to carry them out.

Until then, I’m working on myself. Care to join me?

 

Posted in Finances | Comments Off on Education Precedes Activism – Stephen Palmer

Un-Validated Genius – The Quest for Beauty in a Busy World

Posted by Orrin Woodward on February 6, 2009

Here are snippets from a fabulous article by Gene Weingarten in the Washington Post.  This article will stop and make you think.  Thank you Mr. Weingarten for sharing your gifts of writing with the world! In our never ending quest for goals and dreams, let us not forget to take time to smell the roses and search for the beauty that surrounds us.   What makes this article so powerful to me is that it captures how easy it is to overlook the incredible gifts of others right before our eyes.  I did an earlier article on the video validation that captures some of these points.  If a person is not validated, they may lose hope and their genius is lost to the world.  Here is my message for the day:

Do not let life choke the beautiful out of you.  Do not let life wear the passion out of you.  Do not stand by idly as the beauty in others is being marred by the incisions of life.  Let your beauty shine for the world to see!  While you’re at it, lift other’s beauty so the world can enjoy the beautiful in all around you.  We spend too much time consumed in our own issues and life to take notice of the gifts and talents of others.  We must share our gifts with others while breathing oxygen onto the flame of beauty in their souls!  Encouragement and discouragement are a choice and that choice has ramifications that reverberate into eternity.  True success involves bring out the beauty in body, mind and soul.  I love building teams because it gives me the opportunity to validate other people’s genius and gifts in body, mind and soul.  If someone as validated as Joshua Bell can begin to feel un-validated, then imagine what can happen in the population at large?

Make a promise today to bring out you inner beauty and be the example to draw other’s beauty to the surface!  What is beautiful in your life that you are ignoring? This video is a powerful example of ignored genius and a great example of why we must build our communities.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Snippets from Pearls Before Breakfast by Gene Weingarten

Each passerby had a quick choice to make, one familiar to commuters in any urban area where the occasional street performer is part of the cityscape: Do you stop and listen? Do you hurry past with a blend of guilt and irritation, aware of your cupidity but annoyed by the unbidden demand on your time and your wallet? Do you throw in a buck, just to be polite? Does your decision change if he’s really bad? What if he’s really good? Do you have time for beauty? Shouldn’t you? What’s the moral mathematics of the moment?

On that Friday in January, those private questions would be answered in an unusually public way. No one knew it, but the fiddler standing against a bare wall outside the Metro in an indoor arcade at the top of the escalators was one of the finest classical musicians in the world, playing some of the most elegant music ever written on one of the most valuable violins ever made. His performance was arranged by The Washington Post as an experiment in context, perception and priorities — as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?

The musician did not play popular tunes whose familiarity alone might have drawn interest. That was not the test. These were masterpieces that have endured for centuries on their brilliance alone, soaring music befitting the grandeur of cathedrals and concert halls.

The acoustics proved surprisingly kind. Though the arcade is of utilitarian design, a buffer between the Metro escalator and the outdoors, it somehow caught the sound and bounced it back round and resonant. The violin is an instrument that is said to be much like the human voice, and in this musician’s masterly hands, it sobbed and laughed and sang — ecstatic, sorrowful, importuning, adoring, flirtatious, castigating, playful, romancing, merry, triumphal, sumptuous.

So, what do you think happened?

HANG ON, WE’LL GET YOU SOME EXPERT HELP.

Leonard Slatkin, music director of the National Symphony Orchestra, was asked the same question. What did he think would occur, hypothetically, if one of the world’s great violinists had performed incognito before a traveling rush-hour audience of 1,000-odd people?

“Let’s assume,” Slatkin said, “that he is not recognized and just taken for granted as a street musician . . . Still, I don’t think that if he’s really good, he’s going to go unnoticed. He’d get a larger audience in Europe . . . but, okay, out of 1,000 people, my guess is there might be 35 or 40 who will recognize the quality for what it is. Maybe 75 to 100 will stop and spend some time listening.”

So, a crowd would gather?

“Oh, yes.”

And how much will he make?

“About $150.”

Thanks, Maestro. As it happens, this is not hypothetical. It really happened.

“How’d I do?”

We’ll tell you in a minute.

“Well, who was the musician?”

Joshua Bell.

“NO!!!”

A onetime child prodigy, at 39 Joshua Bell has arrived as an internationally acclaimed virtuoso. Three days before he appeared at the Metro station, Bell had filled the house at Boston’s stately Symphony Hall, where merely pretty good seats went for $100. Two weeks later, at the Music Center at Strathmore, in North Bethesda, he would play to a standing-room-only audience so respectful of his artistry that they stifled their coughs until the silence between movements. But on that Friday in January, Joshua Bell was just another mendicant, competing for the attention of busy people on their way to work.

HE EMERGED FROM THE METRO AT THE L’ENFANT PLAZA STATION AND POSITIONED HIMSELF AGAINST A WALL BESIDE A TRASH BASKET. By most measures, he was nondescript: a youngish white man in jeans, a long-sleeved T-shirt and a Washington Nationals baseball cap. From a small case, he removed a violin. Placing the open case at his feet, he shrewdly threw in a few dollars and pocket change as seed money, swiveled it to face pedestrian traffic, and began to play.

It was 7:51 a.m. on Friday, January 12, the middle of the morning rush hour. In the next 43 minutes, as the violinist performed six classical pieces, 1,097 people passed by. Almost all of them were on the way to work, which meant, for almost all of them, a government job. L’Enfant Plaza is at the nucleus of federal Washington, and these were mostly mid-level bureaucrats with those indeterminate, oddly fungible titles: policy analyst, project manager, budget officer, specialist, facilitator, consultant.

Bell always performs on the same instrument, and he ruled out using another for this gig.  Called the Gibson ex Huberman, it was handcrafted in 1713 by Antonio Stradivari during the Italian master’s “golden period,” toward the end of his career, when he had access to the finest sprcue, maple and willow, and when his technique had been refined to perfection.

“Our knowledge of acoustics is still incomplete,” Bell said, “but he, he just . . . knew.”

Bell doesn’t mention Stradvari by name.  Just “he.”  When the violinist shows his Strad to people, he holds the instrument gingerly by its neck, resting it on a knee. “He made this to perfect thickness at all parts,” Bell says, pivoting it.  “If you shaved off a millimeter of wood at any point, it would totally imbalance the sound.”  No violins sound as wonderful as Strads from the 1710s, still.

The front of Bell’s violin is in nearly perfect condition, with a deep, rich grain and luster. The back is a mess, its dark reddish finish bleeding away into a flatter, lighter shade and finally, in one section, to bare wood.

“This has never been refinished,” Bell said. “That’s his original varnish. People attribute aspects of the sound to the varnish. Each maker had his own secret formula.” Stradivari is thought to have made his from an ingeniously balanced cocktail of honey, egg whites and gum arabic from sub-Saharan trees.

Bell bought it a few years ago.  He had to sell his own Strad and borrow much of the rest.  The price tag was reported to be about $3.5 million.

On Friday, January 12, the people waiting in the lottery line looking for a long shot would get a lucky break — a free, close-up ticket to a concert by one of the world’s most famous musicians — but only if they were of a mind to take note.

Bell decided to begin with “Chaconne” from Johann Sebastian Bach’s Partita No. 2 in D Minor. Bell calls it “not just one of the greatest pieces of music ever written, but one of the greatest achievements of any man in history. It’s a spiritually powerful piece, emotionally powerful, structurally perfect. Plus, it was written for a solo violin, so I won’t be cheating with some half-assed version.”

Bell didn’t say it, but Bach’s “Chaconne” is also considered one of the most difficult violin pieces to master. Many try; few succeed. It’s exhaustingly long — 14 minutes — and consists entirely of a single, succinct musical progression repeated in dozens of variations to create a dauntingly complex architecture of sound. Composed around 1720, on the eve of the European Enlightenment, it is said to be a celebration of the breadth of human possibility.

If Bell’s encomium to “Chaconne” seems overly effusive, consider this from the 19th-century composer Johannes Brahms, in a letter to Clara Schumann: “On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind.”

So, that’s the piece Bell started with.

He’d clearly meant it when he promised not to cheap out this performance: He played with acrobatic enthusiasm, his body leaning into the music and arching on tiptoes at the high notes. The sound was nearly symphonic, carrying to all parts of the homely arcade as the pedestrian traffic filed past.

Three minutes went by before something happened. Sixty-three people had already passed when, finally, there was a breakthrough of sorts. A middle-age man altered his gait for a split second, turning his head to notice that there seemed to be some guy playing music. Yes, the man kept walking, but it was something.

A half-minute later, Bell got his first donation. A woman threw in a buck and scooted off. It was not until six minutes into the performance that someone actually stood against a wall, and listened.

Things never got much better. In the three-quarters of an hour that Joshua Bell played, seven people stopped what they were doing to hang around and take in the performance, at least for a minute. Twenty-seven gave money, most of them on the run — for a total of $32 and change. That leaves the 1,070 people who hurried by, oblivious, many only three feet away, few even turning to look.

IF A GREAT MUSICIAN PLAYS GREAT MUSIC BUT NO ONE HEARS . . . WAS HE REALLY ANY GOOD?

It’s an old epistemological debate, older, actually, than the koan about the tree in the forest. Plato weighed in on it, and philosophers for two millennia afterward: What is beauty? Is it a measurable fact (Gottfried Leibniz), or merely an opinion (David Hume), or is it a little of each, colored by the immediate state of mind of the observer (Immanuel Kant)?

We’ll go with Kant, because he’s obviously right, and because he brings us pretty directly to Joshua Bell, sitting there in a hotel restaurant, picking at his breakfast, wryly trying to figure out what the hell had just happened back there at the Metro.

“At the beginning,” Bell says, “I was just concentrating on playing the music. I wasn’t really watching what was happening around me . . .”

Playing the violin looks all-consuming, mentally and physically, but Bell says that for him the mechanics of it are partly second nature, cemented by practice and muscle memory: It’s like a juggler, he says, who can keep those balls in play while interacting with a crowd. What he’s mostly thinking about as he plays, Bell says, is capturing emotion as a narrative: “When you play a violin piece, you are a storyteller, and you’re telling a story.”

With “Chaconne,” the opening is filled with a building sense of awe. That kept him busy for a while. Eventually, though, he began to steal a sidelong glance.

“It was a strange feeling, that people were actually, ah . . .”

The word doesn’t come easily.

“. . . ignoring me.”

Bell is laughing.  It’s at himself.

“At a music hall, I’ll get upset if someone coughs or if someone’s cellphone goes off. But here, my expectations quickly diminished. I started to appreciate any acknowledgment, even a slight glance up. I was oddly grateful when someone threw in a dollar instead of change.” This is from a man whose talents can command $1,000 a minute.

Before he began, Bell hadn’t known what to expect. What he does know is that, for some reason, he was nervous.

“It wasn’t exactly stage fright, but there were butterflies,” he says. “I was stressing a little.”

Bell has played, literally, before crowned heads of Europe. Why the anxiety at the Washington Metro?

“When you play for ticket-holders,” Bell explains, “you are already validated. I have no sense that I need to be accepted. I’m already accepted. Here, there was this thought: What if they don’t like me? What if they resent my presence . . .”

He was, in short, art without a frame. Which, it turns out, may have a lot to do with what happened — or, more precisely, what didn’t happen — on January 12.

THERE ARE SIX MOMENTS IN THE VIDEO THAT BELL FINDS PARTICULARLY PAINFUL TO RELIVE: “The awkward times,” he calls them. It’s what happens right after each piece ends: nothing. The music stops. The same people who hadn’t noticed him playing don’t notice that he has finished. No applause, no acknowledgment. So Bell just saws out a small, nervous chord — the embarrassed musician’s equivalent of, “Er, okay, moving right along . . .” — and begins the next piece.

After “Chaconne,” it is Franz Schubert’s “Ave Maria,” which surprised some music critics when it debuted in 1825: Schubert seldom showed religious feeling in his compositions, yet “Ave Maria” is a breathtaking work of adoration of the Virgin Mary. What was with the sudden piety? Schubert dryly answered: “I think this is due to the fact that I never forced devotion in myself and never compose hymns or prayers of that kind unless it overcomes me unawares; but then it is usually the right and true devotion.” This musical prayer became among the most familiar and enduring religious pieces in history.

The poet Billy Collins once laughingly observed that all babies are born with a knowledge of poetry, because the lub-dub of the mother’s heart is in iambic meter. Then, Collins said, life slowly starts to choke the poetry out of us. It may be true with music, too.

BELL ENDS “AVE MARIA” TO ANOTHER THUNDEROUS SILENCE, plays Manuel Ponce’s sentimental “Estrellita,” then a piece by Jules Massenet, and then begins a Bach gavotte, a joyful, frolicsome, lyrical dance. It’s got an Old World delicacy to it; you can imagine it entertaining bewigged dancers at a Versailles ball, or — in a lute, fiddle and fife version — the boot-kicking peasants of a Pieter Bruegel painting.

Watching the video weeks later, Bell finds himself mystified by one thing only. He understands why he’s not drawing a crowd, in the rush of a morning workday. But: “I’m surprised at the number of people who don’t pay attention at all, as if I’m invisible. Because, you know what? I’m makin’ a lot of noise!”

He is. You don’t need to know music at all to appreciate the simple fact that there’s a guy there, playing a violin that’s throwing out a whole bucket of sound; at times, Bell’s bowing is so intricate that you seem to be hearing two instruments playing in harmony. So those head-forward, quick-stepping passersby are a remarkable phenomenon.

Bell wonders whether their inattention may be deliberate: If you don’t take visible note of the musician, you don’t have to feel guilty about not forking over money; you’re not complicit in a rip-off.

What is this life if, full of care,

We have no time to stand and stare.

— from “Leisure,” by W.H. Davies

Let’s say Kant is right. Let’s accept that we can’t look at what happened on January 12 and make any judgment whatever about people’s sophistication or their ability to appreciate beauty. But what about their ability to appreciate life?

We’re busy. Americans have been busy, as a people, since at least 1831, when a young French sociologist named Alexis de Tocqueville visited the States and found himself impressed, bemused and slightly dismayed at the degree to which people were driven, to the exclusion of everything else, by hard work and the accumulation of wealth.

In his 2003 book, Timeless Beauty: In the Arts and Everyday Life, British author John Lane writes about the loss of the appreciation for beauty in the modern world. The experiment at L’Enfant Plaza may be symptomatic of that, he said — not because people didn’t have the capacity to understand beauty, but because it was irrelevant to them.

“This is about having the wrong priorities,” Lane said.

If we can’t take the time out of our lives to stay a moment and listen to one of the best musicians on Earth play some of the best music ever written; if the surge of modern life so overpowers us that we are deaf and blind to something like that — then what else are we missing?

That’s what the Welsh poet W.H. Davies meant in 1911 when he published those two lines that begin this section. They made him famous. The thought was simple, even primitive, but somehow no one had put it quite that way before.

Of course, Davies had an advantage — an advantage of perception. He wasn’t a tradesman or a laborer or a bureaucrat or a consultant or a policy analyst or a labor lawyer or a program manager. He was a hobo.

Bell headed off on a concert tour of European capitals. But he is back in the States this week. He has to be. On Tuesday, he will be accepting the Avery Fisher prize, recognizing the Flop of L’Enfant Plaza as the best classical musician in America.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw&w=425&h=344]

Posted in Faith | Comments Off on Un-Validated Genius – The Quest for Beauty in a Busy World

The Front Fell Off – Confronting the Facts

Posted by Orrin Woodward on February 3, 2009

The Team teaches leaders to rotate a process known as PDCA – Plan, Do, Check, and Adjust.  Nearly every activity in life can be broken down into this patter to improve.  When you make a plan, do the work, and check the results – the next step is to adjust your plan to improve the results the next time.  Some people will follow this process through the first three steps, but at the last step, will not adjust.  They stick to their plan and blame others for not getting the desired results.  This is the PDCB – Plan, Do, Check, and Blame process and is highly detrimental to results!  Leaders can spend years blaming others, but at the end of the day must adjust their plan to produce the desired results.  Blaming or excuse making is the quickest way to lose influence and fail to accomplish your goals.  Do not fall into this trap!  Here is a funny video that displays someone discombulating on the facts and shifting the responsibility ot anyone but himself.  This is a skit and not a true story, but the principles are very funny and very true!  Enjoy the video.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQCwnoMMqtA&w=425&h=344]

Posted in All News | 1 Comment »

Jason McElwain – Autism, Underdogs and Dreams

Posted by Orrin Woodward on February 2, 2009

Here is another tear jerking story of a young man name Jason McElwain.  It is a true story of persistence and dream fulfillment.  I loved this video and love what it represents.  The human spirit to overcome in the face of adversity inspires others to overcome!  Enjoy the video and please share your thought on this video.  The announcer said, “What we all want is a shot.”  This is what we offer to people as we build our MonaVie Team businesses.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngzyhnkT_jY&w=425&h=344]

Posted in All News | Comments Off on Jason McElwain – Autism, Underdogs and Dreams

Frederic Bastiat & The Fallacy of the Broken Window

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 28, 2009

Frederic Bastiat pictureThe following article is a condensed version of Frederic Bastiat – “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.”  I found this condensed version of the classic text from the French economist while searching online.  I wish every highschool level student would read classic economic literature to get the other side of the story.  The principles in Bastiat’s work are timeless and as important today as the day they were written a century plus ago.  In fact, maybe more important today as government and the media feed us words that tickle our ears on bailouts (handouts to the few at the expense of the many) and government intervention.  Only an educated & courageous electorate can stem the tide towards socialism.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

 

Bastiat was an economist who was also a member of the French parliament in the middle of the nineteenth century. Interestingly, the issues he raises are as valid today as they were over 150 years ago. In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them. There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen. Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

 

[This pamphlet, published in July, 1850, is the last that Bastiat wrote. It had been promised to the public for more than a year. Its publication had been delayed because the author had lost the manuscript when he moved his household from the rue de Choiseulto the rue d’Algen. After a long and fruitless search, he decided to rewrite his work entirely, and chose as the principal basis of his demonstrations some speeches recently delivered in the National Assembly. When this task was finished, he reproached himself with having been too serious, threw the second manuscript into the fire, and wrote the one which we reprint]

 

The Broken Window

 

Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow, when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: “It’s an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?” Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions. Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs’ worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry,

 

I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen. But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen. It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them. Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs’ worth of encouragement; that is what is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs’ worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen. And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.

 

Now let us consider James Goodfellow. On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window. On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window. Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window. From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: “Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed,”… “To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment,” or more briefly: “Destruction is not profitable.” The reader must apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction.

 

Theaters and Fine Arts – Should the state subsidize the arts?

There is certainly a great deal to say on this subject pro and con. In favor of the system of subsidies, one can say that the arts broaden, elevate, and poetize the soul of a nation; that they draw it away from material preoccupations, giving it a feeling for the beautiful, and thus react favorably on its manners, its customs, its morals, and even on its industry. One can ask where music would be in France without the Théâtre-Italien and the Conservatory; dramatic art without the Théâtre-Français; painting and sculpture without our collections and our museums. One can go further and ask whether, without the centralization and consequently the subsidizing of the fine arts, there would have developed that exquisite taste which is the noble endowment of French labor and sends its products out over the whole world. In the presence of such results would it not be the height of imprudence to renounce this moderate assessment on all the citizens, which, in the last analysis, is what has achieved for them their pre-eminence and their glory in the eyes of Europe? To these reasons and many others, whose power I do not contest, one can oppose many no less cogent.

 

There is, first of all, one could say, a question of distributive justice. Do the rights of the legislator go so far as to allow him to dip into the wages of the artisan in order to supplement the profits of the artist? M. de Lamartine said: “If you take away the subsidy of a theater, where are you going to stop on this path, and will you not be logically required to do away with your university faculties, your museums, your institutes, your libraries?” One could reply: If you wish to subsidize all that is good and useful, where are you going to stop on that path, and will you not logically be required to set up a civil list for agriculture, industry, commerce, welfare, and education? Furthermore, is it certain that subsidies favor the progress of the arts? It is a question that is far from being resolved, and we see with our own eyes that the theaters that prosper are those that live on their own profits. Finally, proceeding to higher considerations, one may observe that needs and desires give rise to one another and keep soaring into regions more and more rarefied in proportion as the national wealth permits their satisfaction; that the government must not meddle in this process, since, whatever may be currently the amount of the national wealth, it cannot stimulate luxury industries by taxation without harming essential industries, thus reversing the natural advance of civilization.

 

[Alphonse Marie Louis de Lamartine (1790-1869), one of the great poets of French romanticism and subsequently a distinguished statesman. First elected Deputy in 1834, he attained his greatest glory at the time of the Revolution of 1848, when he was a prime mover in the establishment of the Republic. By his eloquence he calmed the Paris mobs that threatened to destroy it and became the head of the provisional government. More an idealist and orator than a practical politician, however, he soon lost influence and retired to private life in 1851.—Translator.]

 

One may also point out that this artificial dislocation of wants, tastes, labor, and population places nations in a precarious and dangerous situation, leaving them without a solid base. These are some of the reasons alleged by the adversaries of state intervention concerning the order in which citizens believe they should satisfy their needs and their desires, and thus direct their activity. I confess that I am one of those who think that the choice, the impulse, should come from below, not from above, from the citizens, not from the legislator; and the contrary doctrine seems to me to lead to the annihilation of liberty and of human dignity. But, by an inference as false as it is unjust, do you know what the economists are now accused of? When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless.

 

I protest with all my power against these inferences. Far from entertaining the absurd thought of abolishing religion, education, property, labor, and the arts when we ask the state to protect the free development of all these types of human activity without keeping them on the payroll at one another’s expense, we believe, on the contrary, that all these vital forces of society should develop harmoniously under the influence of liberty and that none of them should become, as we see has happened today, a source of trouble, abuses, tyranny, and disorder. Our adversaries believe that an activity that is neither subsidized nor regulated is abolished. We believe the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind. Ours is in mankind, not in the legislator. Thus, M. de Lamartine said: “On the basis of this principle, we should have to abolish the public expositions that bring wealth and honor to this country.” I reply to M. de Lamartine: From your point of view, not to subsidize is to abolish, because, proceeding from the premise that nothing exists except by the will of the state, you conclude that nothing lives that taxes do not keep alive. But I turn against you the example that you have chosen, and I point out to you that the greatest, the noblest, of all expositions, the one based on the most liberal, the most universal conception, and I can even use the word “humanitarian,” which is not here exaggerated, is the exposition now being prepared in London, the only one in which no government meddles and which no tax supports.

 

Returning to the fine arts, one can, I repeat, allege weighty reasons for and against the system of subsidization. The reader understands that, in accordance with the special purpose of this essay, I have no need either to set forth these reasons or to decide between them. But M. de Lamartine has advanced one argument that I cannot pass over in silence, for it falls within the very carefully defined limits of this economic study. He has said: The economic question in the matter of theaters can be summed up in one word: employment. The nature of the employment matters little; it is of a kind just as productive and fertile as any other kind. The theaters, as you know, support by wages no less than eighty thousand workers of all kinds—painters, masons, decorators, costumers, architects, etc., who are the very life and industry of many quarters of this capital, and they should have this claim upon your sympathies! Your sympathies? Translate: your subsidies. And further on: The pleasures of Paris provide employment and consumers’ goods for the provincial departments, and the luxuries of the rich are the wages and the bread of two hundred thousand workers of all kinds, living on the complex industry of the theaters throughout the Republic, and receiving from these noble pleasures, which make France illustrious, their own livelihood and the means of providing the necessities of life for their families and their children. It is to them that you give these sixty thousand francs. [Very good! Very good! Much applause.]

 

For my part, I am forced to say: Very bad! Very bad! Confining, of course, the burden of this judgment to the economic argument which we are here concerned with. Yes, it is, at least in part, to the workers in the theaters that the sixty thousand francs in question will go. A few scraps might well get lost on the way. If one scrutinized the matter closely, one might even discover that most of the pie will find its way elsewhere. The workers will be fortunate if there are a few crumbs left for them! But I should like to assume that the entire subsidy will go to the painters, decorators, costumers, hairdressers, etc. That is what is seen. But where does it come from? This is the other side of the coin, just as important to examine as its face. What is the source of these 60,000 francs? And where would they have gone if a legislative vote had not first directed them to the rue de Rivoli and from there to the rue de Grenelle?

 

[This refers to the Great Exhibition, in Hyde Park, London, in 1851, sponsored by the London Society of Arts, an association devoted to the development of arts and industries. The first in a series of great international exhibitions, or “world fairs,” it was famous for the Crystal Palace, a remarkable architectural structure, in which the exhibitions were displayed. Albert, Queen Victoria’s Prince Consort, presided over the exhibition.]

 

That is what is not seen. Surely, no one will dare maintain that the legislative vote has caused this sum to hatch out from the ballot box; that it is a pure addition to the national wealth; that, without this miraculous vote, these sixty thousand francs would have remained invisible and impalpable. It must be admitted that all that the majority can do is to decide that they will be taken from somewhere to be sent somewhere else, and that they will have one destination only by being deflected from another. This being the case, it is clear that the taxpayer who will have been taxed one franc will no longer have this franc at his disposal. It is clear that he will be deprived of a satisfaction to the tune of one franc, and that the worker, whoever he is, who would have procured this satisfaction for him, will be deprived of wages in the same amount. Let us not, then, yield to the childish illusion of believing that the vote of May 16 adds anything whatever to national well-being and employment. It reallocates possessions, it reallocates wages, and that is all. Will it be said that for one kind of satisfaction and for one kind of job it substitutes satisfactions and jobs more urgent, more moral, more rational? I could do battle on this ground. I could say: In taking sixty thousand francs from the taxpayers, you reduce the wages of plowmen, ditchdiggers, carpenters, and blacksmiths, and you increase by the same amount the wages of singers, hairdressers, decorators, and costumers. Nothing proves that this latter class is more important than the other.

 

M. de Lamartine does not make this allegation. He says himself that the work of the theaters is just as productive as, just as fruitful as, and not more so than, any other work, which might still be contested; for the best proof that theatrical work is not as productive as other work is that the latter is called upon to subsidize the former. But this comparison of the intrinsic value and merit of the different kinds of work forms no part of my present subject. All that I have to do here is to show that, if M. de Lamartine and those who have applauded his argument have seen on the one hand the wages earned by those who supply the needs of the actors, they should see on the other the earnings lost by those who supply the needs of the taxpayers; if they do not, they are open to ridicule for mistaking a reallocation for a gain. If they were logical in their doctrine, they would ask for infinite subsidies; for what is true of one franc and of sixty thousand francs is true, in identical circumstances, of a billion francs. When it is a question of taxes, gentlemen, prove their usefulness by reasons with some foundation, but not with that lamentable assertion: “Public spending keeps the working class alive.” It makes the mistake of covering up a fact that it is essential to know: namely, that public spending is always a substitute for private spending, and that consequently it may well support one worker in place of another but adds nothing to the lot of the working class taken as a whole…

 

Questions for thought 1. The proponents of government spending on sports stadiums often argue that this spending expands employment. Evaluate this view. 2. The U.S. federal government spends billions of dollars subsidizing agriculture. Do these subsidies increase employment and output? Explain.

Citation: Bastiat, Frederic, Selected Essays on Political Economy. The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. 1995. Trans. Seymour Cain. Ed. George B. de Huszar. Library of Economics and Liberty. 30 September 2006.

Posted in Finances | Comments Off on Frederic Bastiat & The Fallacy of the Broken Window

The Little Red Hen – Free Enterprise vs. Socialism

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 27, 2009

Hen pictureI kept this fable in my planner for years to remind me that I was looking for ambitious red hens in building our Team community.  This fable has plenty of lessons for the entrepreneur and anyone willing to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Once upon a time, on a farm in Kansas

. . . there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, “If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?”

“Not I,” said the cow.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Not I,” said the pig.
“Not I,” said the goose.

“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen. And so she did; The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. “Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the duck.

“Out of my classification,” said the pig.
“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.
“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.

“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen, and so she did. At last it came time to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake the bread?” asked the little red hen.

“That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.
“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.
“I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.
“If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They
wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, “No,
I shall eat all five loaves.”

“Excess profits!” cried the cow.
“Capitalist leech!” screamed the duck.
“I demand equal rights!” yelled the goose.
The pig just grunted in disdain.

And they all painted “Unfair!” picket signs and marched around and around
the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”

“But I earned the bread,” said the little red hen.

“Exactly,” said the agent. “That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.”

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, “I am grateful, for now I truly understand.” But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her, for she never again baked any more bread.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty | 2 Comments »

The Leadership Challenge – Kouzes and Posner

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 26, 2009

The Leadership Challenge is a must read in the leadership field.  Both Chris Brady and I had read the book before writing our NYT and WSJ best seller Launching a Leadership Revolution.  I highly recommend Kouzes and Posner’s book to any aspiring leader on their journey up life’s mountain.  I will share their five points for transformational leadership from the book.  Study these and see if you are exhibiting the five points for transforming your team’s results.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

 

Transformational Leaders – Five Principles

 

1. Change the Process – Leaders drive change by working on the process.  If the process is not changing and improving, then the leaders are not leading.

 

2. Inspire a Shared Vision – You as a leader have to provide direction and inspire them to reach it.  Everyone should know and be inspired to hit 1 million people.

 

3. Enabling Others to Act – Provide the team methods that allow people to move forward.  Help remove obstacles that hinder people from accomplishing the team’s goals.  The Team PC is constantly asking what can we do to help people grow faster.

 

4. Encourage the Heart – Reach out and touch people’s hearts the same way we would use logic to help them make decisions.  The Smile/Validate video is a perfect example of encouraging the heart.

 

5. Model the Way – Lead by Example.  The Team PC is in the hunt with the rest of the Team leaders to reach our goals and dreams together!

Posted in All News | Comments Off on The Leadership Challenge – Kouzes and Posner

Stuart, Florida – SailFishing

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 23, 2009

Florida Sail Fish picture

Stuart, Florida is the sailfish capital of the world.  Captain Bill and I are headed out this morning on our quest to catch the monster sailfish.  We have fished several times for sailfish, but have been unsuccessful so far.  We applied the Plan-Do-Check and Adjust to our methods and are back at it today.  I will let you know how it goes.  We have the dream to catch the big one and must persist until the dream is accomplished.  That is what life is about – get a big dream, PDCA, surround yourself with other dreamers, celebrate one another’s success.  Life is too short to be a victim, complain about your circumstances, or focus on past failures.  Today is a new day and your sailfish (dream) is waiting for you to sieze the moment!  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Sailfish Relaese picture

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Fun | Comments Off on Stuart, Florida – SailFishing

Will Smith – Decisions Lead to Destiny

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 22, 2009

Update:  Here is a longer video thanks to reader Matt Foote.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M88uMRwsj0U&w=425&h=344]

I watched a fascinating interview of Will Smith this morning.  Will Smith has skyrocketed from an unknown dreamer to one of the top superstars in the movie industry.  His meteoric rise was by design, not accident.   Watch the following interview from the Tavis Smiley show.  You can feel the enthusiasm and belief flowing out of Will.  Do you have this type of enthusiasm and belief in your life?  I believe that Will Smith is successful at any endeavor that he focuses on because he has a hungry learning spirit.  It is obvious that Will reads voraciously and dreams big dreams.  Listen to some of the quotes from this interview.

I don’t want to be an icon.

I want to be an idea. I want to represent possibilities.

Your in a universe that says 2 + 2 = 4.  2 + 2 is going to be what I want it to be. 

The power of making a choice in your life.

Just decide!  The universe will get out of your way.

I want to represent the idea that you really can make what you want.

I can create whatever I want to create, if I can put my head on it right,study, and learn the patterns.

We are who we choose to be.

Update:

I consider myself an Alchemist. An Alchemist took lead and made gold.

My grandmother taught me that if life gives you lemon then you have to make lemonade.

The only thing that I see distinctly different about me is that I will not be outworked period.

You might have more talent than me, might be smarter than me, might be sexier than me, all of those things you have on me in nine categories, but if we get on a treadmill – you are getting off first or I will die!

I am going to get back in or I will be dead.  You will not outwork me.  The guy who is willing to hustle the most will get the most loose balls.

Achievement is based on hustle, outworking and staying ready so you don’t have to get ready!

As I read these quotes and watched the interview numerous times, I realized that Will Smith believes – “When the dream is big enough, the facts don’t count.”  Here is what this quote means to me – that anything you are lacking in life, you can develop.

Not good with people? – Change that fact!

Don’t have any money? – Study, Learn, Grow, Save! – Change that fact!

Didn’t grow up on the right side of the tracks? – Move to the right side of the tracks. – Change that fact!

Knocked down and criticized? – Get back up and win! – Change that fact!

Any reason that you can state as to why you cannot win, is actually just a fact that you must change on your journey to success.  You can make a million excuses or you can make a million differences, but you cannot make both! God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Posted in All News | Comments Off on Will Smith – Decisions Lead to Destiny