Problem of Historical Backwardness

A backward country assimilates the material and intellectual conquests of the advanced countries. But this does not mean that it follows them slavishly, reproduces all the stages of their past. The theory of the repetition of historic cycles – Vico and his more recent followers – rests upon an observation of the orbits of old pre-capitalist cultures, and in part upon the first experiments of capitalist development. A certain repetition of cultural stages in ever new settlements was in fact bound up with the provincial and episodic character of that whole process. Capitalism means, however, an overcoming of those conditions. It prepares and in a certain sense realises the universality and permanence of man’s development. By this a repetition of the forms of development by different nations is ruled out. Although compelled to follow after the advanced countries, a backward country does not take things in the same order. The privilege of historic backwardness – and such a privilege exists – permits, or rather compels, the adoption of whatever is ready in advance of any specified date, skipping a whole series of intermediate stages. Savages throw away their bows and arrows for rifles all at once, without travelling the road which lay between those two weapons in the past. The European colonists in America did not begin history all over again from the beginning. The fact that Germany and the United States have now economically outstripped England was made possible by the very backwardness of their capitalist development. On the other hand, the conservative anarchy in the British coal industry – as also in the heads of MacDonald and his friends - is a paying-up for the past when England played too long the role of capitalist pathfinder.
The development of historically backward nations leads necessarily to a peculiar combination of different stages in the historic process. Their development as a whole acquires a planless, complex, combined character.

The possibility of skipping over intermediate steps is of course by no means absolute. Its degree is determined in the long run by the economic and cultural capacities of the country. The backward nation, moreover, not infrequently debases the achievements borrowed from outside in the process of adapting them to its own more primitive culture. In this the very process of assimilation acquires a self-contradictory character. Thus the introduction of certain elements of Western technique and training, above all military and industrial, under Peter I, led to a strengthening of serfdom as the fundamental form of labour organisation. European armament and European loans – both indubitable products of a higher culture - led to a strengthening of tzarism, which delayed in its turn the development of the country.

The laws of history have nothing in common with a pedantic schematism. Unevenness, the most general law of the historic process, reveals itself most sharply and complexly in the destiny of the backward countries. Under the whip of external necessity their backward culture is compelled to make leaps. From the universal law of unevenness thus derives another law which, for the lack of a better name, we may call the law of combined development – by which we mean a drawing together of the different stages of the journey, a combining of the separate steps, an amalgam of archaic with more contemporary forms. Without this law, to be taken of course, in its whole material content, it is impossible to understand the history of Russia, and indeed of any country of the second, third or tenth cultural class. (Leon Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution, Vol. 1, pp. 2-3).

Not This Ignacio

Some of my fans (I didn't know I had any) asked me about this case. No, I am not the Ignacio here... though you got to give him credit. He certainly has audacity...

Ignacio v. Judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 03-17181 (9th Cir. July 12, 2006)

Pro se appellant, Tevis R. Ignacio, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging that all the judges from the Ninth Circuit, other federal and state judges, public officials, and certain private individuals, conspired to dismiss
Ignacio’s previous lawsuits. We affirm the district court and hold, under the “rule of necessity,” that we are not disqualified from deciding Ignacio’s appeal. [That's a big surprise]

I

On May 17, 1999, a California superior court judge suspended Ignacio’s access to his minor son and divided up marital assets between Ignacio and his ex-wife. The superior court based the decision to deny Ignacio access to his son on a finding
that Ignacio was bipolar with paranoid-psychophrenic tendencies and that he refused to take medication. In addition, the court designated Ignacio as a “vexatious litigant” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 391, et seq.,
for repeatedly filing frivolous papers with the court. Ignacio’s designation as a vexatious litigant placed restrictions on his ability to file claims and appeals in California state court.

In what appears to be an attempt to avoid his vexatious litigant designation in state court, Ignacio filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Ignacio sued the superior court judge who presided over his
domestic case, his ex-wife, opposing counsel, and other judges and justices of the California trial and appellate courts, along with various other state and county officials. In that suit he attacked the determinations of the superior court and
asserted that the California “vexatious litigant” law was unconstitutional. In 2002, after the case was transferred to the Northern District Court’s Oakland Division, the complaint was dismissed without leave to amend by Judge Saundra IGNACIO v. ARMSTRONG 7693 Brown Armstrong. Judge Armstrong held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Ignacio’s claims attacking the state court decision and that any of his remaining claims were baseless. On November 21, 2002, we affirmed on the same grounds.

At some point, Ignacio moved to Reno, Nevada. On May 22, 2003, Ignacio attempted to remove his already decided divorce action to federal court in the District of Nevada. On June 12, 2003, the district court dismissed sua sponte the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ignacio appealed that ruling and we upheld the district court’s determination.

On October 29, 2003, Ignacio filed the present action also in the District of Nevada. Ignacio’s complaint names as defendants, first, “Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in their capacity as judges.” By that Ignacio apparently means all Ninth Circuit judges. His complaint names specifically a number of individual judges, including Chief Judge Schroeder who is a member of this panel, both personally and in their capacity as judges. He alleges that the judges of the Ninth Circuit, other judges including federal district court and California state court judges, the former California governor, United States senators
and other government officials, as well as private individuals involved in his California domestic dispute, conspired to have his previous cases dismissed. Ignacio specifically asserts that the Ninth Circuit judges “are culpable for their conscious parallelism of their legal duties by their wanton negligence and ultrahazardous activities of dissmissing [sic] a/or complaint(s) in a criminal conspiracy.”

On November 12, 2003 the district court dismissed the case and entered judgment. On November 17, 2003, Ignacio timely appealed.

....

Accordingly, because the complaint is nothing more than another attack on the California superior court’s determination in Ignacio’s domestic case and the related determinations made by the federal courts that they lack subject matter jurisdiction, the district court properly dismissed the case.

IV

The district court’s dismissal of Ignacio’s lawsuit is affirmed. We conclude that under the rule of necessity we may entertain Ignacio’s appeal. We conclude also that the district court determined properly that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to consider the action because Ignacio’s claims amounted to collateral attacks on a state court determination.

AFFIRMED.

For the the full decision, see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0317181p.pdf

**********

It wasn't me, Sarge... It was the one-armed man

Ignacio Sanchez

The end of law: peace, order and the common good

1. Jay in Federalist No. 2

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government… the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers.

2. “Law is said to bind those subject to it, and whoever is bound find his freedom curtailed to some extent.”

3. “The purpose of law [is]… to protect and promote true liberty. Law tends to make men good, directing them to their last end pointing out to them the means necessary to this end.”

4. Plato.

Mankind must have laws, and conform to them, or their life would be as bad as that of the most savage beast. Plato, Laws IX, p. 754 The reason for this “No man’s nature is best for human society; or knowing, always able and willing to do what is best.”

5. “True are or politics is concerned, not with private but with public good (for public good binds together states, but private only distracts them); and that both the public and private good as well as of states is greater when the state and not the individual is first considered.”

6. Although a person knows in the abstract that this is true yet if he be possessed of absolute and irresponsible power, he will never remain firm in his principles or persist in regarding the public good as primary in the state, and the private good as secondary. Human nature will always be drawing him into avarice and selfishness, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure without any reason, and will bring these to the front, obscuring the juster and better… For if a man were born so divinely gifted that he could naturally apprehend the truth, he would have no needs of laws to rule over him ; for there is no law or order which is above knowledge, nor can mind without impiety, be deemed the subject or slave of any man, but rather the lord of all. I speak of mind, true and free, and in harmony with nature. But then there is no such mind anywhere, or at least not much; and therefore we must choose law and order, which are second best.

7. Aristotle

“Now if arguments were in themselves enough to make men good, they would justly… have won very great rewards… [but] they are not able to encourage the many to nobility and goodness. For these do not by nature obey the sense of shame, but only fear, and do not abstain from bad acts because of their baseness but through fear of punishment; living by passion they pursue their own pleasures and the means to them, and avoid the opposite pains, and have not even a conception of what is noble and truly pleasant since they have never tasted it.”

8. For he who lives as passion directs will not hear arguments that dissuades him, nor understand it if he does; and how can we persuade one in such a state to change his ways? And in genera passion seems to yield not to argument but to force. The character, then, must somehow already be there already with a kinship to virtue, loving what is noble and hating what is base.

But it is difficult to get from youth up a right training for virtue if one has not been brought up under right laws; for to live temperately and hardily is not pleasant for most people, especially when they are young. For this reason their nurture and occupations should be fixed by law; for they will not be painful when they have become customary.

9. [E]ven when they are grown up, practice and be habituated to them, we shall need laws for this as well, and generally speaking to cover the whole of life; for most people obey necessity rather than argument, and punishments rather than the sense of what is noble.

10. [I]f…the man who is to be good must be well trained and habituated, and go on to spend his time in worthy occupations and neither willingly nor unwillingly do bad actions, and if this can be brought about if men live in accordance with a sort of reason and right order, provided this has force—if this be so, the paternal command indeed has not the required force or compulsive power (nor in general has the command of one man, unless he be a king or something similar); but the law has compulsive power, while it is at the same time a rule proceeding from a sort of practical wisdom and reason. And while people hate men who oppose their impulses, even if they oppose them rightly, the law in its ordaining of what is good is not burdensome.

11. [W]hat should be the conditions of the ideal or perfect state; for the perfect state cannot exist without a due supply of the means of life… There will always be a certain number of citizens, a country in which to place them, and the like.

12. [A state even if great by numbers] [W]e ought not to include everybody, for there must always be in cities a multitude of slaves and sojourners and foreigners; but we should include those only who are members of the state, and who form and essential part of it.

13. [Aristotle then argues that size makes a country more difficult to govern as laws cannot be efficiently and effectively implemented even-handedly.] Moreover, experience shows that a very populous country can rarely, if ever, be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation for good government have a limit of population… For law is order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be orderly: to introduce order into the unlimited is the work of a divine power—of such power as holds together the universe. Beauty is realized in number and magnitude, and the state which combines magnitude with good ordr must necessarily be the most beautiful.

14. Aquinas

Article I. Whether law is something pertaining to reason? Law is a rule and measure of acts, by which man in induced to act or is restrained from acting [law is derived from ligare (to bind), because it obliges one to act.]

15. Article 2. Whether the law is always directed to the common good? It would seem that the law is not always directed to the common good as to its end.

a. Objection 1. For it belongs to law to command and forbid.

b. Aquinas Answers: Now the first principle in practical matters, which are the object of practical reason, is the last end; and the last end of human life is happiness of beatitude… Consequently, the law must regard principally the relationship to happiness.

The Best 

Leadership Model for a New Millenium--Final Part

4. Judgment encompasses all of the four virtues. This encompasses courage; this is a critical distinction because a leader must point the way for others, as to where to go.

Judgment takes time to develop. Jesus began his ministry when he was about thirty years old. This is significant because leaders need time to grow. A leader should mentor his followers to help them develop their judgment. The best example of the judgment of Jesus is when he was asked whether the people should pay taxes to the Romans. If he had answered no, the Romans would have arrested him for preaching rebellion against Caesar. If he had answered yes, then he would have been held to be a traitor to his own people. Yet Jesus answered by saying, whose face is on the coin? When they said that it was Caesar’s then he said give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s.

A leader must be capable of determining what is necessary and what resources must be applied to particular problems. For example, there is nothing worse than wasting people’s time by having them do things that are unnecessary or unimportant. Keep them busy for the sake of being busy. That is poor judgment.

I have met individuals who are empire builders: they want a large staff on hand to essentially reflect the fact that they merit a large staff. That most of those people are doing nothing is not important to the empire builder. To me it is a waste of time and money to say nothing of the feeling of worthlessness that the people who are not gainfully employed experience.

5. Vision and confidence, which encompasses prudence, courage and temperance. Jesus shows us that you should not be afraid of what you are, but at the same time you should not be so confident as to forget who you in fact are. Since he considered himself the Son of God, his confidence must have been certain, yet he never forgot that He was a man also; and dealing with men. For example, Saint Luke relates how Jesus and the Apostles were in a boat when a great squall arose. Jesus was sleeping while the Apostles became very afraid. They woke him and asked him to save them. Jesus calmed the storm and reproached them for their lack of faith. The lesson for leadership is that leaders must calm the various “storms” that arise in the course of their business. Leaders must be the calming influence and not add to the severity of the storm by not acting calm or by losing their nerve. If a person cannot act or deal with the various storms that periodically arise, whatever other good qualities that person may have, being an effective leader is not one of them.

A leader should also have a plan to teach, so that his followers will be able to teach others. This flows from practical considerations, which may best be considered by asking a simple question: why was Jesus a teacher and not an emperor like Alexander of Macedonia? The best answer to this question lies in the results of their lives. Alexander who was once the ruler of all the know world is now largely forgotten if known by most people. His empire lasted a mere 300 years or so. On the other hand, “Jesus of Nazareth is an immensely forceful and influential personality in the historic life of mankind and especially in that of Western man. He is the reason why members of Western civilization are so conscious of the Judeo-Christian heritage.” That is a powerful legacy!

6. Perseverance, which encompasses courage and prudence. Jesus shows us that because we don’t do things right at some point, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to strive to do them right. After all because we have not done something that we ought to do, it does not mean that it shouldn’t be done.
The greatest example of perseverance in Jesus’ life is his knowledge that he will suffer greatly, be rejected by the elders and the priests, and ultimately die because of his ministry yet he willingly continues the ministry. Having said this, yet it is acceptable or normal for leaders to at times despair or lose faith; Jesus was no exception. For example, according to Saint Matthew, while Jesus is on the cross he calls out to God “My God, My God. Why have you forsaken me?” Yet Saint Luke says that at the point of death Jesus said “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” These are important lessons because they teach that a leader may despair at times yet must always keep focused on the end goal, whether it is saving the world or manufacturing a new product.

Thus leaders may despair at times but the point is that they cannot allow their despair to overwhelm them and keep them from losing focus on their goals. This is where perseverance in the face of adversity is a key characteristic of leadership.

7. Respect for all and caring for your people. This characteristic encompasses the virtues of prudence, courage and justice. Jesus example shows that you should not overlook anyone and that a leader respects everyone and teaches everyone in his organization to respect each other as well. After all your best people may be the ones who you are least likely to imagine them being so. He picked fishermen, tax collectors and prostitutes to be his apostles and disciples. Also, do not exclude anyone because of preconceptions or titles. His rebuke of the Pharisees and priests reflect the modern notion that a leader should not rely solely on so-called experts and specialists. Jesus reached beyond the Hebrews and touched all gentiles as well. A leader should likewise, never exclude anyone on the basis of some preconception or bias. A leader finds opportunities in adversity—the leader must do with whatever resources he has at his disposal. The example is the feeding of the 4,000 and the 5,000. Jesus turned adversity into an advantage, thus did a lot, i.e., fed the multitudes with what little he had available.

A leader takes care of his followers. Mother Teresa noted that it is very compelling that before Jesus taught the masses during the sermon of the mount he fed them first. I remember a certain colonel who was the Operations Group Commander for a Strategic Air Command Bomb Wing to which I was assigned as a young officer. This colonel was very concerned about an upcoming operational readiness inspection. He decided to have a preparatory Operations Group Commanders’ Call for all his personnel on the group staff. The Commanders’ Call was scheduled for 1530 hours (3:30 PM). He later changed it to 1630 hours (4:30 PM) because of his schedule needs. The briefing began and droned on and on. At 1740 hours (5:40 PM) and with no end in sight, I was aware that the military mess hall—dining facility—closed at 1800 hours (6:00 PM) and that a number of our young single airmen would not eat if they were not dismissed in sufficient time to get there. Since nothing was being said about dinner, I raised my hand and pointed this out to the colonel. Personally, I was not worried about my dinner as my wife was used to me not coming home at time we both thought I would be. Regardless, the colonel became very flustered and yelled at me that this briefing was important. I pointed out to him that the airmen’s’ dinner was also important and sat down; the colonel ignored me. The meeting droned on for another 10 minutes or so until 1750 (5:50 PM), when the visibly angry colonel excused all of those who had to dine at the mess hall. The rest of us sat there until 1815 (6:15 PM) or so, at which point he abruptly terminated the Commanders’ Call. Needless to say, that was the first and the last of the Operations Group Commanders’ Call. Take care of your people for real and not through lip service.

Taking care of your followers does not refer only to material needs but intellectual and social needs as well. There is nothing more exhilarating than a leader who challenges you to reach to the highest and most distant stars. As Robert M. Hutchins observed, “The greatest human fun is that of discovery.” Don’t challenge your people in a formalistic sense but in a real sense. Jesus constantly asked questions thus challenging people to seek answers and thereby furthering his ministry.

8. Communications encompass all four of the virtues. Jesus teaches that leaders should communicate with their followers in language that they can readily understand and are able to communicate the message that the leader wishes them to communicate. I am reminded of the exercise in freshman psychology class where the professor will tell one student a short story. In turn this individual tells another student the story that changes a little bit with each telling. By the time five or so students have gone through this little exercise, the final story bears hardly any resemblance to the original story. If you don’t want your message to become skewed, tell it in simple straightforward language, in bite-sized nuggets, that are easily digestible.

9. Accountability encompasses all of the virtues. Finally, a leader is accountable for his actions. Previously, we mentioned Jesus prediction of his Passion as an example of perseverance. It is also an example of accountability for his actions. Jesus never denied in front of Caiphas and Pilate what he had said or done. He could have easily extricated himself by shifting the blame to the Apostles or by inferring that he had been misunderstood. But he did not. He willingly faced his accusers and held himself accountable. That they were stupid or not worthy was not his fault.
IV

In conclusion, it is apparent that we need to provide models because “This is what the writer Hanna Arendt was getting at when she observed that every generation of Western Civilization is invaded by barbarians, we just call them "children."

Chaos Theory and the Internet, Part 1

Introduction

The internet is a revolution not in that we have instant access to information but it allows us to communicate at person to person level in most basic way. Out of the massive quantity of information flow, human consciousness will develop moore broadly but at same time may produce centrifugal forces that will tend to push outward. The internet produces centripetal forces that unify mankind in a common outlook far more than anyone has ever imagined. What is produced by all of this? What is the end goal? It is what the wheel was to locomotion; the telecommunications was to talking; it revolutionizes out concept of thinking.

Thesis

The internet synthesizes the thoughts of all and as technology arises will lead to a common development of mankind’s conciousness. The internet acts with centripetal force along mankind’s consiousness. Chaos theory helps to explain that out of a multitude of inputs a common thread begins to develop that helps to describe and point the way.

According to the Nobel Laurate Physicist Steven Weinberg, “A chaotic system is one in which nearly identical initial conditions can lead after a while to entirely different outcomes.” (Weinberg, Steven. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1994), p. 36.) Essentially every simple system contains chaos wich makes predictability of its outcomes almost impossible. This was known since beginning of the century as the physicist and mathematician Henri Poincaire demonstrated that chaos exists in very simple systems. However chaotic systems exhibit some universal properties that can be analyzed mathematically.

According to Weinberg, “the presence of chaos in a system means that for any given accuracy with which we specify the initial conditions, there will eventually come a time at which we lose all ability to predict how the system will behave, but it is still true that however far into the future we want to be able to predict the behavior of a physical system governed by Newton’s laws, there is some degree of accuracy with which the measurement of the initial conditions would allows us to make this prediction.” Some important aspects of chaos theory are (1) nonlinearity which means that where a system is linear the input is linearly proportional to the output. If the input is doubled, the output is doubled; if the input is tripled, the output is tripled and so on. (Maj David Nicholls, USAF and Maj Todor D. Tagarev, Bulgarian Air Force, “What Does Chaos Theory Mean for Warfare”, Airpower Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 3. pp. 48-57., p. 49.) It reflects the mathematics’ teacher basic law: Do unto one side of the equation what you have done unto the other. (2) Chaotic systems are not random because they are dependent on their initial conditions. However they never repeat exactly because they are sentivie to their initial conditions. Even minute changes in their initial conditions lead to great changes in system behavior. According to two experts on chaotic systems it it this extreme sensitivity to intitial conditions which means that “it is not possible to determine the present conditions exactly enough to predict the future.”

-- we are communicating with one another along common themes such as those in newsgroups.

Antithesis

The explosion in access to information does not necessarily provide better information. A key tenet of intelligence gathering is the processing and analyzing of information; the present system is geared to the acquisition and dissemination of raw information. It is of somewhat less than useful form. Main problem is lack of focus and synthesizing of raw information.

-- exposition to massive doses of information. Issue: how do we process the relevant from the irrelevevant? what is relevant? how do we ensure the fidelity of the information? How accurate is the information provided? Though readily accessible, lots of information is old, not updated, superficial. Can we rely on it?

A major problem is that as the internet develops-- will requirements consist of requirements to feed the requirements rather for a goal? Anyone who has worked for a large bureaucracy such as government knows that a requirement will generate a myriad of other requirements that in turn generate additional requirements which ultimately serve no legitimate purpose other than to satifisfy requirements. In other words the means to the end become the ends in themselves.

Synthesis

Once the system is in place this will lead to the definition of the common attractor and this will focus the requirements for information.

-- strange attractor serves to provide a strategic direction for our efforts. A holistic efforts is produced in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Jean-Francois Revel prophetically wrote in "Without Marx or Jesus: The
New American Revolution Has Begun": "The second world revolution will therefore consist in large part, and perhaps essentially, in the establishment of intellectual and informational autonomy with respect to political power". Note that this was written in 1971. The internet and the information revolution will result in a devolution of political power from a center, but yet will be unified as consent will come through interaction among peoples electronically. But whether we establish consent or find that our views divide us, we still have to face the reality that what we do today does not involve a large percentage of our population. The danger of this is that the revolution may trun out to be one of technocrats versus the rest, meaning that power relationships will be distributed and determined as to access to information and not according to justice and the needs to the whole. In other words, it will become just another revolution where yesterdays' oppressed are today's oppressors, and vice versa.

The new revolution has to be a qualitative revolution, a quantum leap, an order of magnitude above previous ones. The relationships established may surpass national boundaries and create new centers of political loyalty, and affiliation. We stand on the verge of a new millenium; how well we prepare... will enable us at least to anchor our vision as to where we ought to be heading to. I view a world interconnected where political power is not from a unified center but rather is shared among all. Resource allocation is based on individual responsibility for our own existence but at same time aware of the interdependence among us all.

These are interesting times we live in: the best of times, the worse of times, but a time of technological ascendancy that strains the intellect... we are playing catch-up. We do not know where the voyage will take us, but we are embarked. I see future relationships established electronically, much as there are dating services that have begun. This means that individuals will have far more control over their personal choices which stresses the need for understanding and preparation. In this, our society is not well prepared. Large numbers of our youth will not partake in this revolution and will be essentially left out. In time this will be remedied but there may be a lost generation or two. BOTTOM LINE: As Friedrich Nietzsche said That which doesn't destroy us will make us stronger.

to be continued

Leadership Model for New Millenium -- Part 5

Forgiveness encompasses all four virtues. A central theme of Jesus’ message is that of forgiveness. Forgiveness is the means by which human beings may learn to love one another and live together despite our foibles and the aggressiveness of our human nature. We must learn to forgive because otherwise we cannot live together. For example, while on the cross, Jesus asked God to “Forgive them for they not know what they are doing.”

How is forgiveness a trait of effective leadership? There is a common view that Jesus’ advocacy of love for neighbor and meekness equates to weakness. The reasons given to support this view are the words of Jesus’ message: love of neighbor, love of enemies, forgiveness and turning the other check. However, this view completely misses the point. Nothing could be further from the truth; Jesus was not a weak leader. Jesus was courageous, wise and just in his dealings. His advocacy of turning the other cheek signifies that an effective leader should not hold grudges or let little things cloud their judgment and/or performance because as such things ultimately do not hurt you. However, if a leader is bothered by everything that happens, he or she will not be able to effectively deal with the big issues because their time will be consumed dealing with trivia. Leaders do not let the small things bother them.

Yet a leader should stand up for those things that really count, to include sacrificing yourself for principles. How many of us would quit a high-paying job because it is the right thing to do? Jesus, the advocate of peace and love of neighbor, became really angry at the temple when he saw moneylenders and sellers engaging in commercial activities in the temple. He didn’t turn the other cheek but whipped the moneylenders away from the temple. A leader must know when to fight for what is right.

Sometimes there are persons in leadership positions who say “I will give you only one chance or I will explain this once.” I ask what happens if that individual did not in fact understand you? Would you rather have him or her ask again or would you rather have that person go out and perform a task with only a half-baked idea of what it is that they are supposed to do? Jesus, when asked how many times should a person forgive another, he said seventy seven times seven. The response is appropriate for who can say that they are acting at their peak efficiency at all times. An effective leader must be aware that persons may make mistakes. A mistake made in earnest error is surely one that may be overlooked.

At this point it may be asked, if this is so, why then did Jesus not forgive the Pharisees and the priests? This is the key issue. The reason is most simple: because they were not remorseful nor ask for forgiveness. If an individual makes a mistake and is not repentant, a leader should not forgive that individual. Jesus would say to get rid of that unrepentant individual as soon as possible.

Jesus teaches us that we should be forgiving because after all people are human and a leader should not hold them to standards that are beyond their capacity. Yet on the other hand, a leader has to set standards that may even divide families provided that they are the right standards.

Humility encompasses courage, temperance and justice. True leaders are those who allow the weak to go first in everything they do. According to Saint Luke, when the Apostles were arguing among themselves as to who among them was the greatest, Jesus told them that the least among them is the greatest. Jesus was severe against the proud and self-righteous. For example, Jesus constantly berated the priests who loved to pray out loud so that others may hear them and who would occupy the best places at the table. He would have them sit at the lowliest places. Jesus explained that those who would seek to be first must serve others. Why is this? Because, as human beings, we are ultimately all equal and we must treat each other with dignity and respect regardless of whom you are. That is the essence of Christ’s message.

How does a leader exercise humility in the context of modern American life? A leader reflects his humility by knowing that little things matter to people. For example, General Fredrick Franks, as Commander of US Army VII Corps during the Persian Gulf Conflict 1990-1991, always ensured that his soldiers ate first, then his noncommissioned officers, and lastly his officers, i.e., the order of precedence for eating starting from the lowliest private who went first, to General Franks himself who went last. All who served under him agree that they would fight “anywhere, anytime, against anyone” for him. General Franks’ humility is reflected in the way he thought of his soldiers. He relates how overcome with emotion he became one time while preparing to start ground operations during the Persian Gulf War. He was explaining to his troops how the operation was going to be carried out and the possible dangers involved. His soldiers told him “We are not worried, General; we trust you.” What more can a leader ask for? General Franks is a very humble man and his soldiers loved him. This is a lesson in humility and leadership, one that Jesus would have agreed with wholeheartedly.

In this context, for those would-be leaders who like to sit at the head of the tables and seek the best of places as a sign of respect that they believe their due, I am always reminded of former British Prime Minister Lady Margaret Thatcher’s observation that “being a leader is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you are not.”