My wife and I were living in New York City on September 11, 2001. The attack on New York and targets in Washington and Pennsylvania were sobering. Sobering is a 2025 word; time has rounded the catastrophic edges of the day.

The day after the attack my wife and I joined a packed Church at 7 West 55th Street. Presiding were a Rabbi, a Christian pastor and an Iman. We held hands while singing together of reconciliation and peace—we went beyond the strictly human.

But as we flipped the page that night the more human response was already taking form—we had been shocked into a defensive crouch and the national conversation about better defensive tactics was soon to begin. And less than a month later we attacked Afghanistan. After all this coordinated attack included our nation’s Capitol.

Returning to the church service and the pleas for reconciliation and peace. Yes, I know, “divinely conceived” is for many arguable. Persons can even argue “reconciliation and peace” are simply informed by some universal creed. But if we throw out transcendence, the words “reconciliation” and “peace” are simply transitory fragments. They don’t bite and stick. Where is the precedent?

I am reminded of Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple whose life deteriorated in plain view. Jobs, as he reflected, mused: “I want to put a ding in the Universe.”

Two thousand years from now Jobs will be forgotten, actually much sooner. The real “ding” was the birth and life of Jesus. And here we were 2000 years later honoring his initial commandments:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” and Love your neighbor as yourself.[”

And for a time we seemed to understand. The most frequent question of one NY neighbor to another was “How are you doing?” Remarkably, it was often strangers asking strangers.

I have spent some time in high altitude politics; I walked away understanding that at best I was helping to secure a transient outcome. One that would be fragile as persons of differing points of view succeeded me.

All of us have insecurities—even the most accomplished, by earthly standards. And I would guess that most people struggle to look beyond the grave which turned out to be September 11th’s conclusion.

When my wife and I went to Mt. Sinai hospital on the afternoon of the 11th to give blood for the injured, we were told blood supply was not crucial—the attackers had killed not maimed. When we held hands in that church setting we were mourning the dead and hoping for the living.

September 11th was real and historic. People were not willing to just move on. So lacking the Internet scribes of today, men and women of the cloth struggled to both heal and explain. They reached back to holy men and women and philosophers.

Now as churches close and Internet podcasters proliferate, I think back to Tim Keller who led Redeemer Presbyterian in New York and a story he included in his sermon following 9/11.

Tim reflected: “Miroslav Volf is a Croatian Christian who has been through his share of suffering. It so happened that he was speaking at the United Nations prayer breakfast on September 11. Enormous problems happen, Volf says, when we exclude our enemy from the community of humans and when we exclude ourselves from the community of sinners, when we forget that our enemy is not a subhuman monster but a human being, when we forget that we are not the perfect good but also flawed persons. By remembering this, our hatred doesn’t kill us or absorb us, and we can actually go out and work for justice.”

September 11th is still vivid in my memory and the need for “peacekeepers” even more so. Peacemakers at home and abroad.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Pardon my going back a few years—I will come forward. Forward to the killing field at a church in Minneapolis—the Annunciation Catholic Church.

Going back a few years I recall being unpleasantly startled when an AdBot (automated software agent that displays advertisements) in what seemed to be fractions of a second, paired me with an Advertisement for something I had been researching. I can’t recall what I was sizing up so let me substitute my suspicion. Maybe a stove, as my wife and I were buying kitchen appliances for our new home.

Almost immediately I began getting Ads for stoves and other kitchen appliances. Everywhere I went on the Internet, the Ads followed me around.

This experience took me back to my venture capital days and the first years of the Internet. I was pitched for an investment in a company that had developed AdBot technology. I remember cringing as I thought about the intrusion. What was ingenious was also a breach of  privacy.

In recent days I have advocated the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) using large language models (LLMs) to discover potential shooters before they take action. Several have suggested that would be a breach of privacy. Exactly, but that train left the station along time ago.

So rather than just selling things I would suggest that federal and/or state governments train LLMs to provide second by second monitoring of people who use violent words and imagery on the Internet. And if the evidence, synthesized, suggests they are a threat to instigate lethality on schools or churches or street corners or much else, that law enforcement quickly place them in protective custody.  And then counselors can work with them on their mental health.

In the aftermath of most shootings we learn within a few hours that the shooter had posted rants that signal his intentions hours or maybe just minutes before he sprays bullets at unsuspecting persons. Or, uses his car as a weapon. We need to turn the technology adapted for advertisements into applications to save lives.

Will this end the epidemic we now face? Almost certainly not. Will this tool in the hands of law enforcement lessen the killing; almost certainly.

Along with this technology-led initiative we will also learn about the current stance of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The organization that takes the lead should offer the NRA a chance to collaborate and in President Trump-like fashion give them a week to sign on. Indeed, this is a chance for President Trump to take the lead helped along by his friend Elon Musk a leader in deploying AI.

Where has all the silence gone? Have we noticed its absence? Has its absence been filled with anything? That is anything we will miss? Perhaps a moment that will lead to thought? Maybe originality.

I suspect we have all noticed. Or has silence become unnoticed?

Some seek out the quietness of the deep woods. Or the quiet expressions of the gentle brook. Most don’t. Most are tempted by the noise—tempted to join in. The music is turned up, so too our voices. Cacophony! How can we listen? How can we create—either thought or deed?

Now we carry around a listening device at war with listening. We get stuff. Distraction. Listening—well we pretend.

And if not amplification, then the ever-present motors are barely muffled. Or, people talking loud enough to be heard. Is the thoughtful ever yelled?

Does this end up any place we want to go? Or, do we know? Silence is an incubator. What is noise?

Somehow we should reflect on silence. Honor thought. The Quakers did it and led our country out of slavery. Can our mind escape it as well? Are we missing the answer?

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Is it possible to get a word or two in on what historians will say in 2050 about the second term presidency of Donald J Trump? Perhaps I am wrong but I am going to attempt a long-range projection.

I write as an Independent (worn down by political party nausea) wary of the polarized world in which we live. So let me get started.

You can’t be President unless you win more electoral votes than the other candidates. Trump did.

You can’t be President unless the electoral votes are certified by Congress. They were.

You cannot be a consequential President unless your Party controls the Congress. Republicans do.

It is hard to be an effective President if each of your priorities result in a death struggle. This point requires a bit of elaboration.

If, as President, you challenge existing law or funding priorities as they exist, you encounter heavy seas. The fourth branch of government is the status quo. Unofficial Washington is organized to maintain it or enrich it. The President used a new initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to challenge it and deflect the fire. Elon Musk became the fire shield.

And Trump, notwithstanding denials, came into office with a Plan. Russell Vought, a self-described “radical constitutionalist” strategist and longtime Trump ally, played an influential role in crafting Project 2025—a 920-page Heritage Foundation blueprint for a possible second Trump term.

Vought argues that America’s constitutional structure has been corrupted by a technocratic bureaucracy. He believes the presidency must dramatically reclaim power—even at the expense of legal precedent, institutional restraint, or congressional and judicial checks.

The Plan was comprehensive and took on official Washington. But without Trump’s hardcore support and tactical leadership, the playbook would have been cobwebbed. Even though Trump denied the plans centrality, Vought  heads the Office of Management and Budget, as he did in Trump’s first term. My experience: this is the hub of operational Washington.

Trump, or at least I will give him credit, took on the tactical leadership. Many call his leadership style transactional.  Regardless, he used a “flood the zone” strategy. Each day, or so it seems, featured a new headline lead. Little gained real traction.

It is also clear that there was and continues to be an intent to exploit prejudice. For example, most recently Trump took over District Of Columbia policing calling the District a crime-infested disgrace. The vast majority of Trump’s base reflexively believes that. And when you take on California or New York, again almost regardless of the subject, Trump’s Red State base salutes.

My Midwest friends were unbelieving when my wife and I moved to New York City. Their view of the City was most likely formed by all the crime dramas on TV with New York as the venue. And almost nobody outside New York likes the Yankees.

Prejudice is a fact. My grandmother’s pot roast was the best in the world. My State or baseball team or University—well they are the best. When prejudice exacts public harm and is clearly immoral we legislate against it. When it is simply human and arguably un-harmful we identify it through polls and react to it in our daily lives.

Politics is one of those daily lives phenomena. Trump himself mused about how protective it can be. “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” We might not like that level of prejudicial support and I certainly don’t, but it is not punishable. In fact, for Trump’s style of leadership it is foundational.

Even after the Trump supporting mob attacked the Capitol in January of 2021, the low point of Trump’s popularity, he still had an overall approval level of approximately 30% and 78% of Republicans continued to approve of him. As his opponents, Nicki Haley and Ron DeSantis learned, Trump’s support was quite solid.

Of course, as Trump takes advantage of pre-existing prejudices, a Democrat can do the same thing. But right now the pre-existing prejudice most noticeable in day-to-day news is the Far-Left’s disapproval of capitalism. Not a winning prejudice outside of left-leaning big cities with a demographic mix unlike much of the rest of the United States.

Trump meanwhile floods the zone. He just met with Putin, Zelensky and a number of world leaders.  Several days before, he took over DC policing; one more move in continually reinforcing his base.

And he has chosen to be the most transparent President in modern history. He loves the spotlight and even though most of the Press doesn’t like him, he uses their barely disguised disdain to reinforce his base who share his distaste.

Trump also knows that the two constitutional entities with which he is supposed to share power are by comparison virtually powerless in the face of his aggression. Congress is populated with people who cannot imagine what they would do if they lost their next election. And most Republicans know one thing for sure—the Trump base seems essential to winning the primary.

The Courts structure and history is procedural, appealable and mostly slow. For example, the Constitution gives tariff power to the Congress except in emergencies. Trump, having declared an emergency, has upended laws, treaties, and customs to remake the world of international trade. By the time the most important challenge to the use of this power reaches the final days of a Supreme Court review/decision, the world system of trade will be wholly different. And will persist, at least in part, until the Congress actually acts.

Back to the Democrats. The so-called Center of the Party lacks a widely regarded leader. The Far-Left has two—Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. They are both quite able in asserting their prejudices and ambitions.

And, leading today’s most recognizable political campaign is Zohran Mamdani, who is the Democrat running for Mayor of New York. He is an unapologetic socialist and has supported a “global intifada”, certainly not popular with an important constituency—Jewish voters. Mamdani’s positions trip a number of prejudicial wires.

Politics is often an appearance contest. Votes in elections and Congress are influenced by prejudices regardless of rationality. Trump has mastered the art of prejudicial politics. My view is historians will agree.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Economic Ups and Downs are embedded with threats. Threats to ideas, policies and ultimately power. Up or down reports say theories be damned this is how it is. These are the facts.

Because up and down is important—essential—we try to measure it. Measurements are sometimes irritants. We search for the words to explain them, no explain them away unless they are our allies. Politicians in particular want their own facts.

Populist programs don’t go broke, for example. If it is popular it is right. Populist dynamics lead the most effective populists to specialize in performance. Theatrics as attraction or distraction—emotion as a weapon.

And what about Progressives?  If you are a Progressive you simply find the money you need to fund your utopian theories and when the theories are disproven you make up new ones. Capitalism fails is foundational. And, you certainly don’t spend much time worrying about more government debt, capitalists will fund it.

In fact, and it is proven in today’s politics, neither Populists or Progressives spend any unforced time talking about debt.

Populists and Progressives also don’t spend any unforced time on numbers, period. Statistics are often irritants. So when President Donald Trump woke up to bad labor numbers, ones that disputed his many claims, he fired the messenger. The firing got everybody’s attention, which is to say those who pay much attention to public affairs.

This act made the Jeffrey Epstein affair go away for several news cycles. Of course, prurient stuff never really goes away. Goodness knows how many books are being written right now about the Epstein affair.

Trump must secretly revel in the tools of the Presidency. When his casino and hotel businesses in Atlantic City did not generate enough cash flow to service the debt, he used bankruptcy laws as leverage. He exclaimed to Newsweek in 2011, “I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they’re very good for me.”

In Washington Trump has supported raising the debt ceiling so that Treasury Notes can fund massive shortfalls between what is collected and spent. Isn’t this marvelous? “I have a printing machine.” No, those are not his words, but mine.

Maybe we won’t have to worry in the short term about inconvenient facts. Maybe the White House press operation will take on a new job—filtering government agency statistics and findings. Wonder about health statistics or crime data or gross national product or whatever, well White House minions will tell you what you need to know. Are there any real statisticians that will put up with that?

Yep, I know, I am being polemical. I must admit to being allergic to true believers. My faith in humankind does not stretch that far. I want the facts and I say that, knowing that it is damnably hard to get them straight. The statisticians and processes have to be scrubbed and re-scrubbed by scrupulous people. It is time for Congress to act to design just such a process and protections. There are a few patriots left; they should get together.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

The much-honored sportswriter, Roger Angel, writing in 1972 about baseball, while reflecting on sports, said, “Sports are too much with us. Late and soon sitting and watching—mostly watching on television—we lay waste our powers of identification and enthusiasm and, in time, attention as more and more closing rallies and crucial putts and late field goals and final playoffs and sudden deaths and world records and world championships unreel themselves ceaselessly before our half-lidded eyes. Professional leagues expand like bubble gum, ever larger and thinner, and the extended sporting seasons, now bunching and overlapping at the ends, conclude in exhaustion and the wrong weather.”

Fifty years later, Angel’s 1972 lament is especially biting.  I recall it for the millions who play inside rather than outside. As Angel’s “time thinned product” invites boredom, today’s owners have spent billions on their boyhood fantasy, cynically pushing their captive audiences to buy more, pay more, and now bet more. It is said the all-in cost of an NFL game is $350-$600 for two persons, for example. The all-in cost of gambling is unknowable.

Bob Costas, a 29-time Emmy Award winner, and recognized as the National Sportscaster of the Year eight times, in a recent interview on sports gambling by his father said there was “a lot of trauma in our family life because he had a volatile temper and the mortgage was often riding on how his bets went….. he didn’t bet on, you know, cards or poker games or crap games or go to the racetrack. He bet on baseball, football, and basketball games.”

There was a time in the early 1970s when I played poker with five or six guys. During football season, we would meet at a friend’s business, and he would give us the Sunday football betting card. It was done quietly—betting on sports was illegal.

And there were the bets with my Dad. We would always bet on the Army-Navy game—he had been in the Army, so I always had Navy. The numbers were digestible; as I recall $10 tops (1950s dollars). I come to this topic initiated, but boy, how times have changed. Too often, stimulation has become the game.

Now my loyal ChatGPT assistant reports that “Online gambling is undergoing rapid, double-digit annual growth—driven by expansion in the U.S., mobile-first strategies, and immersive technology adoption.”

I suspect some of the growth momentum is caused by the micro-bet. Major League Baseball is investigating two specific pitches that Cleveland Guardian pitcher Luis Ortiz threw. Both pitches had a higher-than-usual number of bets placed on them — action that was flagged by a betting integrity firm.

Yes, there are essentially an infinite number of ways you can bet on sports these days. One of them is a micro-bet about what the first pitch of a given inning might be: ball, strike, swinging strike—well use your imagination.

As we “lay waste our powers of identification and enthusiasm,” our ultimate animal spirit object, money, has become the stimulus. The game becomes ours. We either win or lose; who cares who wins the game on the field or in the gym? We get to play regardless of how inanimate we choose to be.

Oh well, the cynical win. The new owners with their billions on the roulette wheel of life. They are the games rights holders; the networks ultimately deal with them. The rights holders mostly own monopolies. Viewers might find an off-brand football league, but of course want to watch their NFL team.

And then there are the middlemen who handle the transactions and the State agencies that provide the gambling licenses—they get a cut too. Maybe we should throw in that part of the health care community that intercedes with the addicted. Maybe that is the final cut.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Shabang! The world’s richest man declares that he is going to start a new political party—America. Thoughts, from a registered Independent.

America’s prosperity, its root, is competition. We don’t want just one seller—we call that a monopoly. Or even two; pejoratively, we call that a duopoly. In short, we want a quick drive away, multiple grocers, service stations, or whatever.

Now with the Internet having been trained by Amazon, a veritable bonanza is a click away. But, not in politics. Those whose occupation is ruling others write laws that block others. Sort of, “if you don’t like what I’m selling that’s just too bad.”

If we retreat into history or political philosophy, we find the excuses, often voiced in the United States. Some will say that laws in Europe, for example, result in too many Parties and confusion. Or splinter Parties that are embarrassing. Or, power is too diffused. Yes, many European countries make it easier to qualify for the ballot.

In the United States, it is damnably expensive to begin and ultimately qualify a third party and gain recognition on the ballot in a large number of States. Our two dominant Parties disagree about much, but together they block competition and both overspend—the arrogance of concentrated power.

Physics told Musk that catching a rocket returning from space so it can be used again would be exceedingly difficult, but possible. He did it. Making billions of dollars is certainly not easy—he did it. And accumulating supporters and detractors by the millions is not easy, but he has also managed to do that. We all know there are ceilings in human affairs; Musk likes to defy them and sometimes proves us wrong.

In announcing the formation of a new Party, America, Musk said:  “I am generally hopeful because I believe there are millions of voters who want a third choice. Who want to go beyond the Right and Left hardcores. Who wants, on the conservative side, to get beyond the shifting sensibilities of Donald Trump and on the more liberal side, not to have its values hijacked by AOC” (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).

But, politics and Elon Musk have not been a harmonious pairing. He was all for Donald Trump and now he is adamantly against him.  He views policy positions as either true or false. Most often they are not. Politics is not physics. It is messy because trying to create some level of cohesion in the midst of clashing points of view is really hard.

Where do you compromise on abortion? Or the shifting views on the importance of immigration given incendiary rhetoric? Or committing our troops to at least the appearance of being ready to fight for principles? Or, perhaps most importantly, which programs should we eliminate or downsize even though supported by strong lobbies and well-positioned Members of Congress?

Or how do you find personalities that are both compelling and comfortable with diffused power? Is it possible to be both? Or do we need versions of out-sized personalities whose North Star is the unilateral use of power?

If the word moderate is frequently used in third-party arguments, and it is, what does it mean? Is moderation defined by what a Party or candidate is against or can moderates pull together logic, needs and wants into an actual platform? Or, do they just want more or less than the dominant Parties?

And considering the name of his new Party, can America be hijacked as the name?  And if so should the Party go back to the founding documents and attempt to animate the principles in specific programs? As compelling as the flag and patriotic music are, they do not spell out the terms of governing.

And, can Elon allow others to share the spotlight?  Can he raise money with the necessary funds to outline philosophy and programs? Or is this just one more solo act in an orchestral setting?

Now this is the point where various commentators begin to handicap the potential of success. Most are negative. I’m not ready to say that Musk will fail because others have. His company, SpaceX, caught a descending rocket going 17,000 miles per hour. Not bad. However, achieving sustained viability for a third party will be exceedingly difficult and require actual collaboration. If this is a Musk-dominated initiative, it will fail.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

It is hard for me to fathom. When did the White House and all the honor that goes with it become insufficient? Why would a President be selling things using his historic title and its symbolism conferred by the voters?

In case you are unaware of President Trump’s merchandising job, please take a look: https://gettrumpfragrances.com/. Or go further and check out his offerings on Amazon. Artificial intelligence reports that he has 54 offers of branded products for sale.

And let me recall as prologue the 33rd President Harry Truman who left the White House in 1953 for his family home in Independence, Missouri. The home was his principal asset. Trump, in contrast, was said by Forbes to be worth approximately seven billion dollars in 2024.

Truman, after leaving the White House, was offered high-paying corporate board positions among other ways to increase his wealth. History recalls his response:

“You don’t want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale,”

Yep, that is a long time ago. But isn’t that where humanity goes to discover the base-line of morality? And if that is too big a word, what about honor? Or decency? Should we worry that generations following ours will regard service as one more financial transaction?

Going back a much shorter time recall Colonel (honorific) Tom Parker who managed Elvis Presley and then marketed him after his death. He even sold “I Hate Elvis” pins to profit from both sides.

I think Trump’s merchandising activity should be put to a vote to test the question—see if the people (voters) support the exploitation of the revered White House symbolism. An up or down vote on a resolution. We want a sense of the Congress as the public’s representatives.

The resolution, if it is kept simple, might be: “We, in the 119th United States Congress, knowing of the merchandising of the White House and its principal occupant, state our disapproval.” (Examples follow).

Now I know the language is sparse so undoubtedly drafts will replace drafts and maybe draw in President Donald J Trump’s wordsmiths. Almost regardless of the eventual outcome, Members of Congress will have to go on record. The President’s heretical departure from tradition will be tested. As will our Members of Congress.

Perhaps all lines of decorum have been erased. Maybe devotion to an individual requires submission. I doubt it, but a straight up test of the White House as a merchandising wing of the Presidency should be put to those who vote on our behalf.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

As I reflected on a dinner several nights ago, a simple fact was recalled: I had not talked about my earliest jobs, well, forever. But in dinner conversation new friends seemed interested. So let me put my reflections in context.

I was a 13-year-old cotton picker. I picked cotton before most farmers could afford a  machine that did it. By the way this was a Saturday morning job—leisure time cancelled. Video games—not around. However, sweat unlimited.

Plowing out boxcars came next and this was before the Grain Haulers of America union protected its workers from wheat dust.

Both jobs were humbling. I was working between school terms with young guys whose technique was much better than mine. I didn’t cost the grain elevator much which made the job possible. Today, companies are forced to pay the minimum wage. In New York it is trending by government mandate toward $30 an hour—productivity be damned.

In the cotton fields, beyond endurance, women with very small children were on their knees (you walked on your knees at plant level while picking) and then retreated to the cotton wagon to nurse their babies.

And I will never forget day three: plowing out rail box cars at the local grain elevator. “Plowing out” refers to getting every last kernel of grain out of a railcar filled with wheat from Oklahoma and Kansas. The wheat dust was thick.

On day three I was at the doctor’s office with a respiratory illness due to breathing in the dust. I had refused to use a face mask because the regulars didn’t wear one. My next day back at work I was masked. When I would change the filter (soft cotton) the other guys could see the moist black coating. The filter was a proxy for our lungs. By the next week many had bought a mask and showed up looking like me.

Which brings me to America and its constantly shifting realities. The grain elevator’s union made sure in its next negotiation that the workers were provided masks by the company—labor defeated capital. And in the case of cotton picking, machinery was soon to take over. Free markets do not quit spinning.

All this was my Dad’s plan; I am sure with Mom’s counsel. Later he made it possible for me to drive to Alaska and work on a maintenance crew at Elmendorf Air Force Base. I look back on these experiences—thank you Dad. Mom and Dad were instrumental. And, I was also getting my first lesson in the effectiveness of collective action.

Increasingly it is said artificial intelligence (AI) will cause the youthful job market to shift to making and doing things because AI will replace a lot of the “white collar” jobs. My Dad was not concerned with AI, but he did want me to understand sweat and the importance of learning how to do things correctly.  I was particularly conscious of the latter but maybe moved more decisively by the former.

The old days are not going to come back. But if I still had a teenager in the house, he/she would be bothered by lessons from my Mom and Dad. The 20th Century helping to instruct the 21st.

In reality few are going to earn a living playing some version of sport, yet today many youth spend much of their summer at camps that teach the next rung up the ladder. Or, an upper-class family summer might be spent in overseas travel. Or an internship with a friend of the family.

My parents wanted me to understand the world I was going to live in. My Mom, for example, made me take typing with the girls; it turned out to be useful as I typed email while many of my peers dictated to their secretaries.

The world today is changing much more rapidly. Along with changes we all talk about, privilege is being downgraded. Distinctive talent is in demand. Productivity has become an even more essential part of a business plan. Up and coming companies must compete with the scale of the big ones; big companies have less cost in their inventory.

Life happens. Markets spin. Intelligence is aggregated; algorithms analyze it. The answers do not yield to our desires. It is best to have a 360-degree understanding of how life works. Maybe Harvard should add a trade school.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.