Wanna be Right or a Winner ?

I was reading through an article in yesterday's (22.08.08) CD, the suppliment with Economic Times. The author has cited two examples and has almost justified the case of being a winner rather than being right. He cites the example of a sage who didn't pave way to the king in an attempt to cross the bridge first and in turn got killed. The arguments that the sage gave were egotistic and the author calls them the right arguements. But I think the words "right" or "wrong" can be understood only after being wise. I would not agree with the author that the sage was right, I would say the sage was not wise enough to let a king have a king's ego. In second example where an executive forgets the complete purpose of being in the meeting and goes astray in an attempt to prove his righteousness is a good example. What ultimetely matters is not to prove a point and lose thyself.

Leadership

"..expression of ego is the leadership." I didn't disagree rather I didn't have an opinion of my own but still think is it so. It's taking time to sink in. Perhaps because I never thought of ego, leadership and integrity in the terms that I am thinking nowadays. But now I realize that it's conspicously beautiful to think about these key factors of life in the terms recently known to me. "Yes", it is. I can say it aloud now that unless you have the guts to express the feelings, people, concerns in the way they have always grew in your heart, you can't be a person of self virtue. Sometimes the presence of something is it's conspicous absence. The want of a few virtues usually means that most of us don't understand these virtues at all. If we understand them a bit almost everytime we fail to understand and acknowledge that why do we need them. We try and take control of the things that might hurt us, it includes virtues also. So "seeking" the virtues like self respect and leadership without integrity in our thought and actions is criminal.