Personal Pontifications

Love a Somewhat Splendored Thing

2009-09-30T11:29:00.000-04:00

Love is a many splendored thing . . . or so the song goes. And, when it comes right down to it, most of us believe it. Yet, do we really know what love is?
Is love that all consuming passion that causes us to attempt any feat, make any promise and write bad checks? Or, is love the soft and warm sentimental feeling we get that lulls into a confused slumber? I doubt that many would subscribe to either view explicitly and claim that it is somewhere in the middle. Still, even these people are less than accurate.
If we stop and think about it, love is a pain in the neck. Love hurts. Love is a real bother; particularly to the one loved. "Eh, what?", you might ask. Isn't love patient and kind and, well, loving? Yes it is, but we must ask, "patient with what?", "kind to what?"
We are only patient with things we find less than acceptable in anticipation of them improving. We believe that being kind is similar to being polite and courteous, but Websters defines is as "of a sympathetic or helpful nature". In other words, for a person to be kind, that person must be in a superior position. Not that the person is superior, only that the kind person at the moment of the kindness has the ability to make a choice. The kind person has the opportunity to do harm through active encouragement of the situation or neglect, or good through some type of assistance be it physical or emotional and kindness results in the choice to do good.
In a nutshell, the task of the lover is to improve the loved and this is not always a pleasant experience for the loved one. It is often uncomfortable and may even appear cruel. Understand the meaning of "appear" for appearance is a limited external observation and does not explicitly communication motive or objective. Things that appear cruel may not be so and may be an expression of kindness. Without knowing about medical surgery, we could easily see a man cutting another with a sharp knife and declare it cruel. However, because we are familar with this practice, it motives and objectives, we encourage it and accept the pain and discomfort it induces.
A person who loves their pet does not accept it for what it is, but instead for what it can be. The person takes great pains to change the pet from what it is naturally, to what is more acceptable. In the process, a fair amount of discomfort is experenced by both the person and the pet. The pet owner must be vigilant to correct any misbehavior of the pet, thus causing a disruption of a peaceful day. The pet must endure the regular disapproval of the owner and learn not to do what is natural. Neither enjoy the training process.
Yet in the end the person has a suitable object for its affection; a more lovable companion. And, the pet will be healthier, live longer and by many accounts be happier than if it were left to its natural inclinations.
In the same way a loving parent is frequently a bothersome individual to a child. A loving parent will teach and discipline their child with the objective of producing an adult who is able to take care of themself and contribute positively to the family in specific and society in general.
Oddly enough, the loving parent is not focused on the current happiness of the child. The loving parent knows that a well-trained child is more successful and in general happier than the indulged child. The loving parent sees the end and works towards it.
However, too many parents today don't love their children. Instead, they would rather their children be happy now. To this end, parents strive to give their children the latest toys and fashions and insist that their child's self-esteem not be challenged. Many parents either ignore their children's anti-social behavior (meaning disrespect for authority and the property of others) and dismiss it a being "only a child", or they outright defend it as some sort of developmental experience required to deal with the "real world". Of course, there are also those parents who are so lazy and believe that as long as the child does interfere with their activities it doesn't matter what they do. In the end, these parents are not concerned about their children as much as they are concerned about their own comfort.
Some parents don't properly love their children because they don't know how, and sadly don't know that they don't know. Some parents don't love their children because to do so would be too much of an effort on their part and take away from their own comfort and happiness. Regardless of the reason, children are being raised, not without guidance for guided they will be even if we do nothing, but with the wrong guidance. Without an active interest in their future. Without a knowledge of the potential they hold and the responsibility they will inherit. Without love.

Life in the Days of Noah - Chapter 30

2008-07-03T09:00:00.002-04:00

Periodically, my brother sends a brief story about how things are going with his son Noah. Noah is autistic and sees the world in his own way, thus his interactions with the world are also unique. For those unfamiliar with people like Noah his behavior can seem odd and bothersome. However for those of us who know Noah, his actions are endearing traits that show him for the special boy he is. Each time I receive another chapter I'm touched by the simple sincerity of Noah and awed by the character demonstrated by my brother and his wife. What follows is the latest chapter of Life in the Days of Noah. Enjoy.

Growing up I loved to play baseball that was all I could think to do from the ages of-9 – 14. Every day during the spring and summer I would get out of the house as soon as I could and head to the Corner Park to play ball. When it rained we had to find different activities to keep us busy. Still in my life many of those activities somehow involved baseball, trading cards, studying stats, or reading about the grand game. The point is I was able to somewhat adapt to the situation and change my routine.

Noah, on the other hand and many autistic children lack the ability to change their routine and to find peace in that choice. Autistic children frequently lack adaptive behaviors. As he grows older we have found this to be more and more true. You really feel for the guy because he is going through puberty and can’t complain about it. But he gets all the fun that goes with it, the mood swings and changing hormones and he doesn’t know what hit him. I’d be angry, too.

Sometimes Noah will have an episode that sticks with you and you can laugh about it later. Or as Noah will say “Everybody had a good laugh” The fact that Greenfield Village ran out of Cherry dip when Noah wanted some will live forever in the memories of the young people working the custard hut that day. Who could forget the rather large boy leaning into the window and saying at the top of his voice “CHERRY!”

There are two other incidents that stand out for the memories they’ve left us with. And maybe it is because we live with Noah, but both can be logically explained. At least when you share my logic, which everyone should.

The first happened last summer when the neighbors across the street invited us to a birthday party for the one-year-old. Now this couple is quite new to the neighborhood and hasn’t met too many people. Well we went over for the party and Noah was not feeling too entertained. The party was moving much too slow for Noah so after taking an unplanned tour of the house he wandered over to the gift table where he found a whole slew of nicely wrapped packages that all had his name on it.

See the little boy across the street just happens to share the name Noah. The only thing left for Noah to do was to start unwrapping the gifts, after all they had his name on them. Like twelve steppers rushing to an intervention Linda and I moved Noah away from the table then across the street.

Soon we found that this wasn’t far enough, we got Noah into the car and fled. We headed to the mall and spent a couple of hours walking around. By the time we got home the party was breaking up and the gifts were gone. More importantly Noah’s focus had been re-directed.

The BIG incident that will stay etched in our memories happened this spring at the Wayne Community pool. I had been taking Noah there every Tuesday and Thursday for about six weeks and Noah had been having a great time. The pool has a huge slide and water falls and while Noah swan I would run on the track over the pool.

This particular Thursday just as Noah got his moves on and entered the pool area the lifeguards began to clear out the pool. Seems there was an accident in the pool and for health reasons they had to shut it down to clean it. All Noah could see was that he had his moves on and the pool was right there a’waitin.

This is where adaptive behaviors come in, or let me say the lack of adaptive behaviors, today Noah is unable to change his focus and understand that he can’t go into the pool. I had to call Linda for re-enforcement and about an hour later we were able to get Noah out of the building. To make sure that the pool didn’t leave a bad taste in his mouth we went back the next day and let him swim.

The unusual thing about when Noah has one of these episodes they seem to end in tears. I mean I cry like a baby. Actually, Noah cries. I can’t explain it but it is like Noah knows that he shouldn’t be behaving like he is but he can’t help himself. So he is filled with remorse and will say I’m sorry.

I was watching a TV show this weekend and heard a bit of dialogue that really fits the role Linda and I play in Noah’s life. It is like we have been asked to care for an exotic creature. We spend much of our time protecting it from the world, and every other minute protecting the world from it. It is a traumatic and tiring job. I am not really good at it and sometimes I’d like to quit. But then Noah will smile and say “tickle you” which means he wants you to tickle him.

To whom much is given, much is required. And Noah is much. We see him grow and change and share in his joy when he skips down the hall with a DE-DE-DE. Or an “Alright Alright Knock it off.” It is not quite the blessing of hearing they play baseball everyday in heaven, and you’re pitching tomorrow. But a Blessing still the same. That is the way Life in the Days of Noah is.

Gullible Easter

2008-03-24T07:53:00.000-04:00

Easter 2008 has come and gone and hopefully the silliness that passes for rational thought these days will also go away. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that will happen. Over and over again the same tired accusations are put forth as if they were somehow insightful. Yet, their persistence only demonstrates the laziness of their proponents.

I used to find it amusing when some "free thinker" expostulated on the errors of Christianity. They would trot out their keen observations and point out the holes in the Christian story and declare themselves "individuals." People who think for themselves and are not led about by shysters.

And yet it is quite fascinating how these "individuals" and "free thinkers" find themselves quite comfortable in the majority opinion. Denouncing Christianity these days is hardly the result of independent thought, it's what all the cool kids are doing. And while there is nothing wrong with agreeing with the majority, it is a little silly to declare your own independence by doing so. It's just like saying, "I'm unique just like everyone else."

Now I still find it amusing when the bastions of intellect declare their freedom from oppressive religion (like they'd know oppression), by perpetuating lists of biblical contradictions or inaccuracies. Typically, the lists contain things out of context and out of sequence and to anyone who has seriously looked at such things, these statements are downright silly.

It's amusing to watch these new age prophets stammer when they are asked to support their declarations. Oftentimes, they realize they lack any logic to stand on and either accuse the questioner of being a mindless drone, or resort to the ever popular defense, "I just don't believe it."

Still, in spite of the amusement provided by these jesters, it's sad to watch them. It's sad in the same way it's sad when a high school kid thinks its cool to intimidate elementary school kids. Or when a 30+ man thinks its cool to impress a high school girl. It's sad to see someone so out of touch with reality.

I have no problem with someone who cannot accept Christianity. Rejection is a possible option even after reasonable investigation. What I do find disturbing is simply pointing and laughing because that's what the popular kids are doing. It's difficult to respect the opinions of someone who regularly demonstrates the inability to think rationally.

And even sadder than those who point and laugh are those that cheer them on.

Odd and Ends

2008-02-14T07:52:00.001-05:00

It seems to me that if you have to blow your own horn, then maybe it's not worth blowing. I assume I was raised this way though I cannot point to any particular time when I was explicitly told this, but I am of the opinion that your work will speak for itself. If you have to point out how good your work is, then maybe it's not as good as you think.

Taking control of a situation is as often the result of contempt as it is courage. Many people are given credit for courage when they step into an unknown situation and "take charge." As often as not, the person taking charge is not demonstrating any courage at all, but instead is acting out of contempt and a sense of superiority. The two motives often look alike, but can be distinguished by whether the leader is encouraging or dictatorial. A leader pulling the group in a common direction is typically the result of courage. However, when the leader pushes the group to conform, it is generally the result of arrogance and contempt.

Just because you're in front doesn't make you a leader. Too often people believe that being in a certain position bestows the necessary skills for the position. These people often assume knowledge and skill rather than acquire them.

Absolute love is not absolute acceptance. Love wants the best for the loved one even if that means hurting them. You may love someone in spite of their faults, but true love will desire the removal of those faults so that the loved one is perfected. The person who says, "If you loved me you would ..." does not want your love, but your apathy and agreement to allow them to control you.

Too often we want people to live up to standards that we refuse to accept. We expect honesty and honor, but often fail to exercise these characteristics ourselves. We will lie to our employer about "sick" time or how much we've accomplished on our latest project, but are offended if our employer changes company policy to their benefit. We expect loyalty, but too often refuse to give it.

By the same token, we frequently forgive ourselves for our transgressions yet refuse to offer the same forgiveness to someone else. We frequently give ourselves the benefit of the doubt but just as frequently withhold that from others. To treat others as ourselves is to provide them with the same level of forgiveness we reserve for ourselves.

As If

2008-02-06T07:24:00.000-05:00

I do believe that my greatest fear in life is to leave this world the same as when I arrived; to have come and gone and have things be as if I had never been. To do so would be to waste time and resources that could have been used to make a difference; to have stolen from those who have an affect, or could have.

Some say that your children are your legacy. I don't believe it. My children are no more responsible for making me influential than I am my parents. That is to say, my parents are not responsible for my failures nor my successes. I am responsible for my own doings.

I'm not saying that my parents did not provide me with a direction and resources, but that it is my use of this inheritance that determines my value. No doubt, they will feel some responsibility for my failures and pride in my success, but they do not predetermine or control either.

By the same token, I cannot claim the accomplishments of my children. Their lives are their own and once they have reached a certain age, they control their destiny.

While I owe my parents a debt of gratitude for raising me and providing a nurturing environment, and I have an obligation to my children to provide the same for them, in the end, I am responsible for my own actions and accomplishments. When it comes to accountability, I am alone.

To say that I am a product of my environment is only part of the story. And, though it is true, I am not bound by my environment. There are a wide variety of environments that we each experience on a daily basis. To say that we cannot choose our response to these experiences is to say that we a little more than machines that cannot go beyond our original program.

Such a mindset allows us to absolve ourselves from the responsibility of our failures and gives us license to blame others for our lack of success. To believe that we are merely a product is an insult to human dignity and intelligence.

I cannot accept such a view. There are too many stories of people who rose above their circumstances and went beyond their environment to accomplish great things. Each of these individuals started with the same raw materials as everybody else. It is these people who lived the saying, "Don't be under the circumstances, be above them."

As for me, I am choosing to make a difference. I don't know that I am and I don't know if I will, but I am compelled to matter. I can think of nothing more frightening than as if I'd never been.

Pursuit of Happiness

2008-01-28T07:54:00.000-05:00

According to the founders of the United States of America one of our inalienable rights is the pursuit of happiness. Some people (too many in my mind) believe that they have a right to be happy. Well, they're just greedy. They have the right to pursue it, but there are no guarantees that they will attain it. To think otherwise is foolishness.

Personally, I've pretty much given up on being happy. That's not as depressing as it may sound. I've given up, not because I don't think I can be happy, but because I'm not sure I know what happy is. And, I figure that until I know what I'm looking for, it is probably a waste of time to continue the search. So I've moved on to other things.

The first thing being the elimination of things that make me unhappy.

To a certain extent, this is somewhat amusing; I can identify things that make me unhappy, and thus recognize unhappiness. Yet, I cannot confidently define happiness. It seems reasonable to think that if you remove everything that is not something then what you'll be left with is the thing itself. Thus is deductive reasoning.

However, I have a difficult time accepting the proposition that happiness is simply the result of the elimination of unhappiness. To think that happiness is something left-over leaves me somewhat unhappy.

Do you see the logic here? If the elimination of unhappiness means that happiness is achieved by subtraction and that definition leaves me unhappy, then that definition must be eliminated. This results in either happiness be indefinable and thus unrecognizable, or indicates that happiness is not the absence of something at all, but rather the presence of something else.

It's a bit of a quandary. So, I've moved on to the elimination of unhappiness figuring that at least I can clear the table of clutter and get a better look at what happiness might actually be.

Now, what makes me unhappy? My first line of thought went kinda like this:

1. What makes me most unhappy is not getting what I want.

2. What I want is to do as I please.

3. Others impose upon my opportunity to do as I please.

4. If I eliminate the imposition of others I can do as I please and be happy.

This line of thought didn't work on multiple levels. First, it made my happiness dependent on satisfying the requests of others, ignoring the requests of others, or separating myself from others. In other words, my happiness was dependent on others. That didn't seem right.

Second, after looking at the things I do and have done, I came to realize that I waste a lot of time. I have a fair amount of time at my disposal that I typically do nothing with. This means that even with the existence of others and their requests, I wasn't really running short of opportunity.

Additionally, I realized that if my involvement wasn't requested by others I was a bit concerned. It's not that I wanted to be involved or consulted on everything everybody did, but there have been times when I wasn't involved and I thought, "Why didn't you ask me? I could have contributed something."

Thus, I realized the others were not a real hindrance to my happiness. And actually, their absence was a significant contributor to my unhappiness (which means the absence of others had to be eliminated).

Happiness is a very perplexing problem. As it turns out, I find that I actually like others and their unhappiness makes me unhappy so in order to find my own happiness, I need to eliminate the unhappiness of others.

And, oddly enough, I've found that while I'm involved with others and helping them be happy, it kinda makes me happy. Who would've thunk it?

I Have an Idea

2007-11-26T11:06:00.000-05:00

In The Guardian, a British newspaper, there is a column entitled "Dear Jeremy" which gives career advice in response to readers' letters. One letter comes from an "Idea Man" who writes:

"I constantly plague myself and friends with ideas for what I think would be interesting ideas for scripts, plays and books. I don't know how to expand these ideas into a viable hobby/job/career (if they were any good, obviously). I've tried creative writing workshops and am able to write something, but I feel I'm better at generating ideas. Are there organizations interested in buying just the ideas? ..."

Jeremy responds:

"The dismal truth is this: there are very few naked ideas that are obviously so original and promising that they have an immediate value. ... Jot down a list of highly successful plays and novels by anyone you can think of ... and then try to distil any one of them into an 'idea' that would have been instantly snapped up by an experienced producer or publisher. In every case, I bet you'll find, the 'idea' was seen to be a great one only when it had been masterfully developed by someone who possessed unusual talent and a quite specific style."

Over the years I have known a few Idea people. Quite a few folks have approached me to share their idea for the next whatever. More often than not, these people are sharing their idea with me in order to entice my participation. Their plan is that I'll manufacture what the idea requires and we'll split the proceeds fifty-fifty.

Sometimes, those with ideas are a little more confident and offer me less than 50 percent. After all, they reason, without their idea I would have nothing so by sharing their idea, they are generously giving me something I wouldn't have.

My standard answer to these offers is, "Thank you, but no, I've got plenty of ideas of my own." With the exception of maybe two ideas, all have come to nought and never saw the light of day.

Ideas without implementation are pretty worthless.

It seems to me that we give too much attention to ideas and not enough attention to actually doing things. We generously reward those who think about things and often ignore those that make things happen. As a result, we have fewer and fewer people who can actually produce something.

Activist groups multiply yet little seems to change. My guess is that the number of people lobbying for legislation outnumbers the people actually working on solutions. To my way of thinking we have way too many people with ideas saying Somebody should do this. Unfortunately, Somebody is almost always somebody else.

There was a time when people had to produce in order to live. Fortunately, these folks could produce more than they needed and as a result made it possible for people who did not or could not produce to flourish. Somewhere along the line, this second group of people (those with ideas) convinced the first group that production was secondary to conceptualization. That was the beginning of the end.

I have no problem with quality management or innovative thinking. Rather, I believe we may have over valued ideas to the point where if the producers stopped producing many would find themselves in dire straits. Ideas are fine, but if something isn't produced there's nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Pollyanna

2007-11-21T07:55:00.000-05:00

Under the guise of concern apathy reigns.

Pollyanna was a young girl who always looked for the good in situations and in a storybook world, this always had a happy ending. Life is not a storybook.

There are those who believe that people are inherently good and that society perverts them. When you ask them how a society of good people can make someone bad they have nothing meaningful to say. Typically they resort to some variation on mob mentality totally oblivious to the fact that the bad must exist in the individual before it can exist in the mob.

These folks may also say that children are born good and kind and must be taught to be selfish. Either these people have never raised a child or didn't pay much attention. Attentive parents know that they have to consistently correct their children from birth. Children must regularly be told to share, or that they cannot always get what they want. Children are greedy and selfish from birth and good parents know that if this behavior is not corrected the child will not play well with others.

Those that believe that people are born good are very much like Pollyanna, they only want to see the good.

Pollyanna perspectives are terribly common and encouraged. Books like "The Secret" (which is a rehash of "The Power of Positive Thinking") and a multitude of dime-store psychologists regularly tell of the wonders of a positive attitude. They warn us of the dangers of giving time to negative energy. They beckon us with the promise that all will be well if we just see the good.

While there is benefit in seeing the potential of a situation, there is danger in minimizing or ignoring the pitfalls. Simply focusing on the good will not make the bad go away. Visualizing a successful endeavor will not correct the problems that hinder progress. If you're constantly looking up there's a good chance you're going to fall.

What is most troubling about Pollyanna-types is that they would have you believe that they are concerned about the good. They would have you think that their motives are pure. "Cookies for everyone" is their motto. Yet, if you look a little deeper, their compassion is barely skin deep.

Pollyanna-types don't want to fix problems, they simply want what is good. After all, problems are a real bother. While there is nothing wrong with wanting good, ignoring problems is indicative of apathy. That is, they don't care about the problems or what danger they represent. Their practice is to ignore them.

A positive attitude is good if it provides the confidence to make things better. But a positive attitude that doesn't see problems for what they are can only lead to ruin.

Zero Tolerance

2007-10-23T19:53:00.000-04:00

In these days where tolerance is promoted in pretty much every area except religion and childhood behavior Zero Tolerance is getting out of hand. When an child is expelled for taking a squirt gun to school and a six year old is accused of sexual harassment for kissing a girl, it is well past time to take a step back and take a look at what is going on.

Today I read an article that called for the elimination of crib bumper pads. You know, those pads that go around the inside of the crib and keep the baby from banging it's head on the side, or help prevent arms and legs from accidently sticking through and getting caught. Yeah, those things.

What this article said was that they found 27 deaths were caused by suffocation due to bumper pads. And what was the time frame for these 27 deaths? Twenty-one years. That's right, for 1985 through 2005 there were 27 infant deaths, which is approximately 1.3 deaths per year. Which, at worst, is 0.00004333 percent of infants born in a year.

Now, I am not underestimating the loss the parents suffered, and I firmly believe that every life is precious and irreplacable. Still, to call for the elimination of a product for a 0.00004333 defect rate is a tad excessive. Effectively, to eliminate 1 death a year would make the product absolutely and perfectly safe. A noble goal, no doubt, but with the randomness of life in general, it is somewhat unreasonable to expect it.

Methinks that the people calling for this elimination are idiots. These are lonely people who are not getting the attention they desire. These are people who must resort to yelling fire in a crowded theatre in order to get someone to notice them. These are people who need to be told, "Shut up."

However, what is worse is the people who listen to these nitwits and start some advocacy group to legislate against bumper pads. What ever happened to critical thought? When did perfection become the standard and anything less become outright evil?

This is just one example of ignorance gone to seed. That means there is so much ignorance here that some of it hasn't even been used and is starting to reproduce.

The fact of the matter is, the world is not a safe place. Bad things happen and there is nothing you can do about it. The expectation that there should never be an accident has made personal injury attorneys a herd that needs serious thinning. People expect easy and get downright angry when they have to put forth an effort.

Grow up people. Get yourself a backbone. Nike has it wrong when they say, "Life is short, play hard." Arlo, of the comic Arlo and Janis, had it right when he said, "Life is hard, play short."

ROI - Return On Investment

2007-09-13T09:18:00.000-04:00

How many of you out there have heard an employer say, "I wouldn't ask my employees to do anything I wouldn't do myself"?

Now, how many of you thought that it actually meant anything?

In my experience, statements like the one above are typically made in smaller organizations where the speaker has a vested interest in the success of the organization. Unfortunately, the statement, other than for image purposes, has very little value.

ROI, or return on investment, is something that business people talk about frequently. Typically, the context is money and the objective is the get more than you give. For example, if I invest $100.00 and get back $90.00, then I have a negative return on my investment. Most business folks would see this as unfavorable and unless the investment was required, walk away from it. However, if I invest $100.00 and get back $110.00 then I have a positive ROI and this is typically seen as sound business.

Now, what if I invest $100.00 and get back $100.00? I haven't lost anything, but I haven't gained anything either. My investment leaves me no better off than if I had done nothing. Whether I invest or don't invest I'm in the same place, there is no return; the investment is sterile. Sterile investments are generally a waste of time.

Believe it or not, many employees are quite aware of ROI, even if they don't know what to call it. Employees don't invest money, they invest time. They know that their time has value and they want to get the most that they can for it.

When an employer asks an employee to put in more time, they are asking the employee to invest more in the company. Sometimes this investment returns overtime pay, but in smaller companies that is not always the case. When there is no compensation for the investment, that puts the employee in a negative ROI position and any smart business person would avoid that position whenever possible. So, employees typically balk at such requests.

I have heard employers argue that the ROI may be negative, but is necessary to the existence of the business, then offer themselves as an example of time invested.

The difference is that the employer generally stands to gain more by the investment than the employee. In the event that the company is successful, the employer will generally see his earnings increase proportionately. This typically cannot be said for the employee.

The employee may receive a salary increase, but more often than not, that is not assured and it is rarely proportional to the growth of the company. Too often, the employee puts in more time for the same salary. This is a negative ROI. Still, employees may see the employment as a necessity for their own business (their livelihood) and make the investment in spite of the diminished returns.

What employers, particularly in smaller companies, need to realize, is that their example is not necessarily an effective motivation for their employees. Unless employers are willing to provide the same rewards they receive to their employees, they cannot expect employees to make the same investment that they do.

Incentive

2007-08-22T07:31:00.000-04:00

After over thirty years in the workforce with a variety of organizations and in various positions there seems to be one common perspective; sales people need incentive.

There is no doubt that every business needs sales to survive. It's pretty obvious that if nobody buys your product or service you won't be in business for long. But why is it that sales people need more encouragement to do their job than any other position?

I don't think I've ever seen an incentive program for accountants. Can you imagine giving your bookkeeper a vacation based on the number of accounts reconciled in the past 30 days? Or, how about new golf clubs for the secretary that types the most letters in the comming month?

These jobs, along with most every other position in business, are expected to be done because those that do them get a paycheck. Sales people get a paycheck. Why do they need extra incentive?

You might say, that a sales person works on commission and only gets paid if they sell something. That is frequently true. The question then is, should they get paid if they don't sell something? Should an accountant get paid if the accounts are not done? Should a secretary get paid if no letters get typed?

Of course, the answer to these questions is no. Yet, sales seems to get different treatment. The sales person who is paid by commission has no limit to their income. Unfortunately, our accountant and secretary are limited. Why should sales be paid if they don't sell?

For some reason sales needs help. Every organization I've worked for has encouraged non-sales departments to assist sales through referrals and networking. More often than not, the reward for this effort is nonexistent. Yet the sales people get their commission. They get paid for someone else's work.

Now, I admit that I am a miserable salesman. I've tried and I'm not very good. Of course, this is why I don't work in sales. Still, if I don't work and produce, I find myself unemployed. There are no incentive programs for computer programmers. So the question remains, why do sales people need incentive?

Just Thinking

2007-06-20T07:20:00.000-04:00

"Thinking is the hardest thing there is which is why so few engage in it." I don't know who said that, but it seems way too true. What I find most fascinating is how many people think they think as opposed to how many actually do.

A while back, I participated in a collaborative blog for a short time. I quit because the exercise became counter-productive and downright frustrating. There were four other contributors each with their own claims of thought.

One would frequently tell of his contemplation and the anxiety it caused. Yet, when reading his writings you found only illogical rants and parroting of popular positions. Nothing really original.

Another sat upon a high horse and cast dispersions and mockeries. There wasn't a whole lot of thinking there, but he certainly used a lot of words.

The other two showed evidence of the ability to think; one for good and the other for self-defense. This second person appeared to spend a great deal of time developing support for whatever position he was advocating at the time. His thoughts did not seem to be aimed at finding the truth, but merely protecting his predetermined opinion. His thinking had no affect on what he thought. But then, that's not surprising from someone who says, "... once I sat down and smoked some pot I started to think more clearly ..."

The last contributor was the most interesting because his thinking caused him to evaluate and potentially change his attitudes. This became more clear as I followed his writings. Through what he said, you could see that he really wanted to support the liberal/progressive mindset. Unfortunately, his principles and thought process would not allow him that luxury.

This man has compassion, but is not ruled by emotion. He has values that include responsibility and self-control. He sees how society works and understands that it is people who make society and not society that makes people and therefore, people need to be held accountable.

This man is a good example of someone who thinks. By his thinking he either justifies or rejects his attitudes based upon consistency and ethics. His conclusions are not predetermined, but developed in the process so that his views are pragmatic within his knowledge and as fair as possible to all concerned. He is not looking for someone to take the blame, instead he searches for what is right and true.

There is honor, humility and honesty in this type of thinking. It is not geared to win arguments, but to find truth. This is what thinking is meant to do when it is not perverted by attorneys and activists. Thinking should guide us to what is true and not allow us to encourage what is destructive. It is through thinking that we grow.

What do you think?

May I have Oreos, Please?

2007-05-28T07:21:00.000-04:00

I have a nephew named Noah and he is autistic. This makes relating to him a unique experience, yet a very rewarding one nonetheless. Over the years I've watched my brother David and his wife Linda work with Noah and I have developed quite a respect for them and their dedication. Noah, even with his particular distinctives is an active part of the family who never fails to make people smile. This is a credit to his parents.

Occasionally, David publishes a newsletter called "Life in the Days of Noah" and for your reading pleasure, I've reproduced the latest issue here.

Life in the Days of Noah

This past spring during Easter break from school, Noah was up early for breakfast when Linda was not. Physically Linda was up for breakfast but no amount of special education training could prepare her for the fun Noah had in mind this morning.

After listening to Noah recite dialogue from the video du jour, Linda decided it was time to get up and start Noah’s day. Upon entering the kitchen she was met with the Noah training table. On the counter were two eggs, the package of bacon and a stick of kielbasa, along with the griddle to cook on. Noah had these elements out before I left for work at 6:30 am.

He was quietly waiting for his mom to get up and fix him breakfast. Of course with Noah quietly is a relative term. When compared to the morning visit of the garbage truck he is quiet. But don’t get visions of a tranquil spring meadow, because that is not Noah quiet. Noah’s quiet involves the repeating of phrases over and over, or maybe just giggling and making whooping noises. But either way he was waiting quietly.

While the bacon was grilling and the eggs were being scrambled Noah thought it would be a good time to get his place at the table ready. Opening the fridge he grabbed the milk, then took a glass from the cupboard all that was left was the one, two, three cookies. This part of the table setting started the search for the Oreos.

Remember how I told you we had to continuously move and hide the Oreas so that they would last more the one day. Well this particular morning I must have been extremely successful at hiding the cookies because Noah was unable to find them. Noah didn’t take this issue sitting down. He began to open cabinets and go up and down the stairs looking for the cookies.

Being a child with autism and stuck in a routine world Noah could not think of anything else during this time then his beloved Oreos. His breakfast was finished and waiting for him on the table but this was no time to eat! The Oreos, are GONE! The glass of milk is there but there must be the one, two, three cookies. And there were Oreos in this house yesterday.

The frustration levels were rising. I use the plural here because both Noah’s and Linda’s frustration gauges were about to burst. Noah placing one hand to the side of his face let out a yell O R E O S!!! Linda, not knowing where the cookies were was also beginning to hunt them down.

After having time stand still and the Oreos not appear Linda decided Noah needed to call his dad at work to get the location of the prized baked goods. So I’m sitting at my desk when the phone rings and I notice it is my home number calling, so I pick it up and say hello. The deep manly voice at the other end says “Hey buddy, yes”

Normally when Noah and I talk on the phone the conversation goes like this:

Dad: “Hey Buddy!”
Noah: “Hey Buddy, yes”
Dad: “What are you doing?”
Noah: “What you doing”
Dad: “I’m at work”
Noah: “I see you, bye”

Upon hearing the “Hey buddy, yes” I immediately went to the next line in our script and asked: “What are you doing?” Noah showing an unusual break in routine responded with, “May I have Oreos, please?” I told Noah the Oreos could be found in the cupboard with the mixing bowls. At this time the phone at the home end was dropped and I heard only the patter of size 9½ feet across the floor.

Linda picked up the phone and asked where the Oreos were and before I could tell her she said “never mind he has them.” Noah, being a boy who likes to ‘Make Butter’ knew exactly what I was talking about when I said that the Oreos were in with the mixing bowls. So that by the time Linda got the “never mind” out over the phone line Noah was sitting at the table eating his breakfast that now included one, two, three cookies.

Bet you don’t have that much fun in your house before 7:30 am. This is just the start of another day with Noah. Every day is an adventure and there is always something new to learn when you spend your Life in the Days of Noah.

Ties that Bind vs. Tools that Divide

2007-05-10T08:27:00.000-04:00

Commonality of interests, objectives and ethics bring people together to accomplish great things. The sharing of core values allows individuals to maintain their unique characteristics and still move toward a common goal. Organizations; businesses, clubs, churches depend on these ties that bind to achieve their purposes.

The key to effective operation of an organization is communication. Before moving on, it must be made clear, that publication is not communication. Publication is a one-way conversation (which is really an oxymoron). Publication talks but does not listen. Publication is, organizationally speaking, slightly more than sterile.

Communication, a word derived from commune (meaning to share a common experience), requires interaction; give and take. Communication means, not merely expressing your views, but incorporating the views of others into your own. Communication is what activates the ties that bind.

It is these ties that bind that create strong and lasting organizations. The commonality provides the foundation and the communication builds the structure. Without both components any organization is destined to dissolve.

Enter technology with tools that promise to facilitate the finding of ties and increase the effectiveness of communication. These are good things, right? An uncritical view might come to such a conclusion, but thus far, it doesn't appear to be an accurate conclusion.

Organizations, primarily businesses and churches, grow not organically using quality and ingenuity, but instead by cannibalizing their weaker counterparts. Loyalty between employers and employees is becoming increasingly rare as employees are too often seen as commodities and employers are viewed as paychecks. Dissenting members are treated as problems to be ignored or eliminated rather than potential corrective insight. The corporate structure, initially built to objectively attain a goal has taken on a life of it's own that is blind to the value of the individual.

And how did technology cause this?

Technology did not create these problems, the seeds of which are always present in the self serving nature of people. Instead, technology provided the tools and environment for these seeds to take root and grow. Technology put distance between people sitting next to each other. Technology hid the face of the person behind an idea. Technology created an environment where real communication is easily dodged.

In days gone by there was the inter-office memo. This was a physical piece of paper that required that somebody create it, copy it and deposit it in the internal mail where it was eventually delivered to the appropriate parties. This process took time and if there were something urgent, direct person to person interaction was required.

Person to person interaction, while not assuring communication, provided the context and framework for it. Not only did the initiator have to say what what being thought, but also was put in the position where he might hear a reaction to it. The opportunity existed to strengthen the ties that bind and possibly discover new ties.

Today, we have electronic communications; email (as well as a variety of parallel and derivative products). We have the Internet, intranets and collaboration software. We have technological tools that allow us to interact with an immediacy that would be downright magical to folks a hundred years ago.

Additionally, we have high employee turnover, social isolation disorders and the need for team building seminars. We have gained speed and access and lost ingenuity and camaraderie.
Our electronic tools allow us to say things to people we've never met, which gives us the freedom to say things that we might not say face to face. Technology has released us from many of the demands of propriety.

On the other side of the coin, our technology has allowed us to more easily ignore communications. "I never got your email, there must have been a computer glitch" is a fairly common excuse; one that is difficult to disprove.

Electronic communication allows us to dismiss people with a simple click of the mouse. And, if we're technologically savvy, we can just as easily block someone from talking to us and never have to deal with them.

Technology is not going away and will probably get even more pervasive in our lives, but that does not mean that we should be slaves to it. The tools we've made to increase communication have actually separated us from each other and it will take effort to rebuild the ties that bind. Once we retreat from publishing back into communicating we will then be able to use the tools that separate to strengthen the ties that bind us.

Follow You Where?

2007-05-04T13:13:00.000-04:00

Lee Iacocca has written a book called "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?" in which he rants about current leadership and expostulates his own views. I have not read the book but the excerpt has some interesting things in it.

Primarily, Lee gives us a list of his Nine C's which, to my mind, read like most self-help management books. That is, we are told we need to communicate, have conviction and character, and be creative. Oddly enough, we are not told to have a vision, or a goal, or an objective. We are not told that leaders need to know where they are going.

That strikes me as somewhat deficient.

Sylvester the Cat used to sing a song that simply went, "You never know where you're going till you get there." A very catchy melody, one you could possibly dance to, so I'd give it a 68. However, if anyone noticed, Sylvester never actually went anywhere, save a few circles and over a couple cliffs.

My question is, if you don't know where you're going, how will you know when you get there? If you cannot identify you're situation, you could very easily pass it by or miss it altogether.

So, Lee has given us a list of tools but hasn't told us what to do with them. You see, these tools are only effective if the leader has somewhere to lead to. It matters not if the leader is charismatic or courageous or is competent if he's not going anywhere. Without a goal what you end up with is a really impressive guy with a bunch of people hanging around.

By definition, a leader is someone who people follow which implies movement elsewise you have no direction and no one is leading a group standing still. If a leader is not going somewhere, then his followers stagnate and eventually disappear.

The Bible actually says this quite clearly when it says, "Without a vision the people perish." People need a focal point, an objective, a goal. Unfortunately, people don't seem to do this well as a group, thus the need for a leader. They need someone who can identify the end of the journey; someone who can define the accomplishment; someone who can point to the goal and say "Follow Me."

Now here's the problem. Actually there are two. First a leader must have a goal; must know where he's going. A leader cannot be a follower.

Second, and most important, leader must be able to identify the goal. This means letting the followers know what to look for along the way. A leader must be able to define the destination so that the followers know what to take on the journey and what to leave behind.

A leader is not a puppeteer, but a person on a mission with the ability to describe the mission is such way that others will want to join the mission. A leader does not achieve the objective, but inspires others to assist in making the vision a reality.

Too often in government and business, leaders are quick to say follow me, but fail to say where. Non-specific and generalized mission statements do not rally the troops but merely encourage milling around.

A true leader is going somewhere and doing so with such passion that others want to go there too.

I Hurt Because I Choose To

2007-04-25T19:56:00.000-04:00

Recently, I expended great amounts of energy and spent a fair amount of money so that my daughter and her husband could move across the country. Some parents may view this as a success where their offspring exercises their independence. Some parents may view this as a relief where their children are no longer in the way of them living their own lives.

I see this as a violent attack on my emotional stability; a great loss. My daughter and I have always been close. From the day she was born we have had a very special bond, and now that she's gone there is a significant hole. And the thought that I can visit is in no way comforting.

Here is the real kicker, I knew this would happen. I knew that it would hurt like hell when she left. I even knew that it would cost me more money than I wanted and require more time and effort than I had readily available. I knew that there was nothing good in this adventure and I did it anyway.

I hurt because I chose to.

I did what I did because I know that in the long run my daughter and her family would be better off. I did what I did because I want my daughter to have a good life, even if it hurts me. I have done similar things for my sons as well, but this has been the most extreme and recent. I want my children to succeed even if it means I lose.

I am not unique. Many parents have done the exact same things that I have. Additionally, like myself, many people have put themselves on the line for the benefit of others. Many have sought the happiness and success of others with no recompense.

While there is satisfaction in benevolence, there is still pain when the kindness is scorned. Yet, many people continue to participate in random acts of kindness, even when it hurts.

They hurt because they choose to.

There is no explanation as to why these people act this way. Believe it or not, these people will endure pain so that someone else doesn't. Don't think that these people enjoy pain; they don't. Most of these people would have their joy multiplied if the recipient of their kindness recognized their gift and acted in a similar manner.

The real question is not why these people act the way they do, but why the recipients of their kindness respond they way they do. Why do recipients of kindness mistrust the giver? Why are ulterior motives the first explanation? Why has kindness and true generosity become suspect?

Someone once said, "Live the way the world should be to demonstrate what it could be." Worthwhile advice in my book.

My Bags Are Packed

2007-04-13T09:08:00.000-04:00

Since my baby left me, I found a new place to dwell, it's down at the end of
Lonely Street ... (Thanks Elvis)

A little over a year ago, one of my sons moved to Chicago. It was a less than pleasant experience, but there was the thought that he would move back to ease the experience. The plan was that he would eventually come back home.

A couple days ago, my daughter left for Phoenix. There is no plan to return. To make matters worse, my other son has plans to move as well. That's all my kids ... and grandkids. There is a definite feeling of loss which is much more intense than I had expected.

My family configuration is not unique. I know of many families that are spread across the country and/or world. And, we seem to see it as typical on television and in movies; the parents live in one city and the children live far enough away where travel arrangements are required.

What troubles me about this set up is not the geography, but the relationships. In many, if not most, TV shows and movies, when the children communicate with their parents, the interaction is not unlike the evening news; reporting events and achievements. Then, when the families get together, the majority of the interactions seem to focus on the retelling of stories from previous get-togethers and childhood experiences. I've seen similar scenarios played out in real life.

If that's what's in store for me, then something needs to be done. While I look forward to hearing about what happens in the life of my children I'm not satisfied with news. I prefer more intimate involvement.

There is a possibility that I'm too involved in the lives of my kids. When I talk with some people, it certainly seems that way. Still, I'm pretty confident that my kids don't see my involvement as intrusive since they continue to invite it.

I actually like my kids. I like talking with them and hearing their views even when they differ from mine (they're wrong of course). I like when they decide to drop by the house, or the ability to pop in to see them when the mood strikes. I like having access to their daily lives and being immediately available if the need arises.

Even more rewarding is the fact that my kids like each other and socialize regularly. They each have their own friends, but they also have many in common. It may not be a unique situation, but I've seen a fair amount of evidence that it's not universal.

Without explicit planning I have ended up with a very tight-knit family. I can recall growing up and hearing lectures from my uncles how important family is and how necessary it was to work at keeping it together. I personally found these speeches annoying and actively avoided such things. Instead, I did my best to be involved with my kids on a regular basis as they grew up. I'm sure I'm not perfect, but I'm pleased with how things have turned out.

Now, with the advent of separation of the travel arrangement variety, I fear the loss of that intimacy and involvement. I always expected my kids to be independent individuals and that they are. I just never actually expected them to be independent and out of town.

The near future will be most interesting as the new adventure plays out. I have no plans to go anywhere at the moment, but the temptation is there. And, if I find that we are turning into some TV family, I'm sure that corrective measures will be in order.

Good Question

2007-04-04T06:12:00.000-04:00

Rosie O’Donnell is asking questions.

There are many people who are upset with Rosie O'Donnell.

Some people believe that the second statement is a reaction to the first and that's just silly. I'm quite confident that nobody minds Rosie asking questions. I'm also confident that the people upset with Rosie are annoyed with her implicit and explicit unsupported accusations, not her inquiries.

But then, Rosie O'Donnell is an idiot and idiots can often be annoying. The reason I even mention Rosie is because she is a good example anorexic intelligence.

The word anorexic has it's roots in the Greek word meaning a lack of appetite. And anyone who has paid attention to Rosie for any length of time can easily see that she doesn't really have an appetite for thought. Instead, like many people, she throws out questions.

Any lame brain can ask questions, and many do (some even have TV shows). Questions, however, are not the objective, answers are. It's in the answers that intelligence is found, not in the questions. Questions are the tools to find knowledge, like shovels are the tools to find buried treasure. Someone with hundreds of shovels is hardly respected for their treasure, so why is it that some think asking questions is intelligent?

The purpose of the shovel is to move the dirt out of the way to get to the treasure. The purpose of questions is to move inconsistency and lack of clarity out of the way to see the truth. The key to the proper use of both tools is the ability to recognize what should be discarded and what should be kept.

A person who digs holes looking for dirt is probably missing the point. This is similar to the person who continues to ask questions because they don't like the answers. A person who asks a question and expects a specific answer is not looking for truth, but confirmation of their prejudice. True intelligence is the ability to recognize the right answer and thus know when to stop asking questions.

A common sequence goes something like:

Q. How is it that such and such and so and so happened?

A. Those events were caused by a rare chain of events.

Q. Well, what about this and that?

A. Those are not uncommon side effects.

Q. Well, what about ...

You get the picture. The object is not to know something correctly, but to show someone else as wrong. People such as Rosie O'Donnell are more set on showing someone is wrong than learning what is right. Rosie and people who operate like her either lack the ability to recognize the right answer to their questions, or don't really care about the right answer.

Anorexic Intelligence sometimes known as AI - Artificial Ignorance.

Perfection

2007-03-27T06:44:00.000-04:00

Have you ever done or made something and then looked at it and said, "Well, that's rather unattractive?" Have your efforts ever fallen short of your intentions? Have you ever produced something that was downright embarrassing?

I have and my typical response is to whine. Yes, I'm a whiner. I don't whimper and I don't cry, I whine. There is a difference after all. Crying is for girls and whimpering is nothing other than uncommitted crying.

When you whine, if you do it right, you're in control. A good whine about your failures will evoke sympathy, comfort and support. An effective and well timed whine may even allow you a peek into the world of the popular (who sometimes look for ways to prove they're not stuck up).

However, whining can back fire. I took a course once called, How to Whine Your Way to Social Alienation and I learned that one has to be careful with their whines. Whining must be well planned and targeted. It makes no sense to whine alone. Still, if used properly whining can be a force for good. But, enough of that.

One major fact of life is that nobody is perfect. I realize that there are some who are unaware of this even though their imperfections are on display for all to see, but the fact remains.

Fortunately for me, I have friends who care about me and are more than willing to point out my failings. Some with more gusto than others, but helpful nonetheless. And, with the numerous opportunities to take note of my short-comings, I've been able to consider my deficiencies frequently.

One thing I've noticed about a poor performance is that many people view them as indications of lesser worth. Over the years, I've come to view my less than stellar products as opportunities to learn something I didn't already know.

In Junior High School I was once asked what I wanted to be when I grew up. My response was, "I want to be a know-it-all." As I've aged, I come to understand that I probably will never know it all, but somehow a "know-a-lot-of-it" doesn't have the same ring, so I keep looking for new things to learn and do.

From where I sit, perspective is the key to failure. If you see your imperfections as a lack of value then with enough exposure to life you'll eventually believe that you're not worth anybody's time. However, if you look at your inability as an opportunity to expand yourself you'll soon be more than you already are and what can be wrong with that?

Distractions

2007-03-19T20:54:00.000-04:00

I am a big fan of the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The writers had a way of sprinkling wit and wisdom throughout each episode. In one particular episode we have Spike (a vampire) who is going through a bit of insanity. In the middle of his ramblings he says:

"It's supposed to help to help, but it doesn't."

The advice is not rare, "If you're feeling a little down or left out concentrate on helping someone other than yourself and you'll find that you feel better." The idea is that by focusing on someone else's problem you'll come to see that your problem as a little smaller. This is because you'll see your problem in context with the rest of the problems around you and realize that things could be worse. Or, by concentrating on someone else's problem you'll forget about your own.

My impression is that this practice is generally used as a distraction. The logic is if you look at someone else's problem then you won't see your own and as a result you won't feel so bad. My guess is that people who have tried this either end up totally ignoring their own issues (and often become a bother to others), or they come to the same conclusion as Spike, that is, that it doesn't help to help.

Helping someone is a remarkable experience, particularly if you do it without benefit to yourself. Some might say that it is downright magical. There is no scientific explanation, though I'm sure some will attempt one, but the experiential (thus empirical) evidence is quite plentiful. Poems, books, songs and after school specials have all been created as attempts to share the experience of unrequited kindness.

Unrequited kindness is the secret to true help. That is the difference between Spike's understanding and the thrust of the advice we receive. Spike is looking to get something by helping someone, whether it be something tangible or his own emotional well-being, the ultimate beneficiary of his assistance is himself.

By short-circuiting the process and looking for his own benefit Spike walked away empty-handed. He tried to harvest the fruit without planting a tree. The magic of being a help to someone is making them the end of the act. Real help cannot occur if the helper is on the lookout for his own reward.

The good thing in all this is that there are plenty of people who need help. The opportunities to experience the magic are endless. Now, I'm not saying that by helping someone that your problems will be solved or diminished in any way, but somebody's will. And, if more people practice true help, there will be more help to go around.

Generations

2007-03-11T17:59:00.000-04:00

There is a young boy who spends a fair amount of time at my house. Enough time so that he feels quite comfortable and assumes a certain command of his environment. This young man is my grandchild, the fourth in a growing collection.

Today is a typical day where the star of the show is going through his routine prompting applause, laughter and amazement. Grandma and I watch and participate where required. Typically, Grandma watches and Grandpa participates.

Sometimes this participation requires knowing how to respond. At approximately a year and a half this boy has yet to conform to any specific language. Still, communication is attempted and assumed accomplished. For example, he has lately taken to coming to me and enunciating a series of syllables, then laughing heartily. My interpretation of this is that he is relating one of his favorite jokes, so I laugh along with him. He's very funny.

Another type of participation requires that I lay on the floor while he runs across the room with his favorite pillow. The climax of this activity involves him throwing the pillow on my back while simultaneously diving head-first into it. The completion of the act is signified by him growling like a lion and then grunting like an old man as he climbs off to do it again.

The most recent participatory activity requires that Grandpa follow him to his room and crawl under the crib. Typically this is followed by him crawling under then crib, telling a few jokes and then laughing outrageously. This routine changed today.

Today, I was commanded to follow him into the room and take my place under the crib. Then I was given a blanket and pillow while he said something, apparently important. This preparation was then followed by him walking out of the room and closing the door. He returned shortly, poked his head in the door and simply said, "Hi." I guess my nap was over.

Now this young man is my buddy, my chum, my pal and my biggest fan. When I walk in the door he comes running and cannot wait to start all the participatory events. He spends a great deal of time just standing by my chair and watching what I do. He is always happy to see me and that is the greatest thing in the world.

Of my four grandchildren I have had the opportunity to witness the birth, infancy and growth of three. The oldest came as a package deal with a new daughter-in-law and was already well beyond this stage when he arrived, so I missed it. The other two have started school now and grown beyond this stage and while glad to see me, they have other things to do, so I know this is only temporary. That's not a bad thing.

Even though I know this is temporary it is not any less special. A grandchild is, by far, the coolest thing in the world. In this early part of life is the opportunity to create a bond that you have to experience to appreciate. Someone once said that grandchildren are the reward for surviving your kids, and that's quite a reward.

I may not like my parents. I may not like my wife. I may not like my kids, but how can I not love my grandkids? Sometimes blessings like this are made so obvious that you cannot help but marvel at their richness. Today was one of those days.

Nothing for Something

2007-03-06T18:52:00.000-05:00

While watching television there was a commercial for a sandwich shop. Nothing particularly memorable except the closing promise; "If you're not satisfied we'll give you another sandwich free."

This is not a new technique. I've been to restaurants where I was less than happy when I left. There have been times when the manager foolishly asked how I enjoyed my stay and I replied in all honesty. In return for my candor I was offered a free meal.

In addition to the food industry, there have been other product or service providers that have offered the product for free when their customer is dissatisfied. To my way of thinking, this is a pretty empty offer.

Maybe I'm unusual, though I think not so much, but I have to be pretty unhappy with something to complain. I don't expect perfection, simply an honest attempt at competence, so if I complain it's because I have received something that is not only unacceptable, but undesirable.

Consider this re-phrasing of that promise; "If you don't like our product and wish you hadn't had it, then we'll give you more of it." The question is, "If I didn't like it, why would I want more?"

Let's consider the type of person who goes to a restaurant and says, "Your food made me sick, but if I didn't have to pay for it, I'd eat it again." We'd either think that these folks are lying and really liked the food but want it for free, or that these people have no identifiable standards.

There are people out there who believe that anything for free is a good thing, but we don't generally take their advice in matter of quality. I think that for the most part people really don't want something that is unsatisfying even if it is free.

So, the "if you don't like it, it's free" has no appeal to me and is a pretty safe bet for the offerer, but it sounds good. I have never taken anyone up on the offer and don't imagine I ever will.

I'm There For You

2007-02-12T07:23:00.000-05:00

Back before the turn of the century, I was waiting to have a procedure done that some folks have not survived. I was a bit nervous and wanted to talk with a friend. So, I made a phone call and was promised that I would get a return call as soon a previous conversation was complete. The promise was empty and the call never came. Subsequent calls had the same result. Apparently, I had really bad timing.

Someone said, "Needing a friend is like needing a parachute. If they're not there the first time you need them chances are you won't be needing them again."

Recent events in the lives of those around me have brought this experience to the surface. It is not uncommon for people to say, "Let me know what I can do for you" or "I'm there if you need me." Fortunately, these offers are rarely called upon and they appear real.

More recently, the life of a friend was turned upside down and needed significant help. There was much lamenting by those claiming concern and many offers of support and assistance. However, when assistance was requested and action needed, many, if not most, of those claiming concern and promising help were nowhere to be found. Calls for aid fell on deaf ears.

Why is that?

It could be that most people are simply playing a socially conditioned role and have no intention of getting involved. But I find it difficult to accept that people are that shallow. I would like to believe that people are genuinely affected by the lives of those around them.

Maybe, people don't expect that their offer will ever be taken and they make it more as an attempt to comfort than as a bona fide offer. This seems a bit more plausible since I'm convinced that people generally want to do the right thing and they believe that appearing supportive is somehow beneficial.

I can accept that, still when the offer is accepted, how can they refuse to make good? Why make a promise if you're not willing to keep it?

Now what strikes me as most interesting is that many people who need help don't ask for it. Many times because they know it won't come. They've heard the promises, yet they don't take them at face value. Many times when people in need have been reminded of promises I've heard them say, "They really didn't mean that." They recognize that the promise was not real.

To my way of thinking, something is wrong. When someone makes a promise that they don't intend to keep and someone gets a promise that they know is empty, what does a promise mean? When words no longer carry the weight of action behind them what's the point?

When I was significantly less aged than I am now my father told me to be careful of what I say because someday, somewhere, someone would believe me and then I'd be responsible for what I said. That one lesson has stuck with me more than anything my father ever told me.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of world this might be if we could actually believe the things people say.

I make no claims to perfection, nor can I say I keep every promise I make, but I am aware of promises when I make them and honestly try to keep those that I make. Every unfulfilled promise makes me less trustworthy and if I cannot be trusted, then what good am I?

Gruntled

2007-01-08T08:19:00.000-05:00

It seems an obvious fact that disgruntled members provide the least reliable information about the environment of an organization. This applies to clubs, associations and companies equally. However, the more I think about it, the less I'm convinced.

The person who is disgruntled is said to be ill-humored or discontented and the obvious question should be "Why?" Yet, too often the question is bypassed and the conclusion is drawn that they are unreliable.

I'm pretty confident, that this short-circuit is a blanket application of Aesop's story about the fox and the grapes; the one where the fox couldn't get the grapes, so assumed they were sour. The application being that the disgruntled individual didn't get what they wanted, so therefore their perception is fabricated to soothe their own ego. There's no doubt that this is a valid conclusion in many cases, but is it as near universal as it's assumed to be?

That the disgruntled individual is discontented is obvious, but the question should be, "What is the reason for their discontent?" Were their expectations unrealistic? If so, then their discontent is unjustified. However, if their expectations were reasonable, even promised, should not their testimony carry a greater weight?

Over the years, I have been involved with quite a few organizations at a variety of levels. It has been my observation that the organizations that make the loudest claims about the quality of their environment are those that are least aware of the rising discontent of their members.

Now there are various reasons for this particular disconnect. One reason being that many disgruntled members lie to those above them in the organization. My guess is many do this to avoid being labeled a malcontent and thus avoid the associated repercussions. And there are repercussions ranging from dangerous to annoying.

Another reason why the view from the top and the view from the bottom differ is that somewhere in the intermediate levels of the organization the interest in the "gruntledness" of the members is lost. The result being that members become disgruntled. The public face and the private activities become disconnected.

It is easy to point to the mid-level and say the problem is there, but that would be simplistic. How this mid-level came to be is a more production query. Was it not installed by yet higher levels? And do those higher levels not know how their subordinates operate? Or, do they not care? To some extent, the responsibility for discontent flows up the ladder.

So, if we rule out unreasonable expectations do we still find discontent? Without a doubt. Should these disgruntled members be dismissed? I think not. The disgruntled call into question the credibility of those who would dismiss them. Those who are not happy are unhappy for a reason. Maybe instead of protecting their reputation, organizations should spend a bit more effort in supporting it.

What Have I Done

2006-12-07T07:27:00.000-05:00

I have paid for my daughter's boyfriend to go to school.

I have helped a friend of a friend because my friend asked me.

I have assisted a stranger in need.

I have been a friend to people who have been rejected by others.

I have taken the blame to protect someone who made an honest mistake.

I have provided my skills and talents without charge.

I have "borrowed" money from my parents (and forgot to repay it).

I have walked past legitimate charities.

I have ignored friends in need.

I have lied to people who trusted me.

I have been excessively harsh to people.

I have spread rumors.

I have not lived up to the person I believe that I am.

We like to think that we're really "not that bad" and that deep down we're good people. It's a lot easier thinking this than it is recognizing that our actions often reveal motives that are less than pure.

Over the course of my life thus far I've done quite a few things for which I am quite proud. Those that are aware of these actions have commented on my charitable nature. Still, if I compare the things I've done with the things I haven't done (and I'm only looking at things I could have done), I find that my charity does not equal my opportunity.

I remember watching a TV show one time and the characters were going through photographs in an attic. The comment that stuck in my mind was, "People only take pictures of the good times." That struck me as profound, we only record what makes us feel good about ourselves and tend to leave by the wayside those things that might show us in a bad light.

Yet I know that if I honestly look at myself and my activities, the less than commendable actions are still there for review. Unfortunately, they don't fade as much or as fast as I would like. With minimal effort, I can recall opportunities to do good that I ignored. The saddest part of this is the fact that many of these opportunities would have cost me little or nothing; a small inconvenience. And still, I passed.

Oddly enough, I still like to think that I'm not as bad as many. But, knowing what I know about me, there's a fair to good chance that I may be wrong in that assessment.

I have done good with my life, but I could do better.

Hello

2006-12-01T07:58:00.000-05:00

A common meeting:

Person 1: "Hello, how are you?"

Person 2: "Fine, how are you?"

Person 1: "I'm fine."

"Hello, how are you?" or some variation is a relatively common greeting and too often a throw away question. That is, a question that is asked without significant interest in the response used to initiate a conversation. It has always struck me as a bit disappointing that asking about someone's well-being wasn't really intended to learn about the wellness of that person.

Let's try that meeting again:

Person 1: "Hello, how are you?

Person 2: "That's a tough question."

P1: "What do you mean, it seems pretty straightforward to me?"

P2: "Well, it's only straightforward if the question is empty."

P1: "How can my asking how you are doing be an empty question?"

P2: "Depending on what you do with the information contained in the response, the question can easily become pointless and answering it becomes futile."

P1: "I'm simply asking how you're doing, why are you making this so complicated?"

P2: "Because it is complicated. If I simply say I'm doing fine, then I have given you a rote answer that may or may not be accurate. If my response is an accurate assessment of my well-being, then all is good; no harm no foul. But if my response does not represent my current state, then things get complex."

P1: "I don't get how things can get complex if I ask how you're doing and you say fine, whether you mean it or not."

P2: "If I'm not fine, then I've lied to you. Now, I may lie to you to hide something unpleasant in my life so as not to be humiliated. Or, I may lie to you to protect you from the affects of things I'm experiencing. Then, I may lie to you because I don't want to be bothered with you. And, I may lie to you because I don't believe you're really interested."

P1: "Do you think I would ask if I wasn't interested?"

P2: "It's even more complicated than that. And, yes I think many people ask without any real interest. You see, when you ask that question, you expect information in return. If I don't tell you what you expect to hear, then I need to gauge what you will do with the information I give you.

P1: "What the heck are you talking about?"

P2: "Let's say you ask how I'm doing and I reply by saying that I'm a little depressed. What will you do with that information?"

P1: "I really don't know what I'd do."

P2: "You can rest assured that you will do something. Even if you do not respond with any more than a trite 'too bad', that information will affect you."

P1: "Okay, how?"

P2: "First, that information will become part of your overall impression of me. Even if you do not explicitly remember it, it will alter your future thoughts. Second, once you have the information, you have to decide how you will respond to it."

P1: "How I respond?"

P2: "Yes, now that you have the information you have to decide what you will do with it. You can address the information directly and that typically involves getting more intimately involved with someone else which is a pretty significant decision. Or, you can choose to let the information pass on by which keeps you at a distance, and points to the view that you really didn't want an answer, which pretty much makes the question empty."

P1: "And here I thought I was just saying Hi."

The Wonder of Words

2006-11-15T07:36:00.000-05:00

Tom Gagne is a pretty smart cookie. I'd like to claim that I taught him everything he knows, but he would rightfully deny it and then there'd be name-calling and lawsuits and all sorts of uncomfortable things. But, I digress ...

In Tom's technology blog he made two statements that caught my attention, though I'm sure they affected me differently than he intended (thus the value of his writing). While Tom was talking about object oriented programming and static typing I was thinking about something else when he said:

"It is not the responsibility of the receiver to determine the qualities of the sender, but the privilege of the sender to determine the suitability of the receiver."

and

"Language can either widen or narrow your thinking. The more limited or incongruent your language the more limited and incongruent your solutions."

While these statements are significant within the context of Tom's article, they have an even greater significance in life over all. First, it is not the responsibility of the receiver to determine the qualities of the sender.

It seems that society has this backwards almost everywhere. Advertisers regularly attempt to mislead. Writers complain that readers often "miss the point." Teachers blame students for their failure to learn. The people who have scorn those who have not.

Those that have and those that have not are the two sides of an information exchange. The reason why it is not the responsibility of the receiver (the have not) is because they "have not." The receiver lacks the information, the context and as a result, the ability to naturally accept what the sender has to offer. Thus, it is the sender's task to develop an environment in the receiver to accept what is offered. Again, this is so because, quite simply, the receiver lacks the wherewithal to receive without the accommodation of the sender.

To continue Tom's statement, it is the privilege of the sender to determine the suitability of the receiver. An integration of this reality can be life changing; not only for the sender, but for the multitude of potential receivers.

Before we can appreciate the privilege I think we should get a better picture of the effect of an information exchange. When I give to someone else, I expand their knowledge, property and experience; their world. When they walk away, they are more than when we met.

If I've done my job right; if I've taken the time to develop and prepare a context for what I give, I have expanded myself as well. By learning enough about the receiver to make a place for what I give, I have increased my own resources. I add to me and my world by adding to another and their world. Like Saint Francis said, "it's in giving that we receive."

I had a friend who is now a rather successful artist and we would regularly discuss the objective of "art." His contention was that art was an expression meant to communicate the insights of the artist, which seemed reasonable to me. Where we differed was at who was responsible for making that communication possible; the artist or the viewer. My contention was that any communicator that is not understood is not communicating, but merely wasting time.

In a similar way, my father told me that a person who cannot teach what they know, really doesn't know what they think they do. His point was that to teach a subject required the ability to present it in such a way that allowed it to be learned. This meant that the teacher needed to find the right connections between the subject and the student which required knowing the subject well enough to be able to identify as many connection points as possible. To my father's way of thinking, the teacher who had the least number of connection points had the least knowledge of the subject.

This idea flows right into Tom's other statement, "Language can either widen or narrow your thinking. The more limited or incongruent your language the more limited and incongruent your solutions."

Language is the tool we use to communicate. The better our language skills, the better our communication. The better our communication, the bigger our world. Learning and knowing others is how we make ourselves better.

The Two Shall Be One (or more)

2006-11-02T08:15:00.000-05:00

"What's up with that?" were the first words I heard from the fella who shares an office with me.

My response was, "What are you talking about?"

To which he replied, "These people getting married and keeping separate accounts."

He was listening to a radio program where they were talking about a trend in marriage where the husband and the wife maintain their own accounts after getting married and then they split the shared bills down the middle while each paying their own prior debts. Effectively, they stay single financially. I don't know what they do with any excess that either may have, but the whole arrangement seemed like a recipe for trouble.

Aside from the high potential for inequality in incomes and expenses, thus an inequality in contributions to "entertainment" funds, there comes a myriad of questions about how to handle the expenses of raising a child, or what to do if one of the two is unable to contribute due to health or economy. From this perspective, it seems that trying to remain single after getting married is more work than it's worth.

This is not the first time I had heard about this type of arrangement. I've talked with folks over the years who have expressed these ideas justifying them by saying, "I don't think it's fair that I be responsible for his debts from before we got married." Or, "Why shouldn't I have control over the money I bring into the relationship?"

There once was a time when people got married because they wanted to be together. A man looked at a woman and thought, "I want her in my life" and a woman saw a man and thought, "I want to live my life with him." Those that wanted to get married want to be together. They saw their marriage as the combination of two lives into one. They were willing to take the good with the bad believing that the good greatly outweighed any bad that came with it.

They may have miscalculated the amount of bad, yet they were aware that it existed and were willing to take it. At one time people understood that when you married someone, you married the whole person, come what may. Too many marriages today seem to hedge their bets and set the ground work for a successful divorce before the marriage even starts. Seems like a plan to fail to me.

Some will argue that it is wise to plan for the possibility of failure. They can still be fully committed even though they've prepared for the worst. I'm not convinced. It seems to me that if you have a safety net you're a little less afraid of failure. There is a lot more intensity in watching someone walk a high wire without a net than there is watching someone with a net. The person with the net has less at risk and can afford to take more chances. Whereas the person without the net has to be very careful about each more; be very aware of the effects and consequences of the things that are done. Working with a net may be more entertaining, but it can also make you sloppy.

To my knowledge, the typical wedding vows still contain the phrases, "for better or for worse," and "for richer and for poorer" and "in sickness and in health." And, while those exact words may not be spoken at every wedding, the intent is typically there. I have never been to, nor heard of a wedding where the vows included anything like, "as long as I'm happy about the situation." Regardless of the words used, the intention is always to be there for each other during the good and the bad.

The prevalence of divorce these days would seem to indicate that either those getting married didn't say these things, or they really didn't mean it (they lied).

I'm starting to think that people don't really mean the things they say during their wedding ceremonies. The fact that keeping separate accounts is a growing trend would support the idea that the words used in weddings are pretty empty. The thought that you can marry someone's future and not their past says that we're not talking full commitment here.

My question then is, "Why get married?" What is the value of marriage when in the end you still have two people living individual lives rather than living the same life together? Doesn't the fact that people are willing to publicly say things they don't mean show a serious decline in personal integrity? What's wrong with this picture?

Sometimes you just have to ask, "Where are we going and why am I in the hand basket?"

It's Not Just Business

2006-10-24T07:57:00.000-04:00

"It's nothing personal ..." is usually a phrase that is followed by something that is extremely personal. People use the phrase in social conversation to express their dislike for something. Typically, that something is what a person does; which is rather personal, don't you think? It's a weak attempt to soften the blow of pointing out something irritating about someone.

Too often, the phrase is used in a business context; "It's nothing personal, it's just business." This is probably one of the coldest things anyone can say because in effect they're saying you're not a person; you're cog in the machinery of this organization. When it's not personal, yet involves a person, it steals the humanity from one person and mortally wounds the humanity of another.

In a social context, the phrase is an attempt to spare the feelings of the person being chided. It is misguided, but it really does recognize the fact that the recipient is a person. In business, it is specifically used to remove the person-ness from the individual in an attempt to make the forthcoming damage seem inevitable.

The problem here is that whatever it may be, it is personal. The effects of such conversations always affect a person and their very life; often the effects affect multiple persons. Whenever people are involved, it's personal.

Yet, business people continue to operate under the wicked belief that the organization is more important. Too many business people strive to keep the business going, and if that means hurting people, then so be it. The rationale is that it is better to hurt a few to save the many. That may be a noble sentiment if it were true, but the reality is that those that are saved, are typically those least in danger of being hurt. Too often, the $30,000 a year employee is terminated so that the $200,000 a year employee can keep their job.

It's not personal, it's just business. Yes, it's a business that reduces people to the equivalent of machinery. It's a business that eats it’s seed. It's a business that rapes it's young. It is a wicked thing. And yet, it continues. And yet, it grows.

And worse yet, it infects those it touches.

My guess would be that most folks believe that to strip someone of their humanity and treat them as a commodity is a bad thing. Yet, without looking very hard, we can see that co-workers do it on a regular basis without really knowing it.

How often are we advised to not make friends at work? How frequently do we keep our distance from our co-workers because we don't want to get involved with someone who may not be there tomorrow? How easy is it to hear of someone being treated unfairly and not be outraged? How many co-workers do we treat as things rather than people?

We are a sectioned people. We have separated our lives into different areas; private and public; social and business; family and friends. We have set up different operating guidelines for each section, and as a result find life very complex and confusing; particularly when we interact with people who show up to multiple sections.

Our multiple personalities conflict. Our sections overlap. Our lives become a maze of rules to follow and lines we shouldn't cross. People are no longer who they are, but points of interaction within a sectional context. We no longer know anyone, only about them. We rarely have true friends, merely differing levels of acquaintances. We have organized our lives so much that we spend most of our energy maintaining the organization rather than living.

Come on people! Stop it!

Who's Better Off?

2006-10-13T06:55:00.000-04:00

Whilst wandering the web I came across this quaint little diagram. The title had to do with how much better the earth would be if we (humans) weren't here.

What we have here is an anthropomorphism; an attempt to make the earth human.

Isn't that silly?

It's like saying, "My car feels like a part of the family when I drive it." Or, "My house gets lonely when I travel." In the end, or even in the middle (heck, from the very start), it's meaningless. It's non-sense. It's a manipulative attempt to evoke an emotional response, typically guilt.

Aside from the religious message involvled (yes boys and girls earth-worship is a religion), the idea of the earth being better off raises some rather interesting questions.

1. Why should I care?

If I'm not here, then why does the state of the earth matter to me? I, and probably most people, don't care about the quality of Saturn. Why? Because we're not there and it's quality does not affect us. The only reason we care about the quality of the earth is because we're here. So, not being here totally separates me from any interest beyond curiosity. Of course, that assumes that I'll have some awareness of earth's quality wherever I may be, if I be at all.

2. How would I know?

If I'm not here, then where am I? My guess is that most people who say things like this don't really think about it, but if they do, they tend to have some sort of "Its a Wonderful Life" kind of idea where they can somehow observe their absence and derive some experience from it. But if I'm not here, chances are I'm not anywhere, so how would I know, and again, why should I care? Or, how would I know to care?

It's all very confusing.

3. Why are the people who say these things still here?

It seems somewhat less than committed to say the earth would be better without us and then still be here. It's kinda like the people who helped Jim Jones hand out the Kool-Aid and lived to tell the tale. It seems to me that if these people really believed the earth would be better off without us, they'd leave a note saying something like "I'm killing myself to make the earth a better place."

They don't, so you have to wonder about what they really believe. Maybe they figure the earth would be better off if the rest of us weren't here. That would at least be honest.

Would the earth be better off if we weren't here? Nobody really knows what that means. I'm pretty sure the earth would operate the way some people think it should. But so what? Would the earth know that it was better? Somehow, I think not.

The quality of the earth only matters because we're here so taking us out of the equation says absolutely nothing of value. However, while we're in the equation, we need to be aware of our influence because it's pivotal.

We already know that if we take ourselves out of the environment, then the environment has no relevance. Thus, we can conclude that our presence is very, if not most, significant. So, anything that reduces our significance reduces the value of the quality of the earth.

Yes, I am more important than animals. This is because I am me and they are not. I'm sure if they could form a logical thought, they would think the same about me. And, our activities are for our benefit, therefore our significance is primary. (If non-humans are so important, let them take care of themselves. Oops, kinda went anthropomorphic.)

Some might contend that we're using up all the resources. To these people I ask, "What good are they if we don't use them?" And, yes they will eventually run out; everything does. Our responsibility is develop these resources to our benefit and develop technologies to either extend the life of finite resources or replace them.

We are here which makes us part of the environment. We are clearly the most capable species on the planet (Please don't talk about living in harmony with nature unless you're going to talk religion. And if you believe in living in harmony with nature, then go do it and get off the Internet). There is much to be said and debated concerning the effectiveness and efficiency of our activities, and these are valid discussions. The fact of the matter remains, we are the primary concern, because our existence is what's most important to us.

Those Wacky Abortionists

2006-09-20T13:04:00.000-04:00

I just can't let this go. One of the many claims in making abortion legal was that it would take it out of the back alleys and make it safe. Well, here's one example of safety ... but for whom?

In a nutshell, here's what happened. A young lady went to get an abortion. She was given some preparatory medication and send home with instructions to return the next day. The following day, she returned telling the staff she felt ill. The staff put her in a recovery room to wait for the doctor. Here's where things get crazy.

While waiting, this lady gives birth to a live baby. Unfortunately, there are no licensed medical staff onsite at the time so things get chaotic.

The co-owner of the clinic comes and places the baby in a bio-hazard bag and then puts the baby on the roof of the building. This was done, apparently to keep the police from finding it.

A week later, the body is retrieved from the roof and somebody with a shread of conscience calls the police who raid this "medical facility." Lo and behold, they find the baby, or what's left after decomposition.

The saddest part of this is that the state attorney can't decide if murder charges should filed.

Remember, boys and girls, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe.

For the complete story check out the Miami Hearld article.

Persistence in Futility

2006-09-19T08:46:00.000-04:00

"Quitters never win and Winners never quit," or so goes the saying. The folks at Despair.com have extended that to say, "And those that never win and never quit are stupid."

Now there's a bit of wisdom in that extension. It's commonly accepted that attempting the same thing and expecting different results is a form of insanity. However, we are told that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Or, we are encouraged by that little old ant who thinks he can move that rubber tree plant.

On the other hand, the movie "War Games" goes to great lengths to teach us futility. After much dialog it all comes down to a simple game of tic-tac-toe to demonstrate that sometimes attaining success is futile. Some things are beyond our ability to overcome.

The question then is, "When does persistence become futility?" At what point can we determine that we can never win and it is an exercise of wisdom to quit? How long do we beat our head against the wall before we realize that only stopping will end the pain?

By extension, does quitting make us something other than winners? Are we really defeated when we recognize that success is beyond our reach? Or, are we wise by not wasting our energy and resources in a futile effort? Are we better off not throwing good money after bad?

I think it's fair to say that some things are futile. Regardless of how high the hopes of our little ant are, he's just not going to move that rubber tree plant. All the positive thinking in the world will not change the situation. And, I don't care what ALL fashion designers say, I don't see anything wrong with wearing stripes and plaid.

Persistence works when you have control. This seems pretty obvious. The more I sit at the piano and practice my scales, the more natural they will become to me. The more push-ups I do, the easier they will become. The more disciplined and meticulous I am in my studies, the more knowledge I'll obtain.

Persistence works not because it changes situations, but because it changes me. The scales don't change, the push-ups don't change, the knowledge doesn't change; I change. If I don't change, then persistence becomes futility and, according to some, eventually insanity. It seems pretty clear then, that in order to succeed, we would need to change ourselves.

Many people advocate this perspective. Millions of dollars are made by those that teach compromise or adapting to the environment. The successful are those that can be what the situation wants.

The last question, then is, "Is that a good thing?"

Do we change who we are in order to succeed? If we do, then can we ever know who we are? Or, are we ever anybody? Or do we adapt to the situation and then revert back when we get what we want? Which, to my mind, seems a bit dishonest.

We can preach persistence all we want, but at some point we need to recognize futility before we stop being who we are and become who knows what.

Bulverism

2006-09-08T06:46:00.000-04:00

I didn't write what follows, but it is well worth reading. From C.S. Lewis' "God in the Dock"

We have recently “discovered that we exist” in two new senses. The Freudians have discovered that we exist as bundles of complexes. The Marxians have discovered that we exist as members of some economic class. In the old days it was supposed that if a thing seemed obviously true to a hundred men, then it was probably true in fact. Nowadays the Freudian will tell you to go and analyze the hundred: you will find that they all think Elizabeth [I] a great queen because they all have a mother-complex. Their thoughts are psychologically tainted at the source. And the Marxist will tell you to go and examine the economic interests of the hundred; you will find that they all think freedom a good thing because they are all members of the bourgeoisie whose prosperity is increased by a policy of laissez-faire. Their thoughts are “ideologically tainted” at the source.

Now this is obviously great fun; but it has not always been noticed that there is a bill to pay for it. There are two questions that people who say this kind of thing ought to be asked. The first is, are all thoughts thus tainted at the source, or only some? The second is, does the taint invalidate the tainted thought - in the sense of making it untrue - or not?

If they say that all thoughts are thus tainted, then, of course, we must remind them that Freudianism and Marxism are as much systems of thought as Christian theology or philosophical idealism. The Freudian and Marxian are in the same boat with all the rest of us, and cannot criticize us from outside. They have sawn off the branch they were sitting on. If, on the other hand, they say that the taint need not invalidate their thinking, then neither need it invalidate ours. In which case they have saved their own branch, but also saved ours along with it.

The only line they can really take is to say that some thoughts are tainted and others are not - which has the advantage (if Freudians and Marxians regard it as an advantage) of being what every sane man has always believed. But if that is so, we must then ask how you find out which are tainted and which are not. It is no earthly use saying that those are tainted which agree with the secret wishes of the thinker. Some of the things I should like to believe must in fact be true; it is impossible to arrange a universe which contradicts everyone’s wishes, in every respect, at every moment. Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant - but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

I find the fruits of his discovery almost everywhere. Thus I see my religion dismissed on the grounds that “the comfortable parson had every reason for assuring the nineteenth century worker that poverty would be rewarded in another world.” Well, no doubt he had. On the assumption that Christianity is an error, I can see clearly enough that some people would still have a motive for inculcating it. I see it so easily that I can, of course, play the game the other way round, by saying that “the modern man has every reason for trying to convince himself that there are no eternal sanctions behind the morality he is rejecting.” For Bulverism is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it give no unfair advantage to the small and offensive minority who reason. But of course it gets us not one inch nearer to deciding whether, as a matter of fact, the Christian religion is true or false. That question remains to be discussed on quite different grounds - a matter of philosophical and historical argument. However it were decided, the improper motives of some people, both for believing it and for disbelieving it, would remain just as they are.

I see Bulverism at work in every political argument. The capitalists must be bad economists because we know why they want capitalism, and equally Communists must be bad economists because we know why they want Communism. Thus, the Bulverists on both sides. In reality, of course, either the doctrines of the capitalists are false, or the doctrines of the Communists, or both; but you can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning - never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.

Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs. Each side snatches it early as a weapon against the other; but between the two reason itself is discredited. And why should reason not be discredited? It would be easy, in answer, to point to the present state of the world, but the real answer is even more immediate. The forces discrediting reason, themselves depend of reasoning. You must reason even to Bulverize. You are trying to prove that all proofs are invalid. If you fail, you fail. If you succeed, then you fail even more - for the proof that all proofs are invalid must be invalid itself.

The alternative then is either sheer self-contradicting idiocy or else some tenacious belief in our power of reasoning, held in the teeth of all the evidence that Bulverists can bring for a “taint” in this or that human reasoner. I am ready to admit, if you like, that this tenacious belief has something transcendental or mystical about it. What then? Would you rather be a lunatic than a mystic?

So we see there is justification for holding on to our belief in Reason. But can this be done without theism? Does “I know” involve that God exists? Everything I know is an inference from sensation (except the present moment). All our knowledge of the universe beyond our immediate experiences depends on inferences from these experiences. If our inferences do not give a genuine insight into reality, then we can know nothing. A theory cannot be accepted if it does not allow our thinking to be a genuine insight, nor if the fact of our knowledge is not explicable in terms of that theory.

But our thoughts can only be accepted as a genuine insight under certain conditions. All beliefs have causes but a distinction must be drawn between (1) ordinary causes and (2) a special kind of cause called “a reason.” Causes are mindless events which can produce other results than belief. Reasons arise from axioms and inferences and affect only beliefs. Bulverism tries to show that the other man has causes and not reasons and that we have reasons and not causes. A belief which can be accounted for entirely in terms of causes is worthless. This principle must not be abandoned when we consider the beliefs which are the basis of others. Our knowledge depends on our certainty about axioms and inferences. If these are the results of causes, then there is no possibility of knowledge. Either we can know nothing or thought has reasons only, and no causes.

Believe What You Want

2006-08-29T07:39:00.000-04:00

I knew a man who hated classical music. He had heard his high school band perform and decided that classical music was boring and uneventful. Then, one day, through a bit of coercion he heard a professional orchestra play the same thing he'd heard in high school. The difference was like night and day. The fullness of the music was breath-taking. While this man is still not a fan of classical music, he can now appreciate it after experiencing it as it should be.

The man had a Metanoia experience.

Metanoia is a Greek word that literally means "with knowledge" and typically carries an extended interpretation of "a change in direction as a result of a new level of understanding."

Many people form opinions and beliefs on the basis of bad or limited experiences. This is natural, we work with what we know. The problem is that we are too easily satisfied with what we know. We too often take the word of amateurs as authoritive. This is why young people are generally pretty stupid when it comes to sex; they trust their friends rather than their parents.

Science and Religion suffer the results of amateur experts more than anything. Both have a variety of voices claiming to speak for them. Both have the popular media reporting information in the most simplistic manner. Both have idiots that somehow get a platform to speak. Both are such large subjects that they are difficult to grasp without significant effort.

I am not a scientist and I respect the views of experts. I read the odd scientific journal here and there and try to keep up with what's being said. I take everything in the popular media with a grain of salt (sometimes a whole bag of salt).

While I do not possess scientific credentials, I do have an ability to think and I carefully weigh what I hear. In my lifetime science has gone from predicting global cooling to predicting global warming. This makes me skeptical of current claims. That the earth is getting warmer can be clearly demonstrated. But why it's getting warmer and what that means to the future is not so clear.

You see, the "vast majority" of scientists of 40 years ago claimed just the opposite of the "vast majority" of scientists today. That's two equal authorities saying opposite things. In matters of science, I generally accept what science says is (i.e. the earth is warmer), but I will typically question what science says it means (i.e. the sky is falling). While the observations of science have been pretty accurate, their interpretations leave a bit to be desired.

I am not a theologian, though I have done some serious study of religion; Christianity in particular. Religion is not so easy as science. Religion does not have codified rules for falsification and the idea of peer-review is not necessarily welcome. This is unfortunate.

Religion suffers from amateur presentation more so than science. Religion is often taught by kind hearted, good-intentioned people who sincerely believe. However, these same people rarely take their understanding beyond what is in the lesson plans they were given. Sunday school teachers teach what they know and that is too often very shallow.

There are reasons for this. First, religion is frequently taught by volunteers working in their free time. This does not make for a good learning environment. Second, religion is given less instruction time than sex ed, which again does lend itself to depth of study. Finally, religion is often presented as inspirational rather than educational. This is a big mistake. If religion is true, then it should be more than good feelings.

Many people reject religion. I am willing to bet that most of them reject it based upon amateur presentations in the early childhood. That being the case, these people reject religion, not out of knowledge, but out of ignorance. They are rejecting something based on limited information.

I think a Metanoia experience should be sought. People are free to believe what they want, but don't blame me if it turns out to be wrong.

A New Adventure

2006-08-25T08:21:00.000-04:00

Whilst wandering about the Internet and involving myself in the Blog-o-sphere I have enountered a few folks who have interrupted my pontifications and caused me to think. What a bother. They have lured me to their writings and thoughts and have seduced me into interactions. These people have rocked my boat and insinuated that I might be mistaken about some things.

Well, I'll fix that.

A new cooperative blog has been started called No More Talking Points. I'm not really sure what a talking point is, but I have been allowed to join in the discussion. I am honestly looking forward to the interaction this adventure will surely generate. The folks included have demonstrated that they each have a particular perspective and while differences are assured, civility and intelligence are the ultimate goal.

We are looking to increase our view; broaden our horizons, because a broader view makes for better decisions. I would encourage everyone to hop on over there and share in the experiment in civil discourse.

Oh yeah, I'll still be pontificating here (like anyone could stop me).

Shaking My Head

2006-08-22T19:05:00.000-04:00

Hurricane chief: Megadisaster 'is coming'

Great headline, eh? Makes you want to move to higher ground; head for the hills.

Max Mayfield, director of the U.S. National Hurricane Center had this to say ...

“I think the day is coming. I think eventually we’re going to have a very powerful hurricane in a major metropolitan area worse than what we saw in Katrina and it’s going to be a megadisaster. With lots of lost lives,” Mayfield said.
“I don’t know whether that’s going to be this year or five years from now or a hundred years from now. ..."

Notice how he says that he has no idea when this will happen. Also notice that he has no real evidence that conditions are primed for it to happen. And again, notice that this total lack of any knowledge whatsoever does not stop him from pronouncing implicit judgement and predicting explicit doom.

Please take note that this man is an idiot. With people like him running the Hurricane Center it's no wonder that Katrina was such a fiasco. That this man would say what he says without any evidence it's anybody's guess what he might say or do with real information.

It is most unfortunate that this man thinks he's saying something meaningful. What he says is like saying "You are going to die. It may not be today, or tomorrow, or in 50 years, but you are going to die." If somebody said that to you, you'd either laugh or join me in shaking your head.

While it is sad that this "Director of the U.S. National Hurricane Center" talks nonsense like it means something, it's even sadder that Reuters thinks it's worth reporting. And people trust this organization! Is there really nothing of substance to report?

I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Who are these people and what are they doing in my office anyway?

Advocate Schmadvocate

2006-08-09T06:45:00.000-04:00

Whenever I post something like this, my friend Tom asks, "What prompted that?" Well, let me tell you.

A little over a year ago a young lady I work with was shot in an attempted car-jacking, left paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair. When this happened she was expecting her first child.

Her situation put her in a position where without special furniture, she would not be able to care for her new baby easily. Aside from the modifications to her house, she needed a crib and changing table that were compatible with her restrictions. These things do not exist. Others in her position have had to modify standard equipment and the results, while workable, have been less than ideal.

Since I build furniture, I was asked if I could make something that would meet her needs. The results can be seen here.

My initial thought was that this was a one time thing. However, after some prodding and consideration I decided that there was a specific need for what I had done and that I should attempt let people know that it is available. This is where the problem begins.

For the past few months I have been intensely searching for ways to publicize the availability of my furniture. The internet is full of people asking for what I'm offering and yet I'm finding it difficult to let people know it exists.

"Why?" you ask. Because advocacy groups get in the way. The vast majority of disability organizations I've found are focused on advocating legislation. They don't actually do anything, but rather attempt to get laws made so that other people have to do things. Their idea of helping you is telling somebody else about your problem. I do not relate well to this mentality.

I find people who point at a problem and say someone should fix it rather than working to fix it themselves a pain in the neck. With all their words and publications they do very little to accomplish anything. From what I can see, their cost to accomplishment ratio is dismal.

And therein lies the burr under my saddle. The cost. Unfortunately, the furniture I make is not cheap and I cannot afford to give it away to everyone who asks. Those that need what I can provide are generally those that can least afford it. Yet when I contact organizations that claim to help those in need, they tell me that their emphasis is on legislation and fairness and eliminating discrimination and so on and so on.

These advocacy groups consume a fair amount of government grant money as well as charitable contributions. And yet, those in need still need. There is something wrong with this picture. It seems to me that if you exist to help someone and after you've helped them they are no better off than they were before your help, then you've pretty much done nothing. From my perspective, many advocates are stealing resources that could be doing real things.

Believe it or not, I think that advocates are necessary. However, if talking never becomes doing, then it would probably be best to shut up and quit wasting precious resources.

S.E.P.

2006-08-04T06:17:00.000-04:00

I enjoy reading my horoscope. I find it rather entertaining particularly since my wife and I share the same sign. This coincidence does cause a mix of anxiety and anticipation because if my horoscope mentions the possibility of romance I am forced to wonder if I'm going to get lucky or if my wife is cheating on me.

Often I read my horoscope the following day so that I can know what type of day I had. It's actually quite a bit easier than actually paying attention. But, today was a day that I decided to be proactive and read my horoscope in the morning. After some meaningless drivel it read, "You are not responsible for the happiness of the people around you."

How sad is that?

It's sad because the word happiness could be replaced with pretty much any word and it would still be indicative of the biggest problem in the world today. You are not responsible for the sorrow of the people around you. You are not responsible for the health of the people around you. You are not responsible for the safety of people around you.

You are not responsible.

You are an island unto yourself.

You have no obligation to do anything other than that which benefits you.

I am currently resisting the urge to simply rant because I know that serves no real purpose. Yet, this idea that individuality is supreme and that true accomplishment exists only in self-fulfillment is the most dangerous idea ever known to man. It has turned employees and co-workers into resources. It has made friendship into networking. It has turned kindness and charity into public relations. The identifier "I" has dehumanized the entire population.

They say it's lonely at the top. Well, of course it is. How else could it be when getting to the top typically means severing connections with anything below?

It is a fact that some people are more fortunate than others. The sheer coincidence of being in the right place at the right time can dramatically change the course of someone's life. Problems occur when these fortunate people begin to believe that they are more valuable or important because of their good fortune. And the problems are intensified when those without the good fortune agree with them. It's in this agreement that the seeds of separation and isolation are sown and castes are formed.

I am troubled that my deficient language skills prohibit me from expressing the emotions that this picture evokes in me and the only words that come to mind are "bad, bad, bad."

People are important. People have value. ALL PEOPLE, even those who may appear less so are worth the time. Charity and kindness are duties that accompany privilege.

(S.E.P. = Somebody Else's Problem)

Is This Possible? (only half joking)

2006-07-21T06:58:00.000-04:00

From Snopes.com:

AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT - CONGRESSIONAL ACT 2006

WASHINGTON , DC (AP) - Congress is considering sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislation by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have some idea of what they are doing."

The President pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack job skills, making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability.

Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%) The DMV also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability. (63%)

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in middle positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNA ACT contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Nonabled, banning discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?"

"As a Nonabled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Ted Kennedy, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation no matter how useless they may be."

Fake History

2006-07-18T07:07:00.000-04:00

On The New Yankee Workshop the other day, Norm was making a chair. This isn't particularly interesting (though chairs can be difficult to make), but his side trip to a shop where they "antiqued" furniture caught my attention. This "antique-ing" is the process of taking brand new furniture and beating and scratching it to make it appear old. Why?

I appreciate antiques. Their survival gives them a story to tell; a connection with history. Antiques allow us, in a small way, to share the lives of those that came before us. But, for looks, antiques are rather unattractive in their natural state. If you were to refinish an antique to restore the clarity of the craftsmanship, then you would have something nice to look at as well as an example of past skills. To me, this would not be bad.

But to take something new, with its own craftsmanship, and make it look old seems to be a bit of a lie. I don't believe people who tell me that old looking furniture is attractive. It's not. Random dents, scratches and chipped paint are not pretty, but signs of decay. Manufactured age does not tell a story or connect us with something beyond ourselves. "Distressing" something is a marketing word for breaking something before it's time.

New antiques (how's that for an oxymoron) allow people to believe they have a connection where one does not exist. New antiques are symptomatic of people who are isolated in time and live in a very small world.

Years ago, I had the opportunity to work with the author of a history book. The subject matter was very focused and didn't really interest me with the exception of one person. The man, one of the heroes of the history, said "the ... people are in danger of believing their own propaganda." This bit of insight struck me as profound, because he saw that his people were choosing a manufactured history over the real one. The result being that they would no longer know where they came from and forget where they were going.

In the same way, many younger people amplify their past. I've had the opportunity to talk and work with quite a few younger folks who believe that their part time jobs in high school give them verifiable business credentials. Fortunately, most come to recognize that their past experience was that of a lackey and not a leader of business. But too many persist in the belief that they know something and this causes them to stagnate, oblivious to the fact that they are out of synch with the world around them.

When I was 10, my father was the master of all things. When I was 15, my father became remarkably stupid. When I was 20, my father could apparently take care of himself. By the time I was 25 my father had somehow gained a remarkable amount of wisdom and insight. Today, more than a quarter of a century after my father blossomed, I can see that I might have been mistaken about the abilities of my father. I can see the stream of wisdom that started before him, passes through him, and hopefully continues on through me.

There is a real history. The things that happened in the past brought us to where we are. They may not live up to our current standards and beliefs, or they may exceed them. Like many, I often think that the good old days were before my time. Yet, in conversations with those that lived in those good old days, they don't see them as good as I do. I find it interesting, that the people of the good old days were constantly looking forward.

The point is that the past is something that is given to us. It gives us a place to start from. We cannot change it and we should not forget it, but we cannot just make it up. The future is ours to build. It does not yet exist and is not inevitable. We can build it on what we know or what we imagine. One way will result in something better and the other in we know not what.

Brainwashed

2006-06-29T08:25:00.000-04:00

There was once a time when education had a pragmatic goal. The objective was to impart the knowledge and skills that would be helpful in becoming a productive member of society. Education was an initiatory rite. Not so anymore.

Today's school are as much, if not more, indoctrination as initiation. Schools no longer limit themselves to the three R's (reading, 'riting and 'ritmetic for the newly educated). Instead, they preach about preferential social beliefs, pontificate about popular religious beliefs and demonstrate how to procreate without getting caught. Current education's failure is clearly evident by the absence of spelling, grammar and critical thought found (or not found) in places like MySpace and the ever popular blog-o-sphere.

John Dewey said, "I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform" and too many "educators" have taken this as their mission. Too many believe, or act as if they believe, that the mission of school is the form society to their way of thinking. As evidence of this, simply look at how much class time is spent in diversity education, promotion of alternate lifestyles and family planning.

The silliness and extreme stupidity of our current "educators" was clear not long ago in Ann Arbor, Michigan. There, a high school had a special event that included a student panel discussion on diversity. Unfortunately, the school's idea of diversity did not include opposing views. A young lady was removed from the panel because she was a devout Catholic and did not agree that homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle. Whether she is right or wrong is inconsequential. The scary part is that she was excluded from a diversity discussion because her views were diverse from the desired view.

You see, many "educators" believe with Mr. Dewey that education forms society, but ignore other things he said like, "The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child..." Instead, many teachers actively impose their beliefs and opinions on their students often aggressively contradicting beliefs taught at home.

It is common today for teachers to complain that they must teach the way they do because they get no support or assistance from parents. This may be true, but I'm convinced that the problem is of their own making. As a parent I was frequently told by my children's teachers to "butt out." I was not qualified to comment on their education; I was not a trained professional. As I found out from other parents, I was not alone.

For at least a full generation, if not more, teachers have been intentionally excluding parents from the educational process. The results of this arrogance is now evidenced by parents who believe that they have no obligation to the education of their children. We now see a multitude of parents who send their children to school and think nothing of it until they come home again.

The growth of home-schooling and charter/private schools shows that there are still parents who are willing to be an active part in the education of their children. However, teachers unions are doing everything in their power to stop these alternatives. It's interesting to note that academically, home-schooled students do not fall behind their contemporaries in standardized testing. Some exceed those publicly educated. And, charter/private school students frequently outshine those in public schools.

If teachers are dedicated to education, why are they so militant against those being educated? Maybe if teachers did their job and educated rather than indoctrinated the need for alternative sources of education would disappear. Personally, I don't want teachers telling students what to believe. I would much rather have students who can read with comprehension, write with clarity and know that two plus two equals four.

A few years back an educational survey was done of the industrialized nations of the world. It found that American students were near the bottom in both science and math, but were at the top in self-esteem. With that, we can see that the product of our educational system is students who are really stupid, but feel really good about it.

Use Your Own Stuff

2006-06-15T06:11:00.000-04:00

I like to think of myself as a charitable and caring kinda guy. I'm quite sure that there are many people just like me who prefer to maintain a rather low profile when it comes to our support of those less privileged. Some, though, believe it necessary to call the news folks and make sure they have film coverage.

To each his own to a point. When these people start commandeering the goods and services of others, I think they overstep their authority. Some examples of this include United Way, corporate charity drives, Daryl Hannah and Chuck Colson.

The United Way as decided that charity is best accomplished by shame and coercion. This organization has taken it upon itself to tell people their "fair share." And last I looked, that "fair" share came pretty close to the federal tax rate. And again, last time I checked United Way was not near the top of charities where the funds collected went to those in need. It seems they spend a lot of the money collected on administration and advertising. You would think that somebody who had the audacity to tell me what my fair share is would be better at making sure the needy get what I give.

Corporate charity drives are very similar to the United Way only they typically come under the guise of "team building." The company wants to give to charity because that's good PR and it's even better when employees are cheering them on. However, too often the corporate charity dollars are taken from employee pockets through peer pressure. Big company meetings and parties are arranged to force employees to publicly support and contribute. Now, officially, each employee can refuse to cooperate, yet how many people want to go to work everyday being "the stingy bastard who is too good to give to charity?" No pressure here.

Daryl Hannah has decided that an urban farm should be protected. Good idea, right? Well, unfortunately, the land being farmed does not belong to those doing the farming. It belongs to someone else who has decided to sell the land. While this may seem cold to some, it is well within the rights of the owner and those who have been farming the land have been doing so illegally.

However, that's not the point. Daryl Hannah and her friends could easily purchase the land and allow the farmers to continue. But no, this attention grabber insists that the owner of the land not sell it, or that it be confiscated. This way lady Hannah can be a hero without any real investment of her own other than a prime photo-op.

Chuck Colson has decided that Terry Schiavo's death has not been exploited enough. Whether you agree or disagree with what happened, her death was still a sad thing. Made even worse by the over hyped media attention and the political ping pong that ensued. For some unknown reason it was forgotten that Terry Schiavo was a human being and should have been afforded a certain amount of dignity. She was robbed of this at the end of her life, and now continues to be robbed of if by the likes of Chuck Colson who insist on waving her about like some rallying flag.

Once again, I like to think that I'm a charitable kinda guy and I give my resources where I think they'll be most effective. I do not use your wallet for my charity and I'd appreciate you not using mine.

I Hate Crow

2006-06-11T18:46:00.000-04:00

It may not be common now, but as I was growing up admitting you were wrong was referred to as eating crow. I have no clue where the saying came from but I'm guessing that crow was not considered one of the more tasty birds available.

In the past, I've had my share of crow. Sometimes it was forced down my throat and other times I chose it myself. It seems that people don't eat crow anymore. Maybe nobody's even wrong.

Then again, maybe more people believe that if you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your lungs. A quick look around the editorial pages and the blog-o-sphere appears to support the observation that louder is the tactic of choice.

So, what's wrong with being wrong?

There are some silly people who think that being wrong is the same as being weak. Or, that being wrong is the same as being stupid. Then, of course, there are those that don't really care if they're right or wrong, as long as they win the argument.

Now I am well aware that there's more than one way to skin a cat. However, some things are contradictory and both can't be right. Turning right will not get you to the same place as turning left. What keeps people from turning right when they know left is the wrong way to go?

I once knew a fellow who refused to accept Christianity and he said something quite interesting when I asked him why. He said that he really didn't want to know if Christianity was true or not because if it were true then he'd have to change much of what he thought. And, more to the point, he said, "I don't want to change."

Thus we come to the bother of being wrong. Being wrong means you have to change. Change means you have to explain previous assertions made with confidence. Change means leaving the comfort of those who are wrong with you. Change takes effort. Change takes courage.

I'd like to be wrong, and I've even found a new recipe for crow. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm wrong.

Post-Rapture Sale

2006-06-08T17:08:00.000-04:00

Every now and then you come across something that just strikes you as strange and leads to all kinds of silly thoughts. Like, if it's called a pony tail what does that say about the head it's attached to? Or if you've got a headache that could kill a horse, why aren't you dead? And finally, if she's got a body that could stop a truck, is that a good thing?

Recently, I saw an ad that made me think silly. It was for exclusive internment services at "Resurrection Cemetery." The first thing that came to mind when I saw the name was, pre-owned plots.

This seemed perfectly natural to me. After all, once the occupant had resurrected they wouldn't be needing the plot, so why not resell it? Of course, it would definitely be less expensive than a new one, but I'm guessing there could be a whole industry in refurbishing used holes.

Continuing along the sales lines I guess there would also be the opportunity for multi-purchase discounts and even repeat business. Can you see the tag line, "We buried you before and we're ready to do it again!"

You have to give these people credit for thinking out of the box. They're not buying into that old-fashioned idea of only dying once. No, they're bucking tradition and positioning their enterprise for a new market. Recycling taken to a new level.

Now I'm quite sure that those who manage the Resurrection Cemetery are not thinking along these lines. I'm pretty confident that the name has to do with pretty common religious beliefs and is an attempt at comfort. Still, they stand to do some pretty brisk sales after the infamous rapture.

Insincere Flattery

2006-06-06T19:08:00.000-04:00

An intelligent young lady who goes by Aris Moon said, "Imitate someone successful, you might learn something." There is both wisdom and danger in that statement.

The wisdom is obvious; successful people did not become successful by chance, they took specific action to get where they are. By watching someone successful, there is opportunity to learn how they became successful; how they handled both the bad times and the good.

There's truth in the belief that effective techniques are not effective because of who uses them, but because they are used. Who better to learn effectiveness from than some successful.

In my experience, I am sad to say that the danger of imitation more often manifests than the wisdom. "But what is this danger?" you ask. The danger is imitating the wrong thing; the actions instead of the attitudes.

A good example of the difference between actions and attitudes can be found in the multitude of Elvis impersonators. It seems that most impersonators mimic the Elvis of the Jumpsuit. Yet, by the time Elvis started dressing so silly, he was in the twilight of his career. What made Elvis a star was not his jumpsuit days, but his jeans and T-shirt days.

The days when Elvis wore jeans were the days when he was perceived as a good boy with a hint of naughty on the side. There was always something going on under the surface. Elvis projected an attitude of confidence and charisma. By the time he was doing his Vegas act he had become a cartoon of himself.

Still, the impersonators wear jumpsuits. It's easier. It's obvious. It's takes no real understanding of who Elvis was. In the end, it's a poor copy and an insulting tribute.

The danger, however, is most pronounced in many street gangs where the idea of "respect" is preached; often violently imposed. That "respect" is imposed shows a distinct lack of understanding. Gang leaders demand respect, but do nothing to earn it. They wrongly believe that if you are intimidated by them then you respect them.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery or so the saying goes. There are many people worthy of imitation, and it doesn't take much effort to see what makes them worthy. It's rarely their actions.

Those of us imitators need to be quite careful. We need to see beyond the obvious actions to the attitudes that generate them. We need to be mindful of the fact that it the attitudes the bring success, the actions are the result.

Just moving our feet does not mean we're dancing.

Painting My Lawn

2006-06-02T19:46:00.000-04:00

When I was younger more people attended church regularly, and even more claimed to. It was not only socially acceptable to be associated with a church, but sometimes advantageous. Many look back on that as a time when more people were Christians. Some think that Christianity has declined since that time.

I'm not so sure. Similarly, C.S.Lewis noticed that reports of declining Christianity among university students appeared shortly after daily chapel services were no longer mandatory. There may be something there.

For too many years now, there have been para-church organizations like Focus on the Family, American Family Association and Christian Women of America. Now the presence of para-church organizations, as opposed to inter-church organizations, should be a sign that the church is missing something. But that's another topic. The problem with the organizations listed and those like them, is their objectives.

To it's credit, Focus on the Family produces a variety of material that is very beneficial to all. The Adventures in Odyssey is a great children's program, and their material on raising children has the academic credibility of the best on the market.

However, the emphasis on political action is problematic in more ways than one. The fact that these organizations solicit funds from Christians that rightfully belong to the church is troubling, as is their regular requests for time and attention. If Christian spent more of their time and money in the church, there wouldn't be a need for para-church.

Still, their intense political stands and misguided attempts to legislate a Christian society are their worst offenses. I have no problem with Christians being involved in the political process. Their views are as valid as anyone else's. To my mind, Christians need to be aware of politics and use their votes to influence public policy. Christians should also be running for office so that a Christian perspective is heard in the government.

(No, I'm not advocating a theocracy. Christians have just as much right to express their moral positions and views of society as atheists, agnostics, Jews or Moslems. To think otherwise is nothing short of bigotry.)

The problem with Christian political activist groups is that if they are successful, what will they have accomplished? If these political groups have their way, we will have a government that looks Christian. But, it won't be.

Just like the belief that there were more Christians when more people attended church was mistaken and shown to be so when church attendance lost it's social appeal, so a nation of Christian laws will only appear Christian, but will only be an illusion.

A nation of Christian laws is no different than painting your lawn green. It looks alright on the surface, but underneath it's dying.

Entrepreneurial Philanthropy

2006-05-30T19:44:00.000-04:00

"Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime." Is there anyone who hasn't heard this piece of wisdom? If not, then why do we spend so much time giving fish away? Why do we continue to punish the teachers?

I try to avoid explicit political positions. Yet, I feel the urge to raise this topic and I do so with hesitation, but with a goal of seeing things from a pragmatic perspective. I believe in giving help where help is needed. I also believe that if a man will not work he should not eat.

There seem to be two very popular attitudes among folks today. One, that the government owes them a certain lifestyle. That they are entitled to a comfortable level of financial security. Two, that the financially accomplished are the enemy. That to have acquired significant income is to have stolen from those who have less.

Nonsense.

Now, for those who have contributed to Social Security, they have a right to expect something in return. Those who have not contributed have no such right. To declare that those who contribute are obligated to support those who do not is no less than robbery. You see, those who do not contribute, are those who either do not work, or those who hide their income so as not to contribute.

I am not saying that a helping hand is not necessary from time to time. I'm saying that indefinite support is no different than giving a man a fish everyday. Somebody, other that the recipient, has to ensure that there are fish to hand out.

Oh yeah, there's those rich folk. They've got plenty of fish. Let's take their's. After all, they're just hoarding it anyway.

Since the days of robber barons are long gone, we are probably safe in saying that the rich haven't gone from house to house stealing the possessions of the common folk. Just how did the rich get rich?

They generally invest. In what? In businesses. These businesses make products and provide services. AND PAY WAGES. Businesses employ people and provide them with the means to get their own fish. These businesses also provide the rich with more income.

And what do the rich do with more income? They invest. They invest to get more income so that they have more to invest to get more income. Yes, the rich get richer. However, they also provide income for more than themselves.

Do they deserve these riches? That's difficult to say. However, how many people would not trade places with them? Who, if given the opportunity would not join in the same dance?

Who really believes that the rich are sitting on piles of money? Who is so silly as to not know that idle money is shrinking money? Even the less well off put money in the bank hoping to accrue interest.

Charity is a good stop-gap. However, if it becomes a way of life it turns the recipients into leeches. Those that hand out entitlements are no different than drug dealers. They discourage independence and breed addiction.

The entrepreneur is the real philanthropist. It is the entrepreneur who risks what he has to get more and in the process provides a livelihood to those less inclined.

I Wanna Be A Hero

2006-05-28T10:35:00.000-04:00

Too many years ago, Steve Taylor wrote a song called "Hero". The relevant lyrics are quoted below:

When the house fell asleep, there was always a light
And it fell from the page to the eyes of an American boy
In a storybook land I could dream what I read
When it went to my head, I'd see I want to be a hero

But the practical side said the question was still
"When you grow up, what will you be?"
I want to be a hero

Hero! It's a nice-boy notion that the real world's gonna destroy
You know it's a Marvel-comic-book, Saturday-matinee fairy-tale, boy

Growing older you'll find that illusions are bought
And the hero you thought you'd be was just another zeroI want to be a hero

Heroes died when the squealers bought 'em off
Died when the dealers got 'em off
Welcome to the 'in-it-for-the-money-as-an-idol' show
When they ain't as big as life; when they ditch their second wife;
Where's the boy to go?
Gotta be a hero

It used to be that heros were those people who stood up to the bad guys; those who did the things that needed doing regardless of the personal cost. Heros stood out from the crowd and were admired by all who valued virtue.

Heros were not above the law. Heros did not bend the rules. Heros never disparaged the weak. Heros upheld honor and earned respect.

Today's heros have faults. Some think that makes them more human and it would if they didn't embrace those faults. Dirty cops, two-timing husbands and arrogant know-it-alls have taken over the space where real heros used to be. In the end, the bad guys get caught, but too often it's difficult to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys.

While this is going on today's real heros are often overlooked. An old friend of mine once described a poster he was thinking of creating. In it, a young boy was looking out the door of his house and envisioned a white hat wearing cowboy sheriff going to meet up with a Black Bart sort of character. The young boy was smiling proudly. Just outside the door you saw a simple man in a basic suit carrying a briefcase heading to the family car to go to work.

The boy saw his father for the hero he was. The father was doing what heros do; what needed to be done. And the sad thing is that in today's society there are so many that refuse to do what needs doing that the person who goes to work everyday and sets their dreams aside to do what is right is becoming harder to find.

With more and more parents abandoning their posts as family heros and the media regularly telling us that heros are never clean, "where's the boy to go?"

I'm Sorry

2006-05-18T10:51:00.000-04:00

For the record, I'm sorry about Pat Roberson.

I'm sorry that he says stupid things and blames God for them. I'm sorry that he fashions himself a representative of Christianity. I'm sorry that there are so many people who foolishly believe that he knows what he's saying.

I'm also sorry that the media insist on giving him a platform as if he were somebody worth listening to. I'm sorry that our publications are so starved of intelligence that they believe that this is important. I'm sorry that they continue to publish nonsense as news even after it's been shown to be nonsense (and this extends beyond our buddy Pat).

I'm sorry that the world is populated by people who seem to be more interested in their own pleasure than doing what is right and honorable. I'm sorry that reason is dismissed and inuendo is promoted. I'm sorry that too many people think beating the system is an admirable goal.

All in all, I'm sorry that we are not progressing to anything better. From where I sit, it appears that we are moving apart from each other seeking out our own individual satisfaction rather than moving toward each other building for a common good. "What's in it for me?" is the battle cry of the masses.

Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?

2 + 2 = ???

2006-05-15T06:02:00.000-04:00

The media has been accused of misleading many people over the years, and I believe that the accusation is accurate. However, I also tend to think that it was easier than it should have been. The older I get, the sillier people get. It seems that people so badly want someone or something to blame for their dissatisfaction that they are willing to believe almost anything negative.

As a result, we get polls that tell us that the president's popularity is lower than any previous president yet he gets re-elected. Now, either the other candidate was so miserable that the incumbent was still a better choice regardless of popularity, or maybe he wasn't as unpopular as the poll suggested.

Far too many people are unable to distinguish between coincidence and causality. Just for fun, here is a little exerpt from snopes.com. Consider this when reading survey results and "scientific" findings.

!!! BREAD IS DANGEROUS !!!

Research on bread indicates that:

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.

2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.

3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.

5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!

6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.

7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.

8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.

9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.

11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.

12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

What's Wrong With This Picture

2006-05-12T16:34:00.000-04:00

It's a wild and wacky world we live in. The wild part seems to confront us daily in the newspapers, from television and radio, and on the world wide web. The stories of violence and perversion come fast and furious without any sign of slowing down. The perpetrators of crime seem more bold than in days gone by. It's no longer a rare sight to see children taunting the police and other authority figures. Violence and perversion are committed openly with seemingly little regard for witnesses.

The wild part has become so common that we're rarely surprised by it. However, it the wacky part that causes us to shake our heads. For the moment, I'm not using the word wacky in the humorous or amusing sense. Instead, I'm using it to describe those things we experience that we don't expect, but probably should.

While wandering the Blog-O-Sphere I've come across a variety of writings and expressions. What seems to be the majority are those that are used to publish personal rants (just like this one). However, there are quite a few diary type blogs out there and one that I found was most delightful.

There was a story in my local area today about a man who arranged a date with a 13 year old girl via myspace.com. Today he was released, and rightly so.

Why, you ask? Because he thought he was meeting an 18 year old. According to this girl's site, she claimed to be 18. She also had posted provocative pictures of herself with Playboy logos here and there. From what I can see, this girl is guilty of fraud. In addition to the false Amber Alert that was filed and the police resources that were wasted, this girl endangered the life of an innocent man.

Back in the world of blogs I recently came across the blog of a delightful 14 year old girl. In her blog is all the angst of an early teen. There are stories of the outings to fast food establishments with her friends, favorite movies and girlie gossip. There are concerns about appearance, potential boyfriends and dreams of wedded bliss.

In this young lady's blog is all the innocence and purity of youth. She enjoys her life in spite of her complaints and anxieties. Her writing is simple, delightful and unpretentious. Her blog, I'm sure without her intent, evokes memories that I'm pretty confident most of us have of our early teen years.

I am intentionally not pointing anyone to her blog because I am honestly afraid that if she were aware of her influence she might be overwhelmed and lose some of that purity. That loss would be most sad.

So, we have a 13 year old girl that represents herself as an 18 year old to seduce older men, and we have a 14 year old who appears to be content just to be herself. Why are they so different?

What makes a 13 year old girl think that deception is a good thing? Where does a 13 year old get the mental context used in seduction? Why is the sharing of a typical (to my mind) 14 year old girl's life such a pleasant surprise? More importantly, why is the expressed sexuality of the 13 year old not as much of a surprise?

What's wrong with this picture? How do we encourage more like the 14 year old and less like the 13 year old? How do we protect children from losing their innocence before it's necessary?

Ideals vs Identity

2006-05-09T19:30:00.000-04:00

My friend Tom Gagne has commented on the loss of statesmanship in the public sector. He rightfully laments politics by polls; candidates who will gladly be whatever will get them elected rather than leaders with vision. He sees a vacuum in our government that is quite possibly a reflection of the vacuum in the general population.

We seem to have become a society that defines ourselves more by our group than by our thoughts. The general attitude has become us, not them. It is sad that this is so prevalent in politics, but even sadder is the fact that it permeates many aspects of our lives.

In politics it's "those mean Republicans," or "those lying Democrats." In religion it's "those silly Baptists," or "those evil Catholics." In education it's "those sorry public schools," or "those snobbish private schools." The objective is always to villanize the "other" rather than explain ourself. We are so busy being against things that we never stop to think about what we're for.

Why is it that we feel we must tear down the opposition? Is it because it is better to be the last man standing rather than be shown to be lacking? Are we so afraid of seeing things differently than we do that we must destroy any dissent? Are our ideas so feeble that they cannot stand the test?

Is it better to be a Democrat that's wrong rather than a Republican that's right? Why do we insist on being a king in hell rather than a servant in heaven? Is it conceivable that those that disagree with us may very well be right?

Wow, that's a lot of questions. There is an answer to these questions, I just don't know what it is.

One perspective says that we need more or better education. I'm not convinced that's the answer since in order that to work, people would have to admit that they don't know enough. I think that the current state of affairs indicates that most people are willing to make such an admission.

Another view is that people need to see beyond their own desires to the benefit of the whole. This may be a viable solution, but it would require that people see themselves a unduly selfish. I pretty sure that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Well, it looks like Paul Lynde doesn't have a bluff for this question and we'll have to go to another Paul Lynde question (Hollywood Squares anyone?). I'm afraid to say that the solution to our current situation is a personal thing. Each individual has to look at the way things are and determine to change them. Legislation is not possible. Every one of us needs to decide what we stand for rather than what we stand against.

No raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood.

And Your Question Is?

2006-05-07T19:46:00.000-04:00

Why can't life be simple? Why are questions often answered with other questions? Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Lately, I've been running into a lot of conversations that started with what seemed a pretty simple question. Unfortunately, the answer (or better said, response) quickly opened the door to a flood of follow-up questions.

Oddly enough, sometimes I was asked the question and sometimes it was me doing the asking. It really didn't matter where the question came from, they all seem to take off in the same direction. Of course, there were a few of those simple answer questions, like "What time is it?" but they were few and far between.

It strikes me as curious that when we ask a question of any consequence, we seem to wish for a straightforward answer, knowing all along that we're probably not going to get one. When I used to ask my children, "What made you think throwing a baseball in the house was a good idea?" I half hoped that they would have some explanation. That never happened. Of course, my kids were also disappointed (in more ways than one) when they asked me why they could not have $150.00 tennis shoes.

We people are a funny lot. More often than not, we want simple and straightforward answers and explanations to our queries. Yet, when we get them we have a tendency to doubt them. While our natural desire is for simplicity, our own observations tell us that things just aren't that simple.

Another thing that makes us funny is the fact that we often expect simplicity from others yet rarely give it ourself. When others answer our questions with questions we say they're rationalizing. When we answer with a question, we're clarifying. They're confusing the issue, we're providing understanding.

Now, if we're going to honestly communicate and learn from each other and eventually come to a knowledge of the truth, we need to recognize these bad habits. That's the easy part.

The hard part comes when we decide we're going to be honest. When we make this decision we then must commit ourselves to following through and not stopping when it either gets comfortable or inconvenient.

Many people stop when things get inconvenient. More than likely, because most of us are pretty lazy and if we go too far, we may have to change and that would be a bother.

However, the bigger problem is when people stop when it gets comfortable. Too many times people get to a point where they say, "That's good enough for me" and they figure that's all they need. These are the people who start cults or believe that John Lennon was profound. They're pretty useless for anything other than being followers.

Anybody can ask questions and if that's all you're going to do, then shut up. Questions are meaningless, it's answers that we need.

Nike used to use the slogan, "Life is short, play hard" and some people thought that insightful. In my favorite comic "Arlo and Janis," Arlo saw it as "Life is hard, play short" and there's wisdom there.

What this all comes down to is why we're here. If this is all there is, then why bother with anything? However, if there is something more than this life, then you'd think honest and intelligent people would want to know and do something about it.

And sincere thanks to Rocketstar for reminding me how important answers are.

I Know a Man

2006-05-05T09:39:00.000-04:00

I have the privilege to work with a man who enjoys baseball. Not that silly major league stuff, but baseball. He enjoys it enough to learn it and, more importantly, teach it.

In these days of steroids and multi-million dollar stars, some might refer to him as a dinosaur. Instead, I've come to see him as someone who appreciates learning and executing a skill and the value of a simple game.

Over the past few years I've heard stories of the success and failure of the various teams he's coached. These stories are always told with an emphasis on the skills of the youngsters he works with. Yet underneath is a mixture of simple joy and appropriate pride with his involvement. His affection for the game and his teams is contagious.

It seems that many if not most people I encounter have lost the appreciation for simplicity. Too often pleasures and appreciations from the past are looked down on with a chronological snobbery that attempts to make them insignificant. The desire for bells and whistles and gadgets and bling has blinded many to simple satisfaction.

When I was but a child, there were no video games and only three TV channels. I've told my children that as a child I often played with nothing more than sticks and stones. And I had fun. Yo-yo's, tops, stationary action figures, rubber bands and popsicle sticks were toys that entertained children for hours. We had fun. We played for the simple joy of playing.

What I find fascinating is that these same activities are enjoyed by my grandchildren and other children as long as they are not in the presence of more technologically oriented past-times. What I've observed, is that the older activities are not considered less fun, but less impressive.

Video games and toys that play for you are admired because they look cool. Rarely do you hear remarks about fun, but instead the comments are about quality graphics and realistic detail. I believe that the fact that toys and games are abandoned as soon as newer versions come out is a testimony to the absence of true enjoyment of the activity. It seems a bit sad that our youth play more but enjoy it less.

Now, back to baseball.

Baseball, when played by youngsters under the direction of someone who enjoys the game is just as fun and satisfying as it was when I was a kid. The game hasn't changed and neither has it's effect when separated from the commercialized professionals. I wish we could get our children to enjoy being children a bit more. Maybe then we could concentrate on teaching them to be adults rather than teaching them how to avoid jail and STDs and other things that don't belong in their world.

Do You Know Who I Am?

2006-05-01T19:48:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite scenes from "The Dick Van Dyke Show" deals with an argument between Rob and Laura and contains this classic exchange.

Rob: "What's wrong Laura?"

Laura: "Well, if you don't know I'm certainly not going to tell you."

More recently, one of my favorite comic strips "Arlo and Janis" has Arlo moping around feeling neglected and hinting that he wants some attention. Eventually, Janis says catches on and says, "If you wanted some attention, why didn't you say so?" To which Arlo thinks to himself, "Well that kinda misses the point."

Both old and new exchanges say the same thing and that is that we all want to be known in such a way that those who claim to love us will see when we need something and be ready and willing to provide it for us.

In the case of Rob and Laura, Rob had done something to upset Laura but was unaware of it. Laura expected Rob to know her well enough to know that his actions upset her. Her response was an indictment of Rob's failure to know her as well as she expected.

With Arlo and Janis it's the same thing. Arlo feels he needs Janis' attention, but to ask for it would mean that Janis didn't recognize his need. To make matters worse, if Arlo had asked for attention from Janis and received it, the question of her motive would hang over her actions. Did she pay attention to him because she was interested in him, or because he asked her to? Was she attending to him out of desire or obligation?

Everybody wants to be wanted, but much of our social interactions discourage being wanted and wanting others. To desire to be wanted is to be seen as weak and needy. We are often told that we shouldn't need anyone but be able to stand on our own.

To want somebody is even worse. To admit to wanting somebody raises questions of perversity. If a man wants a woman, then it must be sexual. Heck, if a man wants another man it's thought of as sexual these days. Heaven forbid that we should enjoy the company of another individual and desire their companionship!

We actively discourage social intercourse. We ask, "How are you?" but don't really want to know since that would either commit us to something more than a superficial relationship, or expose us for the uncaring cads that we are.

We are taught to manipulate the feelings of others to our benefit. In management training courses we are frequently told that we should memorize the name of other's families and interests so that we can make the feel that we care. We are not told to care, but merely make people feel that we care. And this is considered good management.

With this attitude about relationships, it's no wonder that our society is not what it once was. We expend great effort in appearing to have relationships, while throwing them away as soon as we've got what we wanted. It is as C.S.Lewis said, "We scorn loyalty and are surprised to find traitors in our midst."

It's Quite Simple, Really

2006-04-07T07:44:00.000-04:00

"I don't understand why people insist on buying shoes at a hair salon."

The infection of technology has caused a large portion, if not the majority of the population, to loose the ability to see and comprehend the fact that the simplicity we enjoy is the result of many levels of complexity.

The statement, "I don't need to know how a car works in order to drive one" seems obviously true on the surface. However, it's not fully accurate. A person must know that moving that circular thing attached to the pole in the front seat will control the direction of the car. Or, that the long skinny pedal will make the car go faster and the short fat pedal will make the car go slower. Lacking this rudimentary knowledge can have disastrous effects. And, without minimal knowledge of a transmission, how would any know that you should not put a car in "Park" at 40 mph?

A minimal knowledge is necessary to merely operate a vehicle. The knowledge needed to actually manage and maintain a vehicle is even more involved. And yet, driving a car is actually very simple.

I can't count how many times I've been asked to provide assistance or direction only to be told that I've given too much information. The exchange is almost cliche. When asked, I explain how things work. I'm then told "Just tell me what I need to do." Not long after I've complied with this request I'm chided when things don't work as expected because I didn't explain all the interrelationships. More often then not people are upset when complexity interferes with their simplistic expectations.

It seems all people want is a series of steps to accomplish anything. From radios to religion to relationships, the proliferation of how-to books is overwhelming evidence of the general population's refusal to take the time to actually think about something and pay attention to the results of their actions. Heaven forbid that we understand what we're doing!

From a religious standpoint consider how silly a god would be if all he wanted was for you to follow some rules? We expect more from our pets. And in our relationships, we need to realize that if the person or persons we're trying to relate to is as predictable as 10 steps would imply, how mechanical are we? If we as individuals are beyond relating to via 10 steps, what would possibly make us believe that anyone else could be related to in such a way?

We know from ourselves that our actions and decisions are not fully predictable and hardly ever mechanical. We need to expand this knowledge outside ourselves and see that others are also bastions of complexity. And, if people are complex, then it is reasonable to expect that the things they do and the things they make are complex.

"So what?", you may ask. "Yes, people are complex." "Yes, machines are complex." "What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?"

Complexity means nothing if you merely want to use something OR someone. However, if you intend to interact, maintain, manage or relate, then it is imperative that the complexity be acknowledged and understood. Otherwise, you expose your stupidity as a mere user and get confused when you cannot buy shoes at the hair salon.

Happily Ever After

2006-03-11T16:26:00.000-05:00

Lately I've been hearing a lot about marriage; what it is, how it should work, how to fix it. I figure that since I've been married for 30 plus years it's probably time I set the record straight.

A marriage is a union of two individuals into a single unit. Many couples often overlook this obvious detail. It is important to recognize that a marriage is not two individuals living together, but a single family unit working toward a single goal. When a married couple “grows apart,” it is often because the union has been neglected in favor of the individual.

Interestingly enough, the neglect of the union frequently is the result of frustrated expectations. One partner, or both, have an idea of what marriage is to be and then expect the other to think the same way. Unfortunately, these expectations are often unspoken, assumed. After all, "why would anyone think differently than I do?" (But that's another expostulation)

Each partner in a marriage, aside from revealing their expectations, should consider them carefully. It is necessary to understand that every expectation is also an obligation. If the wife expects the husband to cut the grass, she is putting an obligation on him. Likewise, if the husband expects the wife to do the laundry, then he has obliged her.

Obligations are debt. If I have an obligation to you then I owe you. Thus, every expectation makes one person a debtor to another and as such subservient to them. With each and every expectation, we need to first ask, "Do I have the right to put someone in my debt?"

The failure to live up to an expectation, or make good on a debt is one of the primary sources of frustration in any relationship and a chief cause of many marital disputes.

And there will be disputes. Disagreements. Arguments. Fights.

Fights are only natural when two people are in an intimate and long-term relationship. Couples who don't fight don't care. The trick when these fights occur is to remember to fight fair.

Fair fighting involves two rules. First, in any disagreement it is unfair to involve any topic that does not pertain to the current issue. For example, when discussing who will clean the litter box it is quite out of bounds to bring up the fact that someone leaves hair in the sink. Discussing only the issue at hand will shorten the life of many disagreements, as well as move the conversation more consistently in the right direction.

The second rule in fair fighting is to realize that the objective is not to win the argument, but to resolve the disagreement. In a marriage, when one person wins, half the marriage loses. The desire to win an argument forgets that the marriage a union of two and not two individuals. There are no sides, only the union.

This leads us to those situations when a resolution cannot be reached. Some might say that if the issue cannot be resolved then it should be dropped. However, this only leaves smoldering embers waiting to burst into flame.

Some have been silly enough to believe that a marriage is a small democracy with each having an equal say. You cannot have a democracy of two. It's impossible so don't bother trying.

As old fashioned as it may sound, someone must be the head. It must be someone's responsibility to have the final say. Otherwise, there is a large collection of stalemates waiting in the wings and frustrated expectations. And we all know where that leads.

Being the boss is not as exciting as it sounds. Unlike corporate America, in a marriage, whoever has the authority gets the responsibility and potentially the blame. If the husband is the head of the family, then it is his responsibility to make sure his decisions are good and sound. And, he is to blame if they are not. More specifically, if the husband is the head, then it is his fault if the marriage fails. The head is charged with making things work and doing what is necessary to see that they do.

Don't look for a happy marriage. Nobody really knows what one is, and if asked to describe one, can only offer vague platitudes. Instead, seek a successful marriage. Strive for a marriage that works well, with a common objective, where both partners are constantly moving in the same direction.

I'm Okay ----- Well, Maybe Not

2006-03-07T08:15:00.000-05:00

"It's not fair!" is possibly one of the most common exclamations know to man. It seems that everyone at some point in time has complained to the powers that be about a certain situation or event. What struck me recently, was the question "what if it is fair?" When we ask "Why did such and such happen?", do we really want to know?

When we're looking for fairness we're looking for balance. We believe in an equilibrium of action and reaction, tit for tat. We believe we want an appropriate response. What if our beliefs are true?

What follows is pure speculation followed by a broad admission of ignorance.

Personally, I have never had what some might call good luck. I don't win raffles; if there's an opportunity for things to go awry, they typically do; if there's a guess to be made, I often guess wrong. In my experience, the eyes of Fortune are generally looking somewhere else. However, I cannot say that I have suffered undue hardship.

Some people do suffer what appear to be great injustices. I have known and know people who seem to have gotten the short end of the stick; people who have died suddenly for no predictable reason, people permanently injured through no apparent fault of their own, and people who have their lives thrown into turmoil as if by some whim.

The initial response to these situations and events is to ask, "Why?" "It's not fair that these people should suffer," is a common sentiment. The belief in cosmic balance naturally kicks in and we look for explanations.

But, what if it is fair? What if the Powers That Be are truly balancing the scales? If that's the case, it would mean that these people actually deserve what happens to them. Ultimate justice demands that these people and their lives balance.

"But, these are not bad people," we say. And the question is, do we really know? If we're honest with ourselves, we come to realize that there are many things in our lives that are less than honorable. There are many times when we fail to live up to our own standards. We comfort ourselves by saying that our intentions are good or that we really didn't mean to break our own rules, but deep down, we know better. We know that our intentions were only "good for us", or that we simply did not want to follow a particular rule at that particular time. We know that we simply defied ourself and our own standard.

The good thing is that other people don't know how often we break our own rules, and we forgive ourselves quite generously. Still, the fact remains that we don't always suffer consequences for our misdeeds, the scales are not in balance. And yet, if we truly believe in balance, then the Powers That Be do know about our out of whack scales, and we probably deserve worse than we've got.

Now, we know that from a pure balance perspective, we are not as good as people may think we are. We know that if the scales were fully balanced that we probably would be required to make some sort of payment. If that's true for us, it probably true for everyone else. When we say it's not fair, do we really know that with any confidence? And, when looking at the tragedies of others, do we really want to know?

The fact of the matter is that we don't know. We don't know about the secret thoughts, intentions and actions of others. We don't know all the effects of anyone's life on anybody else. We don't know how much of life is in balance and how much is out of balance. We don't really know if it's fair or not. We do know that we do not get what's coming to us and we should be grateful for that.

I believe in justice. I believe in balance. I believe that, in the end, people will get what they deserve, but I don't know what that is.

I don't believe that balance is passive, like water finding it's own level. I believe that there is a active force that is purposely disrupting the balance of things. I believe that the Powers That Be (God) will ensure that life is fair in the end. And finally, and most importantly, I believe that I don't know enough to truly know what's fair and what's not.

What I do know, is that people hurt and need help. If I do nothing to change that, then whether I believe in justice or whether I think it's fair or not means absolutely nothing and all I do or say is dust in the wind.

Irrational Commitment

2006-02-27T18:26:00.000-05:00

"Everybody needs somebody irrationally committed to their future." I like quotes like this one. They say so much in so little that aside from the profound wisdom contained in them, they can be appreciated for their sheer art alone. Still, the wisdom here is worth consideration.

"You're nobody till somebody loves you . . ." says the old song and for all intents and purposes, this is all too true. Some might argue that everybody is somebody, but unless somebody pays attention to you, unless somebody loves you, who are you? If you cease to exist, would it matter? Would anything change if you were suddenly gone when nobody knew you were there to begin with?

The fact of the matter is that everybody needs somebody if only to continue to exist in any meaningful way. However, this is not wisdom, but simple math for subtracting nothing from a value leaves the value intact. The wisdom of our quote comes in the second half which says "irrationally committed to their future."

Now this says a lot. Starting with the easy part, "committed to their future," is more than mere involvement. In a breakfast of bacon and eggs, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. Commitment requires subjecting our own desires to something else.

This is not compromise, but subjection. A truly successful marriage is one where both parties are willing to give up their preferences for the benefit of the other and the union. A committed parent is willing to set aside their own comfort and convenience for the good of their child.

Everybody needs somebody committed to their future. We could stop there and we would speak truth. The person who says they don't need anybody is stupid and more often than not accomplishes very little. Nobody has unlimited resources and, as we all know, life is rarely cooperative with our dreams and ambitions. Eventually we all run into a wall and without the assistance of someone else our progress stagnates.

Now comes the tricky part. That is the irrational commitment part. Everybody needs somebody irrationally committed to their future. This is hard. Something that is irrational is not just contrary to reason, but void of reason. Something contrary to reason at least has a connection to reason if only to act against it. Irrational has no connection to reason.

Irrational, as odd as it may sound, is a decision. This may be a bit of a reach, yet if we think about it, most of the things we consider irrational really have their basis in reason. It may be bad reasoning, such as believing all dogs will bite if one does, but it's reasoning nonetheless. Something that has no ground in reason is something that cannot say 'because', thus a deliberate decision.

To be irrationally committed to someone's future is to decide to commit yourself for no other reason than you decide to do it. This type of commitment is the most intense; it has no reason to satisfy, no expectations to meet, no opportunity to be disappointed. Irrational commitment does everything necessary for success without expectation of repayment or reward.

Everybody needs somebody irrationally committed to their future. So, when you give somebody a chance, it may be their last.

Just a Few Quotes

2006-01-27T19:56:00.000-05:00

"It is very unhappy, but too late to be helped, the discovery we have made that we exist. That discovery is called the Fall of Man. Ever afterwards we suspect our instruments. We have learned that we do not see directly, but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are, or of computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these subject-lenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects. Once we lived in what we saw; now the rapaciousness of this new power, which threatens to absorb all things, engages us. Nature, art, persons, letters, religions, objects, successively tumble in, and God is but one of its ideas. Nature and literature are subjective phenomena: every evil and every good thing is but a shadow which we cast."

-Emerson, "Experience" from Essays: Second Series

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S.Lewis

"If the old fairy-tale ending 'They lived happily ever after' is taken to mean "they felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married', then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be 'in love' need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense -- love as distinct from 'being in love' -- is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be 'in love' with someone else. 'Being in love' first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run; being in love was the explosion that started it."

- C.S.Lewis, "Mere Christianity"

Lost and the Spirit

2006-01-26T20:01:00.000-05:00

I am a fan of the TV series Lost. I have no idea what the main plot is, but I enjoy the interaction of the characters and the odd events in each episode. The most recent episode was no exception.

After watching the show, my wife asked me, "What just happened here?" The greatness of my analytical mind was at a loss. I could not, with any certainty, describe the point of the episode. Still, there was something there that seemed significant.

As a matter of course, the characters interacted and relationships grew and matured throughout the show. We see Hurley's crush on Libby realized as a budding romance; Anna Lucia softens a bit in the watchful presence of Jack; and the other characters go about their business.

The focus of this episode is Charlie, the former addict who is tottering near the edge of irrationality. The back-story fills allow us to see that from his early childhood he has been expected to "save" the family. He has been less than successful at this task. While stranded, he has assumed the role of protector of little Aaron in an attempt to be necessary to someone. However, his flirting with the drugs found in a crashed plane have made him less than welcome with Claire, the baby's mother. Thus Charlie's messiah complex is frustrated.

Through the course of the episode, Charlie has a series of dreams that convince him that the baby is in danger and in need of saving. Unfortunately for Charlie, while trying to save Aaron he causes more problems for the castaways and himself. Which, at the end leaves him alone and confused. This is not all that interesting.

What finally struck me was the positions of Jack, John Locke and Mr. Eko. Each of these represent a particular spirituality and their interactions with the rest of the folks is quite an interesting commentary.

Throughout the first season there was a distinct difference between Jack, the doctor and John Locke. Eventually, Locke says to Jack, "You're a man of science and I'm a man of faith," and the secret is out. Their ways of approaching life on the island start to split into two very distinct philosophies. Yet, their objective is surprisingly the same. They both want to be in control. They both want to be the leader.

Now along comes season two and the introduction of the tail-enders, those in the back of the plane that crashed on another part of the island. One of these new folks is Mr. Eko; a former drug dealer who has taken on the role of a Catholic priest out of respect for his dead brother. From his back-story we realize that his history has made him a man of faith. But his faith is quite different from that of John Locke.

Jack's faith is in science. His view is materialistic and rationalistic. Every problem has a rational and physical solution. Spirituality is an illusion that is used to avoid difficult decisions. Jack was assumed to be the leader early on because he took control of the situation. Jack could do things that needed being done quickly. Jack maintains his position with the implied threat of withholding his expertise.

Jack is losing control as time goes on and his interactions with people are getting more and more domineering.

John Locke has faith in "the island." This faith is the result of what appears to be a miraculous healing. When John Locke boarded the plane he was in a wheelchair. When he woke up on the island he could walk and run and do everything he had always wanted to do. In effect, John worships the island.

Initially, John was quiet and kept to himself. As time went on he would provide food by hunting and, his knowledge of the island made him necessary for survival. John rose to leadership because he was never riled, but acted as if he had an inside understanding of things. He would frequently preach his philosophy of listening to the island. John truly believes that he is connected to the island and is the anointed prophet. When conflict arises, it's John's way, which he believes to be the island's way, or the highway. He will follow his faith come hell or high water.

Both Jack and John believe they are leading the people where they need to go. Both Jack and John believe they are the best hope for the survival of the castaways. Both Jack and John operate independent of their followers and often in spite of them. Both Jack and John are trying to control and lead from the outside.

Enter Mr. Eko.

Mr. Eko has not made any attempt to assume leadership, yet people come to him for guidance. Mr. Eko does not attempt to control any situation, yet he is never caught by surprise. When strength is needed, Mr. Eko is strong. When compassion is needed, Mr. Eko is soft. Mr. Eko is a spiritual man. Mr. Eko is convinced that there is more than him and that he is the object rather than the subject. Mr. Eko is a picture of what the Bible refers to as true religion.

Jack and John push their faith, but their faith is disconnected from reality. Neither Jack nor John are capable of seeing the importance of anything beyond their mission. Both Jack and John are set to accomplish their goal regardless of who gets in the way. Jack and John are religious fanatics.

Mr. Eko understands that the people are his mission. Mr. Eko knows that individuals are important. Mr. Eko interacts with people as one who cares about the person he is talking to. Mr. Eko manifests what the King James Bible called charity and what we believe is love. Mr. Eko is a representation of what Christianity was meant to be and what it should be.

Mr. Eko is not lost.

Keep It, Brother

2006-01-23T17:56:00.000-05:00

Am I my brother's keeper?

This question was first asked by a young man named Cain not long after the death of his brother. According to the story, he asked the question rhetorically and it was was never really answered. However, that hasn't stopped many from assuming an answer that suits their purposes.

Am I my brother's keeper? My answer is, most definitely not. And some will say that my response is detached and selfish, even cold. How could I not care about my brother?

"Who is my brother?" is another longstanding question. Unlike the first, this question was answered with a story that illustrated that all those we come in contact with are, in effect, our brothers and we have an obligation to them.

Now, knowing that I know both stories you might wonder why I can still say that I am not my brother's keeper. You might say that I have an obligation to my brother. You might say that this obligation makes me my brother's keeper. AND, you might be right.

You would be right depending on how you understood the word keep. There is a difference between keeping a garden and keeping a slave. Recognizing this difference is the key to deciding if we are are our brother's keeper.

When keeping a garden, we exert a great deal of effort caring for it. The objective is to provide what it needs. The motive is to provide what's best for the garden. Keeping a slave is slightly different. The objective here is to restrict the slave from doing anything that might be a distraction and a danger to our investment.

To keep a garden is to encourage and to keep a slave is to restrict. So if your idea of keeping your brother is to encourage him, then I would agree with you. However, if your idea of being your brother's keeper is to decide what's best for him; to prevent him from doing things that may be less than beneficial to him, then I could not disagree with you more emphatically.

What, you ask, is wrong with helping someone be the best they can be? Where is the trouble in keeping people from hurting themselves? On the surface, there is nothing wrong with helping someone be better than they are. There is no harm in protecting someone from danger. The problems arise when we set ourselves up as the arbitor of what's best.

Under the guise of help and concern is the arrogance of superiority. You see, what begins as an altruistic endeavor eventually becomes a dictatorial enterprise. Direction intended to encourage growth too readily progresses to restriction based on preference.

It is the belief that people need somebody to tell them what to do that gives us helmet and seat belt laws. It is the confidence that people need direction that allows the United Way to feel comfortable in telling us what our "fair share" is. It is the arrogance of the academics that condemns us as abusive for disciplining our children.

The amusing part is that these dictators are surprised if we question their authority. These folk rarely, if ever, stop to consider where their authority comes from, or why their judgement should be accepted above our own. These people really believe that they are superior, regardless of whether they admit it or not. Elsewise, they would never even attempt to dictate the behavior they do.

When it comes to protecting society from the maladjusted, such as murderers, rapists and theives then I'm all for it. But when someone tells me I must wear a hat or can't read a book, or cannot share my beliefs, then that's where I tell these folks to take a flying leap.

People are responsible for their own well-being. This means that some folks will do stupid things and no number of laws or guidelines will stop them.

Am I my brother's keeper? I'm betting you already know the answer.

Choose Wisely Grasshopper

2006-01-13T05:48:00.000-05:00

"The decisions we make today determine the life we live." This is a line from the movie Renaissance Man.

"Be sure, your sin will find you out," is a quote from the Bible. If you're paying attention you'll see that both say the same thing; one just a little less direct than the other.

Now some may say that the first phrase is more positive and encouraging, softer, kinder, less intimidating. And, I might agree with you, but so what? The more important question is, which is more honest; more effective? My money's on the Bible version.

Why? Because it clearly says that there are consequences for bad decisions. This, by the way, is a fact that we do our best to avoid, to wish out of existence. We rebel against consequences and deny responsibility. We regulary seek to separate the effect from the cause.

Of course it will be said that we learn from our mistakes and that can be quite true. We could get into a word game and say that mistakes and wrong choices are two different things, but it really wouldn't help us any more than defining what 'is' is. This is because when we get beyond the euphemisms a mistake is really a wrong choice. And, as with wrong choices, mistakes have consequences. That's how we learn from mistakes, consequences remind us to not do that again.

Self-esteem, contraception, abortion, litigation are all ways of ignoring consequences and allowing us to continue without concern for the damage we do to ourselves and others.

Johnny can't read but we should not make him repeat a grade because that would make him believe that he is not as good as the other children; it would hurt his self-esteem. If Johnny can not read, then the fact of the matter is that he is not as good as the other children. The concern for Johnny's self-esteem allows him to advance into adulthood with greatly diminished skills and frequently denies Johnny the opportunity to be a full member of society. The really sad part here is that Johnny is the victim in this situation. The fault lies in the teachers and those charged with raising Johnny, because it is the rare child that truly lacks the ability to learn. More often than not, it is the failure of the parents and teacher to do their duty. Of course, the parents and teachers are protecting their own self-esteem because by denying that Johnny can't read, they deny that they have failed in their responsibilties. And the circle becomes more vicious and time goes on.

Contraception is a staple of modern society. It affords couples the opportunity to limit the size of their family to within their economic boundaries. And, to that end it serves a useful purpose. However, contraception has gone way beyond the family and is now freely roaming the streets. At one time the knowledge that sex led to babies and babies meant commitment was influential enough to cause many, if not most, to restrain themselves from an activity that was considered the most intimate expression of affection. Today, contraception has separated the cause and effect so that anyone, including children in their early teens, can copulate like dogs. Contraception has degraded intimacy from an ultimate expression of love to nothing more than a jolly good time. In truth, we are not better because of this.

Because contraception is not fully reliable, we have legitamized abortion. Abortion, of the on demand category, is nothing more than a clean up for the failures of contraception or the irresponsibility of the people. Abortion is nothing more than a coverup. And to make matters worse, abortion kills babies. Those who say that the fetus is not a person are simply stupid. What else could it possibly be? It's not a bird and it's not a frog, it is the ultimate underdog. Abortion has removed the effect even further from the cause by allowing those too silly to use contraception another way to escape the consequences of their actions.

And then to make escape from reality available to one and all we have litigation. Personal injury attorneys. Ambulance chasers. Shysters.

Granted, there are times when people and companies are neglegent and should be called into account. But to sue because you were stupid enough to put a cup of hot coffee in your lap, or a smoker suing a tobacco company, or a drunk driver suing a bar; these are people who are saying "I'm stupid and you should know better than to allow me to make my own decisions". Too many lawsuits allow stupid people to blame somebody else for their stupidity and there are a multitude of opportunistic attorneys willing to make a buck from the fact that people are not perfect.

I believe that someday each of us will wake up and say, "Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?" We will eventually realize that our avoidance of consequences has caused a backlog that will follow us to our grave unless we change our direction. Let's hope that realization is not on our deathbed.

The decisions we make today determine the life we live. Be sure, your sin will find you out. And more often than not, your life is your fault.

Honor Without Shame

2006-01-11T18:11:00.000-05:00

Today I attended the funeral for one of my uncles. George Flamini was a most wonderful man who could, and would talk with anyone whether he know them or not and would genuinely enjoy the experience. Uncle George loved people. He was a man of love and compassion and there are too few of his type in the world today.

Because Uncle George was in the Navy during WWII he was afforded military honors at his funeral. This involved two Navy men who with obvious respect for their duty played Taps and presented an American flag to his widow. It was a truly inspiring exercise to watch.

One thing I noticed was that while the flag was being folded, the sailors paid close attention to the accuracy of each fold. As they did their service, they would regularly stop to adjust and smooth the flag. No detail was too small to be dealt with. When they were done they presented my aunt with a perfectly folded flag as a token of respect and thanks from the government.

As I watched I thought of how many times people will leave things either half done or undone because they deem them inconsequential. These sailors were meticulous. I am convinced that they knew that this flag was an insignificant payment for the service performed by my uncle. Yet, it was what they could do and even though it was a piece of cloth they made sure that there were no imperfections. These men did not know my uncle and still they performed with ultimate respect because they understood honor.

Now the big jump.

Honor and respect are big topics with many young men today. They demand it. They honestly believe they deserve it. In my experience, most don't. What they don't seem to get is that if there is honor and respect it is a result of honorable and respectable behavior. And, on the other side of the coin, there is also dishonor and disrespect which should be the result of dishonorable and disrespectful behavior. Honor should instill pride and dishonor should cause shame.

What I find most sad is that those who demand honor and respect are too often those who act most shamefully. While they're angered when their honor is besmirched, they fail to feel shame when they defile their own honor by disrespecting those they interact with. Respect is equated with fear. The more fear generated is believed to be the more respect proffered. This is remarkably juvenile, no different than shoolyard bullies.

The most unfortunate fact of this situation, is that there is no easy way to fix it and I can make no reliable suggestion. Still, until we know shame, we cannot have honor.

What's Love Got To Do With It?

2006-01-10T05:34:00.000-05:00

Love is a many splendored thing . . . or so the song goes. And, when it comes right down to it, most of us believe it. Yet, do we really know what love is?

Is love that all consuming passion that causes us to attempt any feat, make any promise and write bad checks? Or, is love the soft and warm sentimental feeling we get that lulls into a confused slumber? I doubt that many would subscribe to either view explicitly and claim that it is somewhere in the middle. Still, even these people are less than accurate.

If we stop and think about it, love is a pain in the neck. Love hurts. Love is a real bother; particularly to the one loved. "Eh, what?", you might ask. Isn't love patient and kind and, well, loving? Yes it is, but we must ask, "patient with what?", "kind to what?"

We are only patient with things we find less than acceptable in anticipation of them improving. We believe that being kind is similar to being polite and courteous, but Websters defines is as "of a sympathetic or helpful nature". In other words, for a person to be kind, that person must be in a superior position. Not that the person is superior, only that the kind person at the moment of the kindness has the ability to make a choice. The kind person has the opportunity to do harm through active encouragement of the situation or neglect, or good through some type of assistance be it physical or emotional and kindness results in the choice to do good.

In a nutshell, the task of the lover is to improve the loved and this is not always a pleasant experience for the loved one. It is often uncomfortable and may even appear cruel. Understand the meaning of "appear" for appearance is a limited external observation and does not explicitly communication motive or objective. Things that appear cruel may not be so and may be an expression of kindness. Without knowing about medical surgery, we could easily see a man cutting another with a sharp knife and declare it cruel. However, because we are familar with this practice, it motives and objectives, we encourage it and accept the pain and discomfort it induces.

A person who loves their pet does not accept it for what it is, but instead for what it can be. The person takes great pains to change the pet from what it is naturally, to what is more acceptable. In the process, a fair amount of discomfort is experenced by both the person and the pet. The pet owner must be vigilant to correct any misbehavior of the pet, thus causing a disruption of a peaceful day. The pet must endure the regular disapproval of the owner and learn not to do what is natural. Neither enjoy the training process.

Yet in the end the person has a suitable object for its affection; a more lovable companion. And, the pet will be healthier, live longer and by many accounts be happier than if it were left to its natural inclinations.

In the same way a loving parent is frequently a bothersome individual to a child. A loving parent will teach and discipline their child with the objective of producing an adult who is able to take care of themself and contribute positively to the family in specific and society in general.

Oddly enough, the loving parent is not focused on the current happiness of the child. The loving parent knows that a well-trained child is more successful and in general happier than the indulged child. The loving parent sees the end and works towards it.

However, too many parents today don't love their children. Instead, they would rather their children be happy now. To this end, parents strive to give their children the latest toys and fashions and insist that their child's self-esteem not be challenged. Many parents either ignore their children's anti-social behavior (meaning disrespect for authority and the property of others) and dismiss it a being "only a child", or they outright defend it as some sort of developmental experience required to deal with the "real world". Of course, there are also those parents who are so lazy and believe that as long as the child does interfere with their activities it doesn't matter what they do. In the end, these parents are not concerned about their children as much as they are concerned about their own comfort.

Some parents don't properly love their children because they don't know how, and sadly don't know that they don't know. Some parents don't love their children because to do so would be too much of an effort on their part and take away from their own comfort and happiness. Regardless of the reason, children are being raised, not without guidance for guided they will be even if we do nothing, but with the wrong guidance. Without an active interest in their future. Without a knowledge of the potential they hold and the responsibility they will inherit. Without love.

Comments Anyone?

2006-01-09T07:52:00.000-05:00

1. Nothing comes from nothing.
2. Something exists therefore something always existed.
3. Nothing exists in the effect that did not first exist in the cause.
4. Intelligence exists therefore intelligence must be in the something that always existed.
5. The something that always existed and has intelligence is what people refer to as God.
6. Therefore God exists.

So Now It Begins

2005-12-19T18:43:00.000-05:00

Yes, my arrogance has gotten the better of even me. After learning that Tom Gagne (who shall remain nameless) had taken the plunge, I could no longer withhold my wisdom from the world. I witnessed the ease of publication and was seduced by the power of the written word made available to any who might be looking for the deep insights that only I can provide.

Personal Pontifications is my place to speak the truth as I see it. From my perspective, these truths are self-evident. Why then, you may ask, do I choose to publish them? Because as anyone who has casually observed life in general and people specifically will realize, what seems obvious isn't always, well, obvious. It is this thought that gives birth to many of my beliefs and opinions.

Notice, how I listed both beliefs AND opinions. Contrary to what many think, they are not the same thing. My beliefs are those things that I have been convinced are true. They are not wishes. They are not reactions. They are not expressions of emotions, though they may be somewhat emotional. My beliefs are those things that through study and contemplation I have found to be consistent with what is real, rational and permanent. Oddly enough, my beliefs are not always popular. Nor are they compatible with the latest trends. My beliefs are the basis for how I live my life; how I present myself to the world.

My opinions, on the other hand, are what I think about things that I do not have beliefs about. My opinions may express my wishes and desires. My opinions are often emotional and reactionary to the things that go on around me. My opinions are not, necessarily, what I believe but are most assuredly built upon my beliefs. My opinions are, quite simply, my initial view of any given subject as seen through my beliefs, yet without the tempering of research and analysis. It should be clear at this point, that my opinions are not as strong as my beliefs.

This distinction is important. Particularly if truth is to be discussed and reality discovered. Too often people will declare something, "your opinion," and thus dismiss it from serious consideration. This is a cheap trick and a cowardly ploy by those who would have you think that they are smarter than they are. Frequently this declaration is made, rather than discussing or refuting a belief, because the person making the declaration is either incapable of honest, intelligent exchange or too stupid and lazy to put for the effort to think.

By the way, one of the few things I cannot tolerate is the "that's your opinion" retort. The moment that phrase appears in conversation, the speaker is no longer worth the bother to talk to and becomes nothing more than intellectual white noise.

I am a firm believer in truth/reality. I will often use the two word interchangably, because in my understanding, they are effectively the same thing. What is true is real. What is not real is not true. The largest part of my life has been an expedition in search of truth. Whether you agree, or not, truth makes life easier, if not happier.

Trouble comes when we encounter those who would rather operate according to their perceptions. This causes them to operate and interact in conflict with reality. But, that's a subject for another entry. For the moment, I think I'll leave this simple introduction as is.

In the musical Jesus Christ, Superstar Pilate says to Jesus, "We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?" But, then Pilate was an idiot. If truth is not universal, and something we all have access to, then we have nothing to talk about and will find it increasingly difficult to even exist together.