Monday, September 15, 2014

Dear Democratic Party

Dear Democratic Party and Assorted Candidates,

Thank you so much for all the wonderful e-mails - as many as twelve per day - more if something significant happens to be going on.

I'm not an advertising executive - I'm just a slightly less than average "bloke" - however, I thought it might be beneficial to share my thoughts - and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here - about your e-mail campaign(s).  I'll just number them to keep my thoughts straight.

1.  About the volume.  The sheer number of e-mails is astounding.  Where do you ever find the time?  I have all I can do to send out the few a day I manage.

2.  About sharing my e-mail address amongst yourselves.  Thanks, but just because I send $25 to Equality Maine, it might not mean that I want to also send money to every other Democrat who ever ran for every race in Maine, mostly because I live in South Carolina.

3.  I'm just speaking for myself here, but the fact that some or one of those other guys or maybe the whole bunch:

     a) Are people you don't like;
     b) Are about to do something you don't think is a good idea;
     c) Are evil;
     d) Are well funded;

Doesn't motivate me to suddenly choose to exceed my political activism budget.  It motivates me to think ugly thoughts about those other guys, and I'm honestly a little flush on that.

4.  What would motivate me to exceed my budget is not who you are, per se, but what you're going to do with the money.  Simply stating that "they" have more than you doesn't necessarily ring my bell.  Also, it kinda makes me think your plan doesn't extend much beyond "please send money".

5.  Does anyone actually believe that if they donate $5, they could win dinner with President Obama?  Seriously?

6.  While I'm on the topic of President Obama, how big exactly was that birthday card?

7.  One more thing about President Obama.  I seem to remember from Junior year in high school that two terms is pretty much the end of the old rainbow in terms of being President.  So, why are you asking me to send money to his election fund?  Is he thinking maybe of running for Alderman or something?  Dog catcher?

8.  I get the whole idea of having one person send me an e-mail to ask if I got someone else's.  But you should probably wait more than an hour or two.

9.  Again, just talking for myself, but is anyone actually buying the concept of a political fundraising emergency?

10.  Are there seriously no Democratic Party equivalent for the Koch bothers?  Tell me about them.  I'd love to hear about them.  I might seriously exceed my political contributions budget if I knew I wasn't alone.

So, that's all I've got right now.  Best of luck.  I'm rootin for ya.  

Monday, September 8, 2014

Why I am a Socialist

I have decided after a long period of evalutation, that I am a Carter/McGovern Democrat.  But the Democratic party has left souls like me behind, leaving us to find our way to greener pastures, like the one in which I now graze - the Democratic Socialists of America. 

President Carter came to office during a very difficult time.  Sure, they're all difficult.  Nobody is saying that Roosevelt had it easier, although he had the war as an economic engine.  Carter didn't have to drop an atomic bomb or delcare any wars.  However, Carter didn't really have an ecomonic engine, and he knew it.  We had consumerism and a very high expectation of delivering lots of goods and services at very low prices - prices over which we had lost control.

His malaise speech - the very speech that probably ended his chances at a second term - will probably go down in history of one of the most important speeches ever ridiculed and ignored by so many. Nobody wants to be told to turn down the thermost and tighten our belts a bit.  A plan based on austerity is for other people, not Americans.

A few years before that, McGovern tried to get us to believe in the power of the American spririt.  McGovern believed that we could take care of everyone first and still have enough energy, innovation and productivity gain the world's admiration - all boats would rise in America's rising tide.  He too was ridiculed - winning only 17 out of 537 electoral college votes.  He even failed to win his own state - a state who had sent him to Congress 3 times by the time of the election.

Some 30 years later, Carter/McGovern democrats like me are few and far between.  We've mostly been branded as "liberals", a term which has become a dirty word.  In 2008 Obama talked of hope and the mostly dormant McGovern genes awoke and we sprung to our feet.  But years a term and half later, we've sat back down, victims of another hoax. 

America's prosperity has been and will continue to be for a short time more, largely been policy-driven.  America's world leadership is based not on admiration and collaboration, but fear. Sustainable and beneficial leadership cannot emerge from fiddling with the rules and playing the bully.  Those tactics can work for a while, but the will eventually flame out, as we are flaming out now.  If we are unable to pay for our Empire, I don't think anyone else will needs us enough to come rushing to our rescue. Many have followed our lead and find themselves now needing to pay for years of keeping up with the Jones'.

So, in the end, it turns out that Carter's interdependent realism and McGovern's strength of sprit have left the Democratic party.  In its place remains merely a different view of how to fiddle with the rules and where to spread fear and where not to.

The Democratic Socialists are small, scattered and barely organized.  But unlike the what's left of the Democratic party, it speaks my language and I believe them when they talk.

Monday, September 1, 2014

A Labor Day Prayer

Here we find ourselves again on Labor Day.  A day to remember those who the history books probably forgot.  No last names synonymous with a New York Stock Exchange companies, no monuments to their individual contributions, no chapters in text books.  The many have a tendency to become the one on days like today.

I will hold dear in my heart those specific individuals from whose work I now benefit.  I will list them by name in my thoughts as I barbecue or putter about the yard.  I will hold their commitments to themselves dear and reflect on how their work moved time all the way to today.

Happy labor day to all of them and to everyone whose committments to themselves and to their loved ones are moving time right now.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Separation of Church and State

Say I:           You know, one day if I ever do manage to serve as a minister, I may run for political office.

Says He:       You can’t do that!  That would violate the separation between church and state!

Say I:           I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t.

Says He:       (a little more emphatically than before).  Damn straight it would!  No minister can serve political office.

Say I:           Pretty sure that’s not accurate.

Says He:       Well, even if you could, nobody would vote for you.

Say I:           Why not?

Says He:       Because you’re a minister!  Would you wear the collar?

Say I:          (after a few seconds thought) Probably not while I'm working as elected official.

Says He:       Doesn’t matter.  Nobody would vote for you because you were a minister.

Say I:           Because ministers can’t be active in civic society.

Says He:       Right.  Separation of church and state.  Period! No iffs, ands or buts about it.

Say I:           What about the priesthood of all believers?

Says He:       What does that mean?

Say I:           Well, many Christian - specifically Protestant Christian - religions believe that all believers have a duty to minister in their faith. Every believer is a priest.

Says He:       Like which ones?

Say I:           Well, I’m a little shaky here, but I’m pretty sure that’s Lutherans for sure, and I think Presbyterians, but I have to admit I’m not always super clear on some of the difference between the denominations.  Anyway, if they’re all supposed to be functioning as priests, does that mean we can’t invite any of them to serve in secular government?

Says He:       Don’t be stupid. Its only real ministers who can’t hold elected office.

Say I:           And why again is that?

Says He:       Because they all have an agenda.  They’re all pushing their religion on everyone else and that’s not right.

Say I:           So, you can’t separate a minister from his or her religion?

Says He:       Of course not.

Say I:           But you can separate a non-minister from theirs.

Says He:       Yes. They know how to separate church talk from regular talk.

Say I:           (after a few seconds of consideration) Maybe you’re right then.  I pretty much am the same way in church as I am in the rest of my life.

Says He:       Exactly.

Say I:           Well, you’ve made your point.  Maybe not the point you’d hoped to make, but you’ve made a point.

Says He:       Right.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Commie Bastards

Says He:        Ending war.  You’re an idiot.  Wars are necessary.

Say I:              They are?  Why?

Says He:        Because everyone wants our stuff.  We have to protect our freedom.

Say I:              Oh.  So, is it our stuff, or our freedom that we’re protecting?

Says He:        What’s the difference?

Say I:              Well, I guess that’s a matter of interpretation.

Says He:        What the hell does that mean? You don’t need to interpret freedom.  You either have it or you don’t.

Say I:              I’m pretty sure it’s not that simple.

Says He:        Damn straight it’s that simple.  You’re either free or you’re not.

Say I:              And freedom means you have stuff that you want to protect.

Says He:        What does that matter to it?  I guess.  I guess if you’re not free, then you can’t own anything.

Say I:              Well, we’re going to have to disagree on what freedom is all about, but back to war, just for a minute.  So, what you’re saying is to keep your stuff safe, and to keep your ability to have stuff, you think it’s a good idea to send total strangers to kill other total strangers before they can take your stuff or slow down your ability to get stuff.

Says He:        Damn straight. Americans!

Say I:              Ok.  That’s what I thought you said.  Just checking.

Says He:        You and your commie bastard friends are all the same.  You all think you know what’s right for everyone else.

Say I:              I can see your point.  I can see how I would be a threat to you.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

The Effect of Weak Language

One more thing on Robin Williams, then I will leave it alone, at least publicly.

It seems to me that we have chosen a weak path in our choice of language when it comes to mental "illness".  I'm assuming this is out of some societal or self-placating fear of confronting our uncertainties on the topic.  Whatever the cause, it should be reconsidered.

In the 1980's the medical community shifted their language from the rather spelling-bee sounding "hyperglycemic" to the much more matter-of-fact, and scary sounding "pre-diabetic" to name the exact same medical condition.  This is one clear indication that at least some parts of the medical community understand that use of language can have clinical benefits.

However, when confronting the deadly syndrome that ends the life of so many, now including Robin Williams, we tenaciously stick to the weak "depression".  The reason "depression" is a weak clinical word is because it doubles as an everyday word.  We've all been "depressed" from time to time.  Very few of us need medical help.

Can I suggest that it is finally time for us to change our language? Medically-serious depression needs its own "pre-diabetes".  Let me offer a starting point:  Acute Dissociative Perception Syndrome.

     "Robin,  it seems to me as your doctor that your depression may be getting worse."


     "Robin,  it seems to me that your symptoms indicate that you may have moved from simple depression into having Acute Dissociative Perception Syndrome, which is a different thing altogether and needs different treatment."

I know the medical community can do better than that.  Anyone who knows how I can share my thoughts with them, please let me know.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014


I don't normally post on Tuesday's but the world lost Robin Williams yesterday.  That merits a post.

I spent last night in my hotel room watching YouTube clips of Robin.  With Craig Ferguson (my favorite), with Whoopie Goldberg.  Doing stand up.  I went to sleep feeling self-conscious about being so affected by the loss of someone I had never met.  I felt rather alone in whatever sense of loss I was feeling, feeling sort of silly about feeling sort of punched in the gut about the loss of a complete stranger.

This morning, I read the newspaper articles.  I started to feel reconnected. I'm terribly disconnected from pop culture, so I was relieved to see that I was not alone in...I guess grief, to give it a name. Sense of loss.

After work, I popped open Facebook and the blogsphere and I was amazed.  Among my circles and my circles' circles, folks had been processing all day.  People I love owning their own battles with depression, supporting each other, being real.  It was cathartic.  I'm still ringing like a bell.

But for me, the reality is a little more detatched than his and our "stuff".  Its  more about the sense of loss I have over the vacancy in the role he played.  It's the vacancy for me that is the punch in the gut.  

All I can say is that I get it.  Not so much the suicide part, but the unbearableness of it.  I can't touch it like he could.  I wish I could.  I so, so, wish I could.

Just off the top of my head: Mitch Hedberg, Ernest Hemingway, Vincent Van Gogh, Richard Jeni, Brad Delp (from the band Boston), Freddie Prinze, Ray Combs, Janis Joplin, Edgar Allan Poe, Kurt Cobain join the list of loved ones remembered in the posts of today.

Maybe they were the "normal" ones and we are the ones who are throwing our lives away?

Monday, August 11, 2014

The Legend of the Flying Flip Flop

I sit under an umbrella at what is now the third of five beach-front hotels through which my life's path has wound in the past couple months.  I feel like I don't belong here, and in many ways, I don't, but I'm a little conflicted getting to a point where I can consider this somehow negatively.  And there is always the five-o'clock-somewhere Cuba Libre I'm managing to guiltlessly integrate into my day.

A mother and three beach-aspiring little ones, all four in flip flops and one still in diapers make their way along a wooden path that leads to the beach.  The one in the diaper trips, lands on his hands and all hell ensues.  Diaper-boy is going for the academy award -tears and all. Diaper-boy's two little sisters strategically place their little bodies in a position that subtly states both their neutrality and their concern over the effect of this event on their trip to the beach. I felt terrible for the whole four of them.  

Within a minute or three, screaming diaper boy and his entourage had moved along and the peace had been restored.  The sun had shifted, so I repositioned my chair under the umbrella and now had a clear view of that wooden walking path.

Shortly, (or what passes for shortly under an umbrella on the beach with a five-o'clock-somewhere Cuba Libre) another similarly demographicked family came past on their way to the beach.  This family was not carrying anything at all, which distinguished them from screaming diaper-boy's family, who were beach-bound pack mules by comparison.  One of the second family's members also tripped at roughly the same spot.  This little one also landed on her hands.  In the process her flip-flop went spiraling through the air, landing clear off the walking path.  This flying flip-flop brought great amusement to her, and that amusement spread quickly through the family.  By the time she had recovered her rogue flip flop and returned it to its rightful place, the story - soon to be legend, I suspect - of the flying flip flop had become the central point in the family's conversation as they made their way to the beach.

As they left, part of me hoped that flying-flip-flop-family somehow managed to take their beach position in close proximity to screaming-diaper-boy's family.  And, part of me hoped they landed far, far away.

Monday, August 4, 2014


Says she:  (matter-of-factly)  Look.  The sky is purple.

Say I:          Its spectacularly purple!

Says she:   (after a considered pause)  Sure.

Say I:          Sure!?  You can't just say "sure" to thing like that!

Says she:   (after another pause)  Sure.

Says she:   (after a lengthy slice of silence)  You, know, its really kinda pink.

Say I:           I was just about to say that same thing!  Is spectacularly pinkish purple.

Says she:   (after, what at this point in the conversation must have been an intentional pause)  Sure.

Say I:           You know, that doesn't make it any less spectacularly pinkish-purple.

Says she:   Sure.

Monday, July 28, 2014

$1 Beer Night

It seems like I am not the only one who thought $1 beer night at the ballpark sounded like such a good idea.  The line to get tot the place is really, really long.

The average age of the "baseball fans" tonight seems to be about 21 1/2, roughly, or in more personally relevant terms, less than half my age and not that much older than my daughter, who I love dearly, but with whom, 9 innings of progressive intoxication is no longer my cup of tea.

But, after all, it is $1 beer night.  How bad could it get?  Where do you draw the not-worth-it line on $1 beer night?  How about a band consisting of a drunken trombone player, an asthmatic bagpiper and one of those wind-

up monkey toys that klanks away at a drum and a symbol?

What about too-loud karaoke in a too-small bar - and not the Japanese kind, the American kind?

The natural follow-up to these questions, is of course:  What kind of beer is $1?

Alas, my body turned around and walked away while I considered these things as well as other life mysteries such as whether a trombone player is a "trombonist" or a "tromboner".

Monday, July 21, 2014

Nobody Right, Nobody Wrong

There is an existential argument raging in and about the industry in which I am employed that both in form and in substance is disheartening me.

Both sides have their arguments down almost to the point of cliche.  It is either good, without room for critical reflection and certainly without room for dramatic improvement; or it is bad categorically and should be scrapped and started over from scratch.

Having been around this crowd for 20+ years, I can tell you in factual terms that they are both right, and they are both wrong.  In making their arguments, both sides can wander from intentionally misleading to mindful (or mindless) blindness to the merits of the other's arguments.

Unfortunately for everyone else, the dualistic, polarized shouting matches of this sort have become the norm.  Discourse doesn't happen much these days.  Discourse has been left to loud displays of categorical, unyielding, and - it would seem - intentionally confrontational side-choosing. It just seems that in more and more critically important societal conversations, the only voices we get to hear are the unyielding ones.

The argument going on in my industry is societally relevant, and I would say critical.  To make it into something that can be yelled about, it has been turned into simplistic black-and-white components, leaving non-specialist stake holders and observers feeling the primal urge to chose from black or white, failing to consider the grays because those voices are drowned out.

Compromise is not always a good thing, but the complete absence of compromise can be equally destructive.  At least compromise follows discourse.  Winner-take-dualism is killing discourse. 

As a society, we wander along, declaring a "winner" and swiftly moving along to the next loudest topic, failing to reflect on the effect of our decision.  Governance becomes not much more than a jousting match with the prize of prudent governance being replaced with victory laps for the "winners".  Those governed end up the innocent bystanders.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Superman Effect

It seems that in every town, in every county in every state, some time around this time of year, a few kids - out "just being kids" - die in some seemingly pointless, probably at least partly self-induced tragedy.
It happened to me just a month out of high school.  One of my friends, seemingly out of nowhere killed himself and another was killed by the reckless driving of her boyfriend.

Was she experiencing a thrill as they came down that hill and slammed into that retention wall?  We never found out.  

This week, it was my town's turn.  My freshman daughter knew the kids, even hung out with them.  When you see the site of the tragedy, a seasoned driver knows that something isn't quite right.  It seems impossible to accidentally hit  that tree, so far from the road.

But, alas, another passage of summer. For some, a devastatingly permanent passage.  The pain is palpable.  And yet, the teenage years seem to inevitably be a time of life for most people when we, groping for the boundaries of our own independence, are able to raise the stakes without yet understanding the contra side of the trade.

This phenomenon of being adult-sized in body but still kid-sized in mind and experience seems to be addressed mostly - in of all places - driving schools.  There, they call it the "Superman Effect". 

The "Superman Effect's" can't-happen-to-me definition make it painfully and unfortunately circular and cuts it off from external intervention.  The only person who can shut down the "Superman Effect" is the individual.  I can't shut down yours, you can't shut down mine. 

Meanwhile, another summer, in another town, in another county, in every state passes by.  I guess the freedom we like to talk about here really does have its price. It is truly tragic that no matter the age, that price is so often paid by people who don't understand the trade they're in.

Friday, July 4, 2014

An Independence Day Prayer

Freedom is a funny thing.  We all want it for ourselves, but we’re a little less keen on it for others.  Truth is, we like to restrict other people's access to activities that bother us.  We’ve even been known to stretch safety concerns to get our way. 

We embody this conflict in our language.  The difference between a “freedom fighter” and a “terrorist” all depends on where you stand.  The party is either “rockin” or “disturbing the peace”, again all based on perception.

It gets pretty mellow and fuzzy when you’re dealing with people one-on-one.  Where is the line between compassionately wrestling self-destructive freedom from someone and anxiously standing around and watching them be freely self-destructive? 

Is freedom really as sacrosanct as our ideology needs it to be?  

In Southern Africa, there is a philosophy of community called Ubuntu.  You may call it a theology.  Roughly translated, it means “I am because We are.”   That would seem to fly in the face of disengaged anxiety that seems to be the response to watching self-destructive freedom.  Uncritically prizing individual freedom over collective freedom the general welfare at higher risk.

I am left feeling that we all we can do is engaged compassion.  The truth is, you can’t make anyone do or think or say anything that’s meaningful or sustainable, no matter their age or physical status.  All you can do is support them, even when they use their freedom to attack themselves.

Monday, June 30, 2014

Great, Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals

If you have accommodated yourself to have low expectations, then the only thing that will happen is that expectations will get lower.  

What you focus on, does in fact, truly grow.  It is a goofy little Buddist matra, but that doesn't make it any less true. 

A focus on getting by; avoiding poor results really only has two possible outcomes, both negative.  The first is the desire of avoiding the negative takes over the desire to attain the spectacular.  When poor results occur, the focus will shift on making sure to avoid those same results, thus, creating a more myopic focus on the dodging the pain.  The second possible outcome is a redefinition of success.  If negative outcomes can be avoided easily, the bar should be lowered.  Can these low expectations be attained cheaper? Faster? Easier?

The antidote is to focus on Great, Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals.  GBHAG's create the opportunity for more distributed success.

GBHAG's should always be the first thought when the welfare of others in at stake.  In fact, if you have any capacity at all to do so, you have a moral imperative to always keep GBHAG's as a target and walk away from an ethic that thrives by avoiding bad things. 

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Thank Goodness Good People Die Every Day

I was reading an obituary last night.  I didn’t know the person, a friend posted it on Facebook.  Out of some vague source of concern, I read it.

Turned out it was an former high school teacher of my friend’s.  There were several posts of praise for this teacher.  I found myself thinking:  “Its too bad that good people die every day.”  The thought came and went and I didn't think too much more of it.

A little later, that thought came back to me.  Apparently, it wasn't done with me yet.  I realized that in fact, it is not too bad that good people die every day, rather, it’s thank goodness that good people die every day.  That means that we have a lot of good people.  The more good people who die every day, the more that means that people have lived their fullest life, touched the most people and made the most of their time here with us.
I remember waking up the next moring to learn that Maya Angelou had died the previous day.

It’s not that they die, its that they lived.  Fully.  That’s why I’ll say “Thank goodness good people die every day.”

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Good Question...

My 16 year old daughter, in a discussion about socialism and communism:

"The first time it came up in class, the teacher read the definition 'an economic system which favors equality and insures everyone has access to the resources they need' or something like that.  I laughed because I thought the teacher was making a joke.  What's so bad about that?"

Good question.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Environments of Trust 4

My last three posts have addressed my feelings and experiences regarding trust characteristics in groups of individuals. To summarize:

Trust environments are recognizable;
Trust environments are definable based on the behavior patterns of individual members of the group;
Trust environments are self-sustaining and self-enhancing;
Trust environments can be changed.

As lame as this may sound, I think effecting a movement toward trust in an environment is so important that it means having to make personal sacrifice.  Avoding low-trust behaviors the spring up from time to time in high-trust environments is a matter of calling out the unwanted behavior.  In strong, high-trust environments, this process is natural and is often facilitated by the offending party:  "Oh, gosh, that was terrible for me to say, I'm sorry."

But in low-trust environments where apologizing can be dangerous, self-correction is rarely the case.  It takes an individual effort, often at individual peril (not to physical harm, but to group membership).  Small, intentional personal shifts are the only beginning point as trust cannot be legistlated.

Self-awareness is the key to these smaller personal shifts.  Someone who may have survived in a low-trust environment/relationship will be able to make a transition into functioning in a high-trust environment.  However it is really, really hard to get someone whose senses are trained to a high-trust environment to get comfortable in a low –trust one.   High-trust environments are like bells – they are very hard to unring.  Friends who all of a sudden get “bossy” and ultimatums are both examples of breeches of trust.  That’s why we’re so offended by them.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Environments of Trust 3

My last two posts have addressed my feelings and experiences regarding trust characteristics in groups of individuals.    To summarize:

Trust environments are recognizable;
Trust environments are definable based on the behavior patterns of individual members of the group;
Trust environments are self-sustaining and self-enhancing.

This time, I'd like to address where I personally get stuck and am currently stuck:  effecting change in low trust groups.

I have found that shifting environments starts with smaller personal shifts and personal choices.  A propensity toward a low-trust behavior such as judgment (a common behavior in low-trust environments), will become “uncool” if there is no buy in from the group and therefore no trend.
Conversely, acting as though you are in a high-trust environment when you're really in a low-trust environment can make you appear to be out of touch, and loose credibility. Breeches of trust are easy to recognize and in a high-trust environment, but breeches of non-trust in a low-trust enviornment are hard to pick up on, especially by people surrounded by an atmosphere of low-trust.
Next time...effecting change...

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Environments of Trust 2

Last time, I wrote about my feelings and experiences regarding observations of group activities and their indications of trust.

I have found that activities I mentioned as either characteristics of low-trust or high-trust environments tend to lead to more activity in the same column. Essentially, among otherwise healthy individuals, trust breeds trust and the lack of trust breeds a continuation or acceleration of the lack of trust. 

So environments in which bragging is a common practice also tend to also favor blaming.  Conversely, environments that celebrate success also tend to be much more collaborative when it comes to fixing problems. 

Next time...breaking patterns....

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Environments of Trust 1

One of the characteristics of high-trust environments/relationships is an ability to talk both positively and negatively in a group setting in balanced and beneficial ways.  Doing this makes many people uncomfortable. 
Books such as Crucial Conversations give each of us more tools to engage in ways that increase the probability of positive results – how to function in high-trust environments/relationships.  Here are some characteristics of high- and low-trust environments/relationships:

High Trust Environment                                          Low Trust Environment
Celebrating success                                                     Bragging
Fixing sources of failures                                            Finding blame
Asking for help                                                           Suffering in silence
Understanding                                                             Judging
Power-with                                                                  Power-over
Offensive/progressive                                                 Defensive/protecting
Collaboration                                                              Independent Decision-making

Each environment has its proper place.  For so, for example, when the ship is sinking, power-over (Get on the darn life boat!) is preferable to power-with (Do we all agree that  getting on the life boats is a good idea?).  When danger isn’t quite so imminent, such as in business or social groups, I have found that sustainable success will more predictably come from high-trust functioning environments.
Next time...Benefits of Self-Awareness

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Funny how we all see things so differently

Going about my daily activities, I happened to be in the vicinity of a young woman who was struggling to put a lid on a cup of soda.  The lid apparently broke in the process and she made a small-ish mess.  I felt sorry for her, but didn't think much of it as she seemed to have the situation under control, albiet slightly frazzled by the inconvenience.

Then, she said this (explicatives deleted):   “This is all because the environmentalists make them have to make the plastic lids so flimsy.  I wish those environmentalists would just mind their own business.”

She was considering the useable life of a paper cup, lid and straw that would probably span about 10 minutes and complaining about quality.  I'm assuming that the reaction was brought out by frustration over the incident, but I was just not expecting the consideration that the manufacturer of the cup had been mandated to make the utensils flimsy because of pressure from environmentalists.

I was so happy to have been able to get that unexpected refresher of just how wide ranging viewpoints can be on even the very most simple of matters.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz (or maybe a Tesla), or maybe just a Budweiser

I find it is so very easy in our consumption-driven world to affirm our love for something.  Do you feel the same way?

People "love" beer, muscle cars and rock bands, which is all find and dandy. But for Budweiser to affirm its love for me by printing up a shirt that tells the world that I am loved, now that might have some value for me.

I had the opportunity to spend a few minutes this week with a lovely person, who I had not previously met.  She was going through a bit of a tough time, so we struck up a conversation about it. 

In the process of the conversation, she made a point about her house, which she described as “not exactly a mansion, but we’re comfortable.”  She went on to say that if God had wanted her to have a mansion, then he would have given her a mansion.

This whole God-the-great-donor-of-material-things is, to put it mildly, a foreign thought to me, and normally I wouldn’t have said anything.  But in this instance, some little demon in me said to her “Well, God didn’t give his own son a mansion, so what does that tell you about what God thinks about mansions.”

I don’t know where that came from, but it hit home base with my new friend and it hit home base with me.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

I ♥ My Church

There is a new t-shirt in town where I live.   I am seeing them everywhere.  It says “I ♥ My Church.”  I’m wondering why I find that offensive.

It took me while, but I think I’m onto something, finally.  I think the thing is that people don’t go out and make t-shirts.  I myself have never made myself a t-shirt, but I have bought a few, which infers that someone else made them.  I think what is rubbing me the wrong way is a church manufacturing t-shirts for people to wear.  Advertising is one thing, but advertising by manufactured affirmation seems a little icky for a church.

This made me feel like a prude, so I considered what would make me feel warmer.  I think it would be perfectly valid and actually wonderful if the church had manufactured t-shirts that said:  “My church ♥’s me.”  To me, that seems like a much greater affirmation.  Still weird, but not as weird to me as the other way around.

Sunday, March 10, 2013


I was walking through a small group at a large event when my own ears heard a woman utter these very words:

"I love Richmond.  Of course, there are parts of it that would be better if we could exterminate some of the people who live there."

Not making it up.  Not being dramatic.  Not misunderstanding, I heard it clear as a bell.  Actually, it was pretty easy to hear.  The woman didn't make much effort to conceal the statement.  What's more, her friends agreed.  I'll say it again in case you missed it.  They agreed.

I am at a complete loss of what to think.  Should I have done something?

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Shame, Atonement and Worthiness

What I have found is that the opposite of shame is worthiness.  The pathway from shame to worthiness is atonement.  Atonement with those you have directly let down or injured.  Atonement with yourself.  If you believe so, atonement with God.  I have found that atonement takes work and is not easy. I realized that I don't really have a choice.  I can postpone it, delay it, or deny it, but eventually, the call to worthiness is too great to ignore.  

The good news is that unfulfilled atonement is what we call guilt and it is an entirely preventable syndrome.  Universalism tell me that God is alright with me, and for that matter all of us.  It's up to us to decide if we're alright with him, with our friends and family, with our community.  The other thing I realized is that you can't vicariously atone.  You can't be alright with yourself by getting right with everyone else.  You have to do that too.  Probably first.  People say that it's not all about you.  With atonement, it actually is.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

What is our primacy worth to us?

I am reading the recent Doris Kearns-Goodwin book about the people in the Lincoln administration and I am in awe of the similarities between those times and ours.  It's so easy to fall into a bias of thinking that what is going on right now, whenever that is, is so novel that the seemingly accidental solutions that eventually render themselves are equally novel.

But is there any risk in looking at history and finding comfort that our situations (personal, interpersonal or global) will work themselves out because history repeats itself?  Can we become complacent?

Has there ever been a period of time when a declining empire like ours has been coupled with such immense global destructive military power?  We can start a war just about anywhere in just a matter of months and if we get seriously threatened we have the capability of destroying millions of souls without ever setting foot on the lands of the people we aim to destroy.

What is our primacy worth to us?  This is the operative question.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

We’re all addicted to something, aren’t we?

The easy ones to pick out are the ones that facilitate some additional dysfunction that has been identified by society.  Alcohol and narcotics abuse are the big two in this category.

Others are harder to put your finger on.  Food, sex, money, power.  You can mask being egomaniacal to your friends a lot easier than you can mask being stoned at work, for example.

The subtlest are the ones that are most common.  We are addicted to being safe or loved.  We crave and can’t live without hearing that we’re pretty/handsome or smart/creative or fast/strong or generally superior.

So by its pervasivness, being addicted to something is completely “normal”, the societal concern isn’t necessarily the addiction itself, but rather its affects. For example, it is in society’s best interest to curb things like chronic excessive alcohol consumption because the affect of such addictions is often unexpected, unpredictable or unpleasant results and behavior.  Some addictions are almost guaranteed to cause unpleasant results.  Nicotine addiction, for example is conjoined with cancer and other ill-health.

As is nearly uniformly the case, what is in society’s best interest is in conflict with what is in our individual best interests.  Collective efforts to empower individual wholeheartedness would be far preferable to the current model, which is to react to addictions on an individual basis and then deploy the fastest possible deterrent/cure to insulate ourselves from unpredictable or unpleasant results.

I wonder if that is even possible.  Do we actually infuse each other and ourselves with the self-doubt that fuels the addictions, or are we hard-wired to feel these cravings?  It’s the nature or nurture question in reverse, I guess.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

A Prayer for the Epiphany

It is not a testament to our lives to say that we have succeeded, because life (despite the current and loud admonition to the contrary) is not a business in which there are winners and losers. Life  is about the trying, business is about the succeeding.

The only sure way to fail is to avoid the risk by never trying.  But success is incumbent upon our own efforts not in a vacuum, but in an atmosphere in which multiple contributions to success, some small and unnamable hold up the attempt and give it a head start.  Failure after effort is dismissed as a manifestation of personal faults, not a reflection on the lack of a suitable atmosphere.  This personal attachment to failure and success diminishes the value of the effort itself, scaring people away for fear of failure.  This imposition of economic measurement on life is one of our greatest failings and here laid bare for the world to witness.

Many shudder at the thought of on their death bed, sitting in self-judgement reviewing their accounts in some giant ledger.  We live our days in this under the assumption that this accounting (or reckoning) will occur, but for some reason, in the end we regret that our lives are not much more than a compilation of our days.  Living each day makes for living a meaningful life.

Monday, December 31, 2012

A Prayer for a New Year

My beloved America is transitioning from de-facto superpower to vital member of a world community, presumably making a stop at "first among equals" along the way.

This transitions being fought by Americans of resources through their government.  Loathsome of falling out of a place of primacy, the fight is on.  The recent Presidential election gave us a birds-eye view of the fight, with both major candidates waxing rhetorically about the necessity of America to "be out front", "lead the world", "support democracy" and generally to be the alpha-dog on the block.

The incumbent was often criticized for having on occasion "lead from behind" which was a strongly understood euphemism for "weakness".

The American Empire is here and we are beginning to recognize it.  Our financial interests run very, very deep and very, very wide, and the cost to insure these interests will only grow more expensive if we continue to play the role of enforcer.

This new years's day, I pray that as this transition comes into clearer view, it is not met combatively, but rather welcomed and managed.  Without proper recognition and management, this transition will become violent.  We know this for watching any such struggle and we already have a view of this with the September 11, 2011 attacks which we clearly interpreted as a challenge to our primacy.  Had we rather chosen to interpret these attacks and all the attacks since as a tap on the shoulder to let us know that our primacy may not be working for everyone,  we may have learned more about ourselves and our role in this world.  Instead, we quite possibly began our trip down the bumpy road to membership in a world community by denying the trip and the bumps.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

A Prayer for a Merry Christmas

Peace has come to me this Christmas season. My family is away and I am working nearly non-stop on personal thing to prepare for what should be my penultimate classes on my masters degree.  I have had the additional blessing of becoming stark-raving sick, confining me first to a hotel room (I was traveling for work) and then home for the vast majority of a week.  I have ventured out of my shell only four times during that time (five times if you count the three hour drive home) and two of those were to the doctor's office.  I have two presents, one from my mother, one from my daughter and her boyfriend sitting on the kitchen table.  I am blissfully peaceful - I even found and lit some incense, something I haven't done in years.  I wish you could have the same, whatever that means to you.

I also have received the gift of prophetic words from over a century ago.  These words came packed in (what seems like) thousands of pages of required reading, most of which borders on incomprehensible babble.  Rising above the babble like a chinese bottle rocket, William Ellery Channing said:

"To live in the truth or divine spirit of Christ is to be freed from the always-evil desire to dominate any other human being."

Print that, wrap it up, put it under your tree or in your stocking, and when you open it, it's me, wishing you a Merry Christmas.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Thank you, St. Anselm

I am coming to a clearer understanding of how people interpret or use the word "faith", and it is quite different than the way I use it in a rather disconcerting way.

Saint Anselm of Canterbury was a Anglican archbishop, an academic theologian and philosopher.   He proposed the notion that G/god is that which exceeds our knowledge.  To put it in simpler terms, think of numbers.  A young student will probably eventually ask what the largest number is.  To this, the teacher would respond that there is no largest number, because you can always add one to the prior number, and so numbers are infinite.

The universe is also infinite, but unlike numbers, it's infinite-ness transcends our ability to understand it all.  Reason, evidence and science can advance our understanding, but we will never understand it all.

And we arrive at faith.  I am learning that one understanding is that faith is a tool used by people to believe the unbelievable, which puts faith in conflict with reason.  For me, that is not a definition of faith, but rather a definition of imagination.  Like reason, faith has a strong relationship with imagination because imagination forms the foundation upon which learning occurs.  But faith is fundamentally different than imagination because faith emerges from an experience.  Properly understood, neither faith nor reason attempt to prove or disprove the unbelievable, they just both attempt to articulate an understanding of the world using different forms of measurement.

Faith and reason are co-dependent.  Faith forms the backbone of reason, for you must have some faith in reason's potential benefit to undertake it in the first place.  Without faith in humanity, reason would eliminate itself and without reason, faith would be indistinguishable from imagination.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

What is sympathy?

I am reflecting on yet another gruesome manifestation of brokenness in our lives that intersects with freedom and the result is 26 people who will never come home for dinner again.

When these things come up, I think about sympathy. If one loved one dies or is gravely ill due to disease or accident, sympathy comes from interpersonal compassion and is a way of communicating that our hearts and minds are with those living with the change. Through sympathy, we simultaneously express our love, our concern and that if we knew what we could do to provide any support, we would.

In cases like Sandy Hook, sympathy can seem both self-indulgent and inadequate. How do we meaningfully express sympathy to strangers from across the country? We can promise to them that we will do better to see that things like this don't happen anymore. We can promise to tell the parents of the kids who hurt animals that their kid might need some help. We can promise to live as a community, not as isolated "free" individuals. We can promise to develop ways or devices to enter into and maintain the crucial conversations that we avoid out of discomfort or embarrassment, standing behind some ill-conceived notion that individual freedom trumps community well being.

Signing a sympathy card on Facebook makes us feel better. It might make the community at Sandy Hook feel better, but mostly it just tells them that we have access to mass media. True sympathy that originates with compassion means promising real, tangible change about yourself that will make this better. Stationing an armed guard at the door of every classroom - like we did with the airports - just makes us feel better, acknowledges our ideological-driven blind-sides and shifts responsibility back onto the nameless, faceless government. We can do better than that.

Friday, December 14, 2012

If faut casser des oeufs pour faire d'omelette, baby.

The increasing tension between ideology and results is beginning to cause some tension in me.

More and more, or maybe just more apparently to me, the focus of decision-making is on loyalty to an ideology rather than the projected results.

Add caption
When decisions based on ideology result unfavorably, causation lines are deftly redrawn to protect the ideology from blame.  That's what suffering is for, if it wasn't meant to be, than it wasn't meant to be.  We even have language to institutionalize the primacy of ideology: "The ends can't justify the means!" is one of my personal favorites.

People who actually do justify the means by at least considering the ends are considered immoral.  We call them "Machiavellian" after a misunderstood Medieval philosopher, meaning that ethics are purely situational - a concept surely threatening to the powerful.

Why is it socially or culturally acceptable to scrutinize the ethics of a process that had positive results and intentions but required bending of rules or questionable tactics?  Or the flip of that question, why are the ethics and intentions of someone who cased harm but "stuck to their guns" beyond reproach?

Surely, the ends can't universally justify the means, but the opposite is also true, the means can't justify the ends, either.

We need a balance and that comes only leadership.  There is an old French saying - you have to break a few eggs if you're going to make an omelette.  For ethics based on ideology to evolve, they have to change and that means at some point, someone, somewhere must break them with positive intentions to gain positive results.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

The Ethic of Community

Liberty University, a private Christian school has lodged a legal challenge to the universal health insurance plan (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) being implemented right now. Its complaint is founded on the notion that its forced participation in the plan would cause the university, as an employer, to provide benefits for medical services that conflict with its religious beliefs. The focal point of its concern is that the university would (indirectly, through the plan) offer to pay for abortions and birth control.

The complaint is obviously based on an assumption that a corporation has its own civil rights to religious freedom. If it does, can its rights legally trump individual civil rights by association? Liberty is so convinced of this ideology and in its religious convictions that it has chosen to risk the embarrassment associated with disclosing that it knows that its employees’ morals aren’t uniformly aligned with its own. [If it were confident in this uniformity, it would not be so aggressively opposed to offering a benefit which would effectively go unused by individual choice.]

As someone whose religious beliefs are nearly uniformly in some degree of moral conflict with the current manifestation of Western culture, I am bombarded by violations of my morality. Maybe I should stop paying my taxes until I am free from the things that assault my morality. Off the top of my head, I can think of that death penalty thing, corporate personhood, concentration of media ownership (especially radio) and the use of government resources to transfer corporate risk onto individuals.

The true test here is between an ethic of community and an ethic of individual.

An ethic of community prioritizes the welfare of the community over the welfare of the individual. This means that by choosing to live in a community, we are incented to ensure the welfare of each other first and from that individual success, preference and convenience will be possible. The natural resting place for authority in an ethic of community is in a system of “power-with”, or stewardship of each other for the purpose of empowering individual happiness (success).

An ethic of individualism assumes that for the community to succeed, it must first be populated by successful individuals and therefore prioritizes the welfare of the individual as a path to community success. The natural resting place for authority in an ethic of individualism resides then in a system of “power over” to ensure that individuals are empowered to attain their own success and therefore ensure community success. As it evolves, individuals are incented to influence authority using a system created and curated by the powerful. In an ethic of individualism, authority can become a self-serving cycle in which power and influence feed off each other with only casual and gradually reducing attention paid to the welfare of the community.

The Liberty complaint is an experiment in testing which ethic is authentic. Will the result of this complaint confirm that true authority means stewardship under an ethic of community, or will it rather authenticate and possibly formalize an ethic of individualism?

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Kids (already) are religious.

I had the honor of serving as a chaperone at a religious retreat for high school aged kids.  Watching them together participating in their own formal worship and fellowship, I came to a realization that these are very religious people, it's just that their religion looks different than adult worship.

As I considered what I was witnessing, I was reminded that babies are a manifestation of God, their path to adulthood is often a drifting away from their inner deity which too infrequently they manage to find again later in life.

These kids seemed to me to be deeply connected to each other.  Adult worship is oriented primarily to the individual and produces collective by-products.  These kids' worship was primarily collective with individual by-products.  It is we adults who force divisive notions of right and wrong into their heads.  For us, religion is a math equation.  For them, its an exploration of each other and the rest of things.  They fight it at first, but eventually, they give up and we win.  I guess.

Maybe, at church, the real worship is done by the youth while we adults sit in a row and face forward.  Maybe we don't send them out of our services to get a little peace and quiet, they send us out of theirs to get rid of our silliness.  And then when we take that away from them, they disappear, never to be seen again.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

'Tis the season for sharing, after all, dammit!

The sign above the donut case at the coffee shop this morning read:

“’Tis the season for sharing!”

As I waited, I considered what that makes all the other seasons. 

Abruptly, the patron on line behind me demanded faster service from the haggard soul working behind the counter. The patron who was wearing expensive business clothes demanded that the worker who was covered in powdered sugar pay due respect and honor people’s time constraints. (PS, it didn’t quite come out that way, but that was the jist).

When the worker handed over the long overdue coffee, instead of “Thank you”, the patron said “finally”.
The worker responded “have a good day”, but I’m pretty sure that the words didn’t match the thoughts at that moment.

Maybe a bigger sign would help?

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Fallen Soldier Tribute

A young man from my South Carolina town, Sgt. "Bo" Hicks died while serving with the US Army in Afghanistan

I stopped by the side of the road to watch the procession that came before and after the hearse that carried his bones to their final resting place.

The procession was probably larger than most, but probably not out of the ordinary in size or other characteristics for someone who died with honor at a young age.    That funeral procession personalized the Afganistan war for me, even though I hadn't know Sgt. Hicks at all.  Sitting there, in my car, I felt a deep sense of grief.  Was this whole procession possibly a collective confession of our guilt for having sent the young man out to fight a war in the first place?

Many of us go through deliberate decision process prior to making decisions that carry far less weight than the life or death of a third party.  Have we short-changed these men and women  who are out fighting our silent war?  Is our decision process at least as robust as it can be? 

Sgt. Hicks was only 24 when his life ended.  I almost can't say that out loud without wanting to cry about it.  It will go in the record books that he was killed by a bomb that had been hidden.  But is that really the reason?  If that bomb had been hidden in Greer, I would think there would be an inquiry to find out why it was there.   Who had hidden it?  What would drive someone to be so angry as to hide a bomb?  Clearly someone must have seen the bomb being hidden or known it was there?  Why didn't anyone say something?

But, alas the bomb was not in Greer, it was in Paktika province, Afganistan.  How did he get there?  What really was the reason he was there?  Was the bomb intended to harm specifically him, or was it more of a random act of hatred and anger?  Why was it there?  People don't hide bombs for no reason.  What kind of desperation or hate causes someone to hide a bomb?

I just hope we're not collectively avoiding asking these questions becuase we're afraid of the answers.  If we are, then that funeral procession really was was a confession of guilt and collectively, we owe a debt to Sgt. Hicks that we can't ever repay.

We like to say that we are honoring a fallen soldier.  I don't know.  Personally, I would trade the comfort of having finalized Osama bin Laden and all of Afganistan for just his life.  I wish he were still alive.  He probably does too. 

Monday, November 26, 2012

Black Monday

Today was not a good day for me.

Recently, my employer decided to terminate a formerly key employee. This decision was reached after considerable reflection on the part of my employer. This employee had decided to invest heavily in the past and forego sharing the vision of the future that our employer had hoped for. After this formerly key employee purposeefully making life miserable for all around the situation, our employer, after realizing through evidence that the situation was uncomfortably past the point of reconciliation, decided to formally part ways.

I suppose that it is not surprising to learn that this black soul is now about town saying bad things about us and damaging our business and our reputation by his actions. Amazingly, this employee is managing to profit from the very incompetence and other unhealthy behaviours that led to our employer seeking out new avenues for affecting its business plan.

Under attack from self-centered greed and competence based on income and ideology rather than success and results, I am once again dismayed at the state of capitalism in our buyer-beware society.

Black Friday followed, at least for me, directly by Black Monday. I could get so much more done if I didn’t have to unravel mistruths, lies and blasphemy. It takes a black soul to see into the mind of a black soul. I realize that I just don’t have that and I don’t want it.