I Hate Challenges

If you are thinking of entering the Business World there is something you might want to know. It thrives on Buzz Words. It is obsessed with Buzz Words. I think it is because business doesn't want to think for itself, doesn't want to stick its neck out too far past the crowd. Just too risky.

If I say I have a Problem at work, my bosses correct me as if I'd just said "ain't" in grammar school. We are not allowed to have Problems at work. We may only have Challenges. This is very difficult for someone who is a self-proclaimed problem solver and proud of it. And it makes me think perhaps my Business World has no skill and no desire to solve problems. By only having Challenges, there is no need to change, they can just document, and bosses love to document now-a-days.

Case in point: while attending a UAW workshop a few years ago, one of the workers laid-off when his Detroit plant closed said his supervisor blamed the workers for the plant closing. His foreman had a stack of green-bar spreadsheets that tracked the same consistent error over a two year period! Can you imagine? A supervisor documenting the same error for two years? Can't you see him now -- reporting at his weekly meetings -- describing the Challenges he faced. Never once, no, not even once, thinking perhaps he might make some mention of the error to the workers, that Part A really goes into Slot B?

That brings us to another fault with the current obsession of the Challenge Label -- Blame. It is all too easy to rationalize the cause of a Challenge whether it is the workers, another department, the economics, or of course, the computer. They don't have to worry about how to fix something if all the time is spent on blaming.

Problems lend themselves to being solved. Challenges just sit like mountains for an eon. Think of how many managers must be employed to map, chart, photograph, inspect, study, meet and discuss, while never once coming close to solving anything -- you can't solve a challenge, you can just meet it & greet it, after all -- and then "pass the cream" and "are there any donuts left?"

Maybe it is time to change the textbooks in business schools. Commerce surviving the 21st Century is going to take more than a flirty smile, a fast wit, and knowing which shoes to buy. It is going to take some hands on problem solvers who know how to roll up their sleeves, are willing to take real risks and keep trying new ideas until one works.

That is how our nation was created. I think that is what it needs to survive.

 Commandmentalities

Well, they've finally gotten around to moving the Ten Commandments statue. What a bizarre case this was, and what a perfect illustration of how two sides of a debate can get so wrapped up in self-congratulatory extremism as to miss the big picture entirely.

We'll start with the monument opponents. I'm not referring to all the practical-minded individuals who nodded their heads in agreement that, no, a 5,000 pound engraved exceprt from a Judeo-Christian religious text should probably not be a permanent fixture of a taxpayer-funded judicial building. No, I'm referring to the predictable crowd of shrill-voiced, hate-filled, anti-religion zealots, whose bafflement that anyone with more than a grade school education would have faith in something as illogical as a Creator clouds their ability to reason and compromise, at all. These are the people threatened by Charlie Brown Christmas specials and St. Patrick's day parades, and anything else that could in any way be viewed as a governmental endorsement of religion. Actually, it's worse than that -- they're opposed to even governmental tolerance of or acknowledgement of religion.

During the course of this debate, the anti-religion zealots were on every news and opinion program, spouting over and over that such a monument "violated the constitutional separation of church and state," a phrase we hear so often now we forget that it's, at best, a hell of an exaggeration. There is no "separation of church and state" mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, at all, nor in any other founding document. The only mention of religion in the Constitution is that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was in response, of course, to Great Britain's establishment of a national religion, requiring every citizen to be a member of that religion, and requirining mandatory church attendance by all citizens to that religion's church (the Conventicle Act of 1665). The Constitution, therefore, was written with an assurance against such religious persecution, largely in respect for other denominations of Christianity. The founders clearly intended Christianity to be an important part of American lives; public schools taught prayers, affirmation in God was required to hold public office, etc. And, as it has been stated many, many times, the foundation of our laws is largely based on Biblical morality, and the Bible is cited more than any other document, by far, by the writers of these laws, and in the laws themselves. The argument that the "founding fathers" didn't intend the U.S. to be a nation guided by Christianity ignores virtually every speech and written document from these men at the time, and cannot possibly be stated with any degree of intellectual honesty.

Then, you have the supporters of the monument, holding candelit vigils and sobbing on the courthouse steps, and who, upon the monument's eventual removal, chanted, and I'm quoting now, "get your hands off our God, God haters!" I admire the passion and zeal of some of these people, but I don't understand why they're so threatened. After all, not having the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse in no way interferes with their practice of religion, or their ability to be a Christian. If a federal judge had ordered every citizen to remove plaques of the Ten Commandments hanging in their homes or churches, well then I'd agree with the anger. But such paranoia, that this is the start of the slippery slope of banning religion in the U.S., seems to be a bit, well, ludicrous.

That said, times do change, and what the opponents of religion should base their arguments on is logic, and the diverse desires of an evolving populace, not some unsupported misreading of the Constitution or its writers. Personally, I tend to agree that "In God We Trust" shouldn't be on currency, that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge, and that a 5,000 pound religious monument shouldn't stand in front of a courthouse. But I cringe when I hear those defending "my side" use such weak and unsubtantiated arguments, just like I cringe when, for example, fellow pro-lifers base their arguments on how lost we would all be had Mary aborted Jesus. It is possible to be right for incorrect reasons. After all, I also side with the rights of a community to have a religious-themed parade -- not because I want the government to affirm a faith in Christianity, but because I want it to affirm its faith in Democracy. If 90% of a town wants to use taxpayer funds for a nativity scene, why should the 10% who disagree have the right to outweigh the majority? We are not a nation of minority rule, or at least we shouldn't be. What if 25% of a community is offended that sex-ed is taught in high school? Would their offense be enough to overturn the majority? Or if 35% were offended by legal abortion? Or 45% offended by affirmative action? The list goes on. In general, as a nation, we believe that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," as the saying goes, and that if a majority of individuals in a community want something to be legal, within reason, as long as it doesn't hurt the minority (i.e., slavery), we allow it. So, this should be decided by the citizens of Alabama. If a strong majority of citizens wants that statue there, it's pretty hard to make the argument that more people are hurt by its existence than its removal. As I said, I don't agree it should be there, but if I'm in a small minority of opinion, then why shouldn't my voice be outweighed by the masses? 90% of the country disagrees with me that "under God" shouldn't be in the pledge, so who am I to decide my slight annoyance outweighs our Democratic ideals?

If you're passionate about an issue, and want to change laws, and the majority opinion is against you, work to change minds. Convince others that you are right, and that they are wrong, and then you can all vote together. Working to find judges that support your unsupported cause, or appointing justices that disregard the will of the people or the rule of law in order to assert their own interpretations, is undemocratic, and fuels resentment and distrust in the government's best interests. In this example, the rule of law prohibited the monument, and so the monument by law had to go. I agree. But, if the community who was passionate about the monument's placement, and gathered enough signatures, and got the matter on a ballot, and a majority of citizens voted in its favor, than I, too, would demand the monument's return, even if I personally disagreed with its appropriateness. Then it would be my job to try and change minds.

 Idols and Politics

Heard the most optimistic bit of news just now. Millions--Millions!--of people have just voted in the Arab World! Millions who have never voted before. Like the British Pop Idol and the U.S.'s American Idol, Arab countries like Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates have all had young talented personalities represent them in an interactive televised contest to search for the next Arab Idol.

To me, this is The Most Important News Item of the Day. Much more critical than any military action. And more successful. Natural evolution of a people--right before our eyes. Let's face it: no one ever changes by force or bullying. People change when they see an advantage to change. How do you think these people liked voting for the first time in their history? How do you think they felt when their vote counted? How did the ones who didn't vote feel when their favorite was voted off the show? What did they learn? How long will it take for the idea of voting for a pop singer evolve into voting for a mayor or governor?

So congratulations to Diana Karzon of Jordon who received 54% of the 4,800,000 votes (4.8 million votes!). And to the people who rioted after the third place winner was voted off the show--I know just how they feel--I was close to rioting when Kimberly Locke was voted off on our side!

 The Value of The Dollar

Recently I was told I might become a father. I'm 26 years old, and not only unmarried, but unattached -- the person who revealed this news to me was a friend, who I had slept with, once. There was no talk of getting married, of course, or even dating for the child's sake, because that would be silly. If we hadn't decided to date at any point during two years of friendship, it'd be pretty contrived to start now.

And so, we had "the talk." What were our options? Well, it's always the standard three, although it's customary to go through the charade that each one just "popped into" our heads: give birth and raise the child, give birth and put the child up for adoption, or the third option few even speak by name, even the most voraciously pro-choice among us. People come up with these bizarre little euphemisms, like, "deciding not to continue with the pregnancy", which is a lot like calling sex an act of "not continuing with the abstinence."

We ultimately agreed, however, that considering that "third option" would be outrageously selfish under the circumstances. We were at good points in our lives. We had a combined income exceeding $200,000/year. We were both intelligent, loving people who adore children. We weren't two teenagers struggling below the poverty line whose parents would disown us, or worried about failing out of college and having to work at Arby's. Hell, we'd even get maternity and paternity leave. Having the child would be the responsible, decent thing to do, and the thought of terminating a pregnancy in which the child would be so financially and emotionally cared for, just for our own convenience of wanting to undo a mistake, seemed sleazy.

And yet, even as we agreed upon this, something bothered me, greatly, about the argument on which it was based. "Well, we shouldn't consider abortion -- I mean, we're not poor, or anything." It made me think back to nearly every abortion debate I'd ever had, in which every pro-choice friend would undoubtedly argue: "but how can you force some inner city single mother to have a child? Imagine the quality of life that child would have!" I once saw a bumper sticker which read: "It's not the poor who want abortions; it's the rich who want abortions for the poor." I believe it's taken from the old Dr. Wilkes text "Abortion: Questions and Answers," and it's always stuck with me. Overly simplistic, I suppose, as all good bumper stickers are. But it really helps illustrate the intense elitism of that line of thinking: the idea that a child born in poverty by definition is doomed to a horrible life incomprehensible to the largely middle and upper class white people who make the argument.

The concept that poor individuals have an inherently diminished quality of life (and, apparently less worthy to even get the opportunity for it) is something I've never been able to accept. It's not only classist, but un-American -- isn't this the country that believes anyone and everyone has a fair shot? We don't have a caste system. We have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of examples of individuals born in poverty who succeed, who contribute, who make up our greatest artists and entertainers and politicians and intellectuals, who may have had to overcome more hardships than the middle class but in many cases are stronger for it. (In fact, at least in the case of the arts, you could even make the argument that poverty and hardship increase the odds of one being successful and important and remembered.) And, even if children born in poverty (gasp!) don't decide to try and break out, who are we to decide they aren't still as important as the rest of us? Study after study have shown the nation's rich to be less happy, less content, and less fulfilled than the "poor." So what on earth gives any of us the right to the offensive, prejudicial misconception that a child born into money is more valuable than a child born without?

There exists no convincing correlation between income at birth and quality of life, and to use it as an argument for abortion seems panicky. "Eek! We can't have more poor people! They'll devour us all!" Besides, even if it could be shown that people born with less financial security were less likely to "make it," whatever that means, aren't there so many exceptions both ways as to make the point moot? Where would we draw the line? When a child would be 20% less likely to become "successful?" 30%? And yet, there I was, making the reverse of the argument, that abortion would be a terrible decision because we weren't poor. And the only reason I made the point was not because I believed it, but because I thought the person in question, who ultimately and legally has sole choice in the matter, would be moved by it. Because, I (perhaps unfairly) assumed she was the same kind of person who, in the reverse, would make the typical elitist "but what about the quality of life!" arguments in supporting abortion's legalization.

Perhaps I take this so personally because I was a child "born in poverty", in a trailer, on food stamps, the epitome of who the pro-choice crowd wants to assure doesn't exist. Planned Parenthood tried to pressure my mom -- repeatedly -- into abortion, for the same reason my well-meaning friends always echo: that the child, in this case, me, would have a "horrible life". Well, I haven't. And ya know what, I'd have been just as valuable had I been born a millionaire, or to a crack addicted single mother in Cass Corridor. Because the genetic code behind my individuality would have been the same, either way. I would have been equally valuable either way. Because I still would have been me. And no one, no one has the right to say I shouldn't have existed based on the financial decisions of my parents, simply because the critics' spoiled lives have left them unable to comprehend a happy existence with a smaller bank account.

Thankfully, it turns out that my friend was merely several days late for her period, and after "passing" several pregnancy tests, all is right with the world. My first "pregnancy scare" since becoming sexually active nine years ago, which isn't bad, I suppose -- a better "record" than many. Yet for all my sighs of relief, I find myself thinking about the child that might have been. That unique genetic combination that my friend and I may have produced, that individual who has never existed before and would never exist again. This child who would have been the same individual had we been married, or single, or if he had been conceived by us while in college, or high school, or while we were wealthy, or poor. This child who would have been the same individual had he been wanted or unwanted, raised by one parent or two, loved or unloved. Would he have had it rougher in some scenarios than others? Of course. But would he have been less valuable? To who?

 Homophobic?

I try not to be prejudiced—ever. I watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Christopher Lowell, and I love KD Lang. I even had a good friend in college that was gay. And I work with a couple of gay people right now—although it is not a topic of discussion, any more than the details of my personal life would need to come up. I am no more comfortable around people who are obscene in their flirtatiousness than I am around people who engage in passionate kissing in public. But I must confess, I certainly object more fervently to same sex passionate kissing in public. And it is the frequent in-your-face sexuality that I object to in the gay rights movement. It is a matter of propriety, of good manners, of respecting your neighbors. You don’t want to see me naked—and I sure as hell don’t want to see you naked.

However, a class in "How to be Gay" for college credit? Let us think about that for a moment. Do we have a class in how to be heterosexual? Well? Yeah. We do. We call it Family Living and it was a required course when I went to high school. So, hmm. And, it's not like U of M is requiring all college students to take "How to be Gay" to graduate.

I have learned that the most robust lessons in life come from our bizarre experiences encountered while attempting to change. For example: I moved my family from a city to a little village that was completely racially integrated, because I wanted my kids to grow up without prejudice against any race of people. Nor did I ever say one religion had all the right answers. I never said one race was superior or inferior; never said one type of intelligence, color of eyes, or any other physical attribute was preferable. But I never expected my kids to be so open about other people’s sexual preferences. What a wake up call when my kids informed me they had friends that were gay! In high school! I didn’t even know there was such a thing as homosexuality when I was that young. One of the boys my daughter brought home was absolutely campy! And I learned to love him as much as all their other friends—in this case, because of the quality of his heart and the quickness of his wit.

I suppose if I could ever learn to accept public displays of affection, the true test of my morality would be the ability to accept all displays of love no matter who with who, and to appreciate that Love is Love, and it truly is what the world needs more of.

 Another Spoiled American That Lived Through the Blackout of 2003

Maybe I should be listening to the Fox News or CNN experts and opinion hawkers blaming Repubs/Dems, Canuks/Yanks, or best of all Buckeyes/Motown, but personally-I prefer Static Shock. Actually, I prefer Static's sister, Sharon. She has a great attitude. Since she isn't in this episode, I will lay a few lines down for Ludicrosity.

I am not cool enough to live south of Eight Mile Road. I am still on the 586 area code side but it is walking distance to Detroit and scary enough when the lights go out. Summer in the city used to equal riots-But this time it didn't. Great job neighbors!

Detroit area lights came back on after about 26 hours. We still can't use our air conditioners, waste any water, or do anything that might trigger another outage. The restaurants had to close for the 3 days of water boiling. Etc. etc. etc.

Coming from the 60's, conserving should be a habit. However, it's not. I got lazy like so many others. At least I remembered some conservation methods like "Do your bit for ecology; don't flush the toilet every time you pee." Or how to get really clean with just two inches of water. (Plug up the tub, turn the shower on just long enough to really wet down then turn the water off. Next, shampoo and lather up. Turn the water back on and rinse. You will be cleaner. You will have used only 2 inches of water. And the planet will thank you. If I didn't have kids, I would tell you it is even better to share the shower and save more water.)

We all seem to agree on one thing--we have become spoiled. We have so much and we use so much; we expect so much and still want more.

And that's great! I believe we are a great society because we always want more and more. We consume. The products we consume were made by us. We have created our own unique society of workers who consume. We are a self-fulfilling profit and spend society. Other societies like to have a group of workers and a separate elite group of consumers. We still use the middle class system of letting workers benefit at least a little from their own labors. And it works so well. We make more products so we can make more money so we can buy more products.

If the Big Blackout was a warning or a lesson, perhaps it was just a lesson in gratitude and a warning to honor our guardianship. Perhaps we should try a little harder: to use our resources sparingly, cherish our luxuries, prioritize our necessities, and remember People First.