What Evil Lurks...?

One tough thing that many of us have to deal with is how to deal with people that seem like nice people, but express hateful opinions. Sometimes these people are our relatives, sometimes they're our co-workers, sometimes they're our neighbors. I'm not talking about mere differences in opinion, even though some of those differences may have huge consequences.  There are many ways that we can disagree that don't involve dehumanizing others, or behaving hatefully. Often what separates opposing ways of looking at a problem is the intent behind the opinion.

Religion is overflowing with examples. It's one thing to believe that a certain religious belief or practice is what works best for you, it's quite another to advocate that those who don't hold your religious views be executed.

Wow, that was extreme.

We all know that those people exist, but what about believers who aren't on the fanatical end of the spectrum? How about those who, while not advocating death for the "unbeliever", nonetheless work toward enmeshing their religion and the law, effectively outlawing different beliefs? (or no beliefs) Some, but definitely not all, would agree that this is wrong. But how do you view someone, who is perfectly content to separate church and state, yet believes in her heart of hearts that you and people like you, are so detestable that you will be tortured eternally? That's what Hell is, people. According to the myths, Hell is not some afterlife haven for rebels where all the really cool people go when they die. No, Hell is a place of eternal torment and you deserve to go there for whatever reason your religious buddy thinks is his god's rules. And even if you're nominally of the same religion as Mr. Fire and Brimstone, you might, in his opinion still be damned for not being enough of a believer.

If I have to be around those people I'll deal with it, but I won't like it.

What about politics? A lot of people "aren't political". But there is a significant percentage of the nation who gladly and enthusiastically support "leaders" who spew hateful rhetoric and regularly demonize those who oppose them as "enemies", "scum" and a variety of other epithets. People who proudly parrot what their leaders say about their fellow Americans, their friends, family and neighbors.

How about sports? Think that's safe? I heard a co-worker defend a player who was accused of a crime, not by noting that he hadn't had his day in court yet, but because he was fast and was helping his team win games. Athletes in professional and college sports are regularly protected from the consequences of their actions solely due to their value to their franchises. And fans still pay to see them and cheer them on.

Sometimes I hear people say things, or read comments on social media and wonder: "What's wrong with this person?"

I'm not so un-self-aware that I think every moral person in the world adheres to the same ethical standards that I do, or that those who hold differing opinions are necessarily evil, or stupid, or deplorable, but sometimes I just recoil in horror at what lurks in the hearts of my fellow humans.

More Christian Than the Christians?

Periodically you see someone saying that some one who isn't a Christian is more Christian than actual Christians. This is usually in the context of politics and is meant to point out hypocrisy among some groups of Christians. While I certainly understand the point that is being made, there is a fundamental problem with that kind of comparison. The problem is assuming that Christianity is the yardstick by which we measure morality and that any goodness among non-Christians is due to them living according to Christian principles. I disagree with that assumption.

This isn't because I necessarily believe that New Testament-based morality is wrong, but that it isn't unique. An obvious example is that of the "Golden Rule", usually quoted as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". (Do unto others what you want them to do to you - Matthew 7:12) This same "rule" can be documented as far back as 550 B.C. in Confucian China; The Code of Hammurabi contains similar wording another 1200 years earlier. Many of the world religions contain a concept virtually identical concept: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism all have their versions.

All religions have as part of their ethical core guidelines for getting along with others and for the smooth operation of society. Setting aside dietary and ritual considerations, religious systems codify a commonsense system for people to interact with others with minimal friction. Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, be nice to those weaker than you, respect those in authority over you, share your bounty when you are able, do your duty, follow through on your commitments, etc. You can expand on any or all of these and come up with a workable moral foundation. At the root, these moral standards are simply a framework to avoid societal chaos.

While pairing these behavioral expectations with worship of a deity or with ritual observances is common, there is no reason for it to be necessary. Most religious adherents, or even non-adherents, i.e. atheists, would have strong motivation to live harmoniously within society. It doesn't take belief in gods to understand that lying and cheating eventually result in lack of trust by others; that stealing is going to result in some kind of retaliation; that anarchy in government or business is unproductive and dangerous; basically that you act in such a way that you would want to be treated and hope it all works out.

This isn't to suggest that everyone will naturally act ethically without the influence of religion any more than everyone who is a religious person will automatically act ethically. No, I'm just suggesting that telling a non-Christian that they are a good Christian ignores and denigrates their own ethical and moral choices.

Balance

Where does your obligation to others end? When does your need for self care outweigh your consideration for others? Is family really the most important thing? How does forgiveness fit into the picture?

Before launching into my own opinions, I want to state that there is no one answer for everyone. No two people, even those within the same family, have the same life experiences. As with most things, we have to construct our own standards and be content to live with them.

My own viewpoint is, of course, colored by my own experiences. I grew up in close contact with my extended family. My four siblings and I lived in a two-family home that we shared with six cousins who lived upstairs. Cousins and cousins of cousins frequently got together for family events. We regularly visited my two grandmothers and had them over for holidays. My parents and grandparents siblings were part of our extended family. There was occasional friction. My paternal grandmother was famously hard to get along with, and one of my mother's sisters could be counted upon to cause problems at times. Despite these issues, we never cut anyone off from family contact and even someone that we didn't always get along with was welcome in our home. Of course there was more to it than what we saw. Both my father and mother had cousins who, for one reason or another, we never had contact with, except for funerals...maybe. My maternal grandfather, who I was allowed to believe was dead, had been living in upstate New York, where he had no contact with any of his children or grandchildren. It wasn't until he really did die that I accidentally found out about him. Even though, going into adulthood, I knew about these "others", I considered them the exception to the happy families rule. I fully expected that when I started my own family that the same apparent closeness would prevail.

Then I got divorced.

That's a long and painful story, but the relevant chapter is that my ex-wife, convinced to the core that I was evil, convinced our children to break off all contact with me. Some of them may have actually believed what she was telling them, some of them may have just been trying to keep the peace, since she made clear that she strongly disapproved of them having any kind of relationship with me. For several years only one of my six children would have any contact with me. Eventually, as they got older and were less under their mother's day to day influence, they each reestablished contact with me. I envisioned recreating what I perceived as the perfect family dynamic, and for a while it seemed that my idyllic vision had been achieved. But I had not factored in a flaw in my thinking.

The flaw was looking only at what I wanted.

I was so enamored of the concept of "family dinners" that I never considered that my family might not find them quite so wonderful. That they might have perfectly reasonable and acceptable reasons for opting out of these gatherings - some of the time or all of the time. It took me a few years to realize that I am not obligated to host these gatherings and no one is obligated to attend. I have the option to invite family to my home and they have the option to accept the invitation.

One of the qualities that I tried to inculcate in my children was independence. That even though I would support them in their endeavors, and refrain from negative judgement, that I would not function as their safety net once they achieved adulthood. If I could have afforded to send my children to college I would have done it, but other than that, I did not see myself as obligated to pay their bills or protect them from the consequences of their actions. I realize, of course, that many would disagree with this mindset. I'm not advocating that there is only one way to approach this question. There have been a small number of times when I have paid a bill or intervened to help out one of my children, but in each case they haven't asked and it was not a precedent. The other side of the independence coin, one which it took me years to see, was that as a corollary to taking responsibility for their own lives, they weren't taking responsibility for mine. In this example, I still occasionally host family get-togethers, but am fully accepting of the schedules and needs of the family members and am prepared for just me and Susie to attend!

This brings us back to my initial questions: Where does your obligation to others end? When does your need for self care outweigh your consideration for others? I've written a lot of words about one of my own situations, but it comes down to balance. We would indeed be pitiful excuses for human beings if we never considered the needs of others, but what kind of life would we have if we always prioritized others above our own needs? There has to be a balance; and that balance is going to look differently for different people.

For me the balance is connected with a particular view of forgiveness. There's a difference between taking action that incidentally hurts someone's feelings, yet is done with pure motive and something that is done intentionally to injure or of selfish motive. For me, forgiveness is twofold. First, it's refusing to assume that another's actions are intentionally hurtful. This is not particularly easy for me - I am naturally cynical and have to make an effort of will to ignore what seems like the obviously "evil" motive. It's difficult, but not impossible. Secondly, I don't expect to much in order to forgive. I don't even look for an apology. All that I want is for the person that needs the forgiveness to stop doing the things that require forgiving! Change the behavior and let's move on!

That doesn't mean that I continue to allow people to take advantage of or otherwise injure me. If you've stolen from me, I may reestablish our relationship, but I probably won't leave my wallet or any valuables out.

So what's the answer? Facebook has a "relationship status" called "It's Complicated". And that's the answer - it's complicated. Ask yourself whether staying angry at your sister or cousin or parent is worth burying that relationship forever. On the other hand, ask yourself whether maintaining that relationship is worth the damage to your own peace of mind and sanity. 

Find the balance.

Cults & Brainwashing

No, not the Blue Öyster variety, with, or without umlauts.

Last night I watched a documentary about Bikram Choudury, the yoga teacher. Long before they got to the parts about him raping his students, I turned to Susie and said "Wow, not too much of a cult". I recognized the signs right away. Sometime soon I will be posting my own history with a cult, but suffice it to say that I know what I'm talking about, at least experientially.

One of the words that come up frequently when discussing cults and their influence and abuses is "brainwashing". There are several competing definitions of brainwashing; here's one: "The concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques". According to this definition, brainwashing, or mind control, is said to reduce its subjects ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into the subject's mind, as well as to change his or her attitudes, values and beliefs. I will steer clear of government-sponsored efforts that involve torture or chemical means to affect these changes, and look primarily at groups that people initially join voluntarily but end up unable to leave, even when actions take place that are abusive or otherwise harmful.

Looking specifically at Bikram's organization, the outer circle is fairly innocuous. People generally first come in contact by attending a Bikram-affiliated yoga studio in their own neighborhood. The yoga teacher is local (usually a woman) who may be known in the community as an all-around nice person. She drives her kids to school, is a volunteer at the PTA, pays her taxes and shovels the snow off the sidewalk in the winter. New participants may or may not feel like it's worth their time. Those who don't, drop out. Those who do stick around and begin to invest time and money in the program. That's the first step, and that's where the hook first starts to sink in.

Most people do not understand the economic concept of Sunk Cost. That's the idea that any money that you have invested or spent is gone. If you spent $20,000 on a new car in 2010 and sell it for $10,000 in 2019, you haven't lost anything. You got 9 years of use out of the car and its value decreased. Selling it for $10,000 means that, in terms of the here and now, you just made $10,000. But let's say you insist on waiting for someone to pay you $20,000 (or more). You're then making zero dollars. I used to run into this as a retail grocery manager. Each department had a goal for how much of a profit margin they should make on average in their department. Let's say your goal in the Dairy Department was 20%. But let's further imagine that you have a slow-moving yogurt, or you bought way too much for that ad. You can mark it down to a 10%, 5% or even sell it for less than cost. You may be taking a loss on paper, but in reality you're taking in some money, rather than throwing all the excess in the trash. I worked with a lot of people who couldn't understand that taking a paper loss, or a reduced margin, meant you were still coming out ahead - better than taking in no dollars.

People who have invested time and money in something are loathe to admit that they wasted their time. The longer they're involved, the more determined they are to get something out of it. Maybe they've spent $500 on membership fees, and figure, "what the hell, I might as well keep attending, even if I don't like it all that much". They have talked themselves into the first phase of believing in "the thing".

The second hook is peer pressure. In Bikram, it was the yoga veterans who constantly talked about how Bikram Yoga had helped them, even changed their lives. In the documentary you heard about people who had lost weight, or had been cured of various maladies, or just became more confident people, all due to Bikram. In religious cults you'll hear about various "miracles" and "healings", always unverified, but the principle is the same. For those who have already decided that they were "all in", the peer pressure to start seeing those miraculous and life changing  experiences cause one to desire to be in that inner circle. Any real benefits are magnified and emphasized. And that's a key to understanding cult behavior - there has to be some real benefits, even if the benefits are later exaggerated. Sometimes the benefits  are tangible like better health and stamina; sometimes it's a matter of belonging, or receiving praise, the feeling of family. That's the next hook.

In some groups the concept of family is taken to the extreme, and leaders advocate shunning the actual family, but in others it's just another level of belonging, with the members spending most of their time together to the exclusion of outside interests. Once this family dynamic is established, what's more natural than a relationship with the group's "father"?

By the time someone is actually in the presence of Bikram for one of his "Teachers' Classes", a student has a tremendous amount of time, effort and resources invested. They have already internalized the teachings and are convinced of the benefits. They have been recommended by someone in their home area that they like and trust and feel that they are ready to advance. They feel at once proud and humbled that they have been chosen. They don't need much convincing that Bikram knows what he's doing. And if they aren't 100% convinced, Bikram let's them know that he knows what he's doing. He tolerates no slackers, no arguments, it's his way or the highway. Everyone there has been primed to look to Bikram as a wise teacher who can virtually do no wrong. He is presented (and he presents himself) as not only an authority in his brand of yoga, but simply an authority...period. He can do no wrong.

Until he does.

What happens when he rapes young women who attend his classes? Some are so stunned that they can't believe it happened. Some keep quiet because they have wrapped their livelihood up with Bikram Yoga and try to, as one person put it "separate the man from the program". Those who did come forward were reviled by those who still supported Bikram. It is likely that there were some who convinced themselves that they weren't raped, or that they had somehow caused it. It is probable to the point of virtual certainty that many more women were targets of rape, sexual abuse, or groping. Why do people persist in following a person like this?

Not all cult leaders engage in physical abuse. But all have brought their followers, step by step, to the point where they have their own selves invested in believing that he (it's almost always a "he") can do no wrong. Sometimes there's still some personal benefit to be derived from following the cult leader, sometimes their own experience doesn't conform to the negative experiences of others, sometimes people just don't want to admit that they're wrong.

Cult leaders, whether with an organization like Bikram's, or a religious sect, or even a political figure target people with a specific need - to belong, to become fit, to put down the "other", and tailor their message to bring those people into the fold. A cult doesn't have to have "a compound" or empty your bank account, all it has to do is get you to forsake rational thought for the dogma of the cult. It doesn't take "brainwashing", some ephemeral method of mind control, no one "takes away" ones ability to think critically, individuals choose to abdicate their thinking skills to instant gratification;  it takes individuals believing successive lies, because the perceived benefit of believing the lie is greater than the hard work of rational, logical, skeptical reasoning.

Been there, done that.

Being On Time

There are situations when "being on time" is not an issue. There are, however, situations where it is critical that you start at a predetermined time. It's important to know the difference. In my view, the deciding factors are what you have agreed to do and what the consequences are for not being punctual.  

As a wedding officiant, I push really hard for starting on time. If the ceremony is supposed to start at 5:00PM, and there are 150 people waiting for things to begin, those people are going to get awfully cranky if we don't start until 5:30. On the other hand, if you're a guest and running late, no one is going to care, or even notice. About ten years ago I ran customer service training for the company that I worked for. The session lasted about 90 minutes and I always started on time. I frequently didn't know how many people were supposed to be there, so there was no question of "waiting for that last person to show up". I usually checked the parking lot right about start time to see if there was anyone getting out of their car at the last minute. Once I started, no one was allowed in. Why? Because if I let someone in ten minutes late, I was admitting that whatever I was saying for those ten minutes was not important.

If there's an agreed-upon time, it's simple courtesy to show up at that time

Okay Boomer

"Okay Boomer" is a trending put down of folks in the Baby Boom generation by "Millennials" those in the so-called "Generation Z". Apparently many Baby Boomers have been offended, forgetting how arrogant and dismissive we were of our elders in our younger days. ("Don't trust anyone over 30"; "I hope I die before I get old").




I was born in 1958, so according to widely accepted ranges, I fall into the last third of the Baby Boom generation. But I don't really feel any kind of bond with the members of my generation. The oldest Boomers, based on the chart below, are 73 years old. I know a few people in their early seventies who are basically old hippies, and others who act not that different than people in my parents' generation. Donald Trump is technically a Boomer, while Mick Jagger and Jeff Beck falls just outside the ranks of Boomers. The movers and shakers of the sixties counter culture, as well as the  heads of most multi-national corporations are both Boomers. We're not a monolithic group.

On the other hand, perhaps Boomers should have refrained from being so judgmental about later generations. My own anecdotal observations indicate that Boomers view Millennials as lazy and entitled, while my own experiences with Millennials leave me with the opinion that people in this age group are neither more no less likely to have a strong work ethic, just as Boomers' work ethic runs the gamut from hyper-motivated to super-lazy. We Boomers often forget that the older Millennials are now in their late thirties and are the managers and company presidents that are running the show in many companies. At my own job, at a state agency, many of the managers and senior accountants are Generation X, with the older Millennials filling a lot of the mid-level positions.

Birth year, aka your "generation", isn't a very dependable predictor or someone's values, and "Okay Boomer", while designed to be dismissive and a little bit rude, isn't something to get upset about.

The Pain Scale

Sadly for most of us, the older we get, the more aches and pains become part of our daily existence. Lately I seem to have done some minor damage to a body part, and while healing I gave some thought to the "Pain Scale". Anyone who has been to a doctor for anything pain related has heard of it, or seen the chart. "On a scale of one to ten, how badly does it hurt?" is the way it goes. Supposedly this gives your health care provider an idea of how serious the pain is. But how effective is this?

First of all, how do we define the one and the ten? How do we quantify it? Is a sunburn worse than a stubbed toe? Is it a stabbing pain or a dull pain? Can they be compared? Personally, I have never been shot or stabbed, nor have I been severely burned, or given birth. I would imagine that those things would be up there on the ten side of the scale, but never having experienced them, how can I compare my toothache, or broken toe or pulled muscle to a gunshot wound?

Of course, even with similar injuries, people's perception of the pain associated with them are different. A boxer or martial artist, used to a certain degree of low-level injury, might become so used to pain that he ignores it, while the same injury might cause someone else to scream in agony. Some providers have linked descriptions to some of the numbers, I would find this to be pretty helpful since it puts quantifiable labels to the numbers.







Of course, there are still different types of pain. A heavy throbbing pressure can be as debilitating as feeling like a sharp object is being inserted into your eyeballs.




While writing this blog post I came across a new scale that might take off:

Classic Rock Bands with No Original Members

What makes a band? Is it the band members? The songs? Some combination? The Who's famous lyric: "I hope I die before I get old" came true for many rockers from the so-called Classic Rock Era, but many more of them are still out on the road filling arenas, or perhaps the wooden benches at various state fairs. For the purpose of this discussion I'm dividing those old bands into two categories. The first is the "solo artist". Typically the solo artist is the "star". Whether or not he or she wrote the songs that are being performed, that person is the one thing that doesn't change. The star hires sidemen, musicians who work for the star. Sidemen may work with a star for years, or they may change with every album or tour. Bill Joel can get rid of a guitarist on a whim, but only Billy Joel is Billy Joel.

The second category is "the band". A band may consist of 3, 4, or more, equal members or there may be a core membership with auxiliary members who be fired by the core. Some bands, like the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, once they settled on a stable membership (post Pete Best for the Beatles and post New Yardbirds for Led Zeppelin) they existed only as the familiar incarnation; Plant, Paige and Jones did not hire another drummer and the members of The Beatles never performed as The Beatles once they broke up. Other bands had no problem replacing members, nor did it appear that their fans had any problem. Deep Purple's most well-known and commercially successful incarnation did not include the original singer or bassist. Occasionally there are disagreements about who has the rights to use the band's name when the original members have gone separate ways. There were once briefly two versions of the progressive rock band Yes, each consisting of original members, and members from the not-original-but-most-well-known version. Eventually the courts decided who had the rights to use the name.

The rock groups that originated in the sixties and seventies are typically in their late sixties to late seventies. It's a regular occurrence to hear of some famous rocker dying of heart disease or some other malady associated with old age. Some of them are still touring, often with one original member! I recently made a comment about the Yardbirds that was not well-received by their current guitarist. The Yardbirds, if you are unfamiliar with them, were a short-lived blues-rock band in the late sixties. They are most well-known for the artists and bands that had their origins with the Yardbirds: Eric Clapton, The Jeff Beck Group, Led Zeppelin and Renaissance. Sometime in the nineties The Yardbirds reformed with drummer/songwriter Jim McCarty and guitarist/bassist Chris Dreja, who were original members joined by some younger musicians. A few years ago Dreja retired; the Yardbirds continued with McCarty the only tie to the Yardbirds' heyday. I made the comment that the Yardbirds were basically a Yardbirds tribute band. Now technically they're not a tribute band, due to the presence of that one original member, but what about them, other than the presence of one man, makes them The Yardbirds?

There are various things that make a band unique, that makes their sound stand out from everyone else. Often it's the singer. A frontman (or woman) in many cases defines a band. Can you imagine Aerosmith without Steven Tyler? Other times it's the guitarist. Rarely, however, does the uniqueness extend to the bassist and drummer, at least in the eyes of the run-of-the-mill fan. The heart, the core of a band is going to vary from band to band. But in my opinion, The Who ceases to be The Who after Keith Moon died, and even less so when John Entwistle passed. For me, John's bass and Keith's manic drumming were indispensable parts of the band.

I can understand why the lone survivor of a popular classic rock band might feel that the band name might draw more fans than their own name. Paul McCartney might be able to fill arenas without calling his band "The Beatles", but "Foreigner" surely has a better draw than "The Mick Jones Group" or "The Yardbirds" than "The Jim McCarty Band".

The bottom line regarding whether a band is the band from back "in the day" is whether it is accepted by the fans. For me, the decision to see a band that was popular in my youth where there is a dearth of original members would hinge on my own subjective views. Everyone else is welcome to their subjective views. Whatever works!

Frank

As I take my afternoon walk on work days, I pass a lot of apparently homeless people. A lot of them seem to have mental issues, talking to themselves or to unseen entities. Seeing one particular guy me me think of a man named Frank who used to shop at the store here I worked.

Frank was probably in his fifties. He often wore old faded army fatigues and had a heavy beard. I don't think Frank was homeless - he always seemed to have plenty of money, so if he was, he had a fairly reliable source of income. Frank, however, had some eccentricities.

Frank was convinced that the CIA was tracking him through the UPC codes on food packaging. After he made a purchase he would take a small pocketknife out and cut the UPCs off and throw them away. On a few occasions other customers would see him take out the knife and assumed that because he was talking to himself he was somehow a danger. No, only the UPC codes were in danger. Every once in a while he would use profanity when talking to his invisible friends. He would always apologize when I asked him to keep his language clean.

Frank also was very concerned with order. Some days we would find Frank taking tuna cans or Oscar Meyer bologna packages off a shelf, rotating them according to date, and turning all the labels the same way. The first time we saw him Loss Prevention followed him around for two hours thinking he as a shoplifter, but he was actually doing a service for us. Frank in a checkout lane was also a challenge. He always paid in cash with exact change. He would pull out a little change purse and root throw the coins, somehow perceiving that one specific nickel was preferable in a given exchange.

Frank was harmless; a little weird, but harmless. Nonetheless, he made a lot of people uncomfortable. He wasn't doing anything to overtly cause the discomfort, but some people's worldview didn't allow for people like Frank.

One day, which happened to be my day off, an employee reported to Loss Prevention that Frank was taking items out of the bulk food bins with his bare, unwashed hands. He was confronted by Loss Prevention, who threatened to throw him out of the store. Frank responded by saying that he would throw the Loss Prevention employee out of the store. Frank was banned from all the company's stores and I never saw him again.

But here's the odd thing. Frank was a germaphobe. Whenever he purchased anything from bulk foods he would wrap the scoop in a plastic bag, then put his hand inside another plastic bag, and only then would he scoop his purchase into a third plastic bag. There is no way that he was putting his bare hands in those bins. Frank was falsely accused because someone was unsettled by his difference from what they considered normal. And he was thrown out and banned on the basis of that false accusation and the overreaction of the person who confronted him. Would it even have been an issue if it had been one of the dozens of clean cut people who didn't talk to themselves or cut the UPC codes off? Obviously not, because that kind of behavior was and still is routinely ignored.

I think about Frank whenever I pass some of our downtown street people. I don't know their stories or how I they got to the place where they find themselves today. I didn't know Frank's story either, but I always treated him with respect and I work hard to suppress incipient judgement against these folks that I see downtown.

Opinion Disguised as Truth

Many of you have a strong opinion that the things that you believe are truth, while what everyone else believes is a lie. My opinion is that having that opinion is perfectly okay, as long as you make no attempt to coerce me into arranging my life to conform to your opinion. Now some of you may assert that your opinion isn't simply opinion, but it what the deity of your choice has ordained as "the way it is". You may, of course, accept that premise without evidence, but if you are going to require me to accept your premise, and structure my life accordingly, you're going to have to come up with some objective evidence. 

What is objective evidence? What form might that evidence take? For starters, it would have to be something that isn't dependent upon already believing. Much of the "evidence" takes the form of personal stories and anecdotes. Getting that prime parking spot is not proof that there is a God. Praying that your incurable disease is cured and then having no signs of the disease isn't even evidence of the power of prayer. The vision that you saw or the voice that you heard certainly isn't objective evidence. Any of those things might be sufficient for you to believe in your favorite version of your deity, but aren't enough to be actual evidence. 

In the last paragraph I used the term "favorite version of your deity". What I'm referring to with that phrase is the phenomenon whereby people who ostensibly follow the same religion hold completely different views of how that religion's deity works. To use Christianity, the dominant religion in the United States, as an example, there are distinct differences among the major denominational traditions, and sometimes even within a given denomination. Christians famously brand other Christians as "not true (or real) Christians", judging by a standard that they may or may not fully understand. This tendency isn't limited to Christians; the sectarian violence in the predominately Muslim Middle East testifies to that. 

Even stipulating that certain phenomena "proves" that the supernatural exists, how would one prove that anyone's favorite deity was behind said supernatural occurrence?  Spiritually-minded people tend to interpret the unexplained in the context of what they already believe. I don't know how many times I have heard the assertion that someone "miraculously" surviving a car wreck, plane crash, tornado etc somehow validates an entire theology. Even if divine intervention kept your car from going through the rail and into the ravine, how do you know it was the god that you previously believed in and not a god from some unknown pantheon, or angels, or aliens? Spoiler alert: you don't. 

Since you can't, or won't, provide evidence that your religious beliefs are objectively true (I once had someone argue that religious beliefs weren't subjective, since they came from God, and were in fact objective, for that same reason. No.) you can have no expectation that anyone else should be compelled to adhere to them, or live in a society that mandates them. 

Why Do Wedding Officiants Need to Be Ordained?

No, ship's captains are not empowered to officiate at weddings. Other than that, the rules and regulations regarding who may serve as a wedding officiant vary from state to state, and even within some states. In some jurisdictions notaries are authorized, in others, the county or city clerk. In some states you can effectively declare yourself married by simply filling out the proper paperwork. Judges are often on the list of approved officiants, and then of course there's clergy. But who defines "clergy"?

In Nebraska, where I reside, the law refers to "preachers of the gospel", which would seem to rule out ministers from any religion other than a Christian denomination, but in practice, Nebraska makes no attempt to decide who is a "real" minister & who isn't, and rabbis, imams and ministers ordained online are all recognized, or at least ignored. In fact, Nebraska Statute 42-114 states that if someone says that they're authorized to perform marriages and the couple believes that the officiant is authorized to perform marriages, then the marriage is valid. Part of me wishes they would excise "preachers of the gospel", but the other part of me just wants to leave well enough alone!

There are several states that have a narrow definition of who is authorized to officiate a wedding ceremony that specifically rules out ministers ordained online. These rulings have in general been spurred by court cases where someone is attempting to invalidate a prenuptial agreement or avoid alimony by claiming that being married by an online minister means that theirs was not a valid marriage. In most cases the legislation isn't unambiguous, and in some states there are contradictory court rulings. The big question is: why is this a subject in which the state has an interest?

In some religions, marriage is a sacrament that is to be consecrated by that religion's holy man or woman. In others, it's a matter of the minister, as representative of their religion, giving his or her blessing or approval for the marriage. In those cases, it makes sense to have an officiant who is in sync with the couple's faith, but that should be the business of the couple; the state should have no role in deciding whether a particular minister is in fact in sync with the couple. Of course, in most places there are secular options. As I mentioned above judges, active or retired, can usually officiate, as well as other designated government representatives.  But for many people, weddings done by a judge or city clerk lack the warmth and uniqueness that they are looking for. In many places, including my own state, the alternative is either a professional officiant who isn't affiliated with any church, or a friend or relative who has received an online ordination.

For those who aren't looking for a spiritual blessing on their union, but just want to have a nice ceremony, why should the  credentials of the officiant be an issue that the state takes note of? In most cases the couple isn't looking for counselling, in fact they're probably looking to avoid counselling! What can a minister who was ordained in an established denomination offer a couple that a professional, experienced officiant can't? There's the possibility that a seminary graduate has had some training in how to conduct a wedding, but possibly not. And considering that the government should constitutionally have no role in religion, why are some state governments and state courts making judgments as to which ordinations are valid and which are not?

I would propose that all references to religious affiliation be removed from marriage statutes and that a marriage be registered and considered valid if the paperwork was filled out correctly. Professional wedding officiants could still operate as they do now, but without the necessity of getting the online ordination. It might even reduce the number of inexperienced friends and relatives performing wedding services - now, anyone who gets an online ordination thinks that they are now qualified to officiate a wedding, when in fact they are only legally authorized to officiate a wedding, the ordination doesn't give one a magical ability to write coherent and smooth-flowing services, or become an effective public speaker.

It's probably not going to happen any time soon, but government should get out of the wedding business, other than issuing the licenses.

Anti-Discrimination Ordinances

The other day a video was posted on Facebook showing a City Council meeting where testimony for an anti-discrimination measure was being discussed and public testimony received. The video was seven years old, but the issue is still relevant. A local landlord and business owner was testifying against a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance - his arguments boiled down to two things: religious freedom and the ability of businesses to run their operations without fear of lawsuits.

Before I discuss his points, I'll review the concept of "protected class" as it applies to anti-discrimination laws. Many people believe that some people are in a protected class, and that by being part of that protected class one has extra legal protections. For example, one of the protected classes is "race". Ask the average person what this means and they'll say that a person who is a part of a minority race (i.e. Black, Native American, etc) can't be fired, at least not without a lot of extra paperwork. The incorrect assumption in this example is that "protected class" refers only to the minority. What it does mean is that no one can be discriminated against because of race. Everyone can be categorized by race, even the majority. The same goes for gender - the protected class isn't "women", the protected class is "gender", which everyone has (at least according to traditional definitions). It is true that some businesses will walk on eggshells to avoid lawsuits by minority members, this is their choice and does not reflect the way the laws are written. No one "belongs to a protected class", it is a protected classification or category that cannot be used against you.

One of the arguments that opponents of broadening anti-discrimination laws bring forth is that requiring them to treat people that they disapprove of equally tramples their own religious freedom. Few would argue that it would be acceptable to discriminate in hiring or housing against someone because they were black (although it surely happens), yet religious justifications were among the many rationalizations used by segregationists over the years, even going back to condoning slavery on biblical grounds. More often than not the religious argument is merely a cover for basic, unvarnished bigotry when simply declaring oneself to be a bigot is unacceptable. The premise of the argument that "preventing me from discriminating is discriminatory" or "condemning my bigotry is bigoted" stands on an extremely shaky foundation.

One of the things that has become obvious to me in over 40 years working for various businesses in different industries, is that the fear of a lawsuit is often the only thing that motivates a business owner to "do the right thing". The business owner testifying in the video that I referred to brought up how he thought that discrimination lawsuits were often frivolous and retaliatory and that he never discriminates. He may very well be unique. Every business that I have ever worked for said all the right things, ran the sexual harassment seminars and punished discrimination and harassment when they had no other choice. One of the companies with whom I associated was a local grocery chain. They had clear guidelines about sexual harassment and discrimination. However it became clear that their policies were for the sole purpose of preventing lawsuits when the company continued to do business with several outside contractors and consultants who engaged in sexual harassment of the company's employees. They were in no danger of a lawsuit if a complaint was lodged against someone outside the company, so they took no action because they didn't have to. As much as we'd like to believe that everyone will always do the right thing, most businesses don't operate that way.

There really is no good reason not to support laws and ordinances that outlaw discriminatory behavior by businesses. The arguments against them, despite being couched in terms of leadership, religious freedom, capitalism and mom's apple pie, and just excuses to engage in bigotry.

Forgiveness

I've been thinking a lot about the concept of forgiveness lately. When do we forgive? How do we forgive? How often do we forgive? Can we forget once we forgive? Does forgiveness imply being free from consequences? The major religions have spent time talking about forgiveness; one holy man suggests that people "sin no more", but also to forgive "seventy times seven". Not being an adherent of any of the major religions I have had to formulate my own take on forgiveness.

To me, forgiveness is the process whereby we "set at naught" a harmful action that someone has taken against us or against someone that we care about in order to provide a "second chance" to repair the relationship. That means acting as if the harmful action had not taken place when interacting with that other person. That is the external manifestation of forgiveness, a benefit to the person who is in need of forgiveness. That's the easy part. The difficult part is to mentally treat the offender as if the offense had not happened, getting rid of any anger and resentment that the offense had caused. This is a benefit to the forgiver as well; carrying around a lot of resentment and anger cannot be healthy.

In my opinion forgiveness cannot be truly offered if remorse is not present. I'm defining remorse as an honest recognition of the wrongness of the offending action and a pledge to discontinue those actions. If you "forgive" someone who has no remorse for their harmful actions, you are not forgiving them, i.e. offering them an opportunity to heal the rift in your relationship, you are merely enabling them, giving them cover to continue their hurtful actions. A saying that I have heard several times recently is "I forgive, but I don't forget". This gets right to the heart of the matter. I can forgive you if I believe that you are remorseful, but by remembering the offense I protect myself by not allowing a continual cycle of offense/forgive/re-offend. By not forgetting I allow myself to see a pattern if one occurs.

I am proposing no "etched in stone" rule, or suggesting that only one "second chance" should be offered. Every situation is different. In my own life I do not require an apology from those who have wronged me, only that the harmful actions, those things that have caused a need for forgiveness, cease.

We all make mistakes. We all do and say things that cannot be undone or unsaid. If a person is truly remorseful and has truly embarked on a new path, then we should recognize a genuine change. Forgiveness is a way to heal past hurts, but it shouldn't be a way to allow those who would harm us to continue their harm.

Managers XXII - Why Do People Apply for Management Positions

One of the common reasons why there are so many bad managers out there is that in most companies the only way to earn a higher wage beyond a certain level is to move into management. If you've read any of the earlier posts in this series, you know that I believe that being a manager requires a skill set that may be related to, but is generally separate from, the jobs that are being managed.

For example, Mary works for Widgets International as an apprentice widget assembler. After a year she moves up to journeyman widget assembler. Mary is one of the best widget assemblers in her section. She is fast and accurate and hardly ever has a widget returned for re-work. Every year she receives an increase in pay based on her annual review, but after a few years she reaches the wage cap for her position. She transfers over to widget design, which has a higher pay scale than widget assembler, but after a few years she reaches the wage cap again. What can Mary do to earn a higher wage? Well, there's a team supervisor position open. Mary, on the strength of her excellent record of assembling and designing widgets, is hired for the position. Good for Mary! She's now on the management track! But chances are Mary, within a year, will be viewed by either her subordinates or her superiors, as a bad manager. How could this be? She was the best at all aspects of her job. But supervising or managing other people requires completely different skills than doing the job itself.

New managers who have no aptitude for, or have received no training in, management tend to fail in one of several ways:

Many non-managers view their own managers simply has higher-paid versions of themselves who get to boss people around, or perhaps get certain management perks. They decide that a manager is "good" based on how much time they spend "working", i.e. doing the same thing they did before becoming a manager. New managers often bring this world view with them when they assume their first managerial position. What ends up happening is that the new manager, partly to get on his subordinates' good side and partly because he doesn't know any better, spends all of his time doing things rather than ensuring that things get done. The result is that true managerial responsibilities, such as planning, allocating of resources and employee development, are neglected. The employees likely think that they have a "good" manager, but upper management just sees a highly paid clerk.

Some neophyte managers go the other way. Their opinion of managers was simply people who got to boss other people around, so when they become managers themselves, they make no effort to actually manage, but lord it over their subordinates. Employees generally think that these managers are "bad", since they don't "work". They also tend to take whatever orders they receive from upper management and deliver them to their team without any filter, so the higher ups, at least initially, like them.

This isn't to say that effective managers can't come up through the ranks, or aren't often self-taught. But there are a lot of people out there, who need to earn more, yet do not have management skills, but end up being promoted into management anyway. In the various service and retail industries in which I have been employed I have seen people promoted into management for two main reasons: (1) They were good at the non-management work that they did or (2) They knew how to schmooze the hiring manager. Seldom did a job interview involve questions about leadership qualities or administrative abilities. People frequently applied for positions that they were unqualified for simply because they paid more. I can't say I really blame them. If there are no other avenues for financial advancement, why not roll the dice and try for it? Especially since it could be seen that other non-qualified people had been promoted.

In my retail grocery career, I saw an interesting phenomenon with job applications. At the store level it had a relatively flat organizational chart. There was a store director & assistant store director at the top, department managers running the various sections of the store (sometimes with assistant managers) and clerks below that. In some of the smaller department the managers were doing a lot of the day-to-day work in addition to managing. When a management position opened up, there might be 3-4 applicants, depending on the size of the store, usually clerks who were already working in that department, or an assistant manager in another store. Sometimes there were no applicants. But when an assistant store director or human resources coordinator position was posted it wasn't unusual to see 12-15 applicants, 75% of them with no relevant experience. I thought it might be because no one really knew what the people in either of those positions really did, they thought it didn't involve any real work, and surely it paid a lot!

So what's the solution? There really are two problems: (1) Unqualified people being promoted into management and (2) No path for wage increases outside of management.

Here's a few thoughts:
Create a path for valuable, experienced employees to earn wages comparable to management positions
In some businesses this happens to an extent. When I worked for a newspaper, the unionized pressmen earned wages comparable to sales reps and some managers; pharmacists in grocery stores are often the highest paid employees, including the store director

Be clear regarding what precisely is expected of managers
Hardly anyone knows what managers are supposed to be doing. Making it known what managers do, other than "bossing people around", might motivate some employees to develop real management skills before they become managers

Set up training/education classes for prospective managers

This would be beneficial to any company that wants their managers to do what managers are supposed to do: ensure that things get done. 

Audience Participation

There was an article the other day about an artist that I had never heard of flying off the handle when her audience didn't respond enthusiastically enough during a performance. In an expletive-filled tirade she stopped the song and complained loudly about the lukewarm response, referring to how much work she put into the song.

It's understandable that a singer would be upset that her work of art that she put so much time, love & energy into (although the online comments suggest maybe not so much of any of those) would be received so tepidly. I've heard musicians complain about people talking during their performances (this I understand - I go to a show to listen to music, not the loud opinionated guy on the next bar stool). On the other hand when I'm experiencing live music, I didn't sign on to become part of the entertainment.

Back in my younger days I used to attend Twisted Sister shows. There was a band that insisted on audience participation. Not only were you goaded into the expected responses, but if you happened to be quietly standing in the back, you were singled out for abuse. Not something that was all that enjoyable. I've also been at shows where the audience was lectured for clapping on 1 & 3 instead of 2 & 4 (2 & 4 is correct, right?). Okay, I get how off-beat clapping can throw a band off, but hey, I'm not the musician here!

But the truth is that there are a variety of different ways in which people express their appreciation for music. Singing the chorus when encouraged to do so, dancing, cheering, (clapping on 2 & 4), "putting your hands in the air", yelling the appropriate response when the singers asks "is everyone doin' alright?" are all traditionally acceptable. How about shutting the hell up during an acoustic or otherwise quiet song? Taking non-obtrusive photos (that's what I like to do), and sharing them with the band, buying some merch, or just thanking the band after the show for a great show. All of these things, in their own way, express admiration and appreciation for the performance.

Just like every musician is unique, and there are a variety of musical genres, every fan is a unique and there are a variety of ways to to express enthusiasm and love for music.

Saving Seats

 Saving seats. When is it okay? When is it not? When is it a sign of douchebaggery? I'm thinking about it this morning because I'm sitting in a locally owned coffee shop, and across from me is a man who has been here for at least an hour, "saving" four tables for friends who have not arrived yet. (As I was typing this, one friend showed up) I've seen him do this before (in fact every time I have been in here on a Sunday morning). On this particular morning it hasn't caused any problems, since there are other booths and tables available, and no one has been unable to find a seat due to this man's actions. In this case no harm has been done by the seat-saving. Everybody gets a seat and Mr. Early-Bird-Seat-Saver has been able to ensure that all of his friends will be sitting together. But I've been in here during other times when there were absolutely no other seats in the place, the only unoccupied chairs were the fifteen that were being saved. Now, in this case, if I was to walk in, and find no seats available, I would not feel guilty about grabbing one of the "saved" tables, but I would surely be risking a confrontation. In a case like this, you have to be willing to take the bull by the horns and tell the saver that you're taking his "saved" table and damn the consequences.

While looking for some images to accompany this post, I came across several articles about saving seats on Southwest Airlines. As anyone who has flown on Southwest knows, you don't get assigned seats. You can pay a premium for early boarding, but it's first-come, first-seated. But some people, travelling with their family, have found a way around this. They pay for one premium early boarding ticket and then save as many additional seats as they need. Southwest doesn't have a policy against doing this, and their website is full of complaints about the practice. I wonder what the flight crew would do if a fed-up passenger simply sat in a "saved" seat and refused to relinquish it? Just like in the coffee shop, you'd have to be willing to risk some confrontation and act without asking permission.

A lot of the images that I found dealt with seat-saving in church. That reminds me of an incident a few years back when I was at a week-long event put on by a Christian group. The evening service took place in a giant tent and went on for several hours; it included not only the sermon, or teaching, but music, announcements, and awards presentations. This usually meant that the need for a bathroom break would be assumed. The rule was, that if you had to get up, your bible saved your seat. One evening my family and I decided that we wanted to try to sit up front, so we were close to first in line waiting for the doors to open. When they did, we were surrounded by a stampede of people racing to the front to claim their seats. Somehow we safely made it to the front of the tent, just as a man, loaded down with about a dozen bibles, pushed in front of us and slammed down a bible on every seat in the front row of that section. When the dust had cleared, the tent was only about 10% full, but miraculously, every seat was saved.

My final example involves my favorite live music venue. There's a guy, who because he has the time to do so, saves a table for his friends most nights. This is not usually a problem, since by show time the table is usually more than full. But for some of the more popular shows he has been observed saving multiple tables. If that isn't bad enough, he then goes to the bar, taking up a bar stool as well. More often than not, he'll go across the street, where they have a wider variety of beer. I have to admit that I've saved tables and bar stools myself, but (1) I stay with the table; I don't leave the bar for hours and (2) if the people I am saving the space for don't show up by show time I give the space up to someone else. I've actually made a lot of friends by inviting last minute arrivals to sit with me. It's frustrating to show up for a band an hour before the show and find out that every seat is saved, but that there's very few people physically in the bar.

Let me propose a few seat saving rules:

1. Saving more than one table is prohibited
2. If the seats are not at tables (i.e. bar stools, theater style seating) saving more than one seat is prohibited
3. At least one person must stay with the table (exceptions: bathroom breaks or quick runs to get something to eat - food must be brought back to the saved seat or table)
4. Once the event (concert, church, movie) starts, all claims to saved seats expire
5. In all situations where you pay a premium for early admittance saving seats in prohibited (see Southwest Airlines example above) - this would also apply to situations where purchasing tickets prior to a deadline gets you early admittance (Exception: you may save seats for any others who are also eligible for early admittance

Show up early or stand!

Whiteness

Ooh...let's talk about racism...and white privilege...and rape culture...said very few people...ever.

Despite my observation that Twitter can be a real sewer, partly because you can't delete nasty things that people say to you, I've learned a lot about racism and misogyny and their nemesis, privilege, white, or male, or hetero or cisgender or anything else that is ascendant in our culture.

Let's start with white privilege.

No, let's back up and start with whiteness.

Whiteness is an invented concept. Go back far enough and people didn't talk about being white. The ancestors of today's white people, the inhabitants of Europe, didn't consider themselves a homogeneous "race". The Germans would be very insulted to be equated with the Italians and everyone would be insulted to be put in the same category as the Irish! It wasn't until coming into contact with people with less-advanced military technology, who coincidentally had darker-hued skin color, that the concept of whiteness as a characteristic of superior peoples came about. This differentiation between white and non-white was used as the pretext for colonizing and enslaving the "lesser races". It is interesting to me that to the early European-descended Americans, who were largely from the British Isles and Northern Europe, not only were Native Americans and Africans not white, but Italians and other Southern and Eastern Europeans weren't white either. Amazingly, the Irish who came over in the late 1800's weren't white either, despite the absolute pallor of the typical Irishman.

Even when slavery was outlawed, there was an assumption that former slaves and other blacks were somehow inferior, and that the Indians were just savages. It took another hundred years for non-whites to be legally granted equal rights, and then after a long fight. So there was a long history of white privilege in this country, it is in our national DNA.

White privilege doesn't mean that you didn't work for what you have or that anybody handed anything to you "for free". It also doesn't mean that you're county club privileged either. What it does mean is that just because you are part of that vast, amorphous category dubbed "white" you are the cultural default. No one assumes that you're breaking into your own apartment because you're white, you aren't pulled over in certain neighborhoods because you're white, you don't have to demonstrate that you're "one of the good ones" because you're white. This doesn't mean that you won't get pulled over for unfathomable reasons, or you'll never get fired from a job or shot by the police or wrongfully convicted, but these things will not happen simply because you're white. You aren't the victim (or recipient, if you don't like the "V" word) of racism, defined, for the purpose of this blog post, as institutional and systemic bigotry and prejudice against a group. It's more than just "I don't like people from that group", it's "I don't like people from that group and I'm going to use my power and influence to prevent them from getting any influence and power themselves". It goes even further than that. When the foundations of a society are rooted in racism, it doesn't go away because people say it's gone away. It doesn't even go away in individuals, not completely, when the surrounding culture is steeped in so many racist assumptions.

Something very specific that I've learned is that for a white person who doesn't consider himself to be a racist, the response "but not all white people" is not very helpful. (Similar to the "not all men" battle cry that many of us men reflexively throw out when we hear about the Kavanaughs of the world). The other response "how is that racist?" is similarly unhelpful. It implies that you are dismissing the perception, solidified by years of similar experiences, of the person of color who sees what you said as racist. Something to remember is that you can say or do racist things, even if you do not believe yourself to be a racist. The fact that what you said wasn't intended to be racist doesn't mean that it wasn't. Humbly, without defensiveness, ask to have it explained to you, or at least do some introspection and see if you can figure it out for yourself. Pro tip: just because you framed it as a joke doesn't make it less offensive!

Of course a common rejoinder is that some people throw out "the race card" when it's really their behavior, without respect to race, that's the problem. Sometimes the wielder of that particular "card" just wants to excuse their bad behavior by putting the onus back on the white person. Sometimes you have to dig deep to find out why they think the way they do. Are your hurt feelings over being called a racist more important than a person's day after day being treated as less than a person? It's pretty easy to assume racism when it's not when most of the time it is.

Racism won't go away by wishing it away, or by pretending that it's not structural, or thinking that it hasn't infected us, or that most white people haven't benefited from it.