Happy Ramakwanzamas! My oh my! I don’t even know how to respond to that. I completely understand that the US Constitution prohibits state-established or federally-established religion. Few people likely know that the Episcopal faith, the US variant of the Church of England, used to be the Official Religion of Virginia. The arguments over church versus state will continue. People will wrestle over the “In God We Trust” on US currency. Should city council meetings open with prayer? The words “Under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, 62 years after it was originally written.
It’s almost 2010, and we head to Asheville, North Carolina. City Councilman Cecil Bothwell is elected. Some in North Carolina do not want him to take office, because he is an atheist. My initial reaction is, “So…” But North Carolina’s state Constitution clearly states that to hold office in North Carolina, you must believe in God. The North Carolina Constitution disqualifies anyone from holding office “who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” Six other states, Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas also prohibit atheists from holding office. Some contend that the US Constitution, which supersedes state constitutions, makes the requirement in a belief in God unenforceable. But, the Constitution says that the governments can not “establish” a religion.
Does the US Constitution bar states from prohibiting atheists from holding office? Should it?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Would You Loan Your Company Money To Pay Its People?
Inviting Conversation for December 22, 2009
Please imagine this scenario: You are making $x per month in salary for 2010. You get paid every other week. You receive an email. There will be a vote. If your union agrees, you will be contributing $250 (pretax dollars) per paycheck in an interest-free loan to your employer, up to $10,000, so that the company can remain solvent and keep jobs, possibly yours. At the end of three years, you should be able to get the loan back and a 1% salary increase. If you decide to leave the company early, you can get your “loan” back.
The Detroit Federation of Teachers presented this to its members. The members voted. 63.8% said yes.
There are so many issues which could be discussed here. America’s education system is flawed. Of this there is no doubt. Most feel that teachers are underpaid and undervalued. Being a former school teacher, I do understand that many teachers help fund their classrooms by buying materials for which there is no reimbursement, or slipping lunch money to a hungry child, or…well that list goes on.
I do not want to discuss the status of education. That is not the issue here. It just happens to be a school district which is asking its teachers to loan money to the school so the school can be staffed. Or is that the issue?
My question: How would you react if your employer asked you to loan $10,000 to your company to keep the company going?
Please imagine this scenario: You are making $x per month in salary for 2010. You get paid every other week. You receive an email. There will be a vote. If your union agrees, you will be contributing $250 (pretax dollars) per paycheck in an interest-free loan to your employer, up to $10,000, so that the company can remain solvent and keep jobs, possibly yours. At the end of three years, you should be able to get the loan back and a 1% salary increase. If you decide to leave the company early, you can get your “loan” back.
The Detroit Federation of Teachers presented this to its members. The members voted. 63.8% said yes.
There are so many issues which could be discussed here. America’s education system is flawed. Of this there is no doubt. Most feel that teachers are underpaid and undervalued. Being a former school teacher, I do understand that many teachers help fund their classrooms by buying materials for which there is no reimbursement, or slipping lunch money to a hungry child, or…well that list goes on.
I do not want to discuss the status of education. That is not the issue here. It just happens to be a school district which is asking its teachers to loan money to the school so the school can be staffed. Or is that the issue?
My question: How would you react if your employer asked you to loan $10,000 to your company to keep the company going?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
For Those Who Must Deal with "Broken" Situations during the Holidays, What Are You Doing to Ease the Stress Instead of Causing It?
Inviting Conversation for December 15
The purpose of Inviting Conversations all along has been to elicit dialog between thoughtful people. Over the past several weeks I have received dozens of replies to my questions. I have been told repeatedly that the subject matter is “timely,” and have even been offered kudos for opening discussions which are “edgy.” A few times I have been told that the discussions are “inappropriate” in a professional setting. Only one comment left on a discussion could not be posted because it contained inappropriate language.
The past two weeks I have been listening to a lot of conversations about the stress of the holiday season. Growing up I remember the “stresses.” There was a lot of baking to do. The house needed to be cleaned thoroughly. Certain family members we find “annoying,” and tolerance levels needed to be reinforced. Did the cards get out? Who was bringing what? What time was dinner? Holiday decorations needed to be up…the list went on and on.
These aren’t the conversations I am having today. A large majority of the people are talking about the stresses related to the “other parent” of the children. Who gets to have the kids on what day? “My family gets less time with your family…” Competition between Moms and Dads about which family will spend the most on the children. I fully expect broken situations where the adults can’t act like adults to intensify during the holiday season. What I have difficulty understanding is when adults who most frequently act like they are over 25 years old retreat into 12-year-old childish behavior when these “holidays” occur. The word “holiday” comes from the Old English, haligdæg, from halig "holy" + dæg "day;" in 14c. meaning both "religious festival" and "day of recreation," but pronunciation and sense diverged 16c. It seems that for many people in today's world, both parts of these meanings have been lost.
I am not going to talk about what has happened to the American family, nor am I going to talk about the religious aspect of the season. What I am going to ask is, in today’s Society where “dysfunctional” is the norm, what can be done to stop the childish wrangling that goes on during this alleged festival season? I am not even going to say that it only hurts and affects the children. It affects all involved.
Here is the question: For those who must deal with “broken” situations during the holidays, what are you doing to ease the stress instead of causing it?
The purpose of Inviting Conversations all along has been to elicit dialog between thoughtful people. Over the past several weeks I have received dozens of replies to my questions. I have been told repeatedly that the subject matter is “timely,” and have even been offered kudos for opening discussions which are “edgy.” A few times I have been told that the discussions are “inappropriate” in a professional setting. Only one comment left on a discussion could not be posted because it contained inappropriate language.
The past two weeks I have been listening to a lot of conversations about the stress of the holiday season. Growing up I remember the “stresses.” There was a lot of baking to do. The house needed to be cleaned thoroughly. Certain family members we find “annoying,” and tolerance levels needed to be reinforced. Did the cards get out? Who was bringing what? What time was dinner? Holiday decorations needed to be up…the list went on and on.
These aren’t the conversations I am having today. A large majority of the people are talking about the stresses related to the “other parent” of the children. Who gets to have the kids on what day? “My family gets less time with your family…” Competition between Moms and Dads about which family will spend the most on the children. I fully expect broken situations where the adults can’t act like adults to intensify during the holiday season. What I have difficulty understanding is when adults who most frequently act like they are over 25 years old retreat into 12-year-old childish behavior when these “holidays” occur. The word “holiday” comes from the Old English, haligdæg, from halig "holy" + dæg "day;" in 14c. meaning both "religious festival" and "day of recreation," but pronunciation and sense diverged 16c. It seems that for many people in today's world, both parts of these meanings have been lost.
I am not going to talk about what has happened to the American family, nor am I going to talk about the religious aspect of the season. What I am going to ask is, in today’s Society where “dysfunctional” is the norm, what can be done to stop the childish wrangling that goes on during this alleged festival season? I am not even going to say that it only hurts and affects the children. It affects all involved.
Here is the question: For those who must deal with “broken” situations during the holidays, what are you doing to ease the stress instead of causing it?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
"What do you do as a busy person to not get trapped in our Technological Prison"?
“The average person spends more than eight solid years watching electronically how other people supposedly live” (Professional Speaker Jeff Davidson in Witcher’s “Technological Prison”).
University of Utah freshman Taylor Witcher wrote a fascinating paper called, “Technological Prison.” Her thesis: “Our habit of using high-speed gadgets to obtain all kinds of information is deteriorating our physical, day-to-day lives.” How hooked are our young people? Witcher reports that Professor Robert Doede of Trinity Western University offered extra credit to his ethic students who could abstain from video games, text, television and social network sites for a three-month semester. Only ten out of thirty-five agreed to try; five made it. A UCLA study shows that only 7% of communications is done through words alone; 93% of communications between humans is non-verbal. Witcher asks, “Would a text-message-sent ‘I love you’ have the same effect as a gaze-deep-in-your-eyes ‘I love you’?” I am all too familiar with someone who was “dumped” via text message!
Witcher does not totally bash technology. She is correct when she talks about how technology has allowed people to reconnect after many years, keep in touch quickly with friends, and let people know about wonderful things happening in our friends’ lives. I have a dear friend who regularly posts pictures of the kids on her Facebook page. I look forward to the email that tells me picture updates are there, and I go and see them. “I have been able to reconnect and keep up with many people who, if I had to use letters and phone calls to keep “in touch,” would never hear from me.
It is unrealistic to think in our Society the up-and-coming business professional can succeed without electronic tools. I need them. You use them. You must…you are reading this. But what do you do as business professionals to make sure you “Stop and smell the roses”? What do you do as a busy person to NOT use the technological prison when we need to have those conversations which require more than words?
University of Utah freshman Taylor Witcher wrote a fascinating paper called, “Technological Prison.” Her thesis: “Our habit of using high-speed gadgets to obtain all kinds of information is deteriorating our physical, day-to-day lives.” How hooked are our young people? Witcher reports that Professor Robert Doede of Trinity Western University offered extra credit to his ethic students who could abstain from video games, text, television and social network sites for a three-month semester. Only ten out of thirty-five agreed to try; five made it. A UCLA study shows that only 7% of communications is done through words alone; 93% of communications between humans is non-verbal. Witcher asks, “Would a text-message-sent ‘I love you’ have the same effect as a gaze-deep-in-your-eyes ‘I love you’?” I am all too familiar with someone who was “dumped” via text message!
Witcher does not totally bash technology. She is correct when she talks about how technology has allowed people to reconnect after many years, keep in touch quickly with friends, and let people know about wonderful things happening in our friends’ lives. I have a dear friend who regularly posts pictures of the kids on her Facebook page. I look forward to the email that tells me picture updates are there, and I go and see them. “I have been able to reconnect and keep up with many people who, if I had to use letters and phone calls to keep “in touch,” would never hear from me.
It is unrealistic to think in our Society the up-and-coming business professional can succeed without electronic tools. I need them. You use them. You must…you are reading this. But what do you do as business professionals to make sure you “Stop and smell the roses”? What do you do as a busy person to NOT use the technological prison when we need to have those conversations which require more than words?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
If one chooses to be in the public eye, does one voluntarily give up the right to privacy?
Tiger Woods has fallen off of his pedestal. He made a mistake. He will receive a citation for his accident. We move on… or will we? I would certainly understand if he did something more egregious. Allegedly he and his wife had an altercation, he left the house in a huff, ran his car off the road, and received a citation for his mistake. That should be the end of it. If any of us engaged in the same behavior, we should expect the same.
I am already tired of the countless news stories, the talk show discussions, on and on and on. I heard a radio talk show host make the comment that when one goes into the public eye, one willingly gives up the expectation of privacy. Really? I can understand the dialog about Eliot Spitzer resigning as Governor of New York because of his alleged involvement in a high-priced prostitution ring. I don’t want my police officers being found guilty of dealing drugs, firefighters of arson, and…well, you get the picture. But where do we draw the line? I do understand that the right to privacy does NOT mean we should turn a blind eye to domestic violence, the mistreatment of children…
One incident that stands out to me as to the ridiculousness of this was the “Broccoli Debacle” with former President Bush. He admitted he didn’t like broccoli. By the uproar it created, one would have thought he had detonated an atomic bomb. Another thing that stands out – when Michael Jackson passed away, what media outlet first announced it? TMZ. Could that be because they were “staked out” around his place?
So I ask the questions: Where do we draw the line with respect to the right to privacy? Does one give up that right if one chooses to be in the public eye?
I am already tired of the countless news stories, the talk show discussions, on and on and on. I heard a radio talk show host make the comment that when one goes into the public eye, one willingly gives up the expectation of privacy. Really? I can understand the dialog about Eliot Spitzer resigning as Governor of New York because of his alleged involvement in a high-priced prostitution ring. I don’t want my police officers being found guilty of dealing drugs, firefighters of arson, and…well, you get the picture. But where do we draw the line? I do understand that the right to privacy does NOT mean we should turn a blind eye to domestic violence, the mistreatment of children…
One incident that stands out to me as to the ridiculousness of this was the “Broccoli Debacle” with former President Bush. He admitted he didn’t like broccoli. By the uproar it created, one would have thought he had detonated an atomic bomb. Another thing that stands out – when Michael Jackson passed away, what media outlet first announced it? TMZ. Could that be because they were “staked out” around his place?
So I ask the questions: Where do we draw the line with respect to the right to privacy? Does one give up that right if one chooses to be in the public eye?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
