The lone constant

Please indulge me a few questions. It won’t take too long.

If you worked with someone who repeatedly was in verbal, text, email and twitter fights with other people, what would be your observation?

If the other people who had dust ups with this person included customers, colleagues, third parties, and the media, what would you conclude?

If you spoke with previous employers and found the same was true at their locations, what might you ascertain?

If you investigated further and found out the stories keep changing when new information is revealed, does that paint a better picture of the person?

If the person was found to be less than truthful on many more than a few occasions, would that help you understand the situation? What if it was apparent the lying was more routine?

If the person repeatedly failed to admit when he wronged someone and it was never his fault, does that convince you of something?

The key conclusion is there seems to be a lone constant in these equations. It would appear the person is of little character and is hard to get along with.

If you were his colleague, you would choose to limit contact with this person and you would document everything for verification. An email saying “this is what you agreed to” would help in that regard.

If you were a customer, you would request a new contact or change providers of service.

If you were a third party, a senior person at your firm might call a senior person at his firm to register concerns.

If you were the media, you would get information from a better, more reliable source.

If you were his boss, you would have long ago put him on an improvement plan, perhaps several. At some point, you would ask him to leave or get him to leave. My guess is his ego would be bruised by the first improvement plan and he would leave. He would tell his new employer that his previous one did not appreciate him enough.

The person who I am obviously talking about is in the position of the President of the United States. He is being investigated for collusion with the Russians, which may lead to his demise. More than a few psychiatrists think he may be unfit for office. In the interim, we are stuck with his actions noted above. Maybe the first step is a censure, which would be Congress’ performance improvement plan.

A survey reports that 42% of Americans want this man impeached and 15% want him censured. That is an absolutely amazing statement that 57% feel he is worthy of some formal repudiation, with almost half saying he should be removed.

 

 

Advertisements

Oops…that would be me

We are an imperfect lot and there are times when things just don’t go our way. As a 59 year-old, I have had my share of faux pas or as I call them “oops.”

When I was ten, I was a pretty fair baseball  player and would pitch on occasion. After putting a fence around our outfield, every hitter wanted to be the first to hit one over it. Unfortunately, the pitcher on the throwing end of that homer would be embarrassed – oops, that would be me.

I have often said God has a sense of humor to keep us humble. While playing golf with some attorney friends, I had the good fortune to birdie a long par five, something I don’t often do. Walking to the next tee full of confidence, I tee my ball up and proceed to whiff with my swing. That means I did not make contact with the ball – oops, that would be me.

Each October in the US, we honor women  who have been challenged by breast cancer. A colleague of mine led efforts to have mobile mammograms for our female employees conducting over 11,000 detecting nine cancers. She was listening to me explain to someone about our specific efforts during “breast awareness month.” She said that would be “breast CANCER awareness month.” – oops, that would be me.

I have had to do a significant number of presentations and speeches over the years. In so doing, I have had far more than a few oops. Here are a few:

– Don’t wear a wool suit to speak, no matter how cold it is outside, as you will sweat bullets – oops, that would be me;

– Don’t number how many things you are about to say as you may forget one – oops, that would be me;

– Don’t reopen the presentation summary after the decision-maker makes the decision you were suggesting, as you just might unwind the decision – oops, that would be me; and

– Don’t forget to number the pages of your  speaker notes, as they can sometimes get mixed up – oops, that would be me.

The oops are too many to list. Beware of forwarding emails as there may be surprise emails not for public consumption at the bottom of email streams. Do not perpetuate reply all emails, be very judicious. Don’t communicate too aggressive a turnaround time if you don’t have to as you are setting yourself up for failure. Avoid being critical in email, do it in person or by phone if you cannot.

Oops happen. Take the time to review your work and prepare for meetings. And, when they do happen, say you are sorry and fix the problem. Then learn from your mistakes. Remember, God has a sense of humor, so it is OK to laugh along.

That confederate thing was about slavery

Being raised in the South, I was taught the Civil War was more about states’ rights and northern aggression rather than slavery. I saw a recent poll that showed 48% people believed that states’ rights was the principal reason for the war and only 38% said it was about slavery. This recasting of history by groups promoting white supremacy or merely teaching a white-washed message is influencing too many people. To be frank, of course, it was about slavery.

Why do I say that? One needs only to look at the formal declarations of the states who seceded from the United States of America (see the third paragraph from Texas’ declaration below*). In those documents, the words to preserve the right to own slaves (or something similar) can be consistently found. The states’ rights argument was used in support of the need to perpetuate slave ownership. If people think otherwise, let me speak purely in terms of economics, setting aside the important human argument.

In economic terms, the South quite simply treated slaves as assets to be used. Once the asset was purchased and maintained, the fruits of the labor went to the owner. Since slave owners were the wealthiest people in the South, as a result, they had the most to lose if slave ownership was done away with. Slave ownership was an economic boon for the South. It is that simple.

But, to get the white non-slave owners to fight, a good story had to be crafted. Politicians have done this for ages and still do. So, they told a good story that “we don’t want those folks in Washington telling us how to do things. We want to govern ourselves.” If they told these poorer whites what they were really fighting for, they may have been less enthusiastic participants. The pitch would have been, “come fight so I can still own slaves. And, maybe you can someday.”

I mention all of this as this fight over monuments is secondary to the renewed fight on civil rights. Many of these symbols were erected at the height of the Jim Crow era or the KKK’s fifty to ninety years after the Civil War ended. In fact, Stone Mountain, outside of Atlanta, was finished in 1972, just 45 years ago. Very few of these monuments were erected just after the Civil War. The same goes for the Confederate flag, which became more prominent after the Civil War when carried by white men wearing white sheets and hoods. These monuments are more about honoring Jim Crow than they are the Civil War. As a result, they are an insult to our African-American citizens.

Slavery is evil. God had Moses lead the Jews out of slavery in Egypt. Yet, too many ministers seemed to overlook that part to reinforce why it was OK to own slaves. Then, it was continued to why the races should be segregated during Jim Crow and the 1960s Civil Rights movement. One only needs to listen to the haunting words of Billie Holiday as she sings “Strange Fruit,” to get first hand what the Jim Crow era did. Humans should not own other humans – it is wrong and sinful. And, per our Constitution, which has been improved several times since it was first written, every American has equal rights, not more, not less.

Scrolling forward to today, we seem to have groups that want to refight the Civil War and Jim Crow disparaging non-whites and non-Christians. White supremacists, the KKK and neo-Nazis are hate groups stirring up racial tension. Do they have a right to speak in America? Yes, that is how it works. Do we have the right to say in rebuttal your words and actions are evil? You are damn right we do. Civil protest is the answer. Uncivil protest cannot be tolerated. If you bring a weapon to a protest, then you should be sent away or get a ticket voucher for the weapon as it is detained. But, it is more than OK to civilly protest evil words and actions.

America is about freedom and rights. There is a huge difference in those who say we are not being treated fairly from those who say to treat us better than they you treat others. Those missions are not the same. We all have equal rights, not more, not less.

*******************************************

* Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The President almost did something good, then…

People need to know that our President is not big into details, nor does he care to be. He is not very conversant on healthcare or the Affordable Care Act, for example. Yet, he almost slipped up and accomplished something good. Alas, he changed his position within 24 hours.

Just last week, he signed two executive orders to help healthcare in the US. Neither order would be very helpful and both will cause premiums to go up under the ACA. In fact, he said if we eliminate the subsidies for deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance on people making less than 2 1/2 the poverty level it would just hurt the insurer’s profits. That simply is not true, as our deficit would go up by $20 Billion per annum and people without subsidies would see premium increases.

But, while this was going on, Senator Chuck Schumer kept telling him about the bipartisan effort of Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray that would stabilize and improve the ACA. Their efforts would restore the subsidies that Trump wanted to do away with. Insurers were pricing 2018 premiums higher sans these subsidies,

Trump encouraged Alexander while Schumer did the same with Murray. The President actually did the right thing, as Alexander and Murray were going about their business in the right way with hearings and committe meetings. This is how legislation should be done, which has been lost on our two Congress chamber leaders.

When Alexander/ Murray announced they reached agreement, the President was supportive. Alexander actually thanked the President for his role in making it happen. Yet, just after Alexander called to thank him, Trump changed his mind and now does not support it. Less than 24 hours had elapsed.

Of course, his support may change and Alexander/ Murray are not done yet, but Trump had a chance to take credit for helping Americans. This could have been a helpful major piece of legislation, which is missing from his tenure. Alas, he realized he would be helping the ACA and he had to destroy it. That is what he promised to his base. While imperfect, the ACA is not broken, but it does need improvements. If it eventually fails, it is on this President and Congress’ shoulders.

Two movies, two thumbs-up

We caught two of the recent movie releases and can give them both a thumbs-up. They are two very different movies – “Blade Runner 2049” and “The Battle of the Sexes.”

“Blade Runner 2049” is a sequel of a cult classic movie with Harrison Ford. It was a dark futuristic movie and the sequel does justice to the original. Ryan Gosling and Robin Wright star along with Ford, but the other supporting roles add greatly to the movie, especially Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Mackenzie Davis and Jared Leto. If you did not like the first Blade Runner, you won’t like this one. But, it does have a good plot and theme. I would add what seemed so science fiction when the first movie was made in the early 1980s, seems less so now, which is a little unsettling.

Gosling plays his role quite well as does Hoeks. De Armas’ role is quite interesting too, and she is ideally suited for it. I will try to stay away from further reveals, but encourage you to watch it. Some have called the movie sexist given some of the roles. I understand their point and would agree that parts of the movie are. I would counter that Wright and Hoeks have a lot of screen time and play key roles, so I will let you be the overall judge.

“The Battle of the Sexes” is about the lead up to the famous tennis match between former men’s champion Bobby Riggs and current women’s champion and advocate for women, Billie Jean King. Riggs was a renowned hustler who loved to gamble in conflict with his wealthy wife’s wishes. At the age of 55, he saw a chance to make money by challenging King, who initially turned him down.

King knew Riggs for what he was, a showman, and she was deep in the middle of the start of the women’s tennis circuit called the “Virginia Slims circuit” when they boycotted the USTA for the much smaller money being paid to women. Riggs did find another opponent in Margaret Court, who was married with one child, playing her on Mother’s Day. Although, the current number one player, Court was not prepared to play that day (and greatly underestimated the situation) and Riggs easily beat her, which drew a match with King.

I remember this national prime time match between King and Riggs, so the movie brought back a lot of memories. The other key subplot is King was dealing with her own Lesbianism which began to manifest itself during the Virginia Slims tour. To say, she was conflicted at this crucial time is an understatement. Her husband Larry stood by her for awhile, but to see his angst through this is also important, as she loved him and respected his input and support.

The movie stars Emma Stone as King and Steve Carell as Riggs. Sarah Silverman, Alan Cumming, Andrea Riseborough, Elisabeth Shue, Bill Pullman and Austin Stowell also play key roles. Stone and Carell are excellent in their roles. Cumming, though, eats up the screen with his role, in my view.

Check them both out. Let me know what you think. Is Blade Runner too sexist? Do you remember the King/ Riggs’ match?

 

A few Sunday Questions

Given today is a day of religious reflection in many circles, let me ponder a few questions.

Today I read about the Values Conference where US evangelicals meet. At the conference, Steve Bannon, the nationalist editor of Breitbart and former Senior Advisor spoke of war on the parts of the Republican Party that are more reasonable and offer some needed sanity. Why should folks heed this man when he speaks against those who dare question the President, saying they are placing our military in danger? So, the President’s decrying diplomatic efforts is not doing that? It is our right to question our leaders.

At the same conference, Harvey Weinstein is being vilified, but the focus is on Hollywood not reining him in and the fact he is a Democrat funder. Whether it is Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes or Donald Trump, using one’s power to sexually harass, demean, use or assault women is criminal. The President is highly supported by this group, even with his lying, cheating, stiffing and assaulting of others because he said he would do their bidding. So, my question is if Harvey Weinstein was President and appointed a conservative Supreme Court Justice would that make his exploits OK as it does with Trump?

In my home town, there is a lawsuit by a gay married music teacher at a Catholic High School who was fired after he got married to his partner, officially coming out. The Bishop says they cannot support an openly gay employee. The question asked by a Catholic father of a gay son is why should the church stop there? Why doesn’t the church fire all women who use birth control, all people who have had affairs and all people who have divorced which also violate the church’s rules? The father noted his son said no one would choose to face the ostracism, hate and discrimination unless they felt they were being true to themselves by coming out.

I am a practical person of faith. I think the over arching instruction to treat people like we want to be treated is the most important mandate. In the Christian world, this mandate is even called The Golden Rule. It can also be found in other religious texts. We need to be tolerant of our differences. Bannon has the right to speak out, but he should not be denigrating the right for others to do so.

So, regardless of what political or religious tribe we belong to, we belong to an even bigger tribe that interacts with each other on a daily basis. Let’s do our best to treat others as Jesus instructed. That is worth talking about at a Values Conference.

Any more questions?

For over two years, I have been amazed at how a man, who is so consumed with himself and has given so little regard to the plight of others, can become the President of the United States. He convinced far too many people, whose voice has not been heard, that he was on their side. Unfortunately, they did not pay attention to his history which reveals he has only one cause – himself.

Yesterday, this man decided to kick poor people one more time, stripping subsidies under the ACA for deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance for those who qualify because of low wages. This man owns the imperfect, but working ACA. He has sabotaged it from the get go picking up the baton the GOP Congress gave him, so if the ACA fails as a result, it is on his and GOP leadership’s shoulders.

A few weeks ago, he rolled out the outline of his tax plan that uses sleight of hand with a small tax break for the middle class, while eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, Estate Tax above $5 million in value, and the ACA tax on wealthy people, while cutting the individual and corporate tax rates. This is a clear windfall for the “haves” with a little gain for the “have-nots.”

Next, we should consider his proposed defunding of programs to retrain displaced coal miners. At the same time, he was enabling coal owners to invest in digging more coal with fewer workers. An energy expert said, “Trump is not for coal miners, he is for coal owners.” The dilemma is the current and former coal workers don’t know this.

The focus on fossil fuel and attack on environmental regulations is another slap at the disenfranchised. They tend to be the ones who feel the brunt of environmental rollbacks. A rancher in Montana, who has successively fought against the oil companies, notes that he cannot name one western town that has benefited long term after the oil rush abates. He said “all of the money goes back to Houston and Calgary.” The ranchers and farmers are left holding the bag to fix all the environment problems.

Speaking of environmental calamities, after much better responses to hurricanes in Texas and Florida, the response to the hurricanes which devastated Puerto Rico has been slow and fraught with problems. Yet, after pronouncing what a great job he was doing, Trump has continually harangued people in need, actually verbally and physically insulting them when he visited and afterwards.

Finally, the President’s attack on civil liberties, protest and free speech is the coldest dagger of all. He is basically telling everyone to “believe no one else but me.” His actions and words say he will squelch these unpatriotic troublemakers. To me, he is saying how dare they question what is going on in this country or what I am doing?

Well, I dare ask one question to everyone. Do you have any more questions about whose bread is being buttered by this President?