Ultimate Fighting...

Read more! So there I was, sitting waiting for a building inspector to show up (who never did) and listening to two young convenient store clerks - both women - talk about how much they love ultimate fighting. One gal, the supervisor for the store, was so interested in it, that she wanted to join a local gym that trained women for this very type of combat.

I found myself just staring at the craziness of comments being uttered from these two. How one would wrestle/fight her boyfriend to the point that she was sore at work that morning.

Where, where, where o where did we go so, so, so wrong? That a young woman not only likes the violence of the fighting but in turn wants to participate?

I know scant little of ultimate fighting. From I do know - there are few rules and those mostly revolve around eye gouging, hair pulling and elbow use. Outside of that, pretty much anything goes. Two combatants step into a screened octagon fighting area and beat the living snot out of one another until one concedes by tapping out. Pretty much a pay-per-view bar fight without the booze.

There is a substantial following of ultimate fighting here in America. Some fighters have gone on to find commercial fame and fortune for their toughness in the ring. To me, it looks like someone took away the drama and the campiness of wrestling and let two guys beat each other for real.

I believe that most of the fans of ultimate fighting would fall into the lower income brackets of America. Where among people living in poverty or near poverty, fighting is a way of life and a defining piece to their social standing. And where entertainment is a high priority for those living in poverty, it kind of combines the both of them.

What I really don't understand are the middle class kids who follow this type of action and stage mock (and pseudo real) fights in their back yards. Sometimes causing incredible injury or death to the untrained person. As if their video games were somehow alive and they got to be the main actor.

But then, the women who follow this "sport" who then find themselves along with the guys fantasizing about being an ultimate fighter themselves and wailing away on someone else as the crowd roars on in delight.

Maybe it's just a picture of what made the gladiators of ancient Rome not all that far fetched where it was only one step away from beating one another senseless only to fall to the sword of your opponent and there were not rules for tapping out. You'd think after 2,000 years we would have changed at least a little bit.

Or maybe it's just an outlet of extreme agitation, aggression and suppressed rage that spurs these fans to live out their individual frustrations by watching and rooting for their favorite fighter to lay down the hurt. Seems like there is always an outlet for the voyeur who gets his/her kicks from watching something happen that they may or may not wish to participate in directly.

Or maybe it's a version of what modern views on the value of human life really amount to. That everything is OK as long as someone can tap out if it gets too rough and that the victor doesn't always go home without his fair share of cuts and bruises.

I would like to believe that things like this just don't have a place in our modern society. But then again, maybe we just aren't that modern after all? Read more! Read more!

Right wing, left wing - soon you've got the whole chicken...

Read more! At lunch today I ventured out of my usual routine of listening to NPR and found Rush Limbaugh's show on AM radio. We're within two weeks of the Presidential election so I was curious as to what Mr. Limbaugh was touting at this critical juncture. Now, I admit, that I know very little of Rush - his brand of talking head isn't all that appealing to me - regardless of content. But after about 15 minutes, I had enough.

I can't tell you how many references to "liberalism" and how he was so appalled at those that venture anywhere past the far right of the political scale. In his show today, he even admitted to not owning a pair of bluejeans because of the liberals that wore them in the 1960's. He also went on to run clips of McCain speaking a rallies and how Obama has some hidden ultra liberal agenda - drawing this conclusion from Obama's alleged connections to extreme left wing political activists.

I guess I'm curious - what is truly a "liberal"? Is that someone who is anywhere to the left of Mr. Limbaugh's position? That would pretty much mean everyone since he's almost solely occupying that far right wing spot. So in that view, Reagan and McCain are liberals - hell Reagan must be a hippy because of his Hollywood background and Christ he even comes from California!

What gets me is that there is obviously a constituency of people who faithfully listen to this blowhard or the station wouldn't pay for the broadcasting rights. Which means, out there among us, there are enough people who actually believe the slogan "Rush is Right" for his show's advertising and revel in Limbaugh's haughtiness. Those that cheer him on in and somehow believe that the real morality in America is carried solely by the extreme right wing believers of America.

And maybe Idaho is just that perfect spot for this type of isolationism of thought. We're predominately white families isolated from almost all other types of influences. Where most of the rural population believes that the City of Boise is the liberal urban spot in the state. Some perspective! That McCain has a near 40% lead in the polls here over Obama says quite a bit about what people think here. And even when the nation's approval rating of Bush hovered under 40%, Idahoans still think that President Bush was doing such a bang-up job and held him around 80% approval rating. Shows a lot about what most people think around here.

And for those who may have a different opinion of what constitutes morality are automatically the enemy at the gates and the ultra right wing conspirators dream up new fantasies of the Democrats somehow brainwashing the masses and letting the people do the unthinkable - that is to actually think for themselves.

I heard a pastor speak once about how morality in America was being transformed into the ugliness of sin. In that his example was the liberal thinkers place such an outrageous thought out there that no one will accept it (the liberals knowingly do this) and then the conservatives and the liberals meet somewhere in the middle. His thought was this method when approached in sequence, eventually gets the people to think that the one time outrageous idea was somehow not all that bad and given enough time, that outrageous idea now became the known reality.

His reference was the degradation of American values and morals, and in some ways I do agree with this - especially for the quality of children and teens television programming - but as a whole, that is how progress is made. It is the evolutionary soul of our human adventure.

If liberals are dreamers who dare to think of a different light on things, then yes, I am one - through and through. Do I think that morality in America is somehow compromised? No. In fact, I believe that we should move away from the isolationist view point that most conservative people seem to hang onto so tightly and learn to work together so that we can protect a reasonable future for our families and children.

That means there are current business opportunities that will have to be heavily regulated and/or eliminated because they trend toward unproductive uses of our resources and/or destroy our air and planet. That means we can tend to the actual people who live in America and not continue to segregate our citizens because they do something different than from the typical religiously backed white perspective. I just don't understand what the religious right is so afraid of. As long as we all have the constitution to fall back on and our bill of rights for the freedom of religion and freedom of speech are protected, what "morality" is being forced upon anyone at anytime?'

And if the far right are such die-hard capitalists, shouldn't they have their own say in what they'd like to consume in entertainment (or otherwise) when they can use their own dollars as their votes? What's the big deal?

But if that purpose of cause comes to force others who may not see it their way into some type of conformity for the purposes of religious morals, then what is the difference between that line of thought at extreme Muslim behaviors? It's intolerance and fascism at it's best and that, my friends, is a quest to squelch freedom. That isn't very American to me. Read more! Read more!

Purpose driven life...

Read more! I'm listening to a song being played in the Library Coffee House "I hope you find what you're looking for". I don't recognize the artist - and the actual tone of the song is about someone pining over someone who obviously doesn't think the same of them.

But it made me think of what is it that I'm looking for. There are some days that I feel purposed and that the tasks laid out before me actually compile into a reasonable futuristic goal - and there are others where I feel like I'm diligently searching for something else. The problem usually is in that situation it typically feels like looking for a needle on the floor of a gymnasium.

And in that, I'm not really sure what the needle looks like or if I've seen it already.

There are some things that are in flux these days. I'm finding myself pulling further away from wanting to attend church. I have to qualify this as I've become more public to my friends with these feelings - especially those that are my dearest friends but have a completely different take on religious faith and how it plays out in their own lives. I am not really sad about this transition for me - more than anything it's anxiety over finding myself in a situation where I feel I need to explain how I've derived this path from intensely personal self evaluation. And to download people who even know me fairly well, it's a lot to wing out there for both me and them.

And there is a tinge of guilt because in some way I feel that I may encroach on their own feelings of faith. Again - it's not that I'm on any course of condemning faith - but that I'm finding that at this point in my life, it's not a space I'm feeling very comfortable with and I just am choosing not to participate.

It also hangs a pretty big "what-do-we-do-now" between my wife and I as we determine what's the best path for the kids. I don't really know what that impact would be at this point in their lives other than church is simply another play date with other kids their age and any attempted indoctrination is generally misunderstood or ignored.

What I'm finding more and more interesting is the impact my faith - my personal feelings and interpretations - actually have on the lives of other people. And I wish it just weren't so.

Like for some reason of not being a church attending kind of guy that somehow has some bearing on any change in my moral character. I can assure you, that I haven't changed - only my being public has opened that door.

Nor do I want my friends to somehow edit what they're thinking or would like to share. I strongly believe that religious faith is a walk between that person and their belief of what is real and what isn't. By withdrawing it doesn't mean that I am now somehow offended by this notion.

But I do find myself a stranger in a strange land. I had a wonderful opportunity to reunite with a long lost friend of mine this past weekend and we had a great conversation about the roles our religious experiences have lead to this point in our lives. Come to find out that we shared quite a bit in common about how we felt now, even with remarkably similar upbringings.

The closest to how I feel right now is that feeling post breakup from a long term relationship where the current reality of that person not being there and a lot of my memories are from that period in my life but a feeling of optimism in that I'm following my heart and striving to be true to how I feel - instead of boxing latent feelings into a Stepford method of conformity. It doesn't make it easy since within that same analogy, all of my friends are in a relationship and I now find myself as the newly minted single in a room full of couples. It's both liberating and lonely all rolled up into one.

But I'm not trying to be different for difference sake nor am I looking to make a statement or to draw attention to myself purposely by being public with this. This blog of mine has served more as a conduit to just get these thoughts somewhat organized and off my chest (as you can tell from my entries, I have a lot of other things that are on my mind).

I believe that my life is a holistic venue. That my career choice, family, activities, thoughts, etc. are all part of a single purpose and that there must be some harmony in this approach. The imbalance of cornering feelings that don't make sense in the overall picture are, to me, useless activities. Whatever my religious perspective is, it has to fit the overall picture of who "Ryan" is.

It really is a search for the energy to uncover and pursue who I am. To unearth those passions in that the energy that I have feeds on itself empowering all aspects of my life.

Since I have spent my career (thus far) in some form of construction - there are typically three parts to a building:

1. The foundation: this is the unsexy part of the building but the most critical. It supports the entire purpose of the structure and gives it long lasting viability. No one ever invites friends over to review their foundations of their home, and with that it can be taken for granted.
2. The infrastructure: this is the actual walls, floors and roof that allows the building to serve it's function. It is highly dependent on the foundation for it's direction and capability.
3. The furnishings: these are the luxuries that come from the completed infrastructure. Once the walls/floors/ceilings are in place, now you have a place to hang the flat screen TV. These are the things that people seem to be most interested in and tend to want to skip over items #1 and #2 so that this area can be shown off. But in the end, furnishings without a solid foundation and a proper infrastructure of delivery aren't very good. It's like the guy who owns the Ferrari but lives in a shack. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I feel that I am currently shoring up and rebuilding my foundation so that, in the long run, I will have the strength and capability to have developed the infrastructure to ultimately enjoy the quality of the luxurious furnishings of my life. I don't want that to be a race to a preconceived retirement age, but to have laid forth the purpose of a lifetime of achievement. For what measure that impact will ultimately have, I do not know nor will I estimate, but I do know that without the investment in the tedious work of foundation research and development, I will not active the goals that swim around my mind on most days. I have to give myself the chance.

And how religion will ultimately play into that equation is yet to be seen.

Read more! Read more!

Petrodictators and you...

Read more! I've been reading in my latest book "Hot, Flat & Crowded" by T. Friedman (wonderful thus far) about the economics of oil and why the middle east is such a awful place. There appears to be a direct correlation between the price of oil and the crushing of freedom.

Ever wondered why the Berlin Wall really came down? Russia, is one of the world's largest producers of oil. In the early 1970's with the OPEC embargo and subsequent oil crisis, the price of oil went from $10 a barrel to almost $70/barrel. Russia had meandered along up until the early 1970's and was relatively self sufficient, but with the rise in oil prices, they had an immense income from the state controlled oil fields and started to spend and subsidize their citizens energy uses and a trade imbalance occurred.

What's a trade imbalance consist of, you might be wondering (I'm sure you were)? Countries can suffer from what economist call the "Dutch Disease". When the Dutch discovered vast resources of oil and gas in their waters, they were able to sell this windfall of natural resources which, in turn, drove up the price of their currency (basically, everyone wants what you've got and it inflates the currency exchange value between nations - which is what allows other nations to actually buy what you're selling). With this increased buying power of the Dutch currency, it was far cheaper to import goods/services rather than produce them internally. This actually causes deindustrialization as companies move off shore because of the imbalance in cost for manufacture. The Dutch Disease is a complication of a nation trying to take advantage of a sudden windfall and how it ultimately destroys that nations capacity to grow domestically.

Russia went through this very thing - they grew and grew on the wealth that $70/barrel oil created for the USSR. Meanwhile, as the rest of the world's consumers, mainly America started to finally get their act together by lowering their use of oil (by raising fuel economy standards, for example). This, in turn, dropped world consumption and there was suddenly a surplus of oil being produced by countries like Russia. Since oil is a commodity and is sold based on demand, the price dropped drastically and fell back to $10/barrel.

This may not seem like a big deal, but the country had created it's infrastructure around $70/barrel oil prices, when that dropped to $10/barrel, their economy fell out from underneath them. Civil unrest popped up and came to a head and the USSR came apart. Contrary to popular belief, the real cause of the Berlin Wall to fall wasn't the eloquence of then President Reagan, but the oil conservationship started with the Ford and Carter administrations a decade earlier that finally got enough steam to make a dent in world oil prices.

Now, what we didn't do was put two and two together and America started to think that $10/barrel oil was back around to stay so we started to do the same thing we did in the 1950's - 60's and build inefficient vehicles and allowed for the overall energy consumption per American household to increase again. Why not? Gas was cheap!

Here we are - nearly 20 years later and with oil prices back up above $70/barrel (with all-time high of $140/barrel), those oil producing nations, like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc now have another windfall on their hands and they're using their oil money to buy the freedoms of their populations. It's it any wonder that 10 years ago, Vladimir Putin was the next great hope for democracy in Russia and now he has flexed his muscle by showing the world what he really is made of (the recent events in Georgia for example). Energy producing nations have incredible power when it is they who control the gates to who gets energy and who doesn't.

And with the terrorism funding and extremist behaviors of nations in the Middle East - who, without oil production, would be a vast expanse of sparse goat herders and relatively nothing else, have vast amounts of wealth to pour back into their countries. Iran, for example, subsidizes the gasoline used in it's own country from the profits it makes from oil sales on the world level. Gas there is reportedly around $0.35/gal.

Almost every single one of the oil producing nations are under the control of dictatorships. The only exceptions were those that were established democracies before the rise of oil (US, Great Britain, etc). And of all of those nations that we hear about - like Venezuela, Iran, Russia - who rule their countries with an iron fist can get away with it because they can placate their citizens with generous subsidies from the oil profits. In fact, the higher the price of oil, the more bold these countries get - they have incredible wealth!

Instead of pouring $10/Billion a month into Iraq to remove Saddam and now try to "rebuild" the country. The thing we should have done was take one year's worth of military spending on this campaign - only one - around $120 Billion and spent the same amount of time - roughly a decade - to create energy independence and drive the price of oil down to under $10/barrel.

With that crash in oil prices - those nations will not have the leverage to purchase their way out of controlling their citizens. Oil in the last 12 months due to America's own financial crisis and subsequent western world crisis of cash flow - oil has dropped drastically - over 50% in the last few months. In just that, we've cut the incomes of dictatorship nations like Iran and Venezuela in half. By dropping the price of oil to inconsequential levels - each of those nations will have the severe consequences of the trade imbalances.

And since none of these nations have invested in a diverse industrialization internally (or any industrialization at all, period), with that oil drop they find themselves very shortly with a mutiny on their hands with inabilities to continue funding their citizens subsidies and individual crashing of their economies. We wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq - the Iraqi's would have overthrown the government in mass uprising!

Friedman used the example of Bahrain - the tiny island oil producing nation has poured massive resources into retooling it's infrastructure to survive on non-oil production. Why would they do this? Simple- they're the first oil producing nation to start to run out of oil. Importing cheap foreigners to work there and subsidizing their citizens will not work for a sustainable economy in the future.

Since we've been in Iraq for the last five years - we've roughly spent around $600 billion on just trying to stabilize one nation. 1/5th of that amount would have funded a massive energy infrastructure redesign for America. The entire amount would have made it happen in 1/2 of the time. This would have created an incredible new jobs program in America and would have fostered internal industrialization, job growth and prosperity that we would be enjoying right now.

So in a nutshell - if we really want to ditch the kooks in the middle east, we need to undermine the cost of oil - now - and strive to keep it there. Take the financial power out of those nations that hate us and in effect force them to find other ways to make a living. And, within a decade, we'd possibly see a whole new type of Glasnost. Read more! Read more!

Could we ever really achieve sustainability?

Read more! I've been reading a new book "Hot, Flat & Crowded" (Friedman, 2008). I'm not all that far into the book - only a couple of chapters - but I'm am slowly starting to integrate what Friedman is trying to say (thus far). In Chapter 2, he's been showing how cities all over the world are growing up - countries like China and Qatar who now have very large cities (China has several over 1 million people) and how much more energy these new cities are taking.

It's all from the rise of their populations from poverty levels to middle class. Now, he defines the middle class as households with more than $15,000 annual income. These countries - especially China and India are elevating households at the rate of 200 million (combined) each decade. That's more than adding the whole country of Germany every 10 years - with all of their middle class consumerism and luxuries (and power and resource consumption).

He's been arguing that it's not for any politician of these countries to deny their populations this right of passage. For nearly every country has the desire to see it's citizens grow and wealth accumulate (more to tax!). But for so long, Europe and America have had the table all to ourselves and with populations of "Americas" adding every ten years, we are on an exponential consumption rate of all of our resources.

This part of the book made me think - part of the problem we had was just that we got to gorge at the "table" for so long with only western Europe as our dining partner. Now that others are showing up to eat with us - invited or not - we're starting to realize that the cornucopia is getting smaller and smaller and that it really isn't an "all you can eat buffet".

For a lot of reasons, our country's prosperity was fueled because of the seemingly endless resources. Oil was cheap, food was cheap - we built our entire infrastructure around this inexpensive system. Just look at our cities that came of age post 1950. Boston and Los Angeles couldn't be farther apart on their take on population density and infrastructure design (note - not that Boston hasn't also adapted and had it's own share of suburban sprawl).

Since most of the countries that are now coming of age in the early 21st century, those were either suppressed by national governments (China/Russia with communism) or were regarded as 3rd world and were just too poor to take advantage.

Now that technology has spread so far and interconnectedness is nearly ubiquitous, they're showing up. I suppose that if China, Russia and India were in a place to take advantage of the resources in 1950 as North America and Europe were, then our "table" of resources would look a whole lot different now.

It's pretty obvious that we (the world population) can not continue on this rampant race for the use of our resources and think that we can consume all we wish. Build energy hogging buildings and use our available land for McMansions to house all of our stuff. Something has to give - either we learn about sustainability so that all can share or we run off the cliff and nature will do the sorting for us (mass starvation, disease, death).

Sustainability doesn't mean that those of us who have been sitting at the table of plenty still get to hang out at the table and we don't admit new members because we feel that we've got seniority. It is not our right to dictate who gets to succeed and who gets to wallow in poverty. It means we need to find ways to make the cost impacts - both financial and on our resources (energy, water, land, etc) - more palatable and cost effective for the middle class. In effect, making a new determination of what it means to be middle class.

I'm not sure what that really looks like. It may mean defining levels of luxury that the middle class (worldwide) would consider fair and reasonable and that allow for the freedoms of expression and travel that have a much more frugal use of our collective natural resources. It means finding ways to make cleaner energy cheaply. Transportation that is clean and efficient and inexpensive. Housing that is reasonable, efficient and durable. And the overall use of potable water and our waste management. These are fast becoming worldwide issues that will have to be addressed or collapse will happen.

A wonderful book is "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. He takes the reader through various examples of societies that collapsed from their own management of natural resources. The most famous example is on Easter Island where, being 2,500 miles from anything else, the islanders deforested the landscape and had a complete collapse of it's population due to ineffective use of their very limited resources. Even now, most people can casually observe that history and could obviously see the writing on the wall and make the arm chair quarterback call to make a difference. Who knows if the islanders had some faction of their populace that were giving warning signs (I suppose) or as Dr. Diamond suggested what the islanders thought as they cut down the last tree on the island.

It's not much of a leap to see that our planet is quickly becoming small and what our thoughts will be when we cut down the last of the tropical rain forests or large mammals start to die off in rapidly increasing amounts. Or if there will be a point when we collectively realize the danger only when it is actually far too late and that our only option will be to consume to the end and let our own world population crash.

Is that enough a cause to take steps now and redesign our foundational systems of believe so that our infrastructure could be tweaked so that we can still enjoy a comfortable lifestyle without destroying it for everyone else? I don't know. In my experience, people rarely think that much past what impacts them directly and usually only when it's too late - kind of like calling the fire department only after you've watched the small fire grow to engulf half the house.

This isn't just about green living. This is about implementing a tour de force of cultural and foundational ideology that (unfortunately) our country and Europe have come to regard as a right. Read more! Read more!

Racism in America...

Read more! I just don't understand racism. Why these feelings of resentment against a general population of our country is perpetually propagated. And how, in it's most extreme forms, can manifest into physical actions where innocent people loose their dignity, property and/or even their lives because of the color of their skin.

But I know where it comes from. It seeps into almost every Americans lives into one form or another whether it's crossing the street to stay away from a crowd of African Americans or maybe staying out of particular stores because you don't speak Spanish. They come from assumptions we all make because very few of us have taken the time to actually find out the answer to the question - we wallow in our ignorance and let fear drive our thoughts and actions.

I have found myself in some of those situations - where I am the minority and walking into a Mercado in Oceanside, CA where I felt I was the one being watched. I could read it on the faces of the customers and employees that I was in the wrong spot and I honestly felt uncomfortable. Maybe it was a taste of what millions of minorities go through at least a few times in their lives.

I am waiting for the day when my little innocent daughter will speak out loudly - probably in a very, very public place - and ask why that man/woman is different in the way that they look. I have already worked on my response - in that that person's family comes from a different part of the world - but he/she is still a person just like the rest of us.

I truly do believe that - that we are all equal and deserve equal treatment. The practice of it is much harder. I say that because there is the fear of the unknown. Not that I believe a Hispanic man or an African American woman is that much of a mystery - but that I am almost tripping over myself to show that I am not the stereotypical white male and I'm actually more worried about what they would think of me. And maybe, just maybe - it really doesn't matter.

Generalizations in any form are ridiculous. I have generalized religious groups like the conservative Christians - but that doesn't make the individual guilty of the group thinking. And, by most accounts, it's a very small minority of that group that ends up with the airtime and by default is the spokesperson for all. It's not fair - but it also doesn't whisk away the overall group's practiced policies (which is more to my previous points).

But generalizations of race are silly. What would it matter one bit to the quality of their character? Whether that person comes form the minority group or the super majority. It's irrational thinking that is abused for power reasons. But I can't think of one race of people who practice a homogeneous policy that I can disagree with.

I also wish that we didn't spend our time segmenting our populations by political correctness. Why does an African American or a Mexican American or a "fill-in-the-blank" American have to even differentiate themselves. Aren't we all just plain 'ol Americans? To say you're only identified with that one sub group really puts you into a box - why does it really matter? If a woman has red hair - do we all just assume she's Irish (I guess if it's really her hair color)? Maybe she's actually English or Scottish. I guess in the end her ancestry is really her own business and she doesn't need to be lumped into the sub group Red-Headed Americans. It's pretty obvious she's not Asian or African.

I think people will make a leap to think that racism in America is on the way out if Barack Obama is elected president. I think there will be a segment of Americans who will pat themselves on the back and think that we've actually made it. It's still far from the truth - Ted Koppel on Talk of the Nation (NPR) stated that today - that we can show that we've made strides as a nation, but we've got a long way to go. Especially when there are plenty of other groups of people who are victims because of their skin color. I can only imagine what a Middle Eastern American who is a practicing Muslim goes through nowadays.

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist and I would love for people to make friends and intermingle based on their shared interests and the quality of their character. But I am white and it's easy to preach that when I'm not the one getting dumped on.

I would like to hear from all of you on what you think of racism. Are you a recipient or even an instigator? Read more! Read more!

End of the innocence...

Read more! I have often wondered if I were to do some things over again in my life, what that possible outcome would be. Maybe if I picked a different college to attend or even a different major and how that might have swayed my life one way or the other.

Most of these fantasies are really only around one particular decision or event. My mind just can't grasp the whole implications of what that future really would have been like if that decision would have been made differently. And, of course, most of these fantasies revolve around elaborate theories of a particular circumstance whose result I dealing with now and maybe, just maybe, with a different call so many years ago things would be much better today.

I think back to my own coming of age - growing up in a small town in Eastern Oregon where most people knew everyone else and getting away with much was difficult - especially when most people in town knew your parents. I didn't know it then, but so much of my early life was sheltered. It was safe - I could ride my bike all over town (and did). I would even walk a couple of miles after school to stay with our caretaker before my mom and dad got off work. All of this as a 6 year old.

My friends and I would hang out in deserted lots and explore random aspects of our city. Crawling through the framework of a house being built or walking through a field of wheat. The life I had as child allowed for a large safety net without exposure to many of the random evils that chip away at a purist vision of what the world was like.

Then as puberty struck and topics in school and life became more complicated - the exposure to the other "possibilities" of a life not yet fulfilled with that first grand vision of what was waiting for you once you "grew up". And the race to drink from that cup became an obsession. The overwhelming desire to experience what was "out there".

Even in a small town, choices could be made at an early age. I remember the first time I took a drink of beer (I hated it!) or smoked a cigarette (hated it too) or really kissed a girl (that, was pretty good - but gawd, I was awful!). I did manage to stay away from drugs although some of my friends didn't. I was a product of a very conservative family and was in constant conflict of what I would "like" to do and what I was "supposed" to do.

As those milestones in my life were ticked off, the preceding feelings of wondering what it would be like once that particular event happened to it actually happening left a pretty big void without much fanfare. Life had moved on and no matter how much I had tried to guess at what I would feel like post accomplishment, I never came close. Usually just left with confused feelings and the fact that it was now gone from my list of things I thought I wanted. It's the aftermath that is the real bear and sometimes are felt for a really long, long time.

What I didn't realize at the time was I was cashing in my innocence one event at a time. Fortunately for me, I didn't have a traumatic event (or series of events) that caused great pain that forever changed me in an instant - but my transformation was a very slow one - one that usually left me feeling that I was somehow behind the curve - no matter what had happened to me before. So some key events fell in reckless behavior under the guise of wanting to be like everyone else.

I think about that race to lose my innocence and how I suppose most people blow through that most valuable of currencies with such reckless abandon that when the dust finally settles and you find yourself bankrupt, it is at that point when the true value of that innocence was realized and how it can never be returned. Guilt can sometimes be overwhelming.

I think about it a lot since I became a father. Of trying to somehow moderate how much exposure my daughter and son have over their lifetimes without withholding too much or overexposing them. I can see why so many people complain about TV when it's harder to edit content (other than we can choose to turn it off). My desire to have them be well prepared for life on their own along with not being damaged along the way. The fear of failing those that you love the most.

I can also look back and take most of it in and know that even with elaborate fantasies of a different choice made that by any variation would take me from where I am today. My wife and children would be taken away from me by a change any place along the way and that is completely unacceptable. And that for all of the good and poor choices along the way of the spending of my own innocence that all of it culminates in my own being right here and right now. In the end, it's just a record of my life with every event shaping who I am.

I like to say that we spend the first few years of our lives trying to lose our innocence and the rest of our days trying to get it back. Like the proverbial Genie in a Bottle. But then, without those experiences, where would any of us be? Read more! Read more!

Poverty (Part 2)

Read more! I've been thinking a lot about poverty lately - and not so much in the direct sense of low income families and how they live, but how poverty in the three forms that I wrote about yesterday (financial, relationships and physical forms) could be leveraged to increase awareness in our own lives.

I've been brainstorming the possibilities of how these three areas dwell within each and every one of us. That when a person can take a step back from themselves and delve into the core issues that prevent them from ultimate success, that poverty can be found.

Almost everyone can look at their check book and see that they don't really have enough money to do what they'd like to do. It's amazing to me to interview people at different stages of their lives and different income levels in that the sense of ultimate security - that money seems to want to foster - is always elusive. A family making it on $50k a year would like to have more - maybe to buy a bigger home or make ends meet a little better. A family on twice that amount can still have those same feelings. Or even four times that amount.

Security is the minimal set of circumstances that allow for growth. Insecure circumstances do not allow for growth. This has been explored in education - (I wish I could cite this - but it comes from my teacher friends) - that our brains' higher function is based in the frontal lobe and survival functions come from the rear of the brain. When "survivor mode" is active higher functioning isn't working well. So functions like creative problem solving are incredibly hindered and/or shut down.

Think of training for a high stress job like a paramedic or a soldier. Repetitiveness - the constant training upon training upon training (I was in the Army, so I know about this first hand) burns into the brain of what to do in the high stress circumstance. It allows for brain functioning to happen in a prescribed way even when the brain has literally creatively shut down. The repetitive training allows the task to be done with security is shaky or non-existent.

Or think of the child that is being abused at home. That child's preoccupation in the classroom isn't about learning math tables (frontal lobe) - it's about what's going to happen at home later (survival). The whole idea that they'll be high functioning students will be severely handicapped and it becomes a downward spiral. It has nothing to do with intelligence or capability of the individual (I'll revisit education later on in another post and the whole idea of "no child left behind" is completely screwed up).

Creating secure environments is the crucial step in brain function and ultimately any growth in the individual. That's why the concept of trust is very, very, very important.

How do we make switches in socio-economic classes? Education and training is the key. Keep in mind that intelligence is equally distributed amongst all social, racial and economic classes. One of my favorite books is written by Dr. Jared Diamond called "Collapse" (wonderful read) - he mentioned on one of his several trips to Papua New Guinea that the tribes people who lived there had no idea of the modern world and to most people from western societies, we would consider these people cavemanesque. But after living with them for a while - he found the tables were turned and the tribesmen were appalled at Dr. Diamond's severe lack of understanding of the local plant life and animals. To them, this was their world and in that context, they were the world's experts even if they couldn't read or classify animals in the proper western way.

On the other extreme one doesn't have to look far with personalities such as Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears to know that you can have wealth and no brains.

Moving from one socio-economic class to the next isn't like winning the lottery - it takes time and effort on the part of the guide and student. As a side note: most lottery winners actually come from the low income class and it really isn't surprising that the windfall of cash is gone within record time. Most of us in the middle class look at that and wonder how is that even possible? Remember that management is a hallmark of the middle class - windfalls of money in the lower incomes - especially in generational poverty - is to blow it now while you've got it (and to share within your group). The middle class has a concept of future and what that means (hence the management of resources - save for tomorrow). Lower income/poverty level families have really no concept of future. That day is what their reality and perspective consist of - there really isn't anything else beyond that.

People can move between socio-economic levels with the assistance of a guide who can help educate them to the unwritten rules of that society. This goes for both upward and downward mobility. To me, the educational system is in place to help with this overall guide for lower socio-economic strata to find avenues into the middle class - and some do make it there, but the energy expended to move that inertia is incredible compared to those that come into an educational system with that momentum and social support systems in place.

The old adage of "walk a mile in another man's shoes" best fits this perspective shift. We, as a society, cannot demand excellence from ill devised programs that do not address the common ground in tackling issues of poverty - whether it is from financial, physical or emotional levels. We need to invest in on another as guides - educating and leading people if we want to really find long term success and sustainability in the health and welfare of our communities. Read more! Read more!

Poverty

Read more! Like most sheltered middle class peoples - for a long time I thought poverty was just people who didn't have much money and were there really by choice. And, as I saw beggars at shopping mall entrances with their signs saying "will work for food" or "anything will help" my immediate thought was if that person had the time to stand there all day, then they surely could find a job. This was after I rolled up the windows on the car.

I felt that the homeless and those who were suffering economically were the obvious result of just not applying themselves. As if they had made some conscience decision sometime earlier in their lives and wanted this for themselves because, all-in-all they were just lazy.

I even unconsciencely believed the urban legends like that of the beggar who purposefully donned their ragged clothes to beg only to go home at night in their limo since they made so much from the guilt trip they placed on others. Getting angry that we were who saw them and donated were somehow duped by their guise. Or those stories about how someone would take up a beggar with the "will work for food" sign and put them to work only to have them turn it down because they did better from the stray dollar bills that people gave as they pulled up.

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005 and the failure of the safety infrastructure that took out the levees and flooded the lower 9th ward (one of the most impoverished in the nation) and when the slow response of our nation to come to the aid of those who were stranded finally started to resolve itself into manifestations of $5,000 checks and FEMA trailers. And that when those checks were cashed to purchase big screen TV's and Air Jordans and that three years later we still have a significant population still either displaced or living in those same trailers, I wanted to know what we so terribly wrong.

I knew that there was a some huge miss in the way aid was generated and then passed on to those in need. It wasn't for the lack of trying by either our government or the countless non-profits that donated time and money to help pull the city together again, but that it was the thought process of middle class households putting they thought was the proper thing for those who only really knew poverty.

I read the book "The Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Dr. Ruby Payne. Dr. Payne is a career educator in Texas who set off to get a better understanding of why kids from different backgrounds - especially those from the poorer neighborhoods couldn't really get a strong foothold in the school system and how she could go about changing that to help them find success. Through this research, she found that there are multiple levels of poverty and that money is just one part of it.

To get a better perspective on it, think of poverty in terms of resources. Every single person on the face of the earth requires a minimal set of resources in order to live. Food/water, shelter and clothing. To obtain those items, we require some combination of the following resources:

• Financial - this is the obvious one and the most associated with poverty. But it doesn't have to be currency. Services for trade or items for trade can act in this same capacity. Think of your own job - you have a business relationship with employer and they pay you for your time and efforts. The level of pay is based up on your skill and value you bring. You have traded your services for currency (in this case).

• Physical - this is a little more indirect but it deals with your physical capabilities of obtaining resources. If you have a physical handicap, this can limit your working which, in turn can limit your value to a business for less pay. In some circumstances a person may not be able to work at all and would rely on the graces of others

• Emotional/spiritual - this is harder to measure but is nonetheless significant. A person's belief in their own sense of value is an incredible resource. This is fueled by those that are in our environment such as the way you were raised as a child and the love and attention you were given. Also as an adult that you receive this type of reinforcement from your key relationships (adult child/parent relationships, spousal, peers, etc). I believe that people have an intrinsic need for validation of self and those that struggle with it may have strong resources in financial and physical (think of the gifted professional athlete) but will throw it all away because the lack of this key area - Michael Vick comes to mind. This area is shaped by our core values and are completely learned in a lifetime.

There are also two different types of poverty that apply to these areas: generational and temporal. Generational poverty is what we are born into and what is passed along to us and of which we would pass onto our children. Temporal poverty is that which would be temporary - a loss of job or spouse for example could bring on financial or emotional poverty.

Every single person needs to have significant resources in all three areas to find any level of sustainable success. We typically break a persons availability to resources in three areas: low income, middle class and wealthy. Each sub group has their own set of unwritten rules and obstacles for succeeding (or failing) in that particular level.

• For instance, those in low income find resources in trading for services (such as dinner for helping fixing a car) or knowing where to get free meals or clothing.

• The Middle class focus on managing of resources such as knowing how to start a retirement fund or operate a checking account or obtaining a loan.

• The Wealthy know how to build profitable relationships - sending their child to Princeton (for example) isn't necessarily for an education to find a good job (as how the middle class would think) but that other wealthy families send their child there and networking can result in profitable relationships in the future - mainly to sustain their wealth going forward.

When Hurricane Katrina hit - those $5,000 checks were thought up by some middle class think tank that derived that those funds, if placed in the hands of the low income families, would be used for critical goods and services (food/water and shelter). Instead, they found their way into (what the middle class people think as) crazy purchases like TV's. What FEMA (and middle class Americans) didn't realize was that in the subculture of low income peoples, there is a high value placed on entertainment and those that can entertain (theorized that it is a relief mechanism by that class to help cope with the high levels of stress from surviving at that level). To the low income families - this was a critical purchase but to all of us, it was an outrage.

Every single one of us has resources available to us and how we manage those resources and invest in those will bring about our general sustainability as a person. Ever wonder why people live longer when they've got pets? It's a relationship that was invested in that gives value to them. Or those that have more productive lives who are more physically fit (I, am not one of those, by the way). It was an investment in health that can be a resource when they need it. Not to mention those that understand the value of living under their means and saving for a rainy day (like, now, when our economy is in the toilet and people will loose jobs).

Understanding the existence of resources and cultivating them will help every single person become the best that they can be. Surround yourself with good people who encourage you to be a better person and you'll find that success comes a lot quicker than you think. Read more! Read more!

Republicans and Democrats...

Read more! The blessed time of the political season when the desperate throws of a campaign that is behind in the polls who will do the cliche "whatever-it-takes" to sway voters - even if it means spreading falsehoods and preying upon the fear of narrow minded voters.

Cindy McCain's speech (with McCain and Palin right behind her) stating how Obama's no-vote on funding additional support to American soldiers sent a "cold chill" through her body. And, what amazed me the most, was that the hate-monger people in attendance immediately yell out "Liar!" and then go on to make comments about alleged ties to 60's era "terrorists" and love to name drop Obama's middle name: Hussein.

Cindy forgot to mention that her husband also voted no on a similar bill 2 months earlier. Wonder if she got that same chill...

Take a listen to the next sound bytes that come out of these speeches. It's not so much the obvious media abusing slander, but it's the air of genuine fear if Obama is elected president. I get this impression that these people attending Republican rallies like this are scared out of their minds about Obama as President.

Maybe I'm a little too closed off from this general hate of people (and maybe I should be thankful for it), but if McCain wins, it's not the end of the world for me nor is it that I wouldn't support him as our elected President. But these people at these rallies seem to want to secede from the union if Obama wins. I guess the "war of northern aggression" hasn't ended for some people even though it's been 140 years and seven generations ago.

I don't understand how someone who claims to be an American who can hate Americans so much. How none of us - save our native citizens - are ALIENS to this land. They don't call us the melting pot for nothing. But unless you're not from western European ancestry, then everyone else brings a sense of fear to a portion of our population.

My blog from Tuesday talked about a corporate focused nation or a people focused nation - it's the same for the two parties - in my opinion - Republicans are not people focused, but are big business focused. They keep the general public in the loop by supporting gun rights (because really, everyone should have the need for an automatic weapon) and anti-abortion stance which seems to be the big draw for conservative evangelical Christians.

In contrast - the Democrats seem to be much more people focused. Opening their doors to all different walks of life or belief structures. If a gay man wants to adopt a child with his partner - so what? If the child is loved, then what is the problem? If a woman wants to believe that cats are the reincarnation of Egyptian gods, then so what? It really has no bearing on the rest of us.

So I'm seeing a battle between the two real opponents in this election who are at the core of our modern America: tolerance v. intolerance. Progression v. "return to our traditional values". Hate v. acceptance.

Seems to me that morality in America really boils down to the golden rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Pretty straight forward. If I show love and respect to others - even if I choose not to make their same life choices or take on their beliefs, that choice in itself, shows more about my character as a person and own individual strength of my core values than spending my lifetime shouting that they are wrong and have no right to their existence.

America is the place where you should not be prosecuted for your beliefs. For as angry that the Republican fellowship makes me with their marked intolerance of anyone other than themselves - they are still Americans and they have a right to say those god awful things and wallow in their own hypocrisy. I can still accept them and tolerate them even if I don't understand why they choose to behave this way.

But I guess the golden rule only applies when you get something back for your efforts or when its convenient to you. Read more! Read more!

Are you people focused or business focused?

Read more! I was listening to Talk of the Nation on NPR last fall that has stuck with me - well, at least a part of if has. The host (Neal Conan) had several medical doctors on the show to talk about what a national health care program would look like - how it could possibly work and how other countries handle their own health care. Of course countries like France, England and Canada come up with Belgium being the favored by the panel.

A caller commented during this session about how these nations prioritize national health care and why - and he made an interesting point about the overall focus of the nations in question - including the US - it seemed to him that western countries that put a high priority on national health care programs were people focused and those that didn't were business focused.

The panel unanimously agreed.

I have always wondered why it was such a crazy thought to have a national health care program. It's a fundamentally reasonable and logical conclusion that as the world's leader in wealth and technology that we should easily have a health care program in place for all of our citizens. And to look overseas at European nations that have robust programs - and I wonder why could the Belgians or the French do this, and we can't?

America is an amazing place. We have the oldest government in existence - older than any other modern forms of national governments. Nations have looked towards America and have modeled their own democratic policies and governance upon our model. And we are a nation of nobodies who have collectively turned towards our own Bill of Rights and Constitution to allow us the basic frame work of all laws in our lands. The foundational structures that let everyone have a shot at making the American Dream their own. And nearly all Americans have been able to do such.

Where we differ is that with our capitalist economic structure and personal property rights, we have let that bleed into areas that we should have protected for all to use. We have pulled together as a nation to protect the most beautiful areas of our country into national parks for all to see, we have amazing institutions that are house our national treasures and knowledge that are free and accessed by all. We even created free public schools for all of our citizens and free attorneys if you require one for a criminal case. But we dropped the ball big time on this one.

There is too much money at stake for a radical shift in national health care. Billions of dollars trade hands from companies that make their profits from the health care industry. Anyone from for profit insurance companies to drug manufacturers. People will pay whatever it takes when their mortality (or pain) is on the line.

I have always marveled at the cost of medication. Take for instance epileptic medication - it costs $16/day or an average of $480/mo or $5,760/yr. Say it cost the manufacturer for the initial R&D around $1 Billion to develop the drug and then another $100 million per year to supply it. According to the Epilepsy foundation, there are approximately 3 million people in America that are suffering from epilepsy - that's $17.3 billion in revenue each year.

Let's take this over a 10 year window (epileptics have to take this the rest of their lives, by the way) - The cost to the manufacturer was $1 billion with an additional $1 billion in expense over a 10 year window. Total outlay $2 billion. Gross revenues from the sale of the drug are $173 billion over a 10 year window - that's a net profit of $171 billion dollars. And that's just the people suffering with epilepsy and nor does that take into consideration their other expenses for health care, doctors visits, emergency care for seizures, etc.

You tell me, at what point is it price gouging when a company makes 8,550% return on investment off of a captive audience? I'll tell you it's great for the shareholders! That is until they really think about it and know that they are robbing the poor and afflicted blind. Greed has to be kept in check. A monopoly of service is created when a captive audience has only one alternative. We didn't let it happen with the phone company - but I guess it's OK if you've got epilepsy.

Our nation needs a gut check about what we need to provide to our citizens as basic and decent human beings and stop this nonsensical behavior that inflates the real cost of the health care in America - and maybe this is the perfect time to introduce it with the banks failing from their own greed and self love. The people are outraged as it is and sometimes anger can be a great rallying cry.

In my mind, to do this shift would be a radical departure from our current infrastructure thinking - we would have to refocus our core values from being business focused to being people focused. That good things don't trickle down from the top when we reward the wealthy for being wealthy and that how a nation treats it's poor and afflicted is a really a true measure of it's own character. And that takes a gut check on what we believe in ourselves. Are we a nation of individuals who claw and stab one another to get ahead or are we one that unites and works together so that everyone has a chance? I would like to believe the latter, but I know that we're firmly gripped in the former.

But it all starts with one. Read more! Read more!

Mr Mom weekend...

Read more! My wife's new found profession is a stay-at-home mom. She does a wonderful job of managing the house and raising our kids. She has put her career on hold as an elementary teacher to take on this role for our household and I believe the four of us are better for it.

Making this choice isn't an easy one. It would be wonderful to have her full time salary- and even with the cost of daycare, we would come out ahead (financially). But for us, it was an investment of another kind and in this short window of pre-grade school years, our kids can have the full attention of (at least) their mother and as much as I can as their father.

Many of our friends who are at this same point in their lives with mid-life career paths and children under the age of 5 who struggle with their balance of financial goals (or even subsistence!) and the guilt of sending their kids to daycare. Some just have to because of divorce or others make a partial time at work with only partial time of kids in full time daycare.

My role as father has been rather straight forward as of late. I work and travel for my work rather often - but not for long periods of absence (maybe 3-5 nights a month away). I do work some long hours when required which means I'm around my kids for only a couple of hours during the work week.

Recently my wife had the chance to attend a girl's weekend in Las Vegas this past weekend to spend some time with the gals in her family. Her mother, aunt and cousins all headed out and enjoyed a fun weekend of just being girls again. The age range was 28-79 but from what I hear from their stories, all acted like teenagers again.

It was also my opportunity to be full-time dad this weekend. All responsibilities were mine - meals, baths, laundry, housecleaning, naps, day-trips, etc. Now, I'm typically involved on the weekends with all of this - but I would have my wife around to help when I needed it. My kids are nearly 3 years and just over a year so it can be rather busy and planning ahead for things as simple as gymnastics takes more thought than just grabbing the car keys and going out the door.

I had a great time with my kids. Not that there weren't stressful moments and middle-of-the-night issues to deal with, but overall it was a great window into the world that my wife deals with day in and day out and time to really connect with the lives of my children. Especially the point of appreciation of relentlessness of it. Stay at home moms don't get much of a mental break from it. At least with my job, I have a chance to think of different things and talk to other adults. After the 16th round of "Micky Mouse Clubhouse", your brain starts to melt and the damn songs are haunting.

Who really knows what the best answer is for child care and each family has to deal with that decision in their own way and what best works for them. Some women have invested an incredible amount in a career/profession and they would like to practice that passion which doesn't lend themselves to the stay-at-home type. Others are just perfectly suited for that role or some combination of the two.

I firmly believe that the success of your family comes from the amount of love and support that is distributed to all of the members. A person who is gone often but is giving of themselves can provide a much stronger environment than a stay-at-home who is emotionally checked out - the argument for "quality" over "quantity" of time spent. I also think that there is something to be said about life expectations when the mother has pursued her own capabilities and passions and can lead by example for her own children. I was a product of two working parents (both school teachers) and my mother worked because she loved it. And seeing that has shown my brother, sister and I that following passions is a huge part of overall family happiness (hence my own drive to have a passion-laden career).

By the end of the weekend though, I was ready for my wife to be home (and so were the kids!). I can see why my wife is looking forward to my return in the evenings from my job so she can at least have the help of distraction while she tackles the responsibilities of the household. So when I come home tired from work - at least I didn't have two kids melting down and whining at me all day (although I could make a good argument that some of the people I work with fit this category). It reminds me that I need to help her out at that time. And as they say - happy wife = happy life.

To all of you mothers out there, I salute you! Especially all of you single parents out there. Read more! Read more!

When did Jesus become a Republican?

Read more! A friend of mine brought up this comment in a recent discussion and at first it made me laugh, then it really hit home. When did Jesus become a Republican?

When did the conservative evangelical Christians associate themselves squarely with the Republican right wing? Especially when, historically, the south with its Bible Belt was perpetually the Democratic voting sector of America.

I heard it once that the price the Democratic Leadership paid for Civil Rights movement and desegration in the late 1960's (President Johnson) was the loss of the south for at least a generation. People who were born and raised with the segregated mentality defected from their staunch Democratic party. My hypothesis is that with the strength of the Southern Baptist Church and the strong church leadership, that over the last 40 years being a evangelical and a "conservative" became synonymous and the Republicans filled the void.

My friend also brought up a good point - within the context of his time, Jesus was just about the most liberal person on the face of the planet (maybe John the Baptist has him beat). He bucked the entire system of hard line Jewish leadership and laws. Completely upending their long held positions as the conservatives in the time.

And now, 2,000 years later - Jesus is now the "reason" why people are "conservatives" and vote Republican. The Republican talking heads throw backhanded intolerance in their daily talk shows and books. The Republican political leadership doesn't seem to me to have much in the way of moral values being practiced - they just seem to have caught the ear of a great mass of well intended people who they lead down a path of comfort by tossing well placed Christian jargon for them to feel good about their party that they're backing.

And enough political propaganda that has been shot back to the Democratic party for being a cabal of loose morals and hippy praising San Franciscans. As if all Democrats at one time or another have made a pilgrimage to Haight-Asbury and have a secret closet of marijuana plants and tie-dyed shirts.

I watched the interview (it wasn't a debate) the super-mega-church pastor Rick Warren held earlier this summer when he hosted Obama and McCain. He asked both the same questions independently and one of which stood out to me: what is your faith?

Obama was first and he actually testified to an authentic saved-by-grace Christian salvation story as a young adult in South Chicago. It has stayed with him and he considers himself to be a believer.

McCain, on the other hand, talked reverently about his time as a POW in Vietnam and some interactions with a guard who showed him compassion and gave window to the guard's faith as a possible Christian. When I listed to it, he didn't speak one bit about his own faith in Christ - a salvation story or anything remotely to the cause. He really only testified that a prison guard was nice(r) to him.

His story is moving - especially when you start to imagine what he endured as a POW and it's very easy to read too much into the story and think that he's actually saying something of faith when he didn't. Because he's a Republican - it's almost as easy of a jump to just assume that he IS a Christian.

So here we have an actual saved Christian candidate who is the nominee from the evil empire of the Democratic Party and the non-saved candidate who is the godhead of the righteous Republican Party. What gives?

I live in Idaho where voting Democratic is equivalent to bypassing the polls (historically - it might actually change this year!). So many of my fellow citizens roll up to vote each November and check off the (R) box without blinking an eye.

I would like to think that Jesus looks down from Heaven and is appalled at the complete craziness His followers have delusioned themselves into. That sometimes the most dangerous path is the one that isn't questioned or held accountable. Keep in mind that this financial bailout package that the Republicans (yes, John McCain was a part of this mess - don't let his "maverick" BS sway you one bit - it's just a ploy to distance himself from the incumbent party and 30% favorable Bush Admin so he has a chance come November) have had to enact from it's deregulation spree will cost each household in America around $7,000. On top of the "stimulus" package from earlier this year - your Republican leadership have lead you to pay out - and I'm not kidding - nearly $8,500 (ave) per household in America. WOO HOO!! I can't wait to vote that party back into office to let them know just how pleased I am at their wonderful leadership and care for us (oh, and keep the change McCain - I didn't need the $8,500 either for my own family of four)!

I still think that the key issue - for some reason - is still abortion and if you believe in life at conception or that conscienceness occurs sometime later (for me, I am a pro-lifer after having 2 kids of my own). My point is that over the last near 40 years of Roe v. Wade and the onslaught of conservative supreme court justices that were appointed under Bush's watch haven't lead to any overturn and/or clarification. Nor has the conservative evangelicals raised enough of a stink to get it changed in laws. So if this whole segment of America really feels strongly about it, they're really not doing much to change it (the Republican leadership mainly). So, to me, it points clearly that the Republicans only claim pro-life to garnish votes and appease evangelicals. You're all being used, my friends.

Anywho - if you know when Jesus switched from the left to the right, let me know. I'd like to pass it along. Read more! Read more!

The great plate spinner!

Read more! I'm an NPR junkie and today they were talking about multi-tasking and how the human brain actually processes information (or as they believe). There was a study at the University of Michigan where they took volunteers and put them into an MRI (or CAT scan - I can't remember now) to watch the brain activity as they switched gears quickly. Such as the subject had to tell which number was bigger and then which one was which color, but respond quickly.

The neurologist who they were interviewing (also, no reference), mentioned that humans aren't as good at multi-tasking as we think we are (he even mentioned how delusional, literally, the human brain is into tricking itself into thinking it's processing quickly). Such as a task of looking for three friends at a crowded event. The ability to find one friend wearing a red scarf on one corner, another friend wearing a green scarf in the middle of the crowd and the third friend wearing a blue scarf across the street simultaneously. The brain has to literally switch gears to process what it's looking for before moving onto the next task so as you're scanning for the blue scarf, you could look right past the red scarf and completely miss it. He mentioned that our brains' executive center (located behind our eyes in the frontal lobe) can really only do one, possibly two tasks at a time.

Like how hard it is to talk on the phone and write an email. Both tasks use the same vocal/vocabulary sectors of our brains and it's nearly impossible to do it. What the doctor believed was that we "think" we're doing multiple things at once, but in reality we're only doing several tasks at maybe 10%.

So when you're driving the car, talking on the cell phone and putting on make-up in the car, you're really not doing anything well. I know that sounds like common sense, but in the middle of trying to do it, we subconsciously think we're doing all three really, really well. The fact of the matter is that we're putting our brains under so much stress that we loose so much of our actual ability to function. Hence accidents, mistakes at work, etc.

I was thinking about how this applies to my own work - so much of my job is trying to keep the plates spinning in the air. I also liken my job to the analogy that all things are on "fire" and I really only respond to that which is burning the brightest. Kind of like only really attending to which plate is imminently going to fall.

It leaves an immense amount of stress in a given day and me completely susceptible to "crashes" when I get blindsided by events that I didn't see coming. I think that with experience, I could recognize those pitfalls before they are actually stepped into, but for the time being, it's an incredibly stressful way to go about a job. Some days it actually feels better to just watch it all burn and not give a damn.

I also realize that I'm really not that good of a "fire fighter". It's not that I can't think effectively under pressure, but I find that most of the issues I deal with at work are those that I've tabled when I was dealing with the other "fires". It's tiresome to hop between who's yelling at you the loudest since you're always walking into a negative situation (there are very, very few kudos in my line of work - perfection is expected and demanded and anything less is failure).

I think why I enjoyed college so much was that expectations and delivery of performance were clearly spelled out and very few things actually caught you off guard. It's not that you didn't work hard or spent a lot of time doing it, but that I knew that getting the job done would take "X". Even if it was in a subject I didn't have much experience in. And, that by all things wonderful, the work cycle would come to a conclusion and a new cycle would begin (plus you could always get a college credit for stupid classes like golf and ballroom dancing to break up the day).

The professional world is a 35 year perpetual, single cycle term where expectations and reality are rarely close (or even on the same planet). When I worked in architecture, we used to joke (internally, never with a client - god forbid that the guy with the money would go somewhere else): You can have two of these choices, but not all three:

1. You can have it fast
2. You can have it cheap
3. You can have it correct

When a client would (and does) demand all three, and my bosses would be stupid enough to do it, the stress was incredible. Far too many plates to spin in to short of time coupled with lack of experience and you've got a recipe for disaster.

I know that my own realities of any career involve a level of perpetuity and exposure to the blind-sides that happen. I guess I strive for some level of consistency and where expectations and reality are somewhat in the same proximity. Maybe that is also riding around on the unicorn with my "quality of work, workplace and compensation". Who knows. I'm just trying to stay positive and not let the cloud of cynicism rain on too much of my day.

Read more! Read more!

For a guy who knows a lot about nothin'...

Read more! I'm having a bad work day today. It seems that I have picked a line of work that has become (some how) not very suitable for me. And it sucks.

Maybe it's the beginning of a mid-life crisis -where mine isn't so much wanting to be young again (other than maybe a few key do-overs - like career choice) - but that I really just want my life to have tangible meaning through all things that I do (work, family, friends, etc). The thought of just laboring away at a worthless, thankless job just about kills me.

I have had great positions - but they haven't seemed to last. My very best thus far was actually working at an architectural firm - but not in projects (I was the CFO for the company). For better or worse I was blessed with big picture thinking. Which, has it's arch nemesis - details. My career path is full of details that I just don't seem to care too much about. Especially in construction where I have to literally babysit subcontractors who lie to me either about even doing the work or that they did but didn't do a very good job at it. Then I take it in the shorts from my boss who thinks that I should have an inherent distrust for all persons and that all people are basically liars so if you don't act like a pit-bull to "take it down" then you're failing miserably.

And I think that's where my issue is. I'm not a pit-bull. Never have been. I'm more like a golden retriever who likes to hang out and enjoy life. So I'm realizing that I'm already at a disadvantage.

The thing is, I LOVED college. My degree is in architecture and the theories and practice of architecture are right up my alley. The reality of the practice of architecture is that no one cares about any theories and the practice really is about money. And that's just not all that sexy especially when very few people out there really appreciate it.

The market for construction/real estate/architecture is absolutely pathetic due to the economy. So I should be thankful that I have a job to begin with in this industry. But what is a job when your 50-60 hour work weeks are deemed a complete waste of time hammering out insignificant details for a client who could care less about what it actually takes to get it done? It's rather demoralizing.

I'm looking for the big three: quality of work, quality of workplace and quality of compensation. So far, I've found that all three are rather elusive. I've enjoyed quality of work and workplace - but got paid crap. I've enjoyed quality of compensation but the other two seem to not exist. Maybe this place I'm looking for is rather mythical. Probably riding around on a unicorn.

So I'm at a cross-roads in my career. I can either just bob along and do mediocre work because I don't really enjoy it anymore or I can explore some of my more passionate areas and see how that could pan out. But moving away from what I do now is a huge investment in time, energy, expense, education and ultimately starting over. It's a tough decision to make for day-to-day happiness.

I know that last line seems ridiculous to say - but I have obligations - a young family and wife who depend on me. To jet off to grad school isn't something that can easily accomplished without the sacrifice of my family (in their desires and goals to accommodate mine). So I have to be very careful about which whims are to be followed and why.

So I'm left frustrated and a bit lost. I believe that my interests lie in so many different areas, but one that I could single out as a "passion" is hard to pin down. At least not one that I could currently bet on as a successful career change. So I end up doing what I don't like to do and let the winds and the tide take me where it will without giving any self-direction.

I guess I'm looking for insight from anyone who may be reading this and can maybe help me see the forest through the trees. Read more! Read more!