HarryM's Blog

A Bit of Parochialism

2006-06-28T12:03:00.000-07:00

People I know straight down I-35 in Texas are fond of saying "How 'bout them Cowboys!"

Well, here at the northern end of the highway, I can't help but say: "Way to go, Twins!" The hottest team in baseball with at two of the starters absolutely on fire and the rest of the rotation doing great, the bullpen doing what it needs to, the closer Nathan as solid as always, the batting leader of all of baseball in Mauer, and superb fielding, management, and offense is a joy to watch.

Only the World Series year of 1991 had a better June. Mauer is flirting with .400. Wow!

I know this isn't super-important nor a question of ethics but:

It is a great thing to live in Twins Country right now!

An Ethical Sign

2006-06-26T08:52:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's New York Times (June 25, 2006) carried a long article about the $140 million that the then-head of NYSE wanted to pull out of his pension fund. It caused an uproar a while back and continues to be the subject of litigation.

While one could look at a man making many millions of dollars each year who charges bags of pretzels to his employer (as is the case here) and shake one's head, I read the article with increasing hope that the ethical part of the human race isn't gone but buried.

According to the author, while greed did win out, the man involved checked several times to see whether he could take the money. He talked to a lawyer who was also his friend. My belief, and my hope, is that these calls were the cries of his ethical, and indeed moral, nature calling out to a friend to tell him to stop. Would that he had!

Nonetheless, the suggestion that such an ethical concern raised itself amid all that money is, I think, a sign that an ethical ember still glows.

Just think what might happen were it fanned into flame!

The Problem with Eliminating Poverty

2006-06-23T12:41:00.000-07:00

I see that John Edwards has proposed eliminating poverty within the next three decades. He'll raise the minimum wage and give other incentives to the poor. A laudable goal.

There is, however, a catch. Included in his plan is that the poor must work. Another laudable goal but this one has a problem attached. As this country continues to bleed the employed and to eliminate, outsourcing, or off-shore more and more jobs, the possibility of getting a job diminishes daily as the number of jobs shrinks.

It would be interesting if an appeal to patriotism included a call to employers and shareholders to keep good-paying jobs here in the long-term interest of the country instead of the short-term interest of quarterly stock gains.

It would be more ethical, too.

The Sky Remains Intact

2006-06-19T09:32:00.000-07:00

Can we all please come in off the ledge?

Bill Gates, who hasn't written code in a very long time, has said that he'll reduce his role in running Microsoft in a couple of years. He's not closing the doors on a one-man show. He's not leaving the company. He's not even resigning as chairman. He's just said he'll spend more time on charitable work than before.

Like any large company, no one person is doing all the heavy lifting. If he retired to his island fortress this afternoon, both Microsoft and the world would continue intact. But, like all large American companies of the past few decades, the business press has created a cult of personality at Microsoft such that you'd think the apocolypse had arrived again. The same arrival occurred when Jack Welsh left GE, Greenspan the Fed, and, I presume, Digrasso NYSE.

Geez, people, get a grip!

Just Wondering

2006-06-15T14:23:00.000-07:00

In today's mail was a form from the federal government. Nothing bad so don't worry. A friend is applying for a job and used me as a reference. The form is asking for my input.

At the top of the form it says "DUE TO AUTOMATION PROCESSING, DUPLICATE INQUIRIES MAY BE RECEIVED (n.b.: All caps on the form, too)." The way I read this, automation causes duplication so, done by hand, I'd only get one. I'd also note that there are no instructions about what to do if a duplicate arrives. Answer it? Toss it? Shred it?

Near the bottom of the page is an area titled "THIS PERSON CLAIMED THE FOLLOWING." In that section is "YEARS KNOWN: 00." If I've known this person for zero time, isn't this a stranger? Can I know someone for zero time?

Is this the best we can do?

Just Wondering.

Fascination

2006-06-13T11:47:00.000-07:00

People fascinate me. We look at the same thing and have radically different visions. Research shows that eyewitness testimony to a crime is unbelievably unreliable because of this phenomenon.

A couple of cases to this point:

A building at my alma mater, a building that pre-dates the institution, was gutted by fire last night. According to the report I read the fire was called in by homeowners some distance from the campus who smelled smoke. I have to ask what those on campus thought that smell was.

The quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers must have seen all those reports of athletes suffering career-ending injuries while riding motorcycles. Some of them saw a cautionary tale. He just spent several hours in surgery. What did he see when those reports aired?

Of course we could go into much more important issues and ask similar questions. I won't except to wonder, in those instances, whether some of us, sometimes, aren't seeing only what we want to see and dismissing all else.

I'll wonder at the wisdom of that for a long time.

The Real Message is Harder

2006-06-09T12:30:00.000-07:00

I see that the California Republican Party claims that the chairman of the party is... God!
The President says that God is on our side; the terrorists make the same claim.
There's a war on Christmas, Christians, Islam, marriage, and every interest group you can imagine.

I'm Catholic so I have some understanding of the Christian message and, by extension, the Old Testament foundations of Judaism. I claim only the most cursory idea of Islam and nearly nothing of the other faiths of the world. I can, however, say with confidence that none of these faiths nor their gods is tailored to a political party of any stripe.

The central concept, as I understand it, of the major religions is to love and care for others, especially the outcast and disadvantaged. That message is hard since we're all selfish and egotistical. Our presentation of our beliefs slides easily to I'm right, you're wrong and I'll convert you (or legislate my beliefs). Sometimes the words of faith are used to mask selfish acts. One web site recently said that it was God's will to make permanent the President's tax cuts. Really?

I cannot find a political party, in any guise in any country, that completely and fully embraces the loving and caring message that so many holy books proclaim. I belong to the party that I think comes closest but I'm open to others making different choices for the same reason.

Let's let God stay out of party politics to the extent that we elect accountable humans to the chairs lest the hubris of claiming a divine chair leads to an unpleasant accounting in the future.

Are Computers and Government Compatible?

2006-06-08T13:56:00.000-07:00

Just a short post with a couple of questions.

First the Department of Veterans Affairs loses a laptop and external drive with millions of records.

Now the I.R.S. has lost a laptop with hundreds of records on it because an employee checked it on a flight to a job fair.

Does any sane person check a computer?

Did the government ever lose a filing cabinet? Maybe computers and government are incompatible.

OR maybe when too much information is collected for no good reason it loses importance to those collecting it.

Just asking.

I'll Volunteer

2006-06-06T09:07:00.000-07:00

I've heard and read a lot in the past day or so about the Center for Public Integrity study on Congressional travel.

I'm not going to point out the incredible number of first class trips to first class places nor the average of nearly a month per member of travel each year for five and a half years. My place is not to judge.

Rather I'll focus on the "defense of these trips by the sponsoring organizations. They say that it is an opportunity for lawmakers to discuss issues in, according to the Washington Post, "a relaxed setting." The Post further quotes a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads as saying that, in Washington, the members are "too busy" to talk. Apparently the organizations need to talk and, under normal circumstances, there's no one to talk with.

O.K., I get it and I'll do my part. The lawmakers are too busy to talk and they've got a country to run. I'll squeeze time out of my schedule to go to Paris, Hawaii, and Italy so the organizations can talk. Think of me as a sort of organizational therapist. They'll talk, I'll listen, they'll pay. Since corporations are persons it might even qualify under the executive health plan.

This dirt job that someone has to do is one that I'll volunteer for as my patriotic duty.

First in an Intermittent Series

2006-05-31T12:58:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while I need to vent about some old saying about which I'm tired. Here's the first one:

"Money can't buy happiness."

Why is it that I've never heard that from a poor person? Of course money alone can't buy happiness but it doesn't follow that happiness and poverty go arm in arm. The freedom from worry and want is as close to happiness as most people can imagine. They'd take it. They don't dream of the pointless excesses that the wildly rich seem to see as their due.

Oh, and by the way, if money is such a burden there is a solution. Get rid of it. Give it to the charities of your choice. Throw it out the window. "Sell all you have and give it to the poor."

Becoming poor if you're rich is much easier than becoming rich if you're poor.

So, in my hearing at any rate, retire the saying. Just admit that you've got yours, plan to keep it, and might just be saying to hell with everyone else.

Cynical or Real?

2006-05-30T08:59:00.000-07:00

For generations we Americans have said that we're beacons of democracy. The current rationale for the war in Iraq is the spreading of democracy. Here at home, however, laws are being proposed and, in some cases passed, that have the effect of supressing the number of eligible voters who will be able to register and, in some cases, registered voters who will be allowed to continue to vote. These laws target the poor and/or elderly voters and the groups, like the League of Women Voters, who toil to register them.

That doesn't look or smell democratic. Rather it both looks and smells anti-Democratic. Lily Tomlin was inspired when she said that no matter how cynical [you] become it is hard to keep up. Parents who are alcoholics or who take drugs have a hard time preaching the evils of the same to their children. Behavior counts for more than words.

Our biggest and best tool for spreading democracy abroad would be to spread it at home.

Maybe I'm just cynical.

What Makes an Expert?

2006-05-23T14:18:00.000-07:00

This is just a short post with something that's been bothering me all day.

This morning I saw an interview with a woman author who has an article in a current magazine on successful blind dating for women. Her qualification, proudly stated, is that she's been blind dating for more than twenty years.

Doesn't that make her a failure? It seems to me that a success would be a few blind dates (at most) and a long-term relationship.

Just asking.

Legislate What You Can't Sell

2006-05-22T13:13:00.000-07:00

This past week end the Minnesota legislature passed a bill funding a new Twins stadium with a sales tax increase for those in Hennepin county and exempting that increase from a legally required referendum.

That got me thinking. Why do so many groups want to legislate what they can't sell? Can't sell the new ballpark? Legislate it with an exemption! Can't convince people that abortion is wrong? Make it illegal! Don't want contraception even within a marriage? Pass a law! (Yes, Virginia, there is such a movement to overturn Griswold and they're gaining traction.) Got a problem with same-sex marriage? Get a constitutional amendment! I could go on.

Of course the vast majority is at odds with each of these proposals according to numerous polls.

The Constitution starts: "We the People..." Isn't it too bad that legislators have forgotten who their employers are? Isn't it too bad that their employers have, too?

Wanted: Adults as Legislators

2006-05-19T10:56:00.000-07:00

I see that we've had an exchange between Senators Feingold and Spector that included the "See ya" and "Good riddance" debate points. I spent eleven years teaching high school and never saw debate at this level. My students left that kind of discussion in either primary or middle school depending on their maturity.

I'd like legislators to act like role models rather than petulant children both so that real children will consider elected office and so that the perception of our legislative bodies rises above that of a school yard. I've seen more reasoned exchanges in telephoned text messages.

Please note that the castigated exchange is between a Republican and a Democrat so I'm not playing favorites. Please also note that if this were just an isolated incident it would be funny. It is, rather, the norm and that, sadly, demeans the body in which it occurred.

I want adult legislators. I want to agree with their positions on issues too but I want adults. Please?

Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees

2006-05-18T12:47:00.000-07:00

Today is an unusual day for this spring in Minnesota. The sun is out (we've had so much rain that I've thought about a trip to Arnie's Used Ark Emporium), the temperature is north of 65, and there's a light, pleasant breeze.

I just got back from running an errand and the mass of drivers on the road, who could be driving the limit and enjoying the trip before the insanity of rush hour begins, were hurrying about as though every moment that they "wasted" in this unbelievable weather cost humanity irrecoverably. Darting in and out, moving five miles to go one mile, speeding, cursing, they were all just generally wasting the potential of a beautiful experience in the Midwestern sun.

Which, I wonder, is the greater waste: an extra few relaxing moments in the pleasant weather with the window down or the expense of energy, both physical and spiritual, is rushing to something that will be forgotten by the trip home?

Maybe I Was a Day Early

2006-05-17T12:09:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I wrote about being tired of a lot of things. Maybe I was a day early.

How's this for irony. Today, the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the papers carry a story of a case in which the N.A.A.C.P. is suing over an Omaha plan for racially identifiable school districts.

My first thought was, admittedly, Omaha? But then I remembered that the Board in question more than fifty years ago was Topeka.

When will we understand that the only way we'll ever get along is if we get to know one another. The problem with gating ourselves away isn't that we keep others out but that we keep ourselves in. We suspect most that (or those) that we do not know. That (or those) that we know we do not suspect of misdeeds rather we know.

Like I said, I'm tired of fighting the same battles again and again.

From the Perspective of the No-Longer-Young

2006-05-16T09:41:00.000-07:00

Perhaps as a result of getting older, I'm getting tired.

Tired of the general aches and pains of life, yes, but also tired of:

fighting the same battles every day and, seemingly, making no headway.

fighting battles again that I thought had been already won or lost.

fighting deceit and seeing it gain daily.

watching injustice grow and concern about that fact diminish.

hearing the constant screech that the victim is always at fault.

continuing to "rage against the dying of the light" but watching it die anyway.

weeks of overcast days with little relief.

watching real problems go unaddressed while the focus grows on things that matter little, if at all.

Maybe I'm just no longer young, but I'm tired. Could I get a new set of problems, please?

Immigration: The Long Term Approach?

2006-05-15T08:29:00.000-07:00

I think I've figured out the administration's long term approach to the immigration issue and I'm impressed. Now stay with me:

The Energy Department is trying to force contractors away from guaranteed pensions in order to save money. The Congress is looking to block the plan. Now over the past twenty-five years or so, the idea that labor costs at all but the highest levels should be cut and re-cut has become business gospel and the Energy Department is merely jumping on the bandwagon. The trickle-down theory has proven to be a swollen-river up theory instead.

How does this reveal a crafty, subtle, and sure-fire immigration plan? Simple!

If we can only make the jobs here less desirable than those on the other side of the border by slashing wages and benefits and maybe even locking people in to work completely off the clock, then we can reverse the flow. I see massive numbers of Skips and Buffys (Buffies?) slipping over the border in search of a better life.

Perhaps it'll be the border with Canada where the government still seems to feel some obligation to the citizens as well as to business. How backward and quaint!

In either case, immigration problem solved. Crafty, guys, crafty.

An Immodest Proposal

2006-05-10T14:09:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of furor of late about immigration especially illegal immigration. Should we prepare a path to citizenship? Should we have guest-worker programs? Should we arrest them and send them packing? I have a question and an Immodest Proposal.

First the question. What should we do with those who change allegiance from the U.S. to another place? In other words, are those who choose citizenship in another country traitors? Do they retain the rights of citizenship they gave up?

Now a few points and a brief proposal.

Corporations are, legally, "persons."

Many corporations have re-incorporated in other places like the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas.

That re-incorporation would seem to make the corporate "persons" citizens of those places and no longer citizens of the U.S.

The illegal immigrants at the center of the current sturm und drang largely have jobs and pay taxes.

The corporate expatriates do so to avoid taxes and other obligations but want all the benefits of U.S. "citizenship" and more.

The Proposal? Let's treat everyone the same. I want foreign corporate green cards or they're illegal immigrants, too.

Those with jobs who pay taxes should have, and take, a path to citizenship after appropriate penalties for the broken law(s). Those who don't want the obligations, taxes included, are deadbeats and we should show all such "persons" the gate.

Perhaps the one in that proposed fence?

A Puzzlement

2006-05-08T09:06:00.000-07:00

The King in The King and I refers to things that he doesn't understand as "puzzlements." I was reminded of one of my own puzzlements this past weekend.

I attended a session at my church which was, in part, a report on a membership survey. One item thrown out with notably little comment and no reaction was that across the nation the higher the income the lower the amount given. Since my church is in a high income area our giving is low. In fact, and a slight murmur went through the crowd at this, our giving is lower than the pitifully low national average for our denomination. It is, in fact, 60% of that average (0.72% as opposed to 1.2% of income).

Here's the general puzzlement. Why do those without give more than those with? It isn't denominational. It isn't religious. It is across the board in the U.S. Could it be because those without are all too familiar with need while those with are too familiar with accumulation?

It is a puzzlement!

Signing Statements for the Masses

2006-05-05T08:52:00.000-07:00

Since Ronald Reagan presidents have used something called a signing statement to clarify their understanding of the bills that they sign into law. This morning's New York Times points out that the current President Bush has used them in place of the veto to declare his intention to ignore that which he has signed.

I think that we ought to adopt this policy for all. When we sign mortgage papers, credit card bills, car purchases or leases let's include a signing statement to the effect that we do not feel bound by the requirement to pay and that we expect nothing to happen as a result of this action. The car, house, whatever is ours! No money down, no money ever!

If George can do it, why can't we?

Just a thought...

Doing Right Instead of Being Right

2006-05-04T08:53:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports that the governor of Mississippi will not grant a posthumous pardon to Clyde Kennard even though the governor admits that Kennard was wrongly accused and convicted of inciting another man to steal chicken feed (not something small, real chicken feed). He was trying to integrate the local college and, in that time and place, that was a capital offense for a black man and Kennard was black. There were also plans to kill him but imprisonment of a year for every $3.57 worth of feed was, apparently, preferable.

The governor will not give a reason for his decision other than a spokesman's statement that the governor hasn't issued any pardons and won't start now.

It hardly seems ethical to me (much less moral) to not do the right thing in the interest of showing that you were never wrong. It wasn't the present governor who made the decision to imprison Kennard but it is his decision to keep Kennard's reputation behind bars and, incidentally, do no good to that of his state just so he can say in his re-election campaign that he's so tough on crime that he's never issued a pardon (even for a deceased, innocent man).

Isn't doing right important anymore? Are people to be condemned for making changing based on new information? When did rigidity become a virtue?

I have certainly changed in the last fifty years. I wish that the governor of Mississippi (and many others) would proudly make the same claim.

The First Amendment Protects Idiots, Too

2006-04-28T12:36:00.000-07:00

A lot of press was devoted recently to the research done by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum called "Americans' Awareness of First Amendment Freedoms." The part that got play was that while 22% could name all five of the primary characters in the Simpsons only 1/10% (.001) could name all five First Amendment freedoms.

While I find that distressing, I'm appalled at some other points in the survey:

21% believe that the First Amendment guarantees the right to own and raise pets.

17% believe that the First Amendment guarantees the right to drive a car.

38% believe that the First Amendment guarantees the right to "take the Fifth Amendment."

Now I can excuse a lot but anyone who believes that the Fifth Amendment is a First Amendment right is, in the words of Rebecca Howe on Cheers, "too stupid to live."

Then I have to remind myself that the constitution protects idiots, too.

Keep the faith...

Phone Surveys

2006-04-27T11:05:00.000-07:00

I got a call last night from one of those election cycle survey groups. It took a lot longer than it needed to.

It was obvious that this was about the likely candidates in our upcoming Senate race in Minnesota. I know who I like and who I detest. I could have dealt with the survey in thirty seconds. I could have answered each question in a heartbeat. I wasn't allowed either choice. "I need to read the entire question, sir!" And with a haughty tone to boot.

So on we trudged. Question after question was asked and answered for nearly twenty minutes. We need a survey option at the top of these things like:

"I'm firmly in favor of Candidate X. Nothing you can spin will dissuade me from what you might think is my idiotic position. I'm hopelessly lost to you. If you take any more of my time I'm likely to volunteer more of my time than you can imagine to defeat your candidate. Have a nice day!"

The Gutting of Ethics Reform

2006-04-26T14:53:00.000-07:00

When I was a classroom teacher I wouldn't have given a moment's thought to accepting lavish gifts from my students' parents. The appearance of impropriety would have been enough to cause the well-deserved loss of my job and license.

Now I read that the ethics reform bills have been gutted so that lavish parties and private jets are acceptable behavior under the rules.

Come on! Even if one granted that no improper behavior or influence would occur as a result, those in the public eye are called to a higher standard where the appearance or likelihood of impropriety needs to be avoided with the same energy as actual misdeeds.

We call it the Public Trust for a reason. The public must trust that their interests are central.

Gutting a bill that was already fairly weak is not the answer.

Three Random Thoughts

2006-04-25T12:32:00.000-07:00

I just want to share three thoughts I had:

1. I heard a radio ad for a portable GPS system called the Tom Tom. According to the copy a friendly voice helps me with directions. The example they play is "You are now at your destination." If I need a machine to tell me that I've gotten where I wanted to go, don't I have larger problems?

2. I heard another radio discussion. The question was whether there were states of "nudidity." It occurred to me that I may be attracting less attention now than thirty-plus years ago because all potential dates see is "oldidity."

3. The New York Times (among others) reports today that Airbus is promoting a standing room section on planes where the passengers would be harnessed to a padded board. I used to excuse passenger behavior by saying that if you treat people like cattle they'll act like cattle. I suppose now that they'll put people on pallets the excuse will be if you treat people like freight...

Cosmic Alignment

2006-04-21T09:36:00.000-07:00

God's sense of humor continues to amaze me.

According to the news today:

The F.D.A. dismissed the medical benefits of marijuana even though that conclusion contradicts a 1999 scientific review.
Stephon Marbury says that the New York Knicks are "a really good team." This after finishing the season 23-59.
Today, April 21, is the anniversary of Mark Twain's death.

I think that Twain would have roared at either of these reports.

I think God did. Jesus might have wept.

Caring for the Wrong Babies

2006-04-20T09:29:00.000-07:00

Cruise and Holmes, Pitt and Jolie, the Trumps all have or are about to have babies. Good for them and health and happiness to all. Let's be clear,though. I don't care.

There is a photographic bounty (what else can one call it?) on the newest of these babies and speculation that while the Cruise/Holmes child's first picture will bring $1,000,000, the Pitt/Jolie child's might bring more. I wouldn't even notice if millions of other children weren't left in want. By the way, I don't blame the celebrities, photographers, or the press. I blame those of us who wait breathlessly for the pictures, looking at the shows, magazines, and papers they're in like Holy Writ. As Pogo used to say: "We have met the enemy and they are us."

How many children were born into want on the same days as these babies? Are we, as individuals or a society, doing anything more than blissfully ignoring them and their parents? Is that either ethical or moral?

Imagine what could be done if just the price of the fan magazines and tabloids we purchase about the baby boom were directed to those needy children instead. Hey, we'd still see the baby pictures on Entertainment Tonight!

Is there ever enough?

2006-04-19T11:59:00.000-07:00

I read in the New York Times that the average pay for the now-departed chief of Exxon was a bit over $144,000 a day. At what point does an ethical individual say: "Enough!"?

Shareholders, employees (laid off and otherwise), customers, clerics, legislators, et al. seem to have largely resigned themselves to the unbridled engorgement of the few at the expense, and to the detriment, of the many. Are we to believe that compensation at this level has no impact on the wages of the average employee, the price of goods and services, and the economy at large? Comparing this compensation to a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour shows that this one man made the same amount in an average year as just under 5000 minimum wage workers. Is anyone worth that?

Too much separation between the top and the bottom is not only unethical and immoral but ultimately counterproductive. If those at the top have no common experience with those at the bottom, they can't have much understanding either. Remember the incident when Bush pere discovered the grocery scanner?

Concentration may be OK in orange juice but it is absolutely un-American in money and power!

Aloneness and Loneliness

2006-04-17T11:42:00.000-07:00

Easter weekend made me think about the difference between being alone and being lonely.

There's an old saw that you can be alone without being lonely. True. Also, someone who's always lonely when alone has a problem. True.

What some folks derive from these sayings is that anyone who's ever lonely has a problem. FALSE!

I realized this weekend that sometimes circumstances beyond one's control make one alone when one doesn't want to be alone and loneliness is the inevitable result. One is not always in control of any part of life including whether one is sailing through that life solo or not.

The loneliness passes; the aloneness doesn't. In the end we learn to deal with the latter and to endure the former as long as it happens infrequently and briefly. What in unendurable is the foolish suggestions from those who are not lonely that something is wrong with those who are.

A Word on Loyalty

2006-04-14T15:10:00.000-07:00

I hear a lot of whining about the lack of employee loyalty these days. It seems to me that loyalty is, and ought to be, a two-way street. You watch my six and I'll watch yours. The minute that I'm on my own I must tend to my own issues and abandon some of my concern for yours.

This "lack of employee loyalty" is the inevitable result of downsizing, outsourcing, reduced or eliminated benefits, flat pay (in real terms), et al. while the boardroom flourishes. Tripling the gap from 50 times to 170 times average pay for executives without regard to their performance broke the company to employee loyalty path. Told that they were on their own employees began to act like it. It can be no surprise when company loyalty is an early victim.

The necessary attitudinal change appears to be beyond the horizon.

I hope I'm wrong.

The Ethical Social Contract

2006-04-11T08:58:00.000-07:00

There've been stories in the press of late lamenting the lack of loyalty from workers to the corporations for whom they work. There have been few mentions of the lack of loyalty from the corporation to the employee.

It seems to me that the old contract wherein at least five sides had ownership (see diagram) has been shredded. Corporations tell vendors where to buy or manufacture goods. They tell government that any regulation or disclosure is bad. They tell employees that, while pay and benefits must be slashed and jobs eliminated, they should look out for themselves. Shareholders see their values diminished by rapacious executives. Society is the worse for all of this.

Aren't we all better off when employees are well paid so that they can buy goods and pay taxes, shareholders value is looked after, vendors mind their own businesses, government sets boundaries, and corporations prosper? Take any one out of the equation and disaster looms.

Doing what's right is ethical. Looking out only for number one is nearly always not.

Ethics and Easter

2006-04-10T12:09:00.000-07:00

One of the things that I do for a living is speak on ethics so it shouldn't come as a surprise that this week before Easter makes me even more aware than usual of the ethical "state of the union."

I suppose that you might expect me to vent now about the state of ethics in politics. I could but it seems to much like shooting fish in a barrel to write about DeLay, Cunningham, et al. and their increasing claims to piety as more is revealed.

No, what made me think of this topic was the report in yesterday's New York Times on executive compensation and the increasing gap between the executive suites and the shop floor. I'd pose the question of whether it is ethical to spike one's own income by eliminating thousands of jobs and reducing the income and benefits of thousands more but the answer is a self-evident and resounding NO.

I once heard that when Andy MacPhail was with the Minnesota Twins and negotiating a contract he said that he understood needing to provide for one's family but for how many generations? The amounts made by athletes pale when compared with the numbers in yesterday's Times and athletes and their salaries are connected to performance while, according to the Times, executives are getting bonuses even while augering their companies into the ground.

Ethics and business are linked. One either leads an ethical life or not. One cannot be personally ethical while committing ethical atrocities at work.

I can only hope that, should they find themselves at a sermon this weekend dealing with a great and selfless sacrifice, these executives not only fell shame but set about correcting the behavior.

Sharing the Burden

2006-04-07T14:11:00.000-07:00

Question: What do you have when only one rider is pedaling on a tandem bike?
Answer: It depends on your point of view. One person has a burden; the other a free ride.

What brought this on? I read about a website that tracks executive pensions (http://www.paywatch.org). Many of the same companies that are slashing workers and eliminating defined-benefit pensions under the notion that they must to stay in business or that workers "should" provide for themselves fund "top-hat" pensions for their executives that guarantee annual pension income in the millions of dollars.

This is neither fair nor just. It is, in fact, reprehensible. Put those ideas aside, though, and the shared burden argument remains. How can one justify these exorbitant amounts for a small group while destroying the lives of those who rely on that money to live? Since the "top-hat" pensions are often not tied to performance it can't be that these people are needed for the company to survive. They get the money no matter what.

The simple answer? They're taking it because they can. Is that a moral stance? Is it an ethical one?

If you need to think about your answers, you're probably part of the problem.

So where've I been?

2006-04-05T14:12:00.000-07:00

I've been busy, pre-occupied, and had potential topics wash over me tsunami-like.
Politics local and not, religion, culture or the lack of it, mankind and the bottomlessness of the contempt it has for itself barely scratch the surface of what's crossed my mind as potential topics.

Just when I'm about to vent about the public frenzy over the Vikings "Love Boat" scandal (Is this really so important that it requires all this attention?) then Whoosh here comes some souless indicted public figure wrapping Jesus around him like armor and decrying a "war on Christianity." (By whom? Christians are the majority!)

Whoosh again! Breaking news! Anna Nicole Smith at the Supreme Court! (Who cares other than Ms Smith and her late husbands son? Oh, yeah, all those lawyers!) Whoosh! More breaking news! An hour report! Still nothing new on Natalie Holloway! (When did the absence of news become news?)

And on and on (whoosh, whoosh, whoosh) ad nauseum. I couldn't choose.

Well, discipline is a virtue and I pledge to give it a try.

I'll try to pick topics on a regular basis. I'll try to write about them. If I can just get this whooshing sound out of my ears!

Responsibility

2005-09-16T11:53:00.000-07:00

I'm sure that you have been watching the appalling Gulf Coast coverage and the abysmal response to human suffering as I have.

It seems to me that in today's world "Taking Responsibility" really means "Taking Credit" coupled with "Shifting Blame." I wouldn't care less about any of this if I hadn't seen the resultant floating corpses. If we are to believe that an era of responsibility rose like a new moon in 2000, then someone had better step up to the plate and say "I screwed up. I'm responsible for part of this calamity and here's what I did wrong."

In my opinion anyone who does that, of any political stripe, without a concurrent chorus of "but here's why it isn't my fault" will find unbelievable support arising from the honesty.

By the way, that last bit isn't restricted to Katrina.

A Metaphysical Physical Question

2005-08-15T09:05:00.000-07:00

Last night on the local weathercast the wind was listed as "N 0." How can something that isn't moving have a direction?

Maybe the question has larger implications than windspeed and direction.

Christianity as a Club

2005-07-22T11:35:00.000-07:00

If you read yesterday's posting you already know that I'm Catholic. I'm also tired of people using Christianity as a club.

Whenever someone wants to beat up on the poor or the downtrodden, whenever someone wants to justify some outlandish action like torture, capital punishment, or a war, that someone wraps himself in a Christian cloak by spouting Bible verses. I have a question.

Why are those verses always the most vengeful Old Testament verses and not loving New Testament ones? Is it because Christ preached peace, brotherhood, and help for the unfortunate? Is it because vengeance is hard to find in the Gospels? Is it because clinging to the Word is easier than living it?

Just asking.

Push has Come to Shove

2005-07-21T13:16:00.000-07:00

I'm Catholic. I have been since birth. I'm no automaton, though, and now the Church is at a fork in the road.

For decades the Catholic Church and the Democratic party were in synch on social issues. These two entities joined forces for labor, poverty, and other issues. They worked together against capital punishment. They worked together for peace and equitable living standards. Then they parted ways over a single issue: abortion.

The Church "went Republican." The party whose positions on so many issues were (and are) anathema became an ally for a single cause. What has the Church gotten for this? Nothing!

Promises have been made but in the nearly twenty-five years that Republicans have essentially held power there hasn't been even one serious attempt to deliver. In the nearly fifty years of the Democratic-Church alliance a lot got done and more was attempted.

Here's the fork in the road. Either the Church needs to hold Republican feet to the fire and demand action on that issue (and change on many others) or they need to return to the Democratic fold and try to sway that party on a single issue (or agree to disagree).

It doesn't much matter which course the Church follows. The current course, however, gets it nothing in return for loyalty. We're at the fork in the road. Time to choose a tine.

The Warmth of the Coverup

2005-07-20T08:23:00.000-07:00

Here in Minnesota we're experts on coverups. We coverup before we go out for six months of the year and each of us has had the experience of waking up on a January night with a foot that has lost the coverup.

I say all this to establish my coverup credentials.

Now I see that we are in the midst of another Washington coverup. This time Karl Rove and others may have broken the law in revealing the name of a C.I.A. undercover operative. The coverup of who did what, when, and with whom is in full swing. But the details hardly matter. It could as easily be illicit sex in the Oval Office, bugging the opposing party's headquarters, or oil leases at Teapot Dome.

It seems to me that the air in Washington must contain a chemical that keeps the residents from learning lessons so here's some remedial education: THE COVERUP IS ALWAYS WORSE!

No one will remember the outing of the C.I.A. operative in the long run. They'll remember the futile attempts at covering up. THEY"RE ALWAYS FUTILE! We remember the Senate hearings ("What did the President know and when did he know it?"), the denials ("I never had sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky."), and the person who ultimately provides the crucial information that breaks everything open ("I told the President that there was a cancer...").

Like a bandage these things are better dealt with swiftly. The coverup is always more damaging. The heat is always greater than with a quick confession.

I said it before. Here in Minnesota we understand the warmth of the coverup. Perhaps Washington will soon learn the lesson again. I hope it sticks this time.

Sorry I've been away

2005-07-19T14:38:00.000-07:00

I haven't written in a while because:

A. I've been busy.

B. I couldn't think of anything to write when I had the time.

Well, that ship has sailed. I've got at least three things I want to write about and I'm posting them (hopefully) each of the next three days.

He's baaaack.

The Backbone of Objectivity

2005-06-21T08:08:00.000-07:00

There's been a flap of late at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which is the umbrella for PBS and NPR. The gist of it is that old complaint about a lack of objectivity, a liberal bias. The broadcast networks caved in some time ago to the current belief that objectivity requires representatives from both sides and the "news" person simply acts as a referee to make sure that the segment doesn't go long. I suppose that this would mean any discussion of Christianity would require a Satanist representative.

I looked up the word objectivity and found it defined as judgment based on observation with emotion and prejudice excluded. In other words, objective reporting would be a seeking of the truth. That's good old-fashioned journalism rather than partisanship masquerading as fairness or semi-equal time disguised as balance.

Reasoned discourse, the partisan handmaid of objectivity, has also disappeared as "debate" has degenerated into name-calling where the least polite, loudest bully who shouts over his opponent gloats about "winning the argument" as though it were some gladitorial event.

The country suffers when truth is a victim and those charged with seeking it are more concerned with currying favor with the powerful and the elite than with doing their constitutionally-protected jobs.

The Daddy Dichotomy

2005-06-20T11:53:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Father's Day. It got me thinking about the Daddy Dichotomy. We're constantly told that we need to be a greater part of the family life, do more housework, spend more time with our children, focus more on our marriages. Laudable goals all.

At the same time, we're told that we're worthless. Look at the Op-Ed piece called "The Doofus Dad" by John Tierney in this morning's New York Times for a starting point, look at the phone call statistics (most calls: Mother's Day, most collect calls: Father's Day), look around. How can a group so out of touch, so stupid, so infantile be important? How, indeed can they function?

I began thinking about this dichotomy of perspective, of treatment, of value a few years ago at my church when, after a typical sentimental Mother's Day blessing of all the mothers present in May, the Father's Day blessing in June included "Lord give all these men the strength to stop abusing their wives." The implied assumption that we were all abusers and, therefore, less than worthless, was offensive to me ( and a very few others) but taken in stride by the congregation as a whole. Are we vital to our families but all abusers, too? What is a vital abuser?

So let it be stated here first:

We all have worth. No one (and no group) is inherently worth more than anyone else.
We all, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender are dofuses (dofi?) at times.
Despite that, we all deserve respect.
Every member of a family should contribute to the family's success in individual ways.

Let's each value the others in our lives and make sure they know it.

Just a Thought...

2005-06-17T14:13:00.000-07:00

I live in Minnesota. As I write this I look at the ways in which Congress is at a standstill while we may experience the first state-wide governmental shutdown for fiscal reasons in state history. Why? In both cases, I think, because some members of these bodies decided that compromise was a dirty word and that victory, both for their point of view and in the next election, trumps doing what is good for the populations concerned.

Scandal is rife in the land from Washington, D.C. to local governments and, as long as the accused is a member of the elite, it goes unpunished and even uninvestigated. Each day seems to bring new idiocy to light that makes all before it pale.

We keep hearing about the differing interpretations of the Constitutions involved. Dissent, despite the views of some, is a healthy, even necessary, ingredient of democracy so I honor any reasonable interpretation. Constitutional differences won't resolve themselves any quicker than ideological ones.

So, I have a thought. Legislators! Put down the Constitution(s)! Take a moment to re-read the Declaration of Independence. Read the complaints against the King and invert them. In other words take each complaint (a don't) and reverse it to determine a desired act (a do).

Are you and your fellow legislators more closely described by the list of do's or the list of don'ts?

What should you do about that?

Please do it!

A Question of Ethics

2005-06-14T08:51:00.000-07:00

People who know that I speak on ethics often want to talk about ethics when we're in a social setting. I enjoy that because I'm passionate about the subject. I enjoy the discussion. I enjoy the challenge. I enjoy the questions.

I hate the whining!

"Doing the ethical thing would cost me the job/contract/whatever." "Ethics has no place in business." "Ethics is hard!" I could write a book -- a thick book -- with all the whines I've heard.

If living ethically were easy, there'd be nothing to talk about. Everyone would be ethical. The easy life is the unethical one. The life where one can do as one pleases and damn the consequences, to hell with the impact on others, screw the implications of right and wrong, look out for number one and others are just a pile of number two is the easy life to live because the only impact of concern is the impact on oneself.

This always presumes that there are no mirrors at home.

Ethics, like morals, is met at the hard choices. Where the easy, profitable, feel-good choices are the unethical ones are the places where ethics are tested. Make the ethical choice and one is ethical; choose otherwise and one is not. It really is that simple.

The Importance of Truth Redux

2005-06-13T12:33:00.000-07:00

Just this morning I back away from a project for ethical reasons. Those who think that I'm going to denigrate the folks involved in the project should look elsewhere for their thrills. People make their own decisions and I respect all decisions ethically made.

My problem is where truth is given a holiday. When I accepted the project, I stated two possible reservations. I was assured that neither circumstance was true in this case. I firmly believe that those who told me that were passing on information they'd been given. When the orientation started, however, one, and maybe both, conditions were so.

I spent half a day and some funds to find out that a lie got me there. Wouldn't everyone have been spared a lot if the truth had been told by everyone all along? Are we so used to people selling out their principles that we assume everyone will do so?

Isn't the truth easier?

Capitol Sale/Garage Sale - What's the difference?

2005-05-27T08:40:00.000-07:00

According to this morning's New York Times, several past and present members of the Tennessee legislature have been indicted for corruption. The most prominent person indicted is accused of extorting $55,000 from a bogus company set up by the F.B.I.

At a news conference announcing the indictments, U.S. Attorney Terrell L. Harris said: "Government is not for sale."

Who's he kidding?

The question isn't whether government is for sale but why it sells at garage sale prices. Every time that indictments like these are announced the amounts that the politicians got are paltry in comparison with what they're giving away. Often billions are sold for thousands. I'd like honest office holders who never take a bribe, never extort, never trade government contracts for cash or favors. If I can't have that, I'd like intelligent ones who get value for their thievery.

I've no idea which of the many allegations I hear about each year are true and which aren't. I assume that some are true and some aren't. But come on! Sometimes huge contracts go for the price of a small vacation. Have these people such low self-worth that they think what they deliver is worth a few mils on the dollar?

Someone once said that an honest politician is one who, when bought, stays bought. I'm afraid that I can find some quite powerful pols at garage sales this Saturday next to the warped Tupperware.

The Importance of Truth

2005-05-25T14:00:00.000-07:00

I'm tired of the gap between what what people say and what they believe. Want some examples? No problem.

The New York Times recently reported that for yet another year the level of charitable giving is highest from the lowest earners and lowest from the highest earners. This is at odds with their public face and the presumptions behind many governmental decisions.

Governmental programs that have names diametrically opposed to what they do.
Business contacts who say that they have my best interests at heart just before they shaft me.
Entities that claim good citizenship and patriotism as they overcharge the government, avoid taxes, and hide funds in offshore accounts.
Moral arbiters who preach most against that which they are later discovered to be doing themselves (the "Methinks he doth protest too much" crew).

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't do what they want. I'm not trying to curb free speech. I just want people to have the cojones to say what they mean.

If one isn't willing to proclaim one's intentions, it suggests that one is ashamed of them, doesn't it?

Values

2005-05-24T11:45:00.000-07:00

I'm tired of being told that because I'm not on the far right I have no values. I have values. They're different values and they include, but aren't limited to:

Respect for the environment.
Respect for all human beings including those with whom I disagree.
Concern for the poor.
Belief in life after birth.

It isn't hard to respect people who share one's values. The difficulty is in respecting other values.

So get off my back! I'll listen to you provided you'll listen to me. My belief is that we can find more common ground than might seem possible. The key is we both need to look for it.

Or do you just want to rule?