Andy G. Pennington’s book came highly recommended and I was eager to get my hands on it. I had to send for it through the wonderful “SWAN” library system here in Illinois, where with a few keystrokes and a mouse click I have access to more than 30 libraries as if they were all my own.
There’s a lot of good stuff in the book. Really. It talks about pursuit of the best, accountability, admitting your mistakes, turning vision into action, creating behaviors that demonstrate values.
But I will confess that I had to force myself to keep reading past the preface to find all these things. Because the 1st sentence in the book is “Why is Wal-Mart the largest retailer in the world?”. From my perspective, the answer to that question is: because it sells things for the cheapest prices around. And it does that by having a vast underpaid non-benefited work force, by taking advantage of people who don’t have a lot of employment options. It also does it by carefully putting huge mega-stores in areas where it can drive out all other competition, especially long-standing family-owned local small businesses.
These are not the kinds of results I would want in a company with which I am affiliated. And before you ask, no, I do not shop at Wal-Mart. Even unemployed I would rather either pay a little more in a store that respects its employees, or go without for now.
From my standpoint, if “results” only means profits and market dominance, then this is not what I want to “rule”. The book’s premise is ‘the right culture can make all the difference’. Indeed. Egypt and Rome are two cultures I can think of that built long-standing cultures on slavery. I am NOT comparing Wal-Mart employment to slavery, but I do believe there are some parallels. It has to do with valuing people. That is, valuing people over strictly financial “results”.
In an attempt to be fair, Mr. Pennington talks about a lot of other companies, many of which I admire. He also explicitly talks, later, about valuing people. But he does not make the connection, and that disappoints me.
Mr. Pennington talks later in the book about people fitting the culture. I suppose he would say that Wal-Mart’s is a “culture” in which I do not fit. Agreed. But what about people who don’t have the choices and resources I have? Should they and their children go without health care and life insurance because of Wal-Mart’s “culture”? He says: “Results Rule! Leaders and organizations have an edge – a deep passion for competing, contributing, and yes, winning”. Personally I don’t much care for the idea that “deep passion” and “fear of losing your job if you don’t accept what you get and keep your mouth shut” are the same thing.
NB: this is a blog, a rant. This is a larger story and Wal-Mart is not the only company on this planet whose values I do not respect. It simply happens to be the one mentioned on the very first page of a book in which I had significant hopes – until I read that 1st page.
Wal-Mart is successful in part because Americans often care about the lowest price over anything else. Some people’s budgets pretty much require they think that way and others are hypocritical enough to complain about losses of American jobs but buy cheap stuff from overseas anyway. But I cannot accept that this makes Wal-Mart a company with an admirable culture. And I do not admire its results.
Can you make money doing well? I believe so. But you have to a) not have money as your primary goal (or “result”, if you like), and b) be willing to invest in the longer term. Loyal employees and satisfied customers are good for business in the long run. In fact, assuming you aren’t actually losing money, they are good goals in and of themselves.
Maybe results do rule, as Mr. Pennington says. But not all results rule with me.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Ahead of the Curve?
I had something of a brainstorm the other day. Looking ahead, I thought about what I might want to do later, in 20 years, at a point when I might want to stop working full time. I’ve seen ads for college and business school teachers, and I think that might be fun.
I’ll have the experience, no doubt about that. But I’ll need the degree. I have part of an MBA under my belt, but never finished. Every time I got involved in a program I either got sent to an out-of-town long term assignment or had to change priorities due to something my ex needed or wanted. This was before the age of the Internet and online classes at reputable schools. In recent years most of my continuing education has focused on keeping up with the skills required to maintain my professional certification: new technologies and project management.
This new idea has me thinking again about a degree program. I’ve just started looking; my MBA work is so old there’s probably not much advantage from that standpoint in continuing it over pursuing some other degree if I find something else I’m really interested in studying. But last week in the library while looking for something new to listen to on a trip, I ran across Ahead of the Curve: Two Years at Harvard Business School by Phillip Delves Broughton, unabridged. Whatever degree I get will be from a Chicago-area school, but this sounded interesting, and maybe it would help me figure out whether an MBA is what I want to pursue.
I don’t think it is. Not a Harvard MBA, at least. I have no interest in being an investment banker or hedge fund manager, nor the kind of consultant described in the book. I have many years of successful consulting experience already and have never once treated (or cheated) a client in the fashion described. I would be interested in understanding some areas better than I do, and the case approach sounds interesting, but I absolutely don’t want to be part of the elite, arrogant, snobbish world of the Harvard Business School graduates.
The thing is, business is what I might like to teach, from a different perspective. I’d like to teach what I know: troubleshooting, problem solving, building and motivating teams, project management, using technology as a tool to support business. I’m not done with the recording yet, so maybe the program will redeem itself in my eyes, but so far even the descriptions of leadership coursework doesn’t sound like leadership to me.
The book is fascinating, and I’ll finish it. Maybe I’ll feel better when it’s done. Stay tuned.
I’ll have the experience, no doubt about that. But I’ll need the degree. I have part of an MBA under my belt, but never finished. Every time I got involved in a program I either got sent to an out-of-town long term assignment or had to change priorities due to something my ex needed or wanted. This was before the age of the Internet and online classes at reputable schools. In recent years most of my continuing education has focused on keeping up with the skills required to maintain my professional certification: new technologies and project management.
This new idea has me thinking again about a degree program. I’ve just started looking; my MBA work is so old there’s probably not much advantage from that standpoint in continuing it over pursuing some other degree if I find something else I’m really interested in studying. But last week in the library while looking for something new to listen to on a trip, I ran across Ahead of the Curve: Two Years at Harvard Business School by Phillip Delves Broughton, unabridged. Whatever degree I get will be from a Chicago-area school, but this sounded interesting, and maybe it would help me figure out whether an MBA is what I want to pursue.
I don’t think it is. Not a Harvard MBA, at least. I have no interest in being an investment banker or hedge fund manager, nor the kind of consultant described in the book. I have many years of successful consulting experience already and have never once treated (or cheated) a client in the fashion described. I would be interested in understanding some areas better than I do, and the case approach sounds interesting, but I absolutely don’t want to be part of the elite, arrogant, snobbish world of the Harvard Business School graduates.
The thing is, business is what I might like to teach, from a different perspective. I’d like to teach what I know: troubleshooting, problem solving, building and motivating teams, project management, using technology as a tool to support business. I’m not done with the recording yet, so maybe the program will redeem itself in my eyes, but so far even the descriptions of leadership coursework doesn’t sound like leadership to me.
The book is fascinating, and I’ll finish it. Maybe I’ll feel better when it’s done. Stay tuned.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
SB1070 is wrong
The news lately has of course been full of the new Arizona Law SB1070 (and its hastily-passed modification, HB2162). It makes it a state crime for an alien to be in Arizona without proper documentation and requires police to determine the immigration status of anyone if there is “reasonable suspicion” that s/he is an alien. It does not appear that “reasonable suspicion” is defined. It also says someone who cannot prove s/he is here legally can be arrested, and if arrested the person will be detained until the federal government can confirm the person’s status. It does not seem to put any kind of time frame on this confirmation.
I have friends and relatives who have publicly voiced their support for this law. I also have friends who have publicly voiced their protest, on the grounds that illegal aliens should not be pursued. I believe both are wrong.
I don’t know if anybody else stands on this where I do. I suppose there must be other people in the middle somewhere, but I usually feel very alone. I don’t like this law, but not because I think it’s OK to enter this country illegally. What bothers me about this law is that I think it will be used to inconvenience and harass many people who belong here because they look Hispanic or because they are heard speaking some other language than English.
It happens that I carry my Voter’s Registration Card in my wallet, because it’s easier to do that than try to figure out what I did with it when it is time to vote. So, if I were stopped in my car for a broken taillight and the cop happened to say “By the way, can you prove you are in this country legally?”, I could do it. But I don’t carry my wallet when I walk the dog or ride my bike. If I were to be stopped by the police for running a stop sign on my bike (which I do all the time if there’s no automobile traffic approaching the intersection; at 10mph or less it’s very easy to see the situation in plenty of time to make the decision), I wouldn’t be able to prove anything at all. Let me tell you, I’d become pretty irate if I got hauled off to jail for not being able to prove my identity. There is no law requiring citizens to be able to prove they are citizens except when they are entering or leaving the country.
Of course, it’s not likely anyone would suspect me of being something other than a U.S. citizen. I look like the mish-mash of Anglo-Saxon and Eastern European that I am, and my accent is more or less Midwestern – that is, to a policeman’s ear here in ChicagoLand I wouldn’t have one. That doesn’t prove I’m a citizen, by the way, it just more or less eliminates the thought coming into anyone’s head that I might not be. That’s the problem: what on earth would constitute reasonable suspicion someone is an alien? The answer CANNOT be that s/he looks or sounds Latina/o.
My father and both his parents were born in this country, American citizens from the moment their baby lungs took in air. But Dad spoke only Polish until he was six years old. I don’t know how old my grandparents were when they learned English, but you could always hear slight differences in how they pronounced some things as compared to people who only spoke American English. There are still Polish-American communities in the Chicago area where that happens. I had dinner with friends last week in a restaurant where a large table full of happy celebrants spoke only Polish, and I would be willing to bet every one of those folks was born in or near Chicago. Similarly, there are lots of Hispanic communities here and in many other places, including Arizona, where Spanish is spoken pretty much exclusively in every home.
We need immigration laws that make sense. They need to be clear and they need to have the teeth to remove people who are not legally here. They need to make the process for legally immigrating reasonable. There needs to be a good guest worker program, so that jobs Americans can't or won't fill can be filled by people who want the work, and those people need to be protected, paid adequately, and treated properly and with dignity while they are here. The laws also need to have some compassion and there needs to be some room to consider individual cases: people who were brought here illegally as babies or toddlers, for example, should not be deported to a country they don’t remember and know little about. And no matter what else it does, I am strongly against any law that hassles American citizens.
The percentage of white Anglo/European people in the United States is currently a little over 65%. Still a majority, but this means that there are more than 100 Million people -- let me say this again: MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE -- who are something else. Last I checked it does not make them any less American than I am. Any law addressing illegal immigrants must not touch them any more than it touches me.
I have friends and relatives who have publicly voiced their support for this law. I also have friends who have publicly voiced their protest, on the grounds that illegal aliens should not be pursued. I believe both are wrong.
I don’t know if anybody else stands on this where I do. I suppose there must be other people in the middle somewhere, but I usually feel very alone. I don’t like this law, but not because I think it’s OK to enter this country illegally. What bothers me about this law is that I think it will be used to inconvenience and harass many people who belong here because they look Hispanic or because they are heard speaking some other language than English.
It happens that I carry my Voter’s Registration Card in my wallet, because it’s easier to do that than try to figure out what I did with it when it is time to vote. So, if I were stopped in my car for a broken taillight and the cop happened to say “By the way, can you prove you are in this country legally?”, I could do it. But I don’t carry my wallet when I walk the dog or ride my bike. If I were to be stopped by the police for running a stop sign on my bike (which I do all the time if there’s no automobile traffic approaching the intersection; at 10mph or less it’s very easy to see the situation in plenty of time to make the decision), I wouldn’t be able to prove anything at all. Let me tell you, I’d become pretty irate if I got hauled off to jail for not being able to prove my identity. There is no law requiring citizens to be able to prove they are citizens except when they are entering or leaving the country.
Of course, it’s not likely anyone would suspect me of being something other than a U.S. citizen. I look like the mish-mash of Anglo-Saxon and Eastern European that I am, and my accent is more or less Midwestern – that is, to a policeman’s ear here in ChicagoLand I wouldn’t have one. That doesn’t prove I’m a citizen, by the way, it just more or less eliminates the thought coming into anyone’s head that I might not be. That’s the problem: what on earth would constitute reasonable suspicion someone is an alien? The answer CANNOT be that s/he looks or sounds Latina/o.
My father and both his parents were born in this country, American citizens from the moment their baby lungs took in air. But Dad spoke only Polish until he was six years old. I don’t know how old my grandparents were when they learned English, but you could always hear slight differences in how they pronounced some things as compared to people who only spoke American English. There are still Polish-American communities in the Chicago area where that happens. I had dinner with friends last week in a restaurant where a large table full of happy celebrants spoke only Polish, and I would be willing to bet every one of those folks was born in or near Chicago. Similarly, there are lots of Hispanic communities here and in many other places, including Arizona, where Spanish is spoken pretty much exclusively in every home.
We need immigration laws that make sense. They need to be clear and they need to have the teeth to remove people who are not legally here. They need to make the process for legally immigrating reasonable. There needs to be a good guest worker program, so that jobs Americans can't or won't fill can be filled by people who want the work, and those people need to be protected, paid adequately, and treated properly and with dignity while they are here. The laws also need to have some compassion and there needs to be some room to consider individual cases: people who were brought here illegally as babies or toddlers, for example, should not be deported to a country they don’t remember and know little about. And no matter what else it does, I am strongly against any law that hassles American citizens.
The percentage of white Anglo/European people in the United States is currently a little over 65%. Still a majority, but this means that there are more than 100 Million people -- let me say this again: MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE -- who are something else. Last I checked it does not make them any less American than I am. Any law addressing illegal immigrants must not touch them any more than it touches me.
Friday, April 30, 2010
If I ruled the world
I’m still on a learning rant.
I heard a story a long time ago about a top-school PhD candidate. He was presenting his thesis defense, and though it rarely happens it is true that the members of one’s committee can actually ask a question about just about anything and take the answer into account in deciding whether to award the degree. This candidate’s degree was to be in Aeronautical Engineering. On some whim one of the candidate’s professors asked him to explain how an airplane flies. He couldn’t, and to its credit the committee declined to award him the degree until he went back to take a fundamental physics course and demonstrate that he’d corrected this basic lack of knowledge. Good call, say I: would YOU like to have someone working at Boeing at that level who didn’t understand the basic physics of flight?
Unfortunately, that’s a one-off situation. It appears there are lots and lots of people out there with college degrees and even high school diplomas who don’t seem to have learned the fundamentals that IMHO should be automatically a requirement for obtaining such a credential. If I ruled the world, there would be requirements for earning degrees that go beyond having taken the requisite number of classes – and you could lose that degree if at any point you show you don’t know them! For fun, I’m going to create an off-the-top-of-my-head list of the things I think someone should know just to have a full High School diploma. If my friends see this, it could generate a great discussion because I’m sure some of them will think of things I won’t over the next 20 minutes of writing.
To earn and keep a high school diploma, you should:
I heard a story a long time ago about a top-school PhD candidate. He was presenting his thesis defense, and though it rarely happens it is true that the members of one’s committee can actually ask a question about just about anything and take the answer into account in deciding whether to award the degree. This candidate’s degree was to be in Aeronautical Engineering. On some whim one of the candidate’s professors asked him to explain how an airplane flies. He couldn’t, and to its credit the committee declined to award him the degree until he went back to take a fundamental physics course and demonstrate that he’d corrected this basic lack of knowledge. Good call, say I: would YOU like to have someone working at Boeing at that level who didn’t understand the basic physics of flight?
Unfortunately, that’s a one-off situation. It appears there are lots and lots of people out there with college degrees and even high school diplomas who don’t seem to have learned the fundamentals that IMHO should be automatically a requirement for obtaining such a credential. If I ruled the world, there would be requirements for earning degrees that go beyond having taken the requisite number of classes – and you could lose that degree if at any point you show you don’t know them! For fun, I’m going to create an off-the-top-of-my-head list of the things I think someone should know just to have a full High School diploma. If my friends see this, it could generate a great discussion because I’m sure some of them will think of things I won’t over the next 20 minutes of writing.
To earn and keep a high school diploma, you should:
- Be able to read a newspaper story aloud – relatively smoothly (OK, unless you have documented dyslexia) and then give a brief recap of what it was about. Bonus points for knowing enough current events already to know the context.
- Be able to write a short paragraph – say, half a page typed or the equivalent handwritten – with words correctly spelled, punctuation correct, and meaning obvious. (This is not the content test – it can be on any topic of your choosing. But it has to be lucid, use proper grammar, and contain at least a few words of more than one syllable.)
- Be able to describe our system of government and know who your representatives are and how to reach them
- Understand the fundamentals of the scientific method, the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and some fundamentals of science – enough to understand some things about your own body, about the world we live in, about the solar system. This therefore would cover the very basics of biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, physical geography and archeology. We’d need to work on the details to see what level best reduces the superstition and gullibility our society lives with today.
- Be able to do basic arithmetic (balance a checkbook, make change, be able to calculate fractions and percentages – for example, how much of your income is really paid as tax?) and understand numbers and how to look at them well enough to figure out whether a number is in the ballpark of being real -- for example, if you hear someone say “One Billion Children in America are being deprived of their right to Pray in School!”, to know to wonder if perhaps there even are that many children in America. Very basic economics, financial planning. How to use math in everyday life.
- Have a reasonable understanding of American History and some things about the state you grew up in. Recognize the major figures in history, know their role and approximately when they lived/served. Know when the Civil War was fought. Know when and why America entered the 1st and 2nd World Wars – and, by the way, the fact that both were underway for several years before we got involved. Understand some things about the Civil Rights Movement, and when we landed on the moon. Details of what is really needed in the way of history are subject to clarification, change and expansion – suffice it to say my objective here is to have every citizen holding any kind of educational credential show some understanding of America’s journey. This would probably also expand to some basics about World History, going back to what we’ve learned studying human civilizations via archeology.
- Know and keep up with the basics of political geography: be able to recognize a country when you hear its name and know the continent to which it belongs. Be able to find things on a globe – eastern Europe, Brazil, Australia.
- Know some things about cultures and religions other than your own. Maybe a senior project requirement would be to investigate and report on what life is like for someone living on a different continent (I might disallow the selection of western Europe and would almost certainly disallow Great Britain), how it differs from yours, and how they might view you. In this age of the internet, the project might include evidence of a real correspondence with someone.
- Be able to speak and read a little of a 2nd language. For English-speaking Americans, Spanish is strongly encouraged, since 1/3 of the folks in this country also speak it. For anyone living in the US who doesn’t speak English, that’s the requirement.
- Know a few things about human creative capacity – art, literature, music, architecture, crafts (woodworking, cookery, knitting, or other things people used to have to do by hand in order to do a bit better than survive), and dabble a little bit more in one of these.
- Demonstrate that you can consider both sides of an argument, including the veracity of all statements. I’m not asking you to change your outlook, opinion, or politics. I am saying you have to know how to see the flaws in someone else’s so that you can understand the flaws in your own. Perhaps I am a starry-eyed optimist in this realm, but I believe there would be far fewer extremists on both ends if everyone knew how to see what is right and wrong with any set of arguments – and there are usually both.
- Know how to look something up that you don’t know, for goodness’ sake.
Given that I don’t rule the world, I’d like in this personal space to challenge you to think about whether you still deserve the credential(s) you have now. What have you done lately to earn the right to keep your diploma or degree? Have you taken a workshop in whatever your college major was? Do you read regularly – newspapers, biographies, history, science? Looked at a map or a globe? Looked something up before you reposted it on Facebook to be sure it made any sense? Thought, really thought, about whether something someone told you could really be true – especially if you think you agree with him or her?
Grandpa’s voice continues to sound in my head. He received his high school diploma several years later than he might have, working at night after he went to work full time. And though there were still gaps (we never quite convinced him that he wouldn’t be able to create a perpetual motion machine), he never stopped studying. I don’t think anyone should. Continuing education would be a way of life if I ruled the world.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Daily learning -- and befuddlement
My grandfather always said “You should learn something new every day. Never stop learning. When you do, you’ll die.” He lived to be almost 94 and was clear-headed and independent right up to the end, so I think maybe he was onto something. In any case, he inspired me to commit to being a lifelong learner. I’m always reading and usually studying something. If I could get someone to pay me to go to school, I’d definitely do that for the rest of my life! The more I learn, the more fantastic and wonderful the universe is, even if I also learn how little I know.
I love the internet. It used to be that I’d have to go digging at the library to find information on something. Now I sit down to my computer, even if what I want to do is dig at the library (not that I don't still love libraries and read books a lot!). I often answer questions in moments that before I might never have bothered to answer in the first place. Now there’s never an excuse not to learn at least one new thing a day, just like Grandpa told me to do.
Of course, there’s something important that must be paired with access to so much information, and that is the ability to think critically and require real evidence. It’s too easy to publish complete crap and make it look good. The mere act of asserting something doesn’t make it true, even if you surround it with pretty graphics and lots of links. It’s important for every reader, every video watcher, every user of the internet to have a good foundational education and the ability to consider information skeptically. It would appear, however, that most people don’t.
I read recently that the percentage of Americans who believe in the veracity of complete rubbish – let’s take astrology as an example – has gone up since 1900, despite clear debunking evidence and easy access to same. The author suggested it has partially to do with a twisting of the premise of Free Speech. If it’s OK to say anything, then it must be that everything has equal chance of being valid. I have trouble believing people could possibly think this, until I run into it directly. When I talk to someone who “believes in” astrology about precession having moved where the sun comes up against the background of the stars and the more recently discovered planets the Babylonians didn’t know existed, they generally a)have no clue what I’m talking about and b)don’t really wish to know. And they continue to arrange their lives around the vague and often silly pronouncements of astrologers. This troubles me. Astrology was the best the Babylonians could come up with, and in fact for some centuries we didn’t have enough information to really argue with it, even though many people noticed it only “did the job” when it was so vague as to be useless for anything except after-the-fact reinterpretation. But now we do know better, and yet people still “believe” in something that clearly isn’t true. What does that say about us? And more important, how can we possibly expect to keep from being swindled or worse if we can't look at evidence and think critically and clearly about what it means?
I had two run-ins with people in the last few days that really made my eyes cross. One was with a stranger, a woman I met while on the Blue Line, who has (among other things) signed on to conspiracy theories about 9/11 and for some reason wanted to talk about it. From what I could tell, this is at least in part because she didn’t understand the physics of the buildings’ collapse. She thinks there had to be explosions in the basement. How she thinks explosions in the basement would have made the towers pancake from the top, I’m not sure.
The other was with a friend, an old high school chum with whom I recently reconnected on Facebook. He posted something that declared, in part: “poetry is to religion what analysis is to science”. I commented that I did not get the analogy. He replied that it fits exactly, that science is just a guessing game! I was appalled. I actually went for a walk to think about it. How can someone born near 1960 and college-educated think such a thing? I really, really wanted to retort that he ought to have a little more respect for science, that the paramedics who tended to him during a recent health crisis did not save his ass by consulting his horoscope. But it seemed pointless to do that. Instead, I tried to explain the scientific method and what analysis is (i.e., not just guessing). It turns out he’s a poster boy for the “equal point of view” frame of mind. He’s only interested in his truth and doesn't care about anyone else's point of view. He actually seemed to be using "truth" and "point of view" interchangeably. In fact, he says it’s clear I have “issues with science” that I’m trying to force on him. All I could say was, “Wow”. His profile talks about becoming enlightened. What irony.
I wonder if he therefore believes that David Duke’s (he’s black) and Jerry Falwell’s (he’s gay) “points of view” are equally valid? I won’t ask him; it’s pretty clear he isn’t interested in honest debate with me. But I would love to know.
The late Dr. Carl Sagan is one of my heroes, because in addition to all the excellent research and teaching he did, he worked much of his career to make science accessible to people like me. He wrote many books, and I have read them all. The one I love the most is called Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. In he explains, very carefully, how the scientific method works and why we should all think critically and skeptically. He also talks about how learning the truth doesn’t reduce a jot the wonder of it all. I wish I could give a copy of his book both to my Blue Line companion and to my friend. I wish I had any hope that either would consider reading it.
If you haven’t read it, please do, and tell me what you think. Or better, tell me what you've learned. I learn something new every time I read it.
I love the internet. It used to be that I’d have to go digging at the library to find information on something. Now I sit down to my computer, even if what I want to do is dig at the library (not that I don't still love libraries and read books a lot!). I often answer questions in moments that before I might never have bothered to answer in the first place. Now there’s never an excuse not to learn at least one new thing a day, just like Grandpa told me to do.
Of course, there’s something important that must be paired with access to so much information, and that is the ability to think critically and require real evidence. It’s too easy to publish complete crap and make it look good. The mere act of asserting something doesn’t make it true, even if you surround it with pretty graphics and lots of links. It’s important for every reader, every video watcher, every user of the internet to have a good foundational education and the ability to consider information skeptically. It would appear, however, that most people don’t.
I read recently that the percentage of Americans who believe in the veracity of complete rubbish – let’s take astrology as an example – has gone up since 1900, despite clear debunking evidence and easy access to same. The author suggested it has partially to do with a twisting of the premise of Free Speech. If it’s OK to say anything, then it must be that everything has equal chance of being valid. I have trouble believing people could possibly think this, until I run into it directly. When I talk to someone who “believes in” astrology about precession having moved where the sun comes up against the background of the stars and the more recently discovered planets the Babylonians didn’t know existed, they generally a)have no clue what I’m talking about and b)don’t really wish to know. And they continue to arrange their lives around the vague and often silly pronouncements of astrologers. This troubles me. Astrology was the best the Babylonians could come up with, and in fact for some centuries we didn’t have enough information to really argue with it, even though many people noticed it only “did the job” when it was so vague as to be useless for anything except after-the-fact reinterpretation. But now we do know better, and yet people still “believe” in something that clearly isn’t true. What does that say about us? And more important, how can we possibly expect to keep from being swindled or worse if we can't look at evidence and think critically and clearly about what it means?
I had two run-ins with people in the last few days that really made my eyes cross. One was with a stranger, a woman I met while on the Blue Line, who has (among other things) signed on to conspiracy theories about 9/11 and for some reason wanted to talk about it. From what I could tell, this is at least in part because she didn’t understand the physics of the buildings’ collapse. She thinks there had to be explosions in the basement. How she thinks explosions in the basement would have made the towers pancake from the top, I’m not sure.
The other was with a friend, an old high school chum with whom I recently reconnected on Facebook. He posted something that declared, in part: “poetry is to religion what analysis is to science”. I commented that I did not get the analogy. He replied that it fits exactly, that science is just a guessing game! I was appalled. I actually went for a walk to think about it. How can someone born near 1960 and college-educated think such a thing? I really, really wanted to retort that he ought to have a little more respect for science, that the paramedics who tended to him during a recent health crisis did not save his ass by consulting his horoscope. But it seemed pointless to do that. Instead, I tried to explain the scientific method and what analysis is (i.e., not just guessing). It turns out he’s a poster boy for the “equal point of view” frame of mind. He’s only interested in his truth and doesn't care about anyone else's point of view. He actually seemed to be using "truth" and "point of view" interchangeably. In fact, he says it’s clear I have “issues with science” that I’m trying to force on him. All I could say was, “Wow”. His profile talks about becoming enlightened. What irony.
I wonder if he therefore believes that David Duke’s (he’s black) and Jerry Falwell’s (he’s gay) “points of view” are equally valid? I won’t ask him; it’s pretty clear he isn’t interested in honest debate with me. But I would love to know.
The late Dr. Carl Sagan is one of my heroes, because in addition to all the excellent research and teaching he did, he worked much of his career to make science accessible to people like me. He wrote many books, and I have read them all. The one I love the most is called Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. In he explains, very carefully, how the scientific method works and why we should all think critically and skeptically. He also talks about how learning the truth doesn’t reduce a jot the wonder of it all. I wish I could give a copy of his book both to my Blue Line companion and to my friend. I wish I had any hope that either would consider reading it.
If you haven’t read it, please do, and tell me what you think. Or better, tell me what you've learned. I learn something new every time I read it.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Home to Leo
I spent a lot of time out of the house today… which means Leo spent a lot of time in the house, alone. I always feel guilty about that, even though I know he probably sleeps most of the time I am gone. He was still glad to see me as always, both times I came home. He was also promptly ready, as always, when I suggested a walk.
Leo is my eight-and-a-half year old Golden Retriever. Anyone who is a dog person him- or herself understands completely what treasures his adoration and companionship are to me. He is very accommodating and adaptable: he has completely changed living situations several times during his short life and has never complained or given me problems. He has been there for me through the very darkest months (or at least I hope that’s what they were) of my life. I literally do not know what I might have done if it were not for his presence, his obvious joy at my return home, his needs to get me out of the house even when I had no motivation on my own behalf, his comforting presence through otherwise lonely evenings, his ability, plenty often enough, to make me laugh.
The two photos are over 6 years apart. In the 1st he was 2 years old. The 2nd was taken this evening. I have watched his face whiten over the past 8 months or so with the occasional stab of sadness at the passage of time. Mostly, though, he's still the same dog, for which I am very grateful.
Leo has a congenital kidney disorder. This means I obsess over his water intake. It also means he gets far fewer food extras than most pets because he can't eat much other than his special diet. Fortunately he considers romaine lettuce spines and broccoli stems gourmet treats, so he’s always right there at my feet the minute he hears the telltale plastic-bag noises that mean I’m making myself a salad.
He has developed a limp, so we don’t walk as far together anymore. I have been working on making what walking we do a more mindful practice, even when it involves picking up after him. This spring has been a delightful time to do that: I watch the small changes in my neighbors’ yards and gardens and enjoy how nature recreates the environment again for the year, one day at a time. I love the colors of the tulips and today, for the first time, caught strong whiffs of lilac as we passed by bushes in bloom. That scent brings back childhood memories and much pleasure. Then, as now, I lived in a city. But somehow despite the noise and the busyness of it all, I can still sense the beauty of the earth and enjoy the warmth of the sun on my face, if I remember to notice. It takes work to drain my mind of my to-do list, what happened yesterday, the worries, the hurry if I’ve an appointment soon. But it’s worth it to just be, just enjoy the moment as I walk with my beloved dog, knowing these moments are finite and knowing I must treasure each one, live in each one.
There are no treatments for kidney disease in dogs. Fortunately his diet has worked very well so far; he is compensating to the point of keeping his blood chemistry on the very edge of the normal range somehow. With careful management and very good luck, he may live to at least the low end of the normal life span for retrievers. But I am very aware of the finite nature of his remaining time in the best case and of the fact that there are no guarantees. It makes me determined to treasure him, and these moments.
Leo is my eight-and-a-half year old Golden Retriever. Anyone who is a dog person him- or herself understands completely what treasures his adoration and companionship are to me. He is very accommodating and adaptable: he has completely changed living situations several times during his short life and has never complained or given me problems. He has been there for me through the very darkest months (or at least I hope that’s what they were) of my life. I literally do not know what I might have done if it were not for his presence, his obvious joy at my return home, his needs to get me out of the house even when I had no motivation on my own behalf, his comforting presence through otherwise lonely evenings, his ability, plenty often enough, to make me laugh.
The two photos are over 6 years apart. In the 1st he was 2 years old. The 2nd was taken this evening. I have watched his face whiten over the past 8 months or so with the occasional stab of sadness at the passage of time. Mostly, though, he's still the same dog, for which I am very grateful.
Leo has a congenital kidney disorder. This means I obsess over his water intake. It also means he gets far fewer food extras than most pets because he can't eat much other than his special diet. Fortunately he considers romaine lettuce spines and broccoli stems gourmet treats, so he’s always right there at my feet the minute he hears the telltale plastic-bag noises that mean I’m making myself a salad.
He has developed a limp, so we don’t walk as far together anymore. I have been working on making what walking we do a more mindful practice, even when it involves picking up after him. This spring has been a delightful time to do that: I watch the small changes in my neighbors’ yards and gardens and enjoy how nature recreates the environment again for the year, one day at a time. I love the colors of the tulips and today, for the first time, caught strong whiffs of lilac as we passed by bushes in bloom. That scent brings back childhood memories and much pleasure. Then, as now, I lived in a city. But somehow despite the noise and the busyness of it all, I can still sense the beauty of the earth and enjoy the warmth of the sun on my face, if I remember to notice. It takes work to drain my mind of my to-do list, what happened yesterday, the worries, the hurry if I’ve an appointment soon. But it’s worth it to just be, just enjoy the moment as I walk with my beloved dog, knowing these moments are finite and knowing I must treasure each one, live in each one.
There are no treatments for kidney disease in dogs. Fortunately his diet has worked very well so far; he is compensating to the point of keeping his blood chemistry on the very edge of the normal range somehow. With careful management and very good luck, he may live to at least the low end of the normal life span for retrievers. But I am very aware of the finite nature of his remaining time in the best case and of the fact that there are no guarantees. It makes me determined to treasure him, and these moments.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Singing to Live
The singing group I’m in, the Sing to Live Community Chorus, had an extra rehearsal today. We normally rehearse on Thursday nights but because we have an unusually short period of time to prepare (known, in STL parlance, as “a prep”) for our next concerts in mid-May, we scheduled a Sunday afternoon combination sectional and full-group rehearsal in addition to our normal practice times.
This may sound like extra work, and it certainly was. But it was also an extra treat. I enjoy the challenge of learning the music and learning what our director wants us to do with it. And I enjoy the people, tremendously. We always have a potluck supper after our Sunday rehearsals, which gives us a chance to just hang out together. The food’s always tremendous, too. I waddled home with 2 new recipes.
It’s interesting how a group like this, with a very diverse range of skills and interests, can put something together. We have some really amazing musicians among us, for which we are all grateful. We also have some people kind of in-between, like me. I can read music and am good at remembering what I’ve learned, though I’d never call my voice ready for a solo in Carnegie Hall. Then, we have people who have little or no musical training or experience; they just want to sing and they have a reason, just like all of us in the group, to support STL’s mission. They combine heart, effort and motivation and make musicians out of themselves. I am very impressed.
I also marvel at director Wilbert Watkins’ leadership. He’s working with volunteers, and he’s working mainly with people who aren’t trained singers. He is very exacting, but he is also respectful. Sometimes I even think he’s too gentle, but I don’t quibble with his methods: he always seems to manage to get us all where he wants us to go in time for the performance. I find the process fascinating, both from the perspective of my own understanding of and comfort with the music and from my perception of how each piece grows on the group as we learn it.
I usually start a prep kind of disliking at least one piece, but I find they always grow on me as we learn them. It seems to be impossible not to find the beauty in something as I live with it for the weeks ahead of the concerts. Wilbert encourages us to think about the lyrics and what they might mean to each of us. I don’t believe I’ve ever had a choral conductor do that so consistently before. As it happens, the timing is perfect, as it fits nicely with my recently-begun efforts to be more mindful and in-the-moment. My singing feels different when I do this – I hope it sounds different to listeners, too. All of a sudden I really, truly understand why so much prayer has been set to music over the centuries. From my view, most music IS prayer.
From our “signature song”, called Why We Sing:
Music builds a bridge; it can tear down a wall!
Music is a language that can speak to one and all.
Sing to Live is a major reason why I won’t consider moving away from Chicago anytime soon. It has become family; both the music and the people are on my mind virtually every day, and I am grateful for the immense richness it -- and they -- add to my life.
This may sound like extra work, and it certainly was. But it was also an extra treat. I enjoy the challenge of learning the music and learning what our director wants us to do with it. And I enjoy the people, tremendously. We always have a potluck supper after our Sunday rehearsals, which gives us a chance to just hang out together. The food’s always tremendous, too. I waddled home with 2 new recipes.
It’s interesting how a group like this, with a very diverse range of skills and interests, can put something together. We have some really amazing musicians among us, for which we are all grateful. We also have some people kind of in-between, like me. I can read music and am good at remembering what I’ve learned, though I’d never call my voice ready for a solo in Carnegie Hall. Then, we have people who have little or no musical training or experience; they just want to sing and they have a reason, just like all of us in the group, to support STL’s mission. They combine heart, effort and motivation and make musicians out of themselves. I am very impressed.
I also marvel at director Wilbert Watkins’ leadership. He’s working with volunteers, and he’s working mainly with people who aren’t trained singers. He is very exacting, but he is also respectful. Sometimes I even think he’s too gentle, but I don’t quibble with his methods: he always seems to manage to get us all where he wants us to go in time for the performance. I find the process fascinating, both from the perspective of my own understanding of and comfort with the music and from my perception of how each piece grows on the group as we learn it.
I usually start a prep kind of disliking at least one piece, but I find they always grow on me as we learn them. It seems to be impossible not to find the beauty in something as I live with it for the weeks ahead of the concerts. Wilbert encourages us to think about the lyrics and what they might mean to each of us. I don’t believe I’ve ever had a choral conductor do that so consistently before. As it happens, the timing is perfect, as it fits nicely with my recently-begun efforts to be more mindful and in-the-moment. My singing feels different when I do this – I hope it sounds different to listeners, too. All of a sudden I really, truly understand why so much prayer has been set to music over the centuries. From my view, most music IS prayer.
From our “signature song”, called Why We Sing:
Music builds a bridge; it can tear down a wall!
Music is a language that can speak to one and all.
Sing to Live is a major reason why I won’t consider moving away from Chicago anytime soon. It has become family; both the music and the people are on my mind virtually every day, and I am grateful for the immense richness it -- and they -- add to my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)