He's Back

It's great to be back in the good ol' USA.

There's much I could write about, but after spending literally the whole weekend in airports and on airplanes and getting very little sleep, I don't have the energy.

What I can say is a trip like that can really impact one's perspective.

They say they want me back. I said schedule it for February, when the weather's horrible back in Indiana. We will see.

Must rest.

Up and Away

Here I thought I'd sworn off politics for awhile, and then that previous post appears almost without my conscious knowledge. Surreal. Good ideas there, I think, but I've got to stop deluding myself into thinking anybody else cares.

Now it seems like a pretty good deal to escape the cold, rainy, and maybe snowy weather here for two weeks in Jamaica. I just feel a bit of stress because of a lack of information.

I don't know what the client's "guest house" is. It could be a princely place or a dump, and I won't know until I get there.

They are providing me with a driver while I'm there. I don't know if it's a personal chauffer or somebody off the street who shows up when he feels like it in a Yugo.

They promised to "take care of me" over the weekend. I don't know what that means exactly, or whether I really want to be taken care of.

Some might find all this exciting. I suppose I do too, in a way, but I'd rather know a lot more about what to expect before climbing on the plane.

When I get home, it's laundry and repack and sleep before driving right back to the airport for a trip to Nevada the next day. The thought exhausts me.

I'm going out on a limb and predicting this is the last post you'll see from me for at least 2, and possibly 3 weeks. Hope you can survive without my semi-regular tidbits of reason and wisdom.

Out.

Rethinking Conventional Wisdom

I recall being told back in high school that the evil racists in the south had implemented laws like poll taxes and literacy tests to deny black people the right to vote.

I'm now wondering, were they trying to deny the vote based on race, or was there some other objective?

First, let's eliminate the poll tax idea. Whether racist or not, citizens should never be charged any amount of money to participate in electing their representatives.

But what about literacy?

How can a democracy survive if a plurality of its voters -

Have no idea what is in the Consititution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence?

Have no idea who the candidates are, their qualifications or lack thereof, and what policies they would support in office?

Vote for a Presidential Candidate based solely on a bit of propaganda they saw on TV, and/or is simply the more physically attractive?

Suppose we passed a simple law: You can register to vote at your local BMV branch. To get your voting card, you must meet the following criteria -

Prove you are over 18 and a citizen of the United States
You have no felony convictions
You pass a 10-minute exam, proving you understand the fundamentals of your country's government. It takes an 80% to pass. If you fail, you may return and take it again in 6 months.
In English only.

Here's a great idea - when you're registered to vote, the voter registration authorization is indicated on your drivers license. One picture ID takes care of it all. It also indicates in what precinct you are registered. If you don't have a drivers license, then you can be issued a free voter registration id card with your picture.

Then at the polls, you will just be required to show your ID and sign in before voting.

This solves all the problems of voter fraud and guarantees that all voters at least have a clue about their representative government.

I know, Democrats will call this racist. But I say they're the racists, because in the very process of calling this very common-sense approach racist, they are proving a condescending attitude toward racial minorities that assumes they are incapable of passing a simple test. I say it's racist to denigrate any racial minority so egregiously.

The cynic in me says that the real reason Democrats would oppose this simple plan has nothing to do with race. I think reason is, for decades, they have been cheating at the polls. Stories abound of vanloads of people driving from precinct to precinct on election day, handed a new identity for each polling place of someone the party activists already know is dead or has moved away, but was never purged from the voter rolls.

Many stories as well exist about Democrat activists seeking out and registering illegal aliens, then giving them rides to the polls to cast their illegal votes. Same goes for convicted felons.

Do Republicans cheat in their own ways? Probably. The most credible story I've heard on that side is about Republican operatives taking vans to nursing homes and loading up Alzheimer's patients to take to the polls, where the operatives "assist" them in pulling the straight Republican lever.

Both parties are often accused of buying votes. "Go in and vote for (Insert Candidate Name Here), and I'll give you 20 bucks." Last time around, a Democrat activist got caught handing out crack in return for votes. I wonder how they know for sure that the person they just bribed actually voted they way they wanted - it seems that some might vote for the other candidate just for grins. There's no way I know of to confirm any specific vote cast in the booth, as far as I know.

I'm suggesting that this simple solution eliminates all that voter fraud, and keeps the most profoundly ignorant out of the voting booth.

What's wrong with that?

Bad Language

Personally, I have almost never listened to Don Imus. The tiny bit of exposure I've had to the guy formed a general perception of a rather rude and arrogant wierd sort of cowboy type.

But I think the reaction to his racist/sexist comment about the ladies basketball team was way over the top. Even though the comment was stupid, I don't know the context in which he said it. Whatever he said, he shouldn't have said it, but he shouldn't have been fired for it.

If Imus should be fired and banished from the air for that single, admittedly offensive phrase, then lots of others should also immediately be taken off the air. Why pick and choose who can be offended and who cannot? If we will not tolerate offensive speech for one group, then we should not tolerate offensive speech for any group.

Given the standard applied to Imus, here are others that should be fired and taken off the air immediately:

1. Bill Maher, for publicly wishing somebody would assasinate Dick Cheney.
2. All the Air America talkers for calling Bush a Fascist, Clarence Thomas Uncle Tom, Condoleeza Rice Aunt Jemima, and on and on.
3. All the reporters and columnists at the AP, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, and so on, for the same types of statements in #2.

While we're on the topic of offensive language, then let's extend it to language that offends me. Anyone who says any of the following within my hearing should lose their job and publicly excoriated:

1. Atheists calling Christians weak-minded, ignorant, bigoted and stupid.
2. Blacks calling white people "Crackers".
3. Anybody else using various racial and ethnic slurs like "wop", "polack", "chink", "nigger", "kraut", "raghead", "wetback". In a joke, referring to their own race, whatever. Fired immediately and publicly humiliated, regardless of where or to whom they made the slur.
4. Anybody who ever again calls somebody a "neocon". I'm so sick of that word, that really doesn't mean anything except "evil republican".
5. All obscenities, profanities and vulgarities. Such language is used only for shock value by those without the vocabulary to express themselves effectively.

Should we make the police arrest people for what they say, when somebody might be offended by it? Don't say anything that anybody might find offensive, even if you didn't know it would be offensive to anybody, or you could be fired, arrested, and find yourself excoriated on 24-hour cable news channels.

Does no one else see the insanity here?

Escape to Jamaica

It looks like that's exactly what I am about to do.

The information I have seems to indicate that there will be little or no chance for me to get online during my two weeks in Jamaica. And I don't yet know whether I'll be able to make or receive telephone calls.

That means I have to work extra hard today and tomorrow to wrap up whatever I can with other stuff going on and let other people who may want to reach me know that they can't for the next two weeks. I'm a bit worried about that in a couple of cases.

Go ahead and make fun, but I enjoyed the Celtic Women concert last night in Indy. It's a very polished and professional show and the singers are talented and very well matched for style and blend. The most striking positive for me was the awesome vocal arrangements they performed. Their a capella arrangement of Over the Rainbow was stunningly written and ably delivered. It would be fun to get a copy of that arrangement somehow and teach a quartet of talented singers how to sing it.

First time in a long time I kind of miss teaching.

The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close

In case you don't know already, the school board unanimously chose not to extend Barry Huckeby's teaching contract into next year. It's the only action they've taken in this case that makes any sense.

Unfortunately, we still have to wait for his trial to find out the real facts of the story.

A brief recap for those who may not know, Barry was hired to be the high school basketball coach at Columbus North. He was also a math teacher and assistant athletic director.

Only a couple of months into the job, Barry was in charge of counting and depositing the proceeds from a football playoff game. Unnamed school officials determined that approximately $3,000 of the gate receipts from that game were missing. In the process, Barry confessed to taking some money from the gate receipts, but reportedly only admitted to taking around $50 to buy supplies for the office printer.

He was placed on paid leave while the investigation took place, and finally his case was brought to the school board, which decided to strip him of his coaching and assistant athletic director duties but allowed him to stay on for the rest of the year as a math teacher.

His supporters claim that some of those unnamed school officials acted on a vendetta against Barry, and that the claim of missing $3,000 was falsely created to that end. Others believe that, for reasons only he knows, he did steal approximately that amount, and made up the story about the printer supplies as a cover.

Unfortunately, no details of the investigation have been made public. We don't know what the police investigators know. All those details are being carefully protected from public disclosure, presumably keeping it safely under wraps until the trial. I have a number of questions that I hope will be answered when the trial gets underway -

How do they know $3,000 is missing? The logical explanation can be one or both of these: Nobody gets in free to playoff games, and they have a headcount at the gate to match against receipts. Doing the math showed that they were $3,000 short. Secondly, the ticket sellers at the gate counted the money before handing it off to Barry, and the total sum they gave him was $3,000 more than what he deposited. The first by itself doesn't necessarily mean Barry stole the money; the second almost certainly does.

What high school athletic department anywhere is stupid enough to put one individual in charge of processing the gate receipts? Making it an absolute requirement that a minimum of two people handle the money at every step through the bank deposit is just common sense. Not just to protect against theft, but also to protect the individual involved from any accusation of theft or mishandling of the funds.

If the evidence was strong enough to convince the school board to remove Barry from his coaching and assistant athletic director positions, why was it not strong enough to remove him from teaching? It seems on its face to represent a double standard: A thief can't be allowed to coach the basketball team, but is OK to teach math? Where's the logic in that?

To accept Barry's story of grabbing a few bucks to buy office supplies, you have to believe that he didn't know any better. Stories say that he's been a teacher and coach for something like 11 years. It stretches all credibility to accept that, given all those years around high school athletic programs, he was ignorant about basic practices in handling of gate receipts and requisitioning office supplies.

As an outside observer who has never met Barry, the information that has been released about his case leads me to the logical conclusion that he is more likely guilty than not guilty. The exact amount is certainly questionable, and unless the ticket sellers have solid evidence of their total gate receipts, it may never be known. But it seems unlikely that 500 people were mis-counted or allowed into the event for free.

The losers in this case are the Columbus North varsity basketball team. They had to survive this turmoil and go through a difficult season with an interim coach. The program has been damaged heavily by this incident, and likely will take years to recover.

Too bad.

Church Music

Now that I've ventured into the music topic, it's time to explore the music with which I have the most experience - sacred, or church music.

My family enjoyed singing, and I grew up singing. I started singing in church at a very young age - maybe as early as 4 or 5. In the next 45 years, I've spent more sunday mornings in the choir loft or as the Cantor than in the pew.

I've had the interesting experience of a lot of time in both Protestant and Catholic music programs. I enjoyed the protestant traditions of strong, 4-part congregational singing out of the hymnals. Protestants can sing, and generally sing pretty well. My favorite hymn-singing practice in the Protestant churches is to switch between parts in each verse. Melody, alto, tenor, bass. It's fun.

The Catholics, in contrast, don't sing. Most Catholic masses feature a small choir or guitar group of variable skill singing to the congregation, who at best mumble quietly through the songs. Catholics don't provide hynmals with 4-part harmonies, but simple songbooks with only the melody line printed. Sometimes the books don't even provide the melody line, but just the lyrics.

But the Catholic church has the best sacred music library in the world. The Latin Masses written by history's greatest composers are some of the best music anywhere. I miss the brief times that I've been able to participate in presenting some of those wonderful choral works.

Unfortunately, these days it's hard to find good music in churches. Good organists, or even pianists for that matter, are few and far between. The great old traditional choral music has been replaced by guitars and "contemporary" unison choruses of very simple songs. It's sort of like musical kindergarten.

Most disappointing for me is the trend away from the whole congregation participating in the music, to now the guitar "praise bands" that use the church service or mass as their own performance platforms. I absolutely despise the churches I've visited that project the words to the simple songs on a screen behind the "praise band". As an individual in the pew who has never heard the songs before, I can't sing along, let alone harmonize. Nor do I want to, because the amplifiers are cranked up to a level where you can't hear yourself think and the song is of poor quality anyway.

I'm not suggesting that I'm some sort of musical snob. I enjoy a well-composed contemporary song and a good guitar. Some of the modern sacred music is pleasant, if not very sophisticated.

My complaint is more that music is meant to be shared by all in a common worship experience, not performed by a small group of musicians for their own gratification and egos. I've come to the point where I prefer to sing from my church's balcony. The ideal I attempt to find in my singing is to enhance the experience of the Mass for everyone, where they don't even know or think much about who is up there in the balcony providing the music.

After all, we're not there to praise the musicians.

I wish more church musicians could get that.

Musical Illiteracy

What an interesting social experiment in Washington DC.

Would you have stopped to listen?

Would you have recognized the music or the musician?

Would you have recognized the quality of the performance?

Would you have thrown some cash in the violin case?

The actual results of the experiment are disheartening.

Good Friday Sermon

A couple thousand years ago, an itinerant Jewish preacher wandered the countryside, preaching about basic philosophies like faith, hope, and love.

He became a sort of celebrity among the ancient Judeans, drawing huge crowds with his simple, common-sense sermons and miraculous healings of the sick and disabled. He hung out with the outcasts of society and disdained the priestly elite. Those outcasts were inspired by his message to change their lives for the better, while the elite leaders of his faith sought to silence him.

So when he entered Jerusalem for the Jewish Passover, the priestly elite arrested him in the middle of the night and held a kangaroo court in which they convicted him of religious blasphemy and political sedition.

But Judea was part of the Roman Empire, and the priests didn't have authority to execute their judgement on this poor preacher. So they took him to the Roman governor, who interrogated the pitiful preacher and decided that he represented no threat to the Empire, and decided to let him go.

But a riotous crowd was gathered by the priests to demand the preacher's execution, so the governor relented, not wanting to foment a riot among the Jews of Jerusalem over one of their own that had somehow offended their priestly elite.

So the preacher was severely beaten, then nailed to a wooden cross for a slow and excruciating death.

The Christian faith was born when this itinerant preacher got up and walked out of his tomb three days after he died on that cross. He was seen, heard, and touched by hundreds of people who attested to that resurrection. And thousands were so affected by the experience that they willingly went to their own horrible deaths only because they refused to renounce their faith in what they had witnessed directly and felt compelled to spread the message to the rest of the world.

Today, Christians are once again vilified and branded as evil by non-Christians. Christians are accused of being "weak-minded" and are considered more dangerous than today's radical Muslim terrorists, even though no actual examples exist of Christian churches conspiring to do anything more dangerous than trying to influence politicians to stop abortion and homosexual marriage.

I wonder why there remains as much hatred today for that 2,000 year old preacher from the other side of the world as there was back when that hatred led to his crucifixion? What so upsets people that they will persecute followers of the preacher who asked us only to love and care for one another? Why does a message of love and redemption strike such fear into people that they would seek to persecute those who wish to convey that message?

Such hatred does not cause me, as a Christian, to hate in return. It only makes me sad. Such hatred must come from some horrible life experience or a misguided brainwashing that has prevented these people from learning the true nature and message of that poor Judean preacher, Jesus Christ.

Brain Programming

Conflict is less upsetting to me lately, although it is still true that I generally prefer to avoid it. In the business setting, it doesn't upset me at all when I know I'm right. That is, if the issue is about something and not about me. What upsets me the most is when I'm personally accused unfairly, especially when the guilty party is either looking on silently or actually making the accusation.

When the issue is not personal, it's fascinating to note that people solve problems in different ways. So many times I've seen people make decisions based on the way their brains are wired. Some make decisions based on feeling and intuition, and others based on available facts and research.

In the business world, intuitive decision-makers are only right when they get lucky. Rational decision-makers are right because they did their homework.

I experienced the contrast directly this week, dealing with managers from two different clients. The first was an excellent manager. She is always pleasant and positive, but at the same times knows how to ask the right questions. She listens carefully to the answers and asks more questions until she understands the problem and possible solutions, then is decisive about her chosen solution. She then assigns the task to a member of her staff most competent to carry out the task, and follows up to make sure it is completed on time and according to her instruction. Finally, she enthusiastically praises the staff member for a job well done.

In contrast, there is a second manager with a very different approach. Whenever she's around, her staff cowers, afraid they will be upbraided for some unknown failure. She knows there is a problem, and is visibly angry, although her staff has noticed that she never seems to have any emotion other than anger. Rather than seeking to understand the problem, she probes deeply to try to find the guilty party. When the guilty party is self-identified, given up by a co-worker, or just chosen as the most likely candidate, a public lynching takes place. Then this manager proceeds to order a staff member to correct the problem. She doesn't identify the solution or give any guidance to that staff member, but simply demands the issue be fixed by that person immediately. The frightened and demoralized staff member then goes off and tries his best to fix the problem, knowing that he doesn't really know how and will be upbraided again tomorrow for failing to fix it properly.

What I wonder about is who hired the second manager, and does that person have any idea what they have done to their organization by doing so?