Posted on

Democratic Debate – Night 2

This was a much more aggressive event tonight.

Those who did what they needed to do:

Kamala Harris – She needed to have a Booker type performance, and she did well.

Joe Biden – Clearly the leader, he was almost as much of a target of vitriol as Trump. He held up well, but he wasn’t anything exciting. Frankly, he didn’t have anything to prove and did what he needed to – address allegations and convey his statesman stature.

Those who didn’t help themselves:

Kristen Gillibrand – This is a tough call. She was fiery and passionate, but I think it is highly likely she rubbed a lot of voters the wrong way. She suffered being on this panel and would have benefited from a night 1 selection.

Bernie Sanders – Yikes, he was out of control and, at times, reminded me of Perot’s VP candidate Stockdale. He seemed old and cranky. He also was determined to not answer questions directly. I think he had to have done more damage than good for his candidacy.

Pete Buttigieg – I think he is just too good of a guy to do this thing. Clearly one of, if not the, smartest person in the room. He clearly has a strong grasp on the issues, but he struggles with conceptualizing policy, like Warren does. He seems to lack the passion that many of his competitors demonstrate.

Need to drop immediately:

Michael Bennet – Seemed to say stuff, but was just swallowed up.

Eric Swalwell – Not ready for prime time. Hit the Senate and build a name that leads back here in a decade or so.

John Hickenlooper – Seems to want to separate himself from the rest by attacking socialism. He is probably right on a lot of this, but his manner comes across as dismissive of ideas that will drive younger voters to the polls.

Marianne Williamson – What in the hell?!?! I am pretty sure her healthcare plan might have something to do with Goop.

Andrew Yang – I am pretty sure he went to the restroom at one point during this debate. His defense of UBI was pitiful. Just not ready for prime time.

Posted on

Democratic debate – Night 1

Candidates in order of performance.
Top tier:
Warren
Booker
De Blasio (kind of a shocker)

On the bubble:
Castro – looked like the over-prepared debate student. Tried too hard and did not come across confident.
O’Rourke – the Spanish was weird and he seemed almost indifferent at times.
Klobuchar – Surprisingly nervous
Gabbard – She did slightly better than I thought, but she has a very tough row to hoe. She will likely drop before the next debate.

Need to drop immediately:
Inslee – there is such a thing as too intense.
Delaney – Nothing worthwhile here at all
Ryan – Seemed overwhelmed

It worked well for Warren and Booker. They got to showcase their strengths.

Posted on

Criteria for judging our political candidates

What should be used to judge a political candidate?

Age

Gender

Race

Religion

Sexual orientation

Evangelical nature

Political Experience

State of residence – relevant to electoral votes

Birth state

Current position- relative to loss of a seat

Family

Policy positions

  • Foreign Policy
  • Education
  • Economy
  • Environment
  • Social programs
  • Justice

Political demeanor – Liberal – Conservative

Candidacy kickoff

Donor count

Fundraising

Debate performance

Posted on

The Unearned Value of Social Graces

I was a student at Texas A&M university many years ago.  One of the many traditions on that campus involved the concept that everyone was a member of  one large fraternity/sorority. Part of this cohesive nature of the student body was an expectation that each student would address other students as they came in contact with an exuberant “HOWDY!”

As you can probably guess from other posts on this page, I am a strong introvert. This “HOWDY!” thing was fine, but it could get obnoxious over time. There were certain interactions where it was fine, but the ongoing expectation and eventual disappointment or anger when I would refrain would, at times, take its toll. Sometimes I would purposely refuse to say it, other times I would meekly mumble it to avoid any repercussions of my reticence to interact with every human I saw. I was never attacked or directly confronted by anyone about this, but you could always tell it set me apart.

This particular social grace is less common than many that are expected today. Living in the South, there are a lot of expectations for interactions with others. The waitress better be very friendly. The cashier should certainly ask you if everything was ok. Smiles, holding doors open, relinquishing seats, and expressing gratitude over the most menial of tasks are so common and expected, they hardly merit any value. Then you have the more aggressive expressions of care for strangers. Maybe you have been fortunate enough to earn a free meal at a restaurant or treated to coffee by the person in the car in front of you at Starbucks. There are all kinds of wonderful and generous expressions of kindness that happen between strangers, it seems surprising that we still live in what frequently seems like a hateful, angry world. There are likely a multitude of reasons why all these token interactions don’t really amount to a significant improvement in society, but I have some thoughts on a few.

Most frustrating of all the reasons is that I believe people consider these niceties as part of some sort of karma game of life. It would seem that these positive interactions would demonstrate a personality that is benevolent, but in actuality I think many people just want to do these nice things so they can worry less about the things they do in other situations. They seem to think that buying that Chai Latte for the car behind them is some sort of chit that they can use to cover a malevolent act elsewhere. What is particularly galling about this behavior is the scales are almost never in balance – the small niceties can’t really make up for the shitty behavior that comes at other times.

The other thing about social graces is they are frequently gender based. You may have heard of it referred to as “benevolent sexism”, but most think of it as chivalry. People will sprint to hold the door open for a woman, some will walk around a car to help the woman in, and still others will walk alongside a female companion between them and the street, as if their body would somehow protect her in the case of a distracted driver swerving off the road. Once again, these expressions of respect are fine, even polite, so long as they are not meant to accrue some misogyny credit to be spent at another time. What good is it if a guy holds a door open for a woman if he is only going to promulgate the view that women are lesser employees in the workplace? Does the act of treating a woman differently than a man in a positive sense signify respect, domination, or diminishment of value?

The other one that I notice frequently involves people who are overtly religious. It would seem they are the least likely candidates for this behavior, given that most religions cover how best to treat others. While I am certain the majority of those who possess some form of religious belief are good people, there are those who seem to trade on their time in the pews for opportunities to treat others poorly. Watch the next time you visit a restaurant early in the afternoon on a Sunday as those who have just left church carry on loudly at a restaurant or otherwise act wildly in public.

Of course, I am certain those who are reading this are thinking “Man, you might be the biggest asshole ever!”, which only further proves the point I intend to make. There are a couple of reasons why I felt compelled to put these thoughts in print.

The mere fact that I have the audacity to question the intention of those who express these graces is considered an offense to humanity. We have become so determined to weave these actions into our social subconscious that it is revolting to many to point out how meaningless this is. Watch how people react to the near-weekly mass shooting events in our nation. Any thread about the event will be punctuated by innumerable “Thoughts and prayers” comments. Regardless of what you believe, these comments clearly have minimal or no effect on the event or future occurrences of violence. They only serve to help the person offering the statement stomach the nauseating reality that someone decided to murder a group of people. Do these people make an effort to actually address the issue? Do they vote for legislators who will offer laws that might save someone, or does the T&P suffice as their contribution? A mere mention of the limited impact thoughts and prayers has on the issue will result in a volley of insults and proclamations of the value of prayer, even if the intent is not to disparage religion but to encourage tangible action.

Beyond the argument that social graces can be relatively meaningless to conducting our daily lives, there is the oppressive expectation of cooperation from all involved. Just as people would be miffed if their “Howdy!” went ignored, any dismissal or failure to engage in the efforts to encourage the happiness of others immediately results in someone taking offense when none is intended. It would seem, if someone were truly a “nice person” who always says hello or smiles at another, they would be nice enough to understand that ambivalence to such a gesture is not equal to a personal affront. I sometimes am not in the mood to interact with others at all. It isn’t a misanthropic mission to exit from society, it is merely an effort to replenish my introvert batteries.

You are now probably thinking “Ok, we will leave you alone, is that good?” Well, first of all, I do not believe you, but more importantly, the point of this screed is that society is losing the war on actually treating people well. You bought some stranger a cup of coffee…Congratulations. Did you show up at the polls in 2016 to vote for a candidate who was actually qualified to run this nation, or do you support the misogynistic imbecile who has spent the past two years wreaking havoc on our democracy? Do you show up to church, only to support policies that limit freedoms based on sexual orientation? Does your smile address the fact that support the continued display of white supremacist civil war memorials?

Should we dispense with all of this and just be blunt and ambivalent about each other? Not necessarily. Do good, be good, but maybe think about how you can actually benefit society beyond holding the elevator door open for a few extra seconds.

Posted on

Starbucks and Religion

I have always loved coffee.  At first it was the manliness my father seemed to exude when he was sipping a cup.  I tried to down the black, bitter swill he called coffee, and after scoops of sugar and some creamer, I would usually succeed. My 10 year old brain imagined this as a significant step towards adulthood. Later, I finally had good coffee, from properly made drip coffee at a few restaurants, to the delicious chicory elixir concocted by Cafe Du Monde in New Orleans, I realized just how amazingly delicious the drink could be.  


By my late 20’s, I finally lived in an area where there were a few Starbuck’s franchises. Around the same time I experienced a health issue that necessitated a significant reduction in my caffeine intake.  I was unwilling to give up coffee, especially knowing that perfectly adequate decaf options were available.  Starbucks not only proved to brew strong decaf, but they always had some available.  Sure, it probably wasn’t as delicious as the single origin platinum grade beans you would find at the more exclusive coffee shops, but I grew tired of the quizzical looks baristas would give when I asked about decaf.  My Starbucks problem was born.
As I began to settle into a routine at a few of my favorite Starbucks locations, I started to notice the clientele. There were soccer moms getting sugary drinks for their kids, well dressed business men and women dashing in to fuel their brains for the day, and students who enjoyed the free wifi and venti Frappuccinos as they studied.  Somehow the buzz of activity provided a kind of visual white noise that allowed me to focus on various tasks.  Every once in a while I would come up for air, to get a refill or to hit the restroom, which would afford me the opportunity to take notice of others sharing the shop with me.  I began to notice that one of the most common assembly of people at Starbucks typically involved some form of religious meeting.


I am not a religious person at all, so I am also generally ambivalent to the religious practices of others.  It took a long time for me to see the telltale signs.  Most meetings involve a leader, holding a bible or some other religious text, usually worn and riddled with post-it notes to mark the pages to review.  A number of meetings are between two or three men, while some seem to be more of a bible study group.  Sometimes it is a couple meeting a pastor, presumably as a prerequisite for them officiating the wedding.


I have often been a bit perplexed by the frequency that I have seen this.  Too many, Starbucks exudes a certain pretentiousness that does not seem compatible with those who consider themselves religious.  The general opinion of the company is that it seems to cater to liberals, like it is the antithesis of Chic-fil-a.  There is also the annual controversy where Starbucks refuses to adorn their cups with an adequate amount of religious iconography, as if Jesus mandated that PSL’s should only be served in vessels inscribed with crosses or Christmas trees.  It would seem this would turn off most who are religious enough to meet up to discuss religion on a regular basis.


Contrary to all that stands against religious exhibitions and collaborations at Starbucks coffee shops, I am confident the stores would rank highly in a list of places where people congregate to observe.  I am sure they are doing so for many of the same reasons I regularly visit.  

Posted on

The Curse of the Exceptional Introvert

I have struggled since a young age with what it means to be extremely introverted in a very extroverted world.  I actually believe that the world is split about 50/50 between introverts and extroverts, but in the US, there seems to still be a belief that being extroverted is preferred over being introverted.  Of course, this carries numerous challenges for introverts, but one in particular is what it is like to be exceptional in some way, yet ill-equipped or disinterested in promoting the talents or skills that make you special.


I was always a high-achiever in school, at least until I reached the first few years of college.  Math and science, in particular, were strong subjects for me. In fifth grade, I was selected to participate in a pilot course that was meant to bring children with strong logic and problem-solving skills into a class meant to enhance those abilities.  I was already in the “vanguard” programs in my classes, but this took me at a slightly higher level, and I loved it.  I felt that, for the first time, I was acknowledged for something that my louder, more social classmates regularly received attention.  My Spanish teacher, whose class I left once a week for the new class, hated it and took it out on me, but I didn’t care.


After that year, I started to really struggle with my academic experience.  I was bussed 10 miles away to a school in a very different neighborhood.  People who had been friends were escalating their social interactions, while I was starting to feel overwhelmed.  No longer was being the quiet, good kid a positive characteristic.  If you were not loud, boisterous, and energetic, you were a loner, weird and anti-social.  I generally accepted this as part of my life, never really able to connect with others, and generally not caring about it.  Sure, weeks would pass where not a single kid would speak a word to me, but it wasn’t like I would go out of my way to converse with them, either.


Of course the isolation was painful, but it was somewhat bearable.  I never had to worry about time to recharge, to fill by banks with the calm solitude I needed to deal with the group projects, the constant pressure to interact, and the growing discomfort with my behavior demonstrated by my parents.  The one thing that regularly galled me was the fact that those who were more socially comfortable, driven to interact, as if they were fueled by it, were getting far more recognition of their accomplishments than I would under similar academic achievements.  It even became clear that those who were the class clowns, the outgoing jokesters, the social butterflies, they were able to impress far easier than I ever could.  Middle school was a perplexing time because of this.  I began to lose interest in academic achievement because it seemed pointless.


Things improved in high school in most areas.  I learned to just enjoy my successes in areas like math and science, even if they were not going to be acknowledged by others.   I appreciated requests to tutor or help others out, because it was a recognition of my efforts.  Even classes like history, government, and social studies were enjoyable because I could leverage my memorization and presentation skills to excel.  The one area where I continued to struggle was in my English courses.  It was extremely frustrating, because my mother was an English teacher. She helped me to develop my writing skills, as well as a value for literature.  Unfortunately, each of my English classes in high school were very social, always driving intense class participation.  This was challenging, especially when we would get into the analysis of literature.  Teachers would want me to provide input on various books or poems, but my assessment was never in-line with their assessment of the subject matter.  I understood that it was not unusual to glean different concepts of the writing, but it seemed that my assessments were never adequate.  This, coupled with my general disinterest in speaking up in class, led me to develop a distaste for literature, one that still plagues me to this day.


My first stint in college was an experience in ups and downs, but I knew a couple of things were true there.  Recognition would be rare or nonexistent, and I would have much greater control of the interactions I had to have with others.  This was liberating, but it did not prepare me for the difficulties I would face in the corporate world.


I began my professional work experience as a process engineer for a cable manufacturing company.  The first few years were focused on earning my place, proving to leadership that I had the brains, and proving to the people on the floor I had the guts to get my hands dirty.  The growing respect I earned in that job was fulfilling. I extended myself beyond my comfort zone, and it was appreciated.  There was something about being a guy who showed up his first day in slacks and button up shirt getting grimy with everyone else that earned respect.  Eventually, I was able to fold in my intellectual talents to further gain recognition, leading to greater responsibility.


Things took an interesting turn when my manager abruptly left the company, leaving a void in a managerial role.  I slid into the role without complaint, developing a deepening camaraderie with my manager peers, who were much older than me, as well as maintaining good relationships with those who sought my guidance.  I felt that this synergy would develop into a role as manager in the near future.  Instead it was my first real world reckoning on the risk of quiet diligence in the workplace.


During my fifth performance review with the company, I knew things were not going as I expected.  Rather than any form of appreciation for stepping up and taking over, I received the typical tepid platitudes of a mediocre review.  In past years, I had always received double digit raises because each year I successfully completed a challenge of increasing complexity and value to the company.  None of those achievements equalled, in my mind, the value of stepping into a leadership role without being asked to do so. When it was announced that my adequate year would be punctuated with a 5% raise, I asked the plant manager how he intended to address my greater responsibility on the team.  I also mentioned that the raise was the first one below 10% since I started with the company, and that seemed unusual given the increased value I offered.  What I initially thought might be a smile of reassurance quickly morphed into a grimace of disdain.  How dare a 28 year old engineer raise the specter of an official management title?  Double digit raise, who does this kid think he is?  After calling me a liar,  I calmly asked him to check with HR.  The smug confidence in his face flattened into simmering frustration as the HR manager confirmed my professional accomplishments over the past 5 years.  He swiftly collected himself and chuckled, saying that we can see what happens in the coming year.  I responded, now becoming a bit indignant by this asshole’s behavior, stating that he can either officially promote me to manager, with all the position’s benefits, or I would stop working as one for free.  As the rage brewed in his eyes, I grew more calm, allowing a smirk to grow across my face.  
You would think that a significant take away from this experience would involve an awareness that clamoring for position and supporting those moves with frequent, vocal self-promotion would be necessary to garner the recognition warranted.  That lesson apparently did not take.  I moved on to a different job, first as a manufacturing engineer, then supervisor, and finally found my place as an IT professional.  I earned a Master’s degree in IT.  I was always best suited to a role in IT, as I had a natural attraction to work relying on technology and data. It allowed me to carve out a niche as a strong troubleshooter, able to apply my analytical skills to solve a wide array of issues.  I was at a new company, a much larger one that I quickly realized had a very extroverted culture.  I soon realized that my role allowed me to fly under the radar.  Managers and peers would frequently relay the results of my accomplishments without adequately acknowledging my participation in the effort.  


It may be apparent by now, but I am not really driven by rapid ascent up a ladder.  I view success as more than bounding from position to position. I have found a place where I get to do the work I love, have a desirable amount of flexibility, and am compensated well.  This affords me a calm that many do not enjoy, but I have my limits. I have been been surpassed by those who are far less qualified, both academically and professionally, than me.  After ten years, I am starting to struggle with the knowledge that being unwilling to flaunt my accomplishments means I will watch others enjoy the accolades.  They organize the group lunches.  They hoot or holler during team meetings.  They find this interesting way to somehow be bracingly competitive yet affable enough to be showered with praise.  It is as if the social aspect of the job is far more important than the actual performance of critical tasks.

What is the answer to this issue? How do introverts gain the recognition they deserve? There are certainly indicators that the younger generations have greater comfort with the various style differences possessed by their peers. They seem willing to embrace the strengths of both extroverts and introverts equally, and may be more willing to understand the need for leaders to seek out the value introverts quietly offer the organization in order to squeeze as much potential from them as possible. Fact is, introverts and those who understand them won’t rise as fast as the exuberant stars, so it will take longer for the corporate culture to shift in favor of the introverted way. I hope to be around to see this happen.

Posted on

Why Atheism is Not a Religion

Not long ago, I witnessed an online discussion regarding religion.  Several people commenting were atheists, addressing the issue with a number of theists, mostly Christian.  One of the theists responded to the atheists with the age-old statement that atheism itself is a religion.


I am sure I will discuss my spiritual path in other posts, but suffice it to say I took a path frequented by many former Christians.  I was baptized out of cultural imperative, never really attended church much as a child, started asking questions that resulted in swift retribution from believers, and finally decided that the whole thing was too bizarre to be real.  Without any evidence or reason to believe one religion over another, I came to the logical conclusion that it was all mythology, just like the beliefs of those who rambled the Earth in ancient times.


What I have never understood is why the claim that atheism is a religion bothers me. I guess, in part, it has to do with my general distaste for organized religion and its clearly self-serving motives.  Atheists usually don’t have any motives, we simply do not believe that any form of theism describes reality.  My disdain for the comment led me to wonder…how do I explain to someone that atheism is not a religion?

Most obviously, atheism doesn’t share many or really any of the characteristics of a religion.  We don’t congregate in a holy structure.  We don’t have a text to follow.  We do not have any particular holidays, though I observe the shit out of Christmas because I love that time of year, most Christmas songs are amazing, the lights on the houses are beautiful, and who doesn’t love presents?  So, even when you set aside the fact that not believing in something itself isn’t the same as a belief, there just are not a lot of similarities between atheism and religion.


Of course, those mired by decades of following a single belief system will beg to differ.  Theistic open-mindedness is not something that is common among most religions. Dare to step outside the standard dogma of even the most mild religious organizations and you will likely face some sort of rebuke.  This zealous adherence to a single doctrine generally leads the followers to consider all other belief systems as the opposition, but atheists are a bit more challenging to characterize without lumping them in as well.  I think theists also desire to put atheists in their place by saying “You can’t hate all religion, because you are a member of one.”  I also think categorizing atheism as a religion helps theists to comprehend what they consider zealous reactions to religious intrusions into our lives.
I realized I was unprepared to respond to this comment, so I dwelled on it a while.  How could I convince someone that defining atheism as a religion was incorrect.  Yes, I am someone willing to waste time on the impossible, but this seemed like something that might be achievable.
Now, I realize that construing religion with something mythological lights the fires of theists hotter than the hottest burning bush, but I started to play around with the concept as it related to Santa.  Today, we have people, mostly small children, who believe in Santa Claus.  They believe because they are told he is real and lives at the North Pole.  The rest of us are non-believers, because we know the real purpose of the legend, which is to make parents build bicycles starting at 11:00 pm on December 24.  Imagine if retailers in the early 1800’s had never started to leverage the legend of Sinter Klaas to sell merchandise?  Wouldn’t everyone be non-believers, since it the little known legend would not have taken a place in our modern culture?  


Now imagine if humans did not feel the need to register belief in a higher power to explain the mysteries of the universe.  Very few of us believe the Roman, Greek, or Norse mythology as true.  Does our lack of belief in that mythology create a binding force that would be called religion?  The unwillingness to accept a set of parables as fact is not a belief, it is, in fact, the default status of us all.  If you are born and grow in an environment bereft of any religious influence, you would be an atheist by default. We all don’t automatically fall into a religion simply because we are ignorant, ambivalent, or intentionally unaffected by the wiles of religious doctrine.
In short, lack of belief is how we are meant to exist. It is our natural state, before the drive to instill spirituality and religious obedience is started.  It cannot be a religion.