Posted on

What Gun Control Should Mean

The Second Amendment:


A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Most people contract this sentence to the more concise “right to bare arms”, neglecting the full intent of the right.  I am not going to get deep into the case history or mindset of the founders, but here is my interpretation of the right:
You can own anything capable of protecting yourself and thwarting the encroachment of the government on your rights as a citizen, so long as you demonstrate reasonable faculties and understanding of utilization of said weapons.


As a liberal, most gun enthusiasts generally believe that I hate guns and want all of them confiscated and melted down. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, I am comfortable with properly trained, mentally stable, and licensed citizens owning any weapon, from a BB gun all the way to a nuclear ballistic missile.  Now, before you think I am some sort of unhinged nut advocating for the destruction of humanity, allow me to define what I mean.


Under the umbrella of the “well-regulated” portion of the amendment, I believe the following measures are not only constitutional, but necessary to have safe and responsible gun ownership.


Background checks – Every time a person engages firearm transaction, a check into the background if the recipient must be conducted. The background check would validate the legal status of the person acquiring the firearm, ensuring they are in good standing in society.
Mental health checks – Every two years, gun owners must participate in a mental health evaluation to legally maintain their gun ownership.  Failed evaluations can be followed up by a second opinion before confiscation occurs.  Any confiscation would be associated with a six month hold, giving the owner an opportunity to address mental health issues and regain access to their firearms.
Ballistic database – every single firearm manufactured or imported into this country would be subjected to a ballistics review. The data would be stored in a national database, available to all citizens for review.
Licensing – each firearm owner would be licensed for each firearm.  The firearms would be registered to the owner, who would be responsible for the use of the firearms registered to them.  
Insurance – each firearm owner would maintain insurance to ensure that victims of injury or death related to registered firearms would be fully compensated for medical and funeral expenses.
Firearm security – each firearm would be stored in accordance with a standard set of rules that would entail trigger locks, storage safes, and other measures to minimize access by untrained users.
Training – part of the licensing of individuals would involve training that supports the proper use of the weapon. This extends beyond merely caring for the firearm and learning how to discharge it with accuracy.  This requires that the user understands the proper use of the weapon under circumstances were it would be used.  An owner of a .22 rifle would only require minimal usage training which would increase in complexity as the lethality of the weapon increases. Handgun owners would have to demonstrate a capacity to handle a weapon in a variety of self-protection circumstances. An owner of a .50 cal sniper rifle would have to undergo training commiserate with its ability to inflict damage over great distances.
Consequences – failure to comply with these measures to maximize public safety would result in severe minimum prison sentences, confiscation of weapons, and prohibition of future firearm ownership.


Of course, these actions will not immediately end gun violence in the US. We have developed a culture of gun adoration that leads far too many to handle firearms in an irresponsible fashion.  The goal is to elevate gun ownership to a civic responsibility commiserate with the risk involved to others.

Posted on

Homeless Man Eating from Hotbar at Whole Foods

Several news articles have reported a video of Whole Foods employees laughing as a presumably homeless man helped himself to food at the hotbar, at times grabbing food with his bare hands, licking his fingers, and using the ladles to put food into personal receptacles that he had with him. There are many atrocious aspects of this event that I wish to address, in order of most severe to least.

  • Food Safety – As someone who has spent days in a hospital with food poisoning, I can definitively attest that the primary concern is food safety for the customers at the store. I quiver with nausea at the thought of what contamination occurred during his sampling of the food. A homeless person does not have access to the facilities necessary to maintain adequate hygiene in general, so they are likely to have contaminants that are even more dangerous than the average customer who maintains a more effective level of personal hygiene. That said, any person who dares to touch the food or handle the utensils in any manner that results in an issue with the food safety should be escorted from the premises immediately and forbidden from returning.
  • Mocking the homeless – almost as difficult to stomach as the introduction of filth into the food is the laughter at the expense of a suffering human. While I find his grazing disgusting, I also find his predicament a tragic condition. My entire life, I have always known that food and shelter are available for me. I cannot imagine how painful suffering hunger and exposure can be, so mocking those who deal with it is an unconscionable act. These employees should be severely reprimanded for this appalling behavior.
  • Inaction by the employees and management – According to some reports, the employees are forbidden from addressing the issue immediately. The procedure apparently is to allow the act to proceed, then discard the tainted food later. Given that there is such a cavalier attitude by the Whole Foods leadership regarding their food, it would seem they would find a way to make this food accessible to those who need it without endangering customers who assume they are purchasing untainted food.

My hope is that this issue will result in a greater emphasis on food safety by Whole Foods and greater efforts to contribute food to those who need it.

Posted on

Gross Negligence, Not Criminal Intent, is the Reason for Impeachment

I am no lawyer or constitutional scholar.  I am not sure I have any right to comment on the ridiculous political occurrence transpiring in the Oval Office right now.  Given how unprecedented this is, it seems anyone with half a brain and interested in trying to figure this crap out is warranted in having an opinion.


I have not watched any of the proceedings around the impeachment.  I am certain that there are procedural issues that I will miss.  This thing seems incredibly complex from a legal standpoint, but pretty simple from a political one; the GOP wants to keep Trump in power at all cost, and the rest of society acknowledges, to some extent, that his presence in the Oval is troubling, at best. The questions being asked frame the issue in reference to other malfeasance that has come from the Oval.  They attempt to determine if there is relevance to the claims that Trump broke the law.  This effort to brand him a criminal misses a very important point..that he does not have to commit a crime to be eligible for removal from office.

Imagine if a surgeon entered an operating room exhausted, drunk, angry, or grieving. Whatever the case, they probably have no idea who they are operating on and don’t care.  They have no ill will and no reason to injure the patient; in fact, they have taken an oath to do the opposite.  They struggle through a 13 hour surgery, cleaving skin, excising malignant tissue, and suturing the opening, but they nick an artery in the effort, and the patient dies.  Was there criminal intent?  Did the surgeon want to harm the patient? Of course not, but their failure is still a problem, and the surgeon must face the consequences of their malicious ineptitude.

As Trump descended down the escalator the day of his announcement, we received a powerful metaphor for what was to come.  Why in the fuck would any campaign manager or advisor allow him to be filmed slowly slipping down, as if to indicate he was prepared to drag the country down to the bowels of repugnant ignorance and deplorable behavior?  As soon as the thought entered my mind, the answer followed…if he has some sort of advisors, they are either too inept to assess the optics of that event, or they did not possess the power to change his mind about what he wanted for the event.  Either way, it was a harbinger for the administration.  Once elected, there clearly was no effort to transition from the successful Obama administration.  Trump was certain that he could operate the presidency as he had every construction project and entertainment venue in which he managed.  He was self-assured that he would always be the smartest person in the room and there was nothing he could not handle.
The next step in figuring this menagerie of incompetence is to consider what type of guy Trump is and how would he handle a business transaction.  Do you think he enters negotiations with an interest in determining a mutually beneficial agreement for all parties involved? If that were true, wouldn’t you think at least one of his properties would not be a garish symbol of opulence and horrendous taste? He approaches everything the same way, that it is a problem that needs to be grabbed by the pussy and fucked until it acquiesces to his plan.  This maniacal-bull-in-the-china-shop handling of everything pairs poorly with his obvious insecurity issues.  He engages the press like a petulant toddler, can you imagine how pitifully he behaves with his cabinet and the joint chiefs?  He was woefully unprepared for this, but he has enough money and power that he can surround himself with sycophants desperate for his admiration and willing to fuel his malignant narcissism.

There is every indication that the overarching trait of this administration is incompetence.  Whenever they accidentally assign someone with some knowledge and experience to a role, they either realize the shitstorm they have entered and hastily leave, or they cross Trump and are expelled.  There is no one with the guts or experience in the administration to direct or correct Trump, especially on matters of foreign policy and national security. In my opinion, you have to have someone involved who knows what they are doing to have criminal intent.  There is no question in my mind that Dick Cheney leveraged his power and the incompetence of his boss to influence our engagement in numerous lengthy foreign campaigns, all with the intent to become richer.  To pull this off, Cheney had to have knowledge, experience, and a desire to commit the crime to be guilty. Clearly he was a master criminal, because he was never charged with anything.

Trump, on the other hand, is an idiot.  Normally this would be considered an opinion, but given how often he is willing to prove this to be true, it can no longer be considered anything other than fact.  He is the opposite of the constitutional scholar who warmed the seat for him.  He was told by someone that there was a connection between Biden and Ukraine, and that we were going to give them something, and he reacted.  Drunk on power and incapacitated by stupidity, he lurched to the phone and decided to “negotiate” a way to harm his primary competition in 2020.  Do you find this preposterous? THE ASSHOLE BEGGED RUSSIANS TO ATTACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION IN 2016.  He had no concept of how wrong that was.  She was a problem, he thought he knew who could help, and so he reached out to them. How in the world can people witness that nonsense and think that he is incapable of coercing a foreign entity into acting in his favor against a political opponent.  Did he think he was breaking the law? Of course not, because he didn’t care and never took the office he holds seriously enough to be concerned with how he presides over the nation.  

Just like the surgeon, Trump must answer for his neglect.  High crimes and misdemeanors is intentionally broad to encompass more than just murdering someone on 5th avenue.  It means that Congress can bring charges against a president for any dereliction of duty.  The only reason that this could not be done during the Russian collusion debacle is because it was too difficult to tie him to that. Let’s face it, a woefully inept electorate holds the power over who will be in office, so there were many democrats who were concerned about the optics of impeaching the president over an issue that was so nebulous.  The Ukrainian issue is far more clear.  He directly engaged a foreign power to interfere with the upcoming election. He engaged an Art of War style effort to bring suffering to a fellow American to further his agenda.  I am not sure a private citizen could commit these acts without facing legal consequences, so why is it acceptable for the President of the United States to do this?

Trump needs to face the consequences of what he has done.  We can no longer make this a political decision regarding what is best for the Democratic party.  Congress has a job to do.  It must serve as an effective check against the power of the Executive Branch.  If Trump is innocent of wrong-doing, surely he will survive the Senate unscathed.  There should be no interference in testimony, since he has nothing to hide.  There should be a vote, which will likely result in acquittal, not because he is not guilty, but because a majority of senators will likely vote based on party loyalty rather than an unbiased commission of their duty.  None of this changes the need for the event to occur.

Posted on

Loners – They May not Want your Help

As I write, I will probably slip references to my parents in from time to time.  My dad was an unabashed extrovert.  He was a traveling salesman, so he would frequently have to eat alone, which he HATED.  One of the things he would brag about was his confidence to stroll up to another lone eater and ask if they could share a table. These stories horrified my intensely introverted self more than most anything Stephen King could dream up.
When I was a kid, I went through a weird time in middle school, which i guess was common for kids that age.  I can recall frequently eating alone at lunch from 6th grade through to the middle of 9th grade. It was so strange, because I felt like I needed this time, but I didn’t understand why.  I would have been perfectly comfortable with myself, except for the way most people treated me.  Some kids probably thought I felt I was too good for them, and some of them were right.  Others took it as an opportunity to make me feel lousy about being weird and a loner.  Teachers and even my parents got into the game, telling me I was good enough for friends and wondering, sometimes to my face, if there was something wrong with me.  There actually was…people could not understand how someone could be comfortable alone without being lonely.
At that time, the general tactic was to ostracize, mock, or even bully the loner.  I had a guy in 8th grade who loved exercising his right fist into my shoulder as hard as he could, just because he had to have a locker next to the loner.  That stopped once I was a more formidable target, but the general feeling of being out of place because I was comfortable in my space continued.  Teachers would enthusiastically encourage more group work and more socialization, which created a vicious cycle, driving me to need more time alone to recharge.  I finally was able to emerge from this when I joined the swim team and found a niche that worked well for me.
Long after I graduated high school, Columbine experienced the horror of one of the most violent attacks in history.  Two kids took their anger at the world out on students in their school in an act that shook the nation.  Ever since that event, being alone seems to have become a warning flag for potentially violent behavior.  More popular/extroverted kids are encouraged to socialize with the kids who are alone.  Buddy benches have been created to signal others that anyone peacefully existing on a particular hunk of metal is desperately crying out for a social savior.  Instead of being mildly weird, we seem to now be viewed as a risk. Of course, this has greatly intensified problems for introverts, no matter how well-meaning the instigators are.
Society needs to stop treating people who enjoy being alone as weird, maladjusted, or potentially dangerous.  Schools need to do more than encourage those who seek out friendships to force socialization on kids who enjoy their alone time. Educators and parents could help by simply teaching kids and each other that different styles merit different interactions.  Humans are far more complex than most are willing to admit, particularly when it comes to how to interact with others.  Courses that address style differences at work are finally becoming more commonplace.  This needs to happen in schools as well.
Here are a few suggestions that would have gone a long way for me growing up…

  • Recognize the difference between alone and loneliness – it may be because introverts spend a lot of time reading people, but it doesn’t seem hard to tell the difference.  People who are lonely and sad about their situation typically demonstrate that pretty clearly. They look intently at others, a visage of envy will wash over them.  They will not seem content, they will shift in their seat, or seem to seek out companionship.  Introverts will be able to exist in a space around 1, 100, or 1000 people and never seem discontent with their own situation, so long has they can have their space.  They will be typing on a computer in a coffee shop (me right now), reading a book, or staring out in space, quietly contemplating the meaning of existence or the latest Kardashian controversy.  
  • Ask the person what they want – If you have determined that the person may be lonely or discontented with their social interaction opportunities, refrain from barreling in to the rescue. Regardless of the situation, it is likely to go over best if the person is asked how they want to be treated.  This definitely should be handled privately, and any reaction by the person should be accommodated respectfully.  If the person indicates they are unhappy with the situation, by all means rally people to engage with them more.
  • Refuse the inclination to treat being alone negatively – This gets to the reaction when the person is asked how they wish to be treated. Hopefully the engagement is comfortable enough to encourage them to be honest. If they say they are happy the way they are and with the interactions they have, an enthusiastic support of that statement will go a long way towards acceptance.
  • Don’t confuse failure to engage as failure to understand – Classes and business meetings alike seem to be litmus tests for how much people are willing to engage.  Frequently the level of engagement is tied to knowledge or competency.  One of the worst examples of this is the misguided Participation Grade.  Why the fuck does a kid have to be measured by his ability to articulate an answer in front of an entire math class?  This is a really big one for me, because I felt like this meant I had to share my knowledge with others who I didn’t really want to enlighten.  Of course this wouldn’t work in a theater or music class, where participation is the point, but other classes should focus simply on the aptitude of the student in the area of study.
  • Measure the style interactions of kids and match them up – Along the lines of the previous point, both schools and businesses should do more to ensure they match peers based on their interaction styles.  Group work is always a challenge for introverts, because it thrusts a social dynamic in the middle of an activity that will result in a measurement of the person’s performance.  One example of this came for me when I was studying to get my Masters.  I was taking a database development course and a couple of younger students were aware that I was not only older and experienced, but had a firm grasp on the subject matter.  They were pretty typical, extroverted students who were eager for help.  Had I been a younger student, their pleas for me to join them might have led to my acquiescence.  Instead, I stated that I would prefer to handle the project alone and would hate to interfere with their progress.  It is not always possible to control how work is distributed, but employers and teachers can put a bit more effort to find compatible peers and ensure they are allowed the opportunity to collaborate.
  • Never, under any circumstances, use a quieter kid to manage an extrovert – Much of the behavior common to introverts can lead to them being considered more mature than their peers.  Teaching or leading a group of people can be a taxing task, and educators/bosses will often look for any means to lighten the load.  Sometimes this manifests itself with leaders mixing more pensive peers with exuberant ones, much like nuclear plant operators will insert control rods to control the fission reaction.  Not only does this put pressure to force a more introverted person to extend themselves, but their new responsibility will almost always result in a friction with the more outgoing person, leading to unwarranted conflict.
  • Establish opportunities for kids to socialize on their terms – This isn’t only true for students, but doing this in school is essential for developing comfort for people across all personality styles.  Activities need to be varied enough to encourage participation at a level comfortable for the participants.  For example, if the class is going to play a game of twister, maybe broaden the scope of games available by including things like chess or checkers. This will give the students options for play that potentially fit their personality.  If social comfort and wisdom of the group develops enough, the class may even experience kids wading into uncharted waters, with introverts seeking out new opportunities to express themselves.

Younger generations seem better equipped to acknowledge broader personality styles.  Introvert is now a proud moniker, joining nerd and geek as compliments rather than insults.  They seem to get that different styles are to be valued and encouraged.  Their elders should work to support and embrace this trend.  

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.