No. Simmer down. I am not getting remarried (as if that would be news). By fully engaged, I mean it is fascinating, this side of beginning to get a clue, how unengaged I was in my own life. Sadly, that does not make me unique. It makes me very common.
American has become a land of those who want others to engage their life for them, fixing those challenges brought on by both personal choices and the personal choices of others. Statistics suggest we'd rather eat a greasy burger and cheer for someone else on Biggest Loser than get off the couch and create a motivational environment in our own life. Rather gripe about the health insurance system than discontinue the virtual non-stop ingestion of crap, absence of exercise and franctic materialism that is literally killing us.
In companies, HR departments say employees' personal lives are none of their employers business. Really? Then why is it employees literally ask employers everyday for raises because the employees have gotten themselves into a jam via poor money management, relationship skills, and plain emotional immaturity?
Don't want your employer in your personal life - then manage it (so you aren't asking your employer to bail your behind out when you act childishly)!
Gotta run. MY life is calling.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Challenge for Kids? ADULTS!
Wonder just how foolish, and dangerous to ourselves we've become? Read this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/sex-changing-treatment-kids-rise-050220027.html
The article quotes a Boston doctor who runs a clinic that apparently is one of the leading advocates for children, as young as 8 - yes, 8, who desire sex changes.
Are there really adults who are so inexperienced with children that they do not know that an 8 year old, even a very bright one, still lacks the emotional maturity to effectively decide what to wear many days, much less to make a decision that will dramatically, and almost certainly, in many cases, if not most cases catastrophically alter the rest of the child's life? 8? What about 18, or 28?
That a parent anywhere would listen to this physician is simply more evidence of one thing in my mind (and I am willing to take full responsibility for this conclusion) there is one primary thing wrong with children over the past 40 years - ADULTS! Adults who are NUTS with a capital N. Adults whose desire to make a name for themselves, avoid discipline, pain, or the slightest ridicule from family members and friends who are nuts, or both, has parenting at what surely must be an all time low. And, children making decisions with implications they will only fully understand much later in life as they experience incredibly challenging consequences which will likely haunt some the rest of their lives. Lives also likely filled with anger, resentment, bitterness, or all three at parents who were cowardly, selfish, or otherwise concerned about themselves and sleeping at the switch of their children's lives.
Tough issue? Sure. But who said effective parenting was supposed to be easy? My heart is broken for the 8 year old mentioned, and all the other children referred to in the piece. Talk about child abuse! Where are the grown ups here? Where are the people asking what in the world this doctor is smoking?
God have mercy on us as we continue this societal, and global freefall at our own hands, unwilling to trust the perfection of your plans for us. Forgive me Father for those times when I thought my ways were higher than your ways in my own life, and my children's. I am clueless absent YOUR direction.
http://news.yahoo.com/sex-changing-treatment-kids-rise-050220027.html
The article quotes a Boston doctor who runs a clinic that apparently is one of the leading advocates for children, as young as 8 - yes, 8, who desire sex changes.
Are there really adults who are so inexperienced with children that they do not know that an 8 year old, even a very bright one, still lacks the emotional maturity to effectively decide what to wear many days, much less to make a decision that will dramatically, and almost certainly, in many cases, if not most cases catastrophically alter the rest of the child's life? 8? What about 18, or 28?
That a parent anywhere would listen to this physician is simply more evidence of one thing in my mind (and I am willing to take full responsibility for this conclusion) there is one primary thing wrong with children over the past 40 years - ADULTS! Adults who are NUTS with a capital N. Adults whose desire to make a name for themselves, avoid discipline, pain, or the slightest ridicule from family members and friends who are nuts, or both, has parenting at what surely must be an all time low. And, children making decisions with implications they will only fully understand much later in life as they experience incredibly challenging consequences which will likely haunt some the rest of their lives. Lives also likely filled with anger, resentment, bitterness, or all three at parents who were cowardly, selfish, or otherwise concerned about themselves and sleeping at the switch of their children's lives.
Tough issue? Sure. But who said effective parenting was supposed to be easy? My heart is broken for the 8 year old mentioned, and all the other children referred to in the piece. Talk about child abuse! Where are the grown ups here? Where are the people asking what in the world this doctor is smoking?
God have mercy on us as we continue this societal, and global freefall at our own hands, unwilling to trust the perfection of your plans for us. Forgive me Father for those times when I thought my ways were higher than your ways in my own life, and my children's. I am clueless absent YOUR direction.
Friday, February 17, 2012
When Its About Me Bites Me It Stinks to Me
The truth can be very hard to swallow, especially about oneself. Trust me, after dodging it about myself for three decades, it took a shot to the life chops and hard work I resisted at every step (and some days continue to resist), and will require continual diligence the remainder of my life to keep the truth in front of me in order to be my best me.
We face the same challenge in this great land of ours today. Why is America floundering? Quite simply because we have become a land where hard questions are largely unwelcome, and hard work is considered inconvenient, uncomfortable and unnecessary - traded for the fool's gold of easy answers, slick promises and short-cut folly. The myth regarding the value of litigating, or threatening to litigate, everything is but one example.
This morning making the web is this story:
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-party-crasher-sues-wife-50m-164827120.html
about, Tareq Salahi who is suing his wife for $50 million dollars claiming her affair with a Journey band member was designed to profit her and them (Journey, the band) while harming him in various ways.
That she had an affair, regardless of the reason, speaks to her character. However, the suit rings hollow and shows what a wasteland the judicial system has become if it does not simply get thrown out. Why? Here's why - Salahi and his wife are names you may recognize as the couple who crashed a White House state dinner in 2099.
Think about it. Didn't Salahi himself condone self-promotion for gain, grand-standing and social conventions' disregard by his act with his wife of crashing the important dinner in the country's most significant venue? Where was his regard for people's feelings then? Where was his regard for rules and conventions then? What did he think his wife would think life on the big stage was about after they staged that stunt? And no. I do not condone her affair, mixed signals from him or not. But he's surprised? If so, Mr. Salahi must not be a very bright bulb.
Wake up Tareq! You helped create this Frankenstein. Now you want to complain that the monster's loose? Stinks doesn't it? Choices DO have consequences - regardless what we in America would like to believe today. When the law is used flippantly, before long it serves less and less value, used instead for crap like this. Might Mr. Let's Be Famous at the White House have been injured, emotionally and financially? He might have. However, didn't he have a large hand in at least creating an environment where the pain would occur?
As Americans we want the economy to improve. Understandable. And we are going to depend upon the officials we elected to get us out of a mess we collectively created, based on a continent-crush with Europe by the left (Yes, that Europe the one in even bigger economic shambles), and our growing disdain for anything hard? Right. How about we, beginning with me, discontinue the practice of keeping up with the neighbors - who are also living over their household budget (if they even have one)? How about all of us, beginning with me, get a grip on the notion we are NOT our stuff, money won't buy happiness (or wealthy celebrities would not take their own lives with some regularity - and I mean BIG celebrities with loads of cash), and the law is a weak reflection of us running from ourselves?
Please understand, I love America. Have no interest in living anywhere else. Yet, deep love and hard, pointed questions about me/us, do not mean I do not love me (or you, or us). Rather, I would argue vigorously just the opposite is true. It is an unwillingness to ask hard questions, work through rather than avoid pain, and see myself/us as I really am rather than some fantasized notion of me (you, or us) that is the path to greater effectiveness.
Mr. Salahi, take your lumps and get out of the court-house. If that's really what the former Ms. Salahi is about, you'd be well-advised to let her join the band and play on. If something in America doesn't begin to change, and fairly soon, you will have your pick of other individuals who want to play your it's about me, until me bites me game.
WAKE UP Bart. The greatest part of the journey is embedded in the hard questions and their answers, the work required to answer the questions and the continual pursuit of new hard questions. Look in the mirror, do you see Tareq peeking over your shoulder at times? Or are you Tareq?
We face the same challenge in this great land of ours today. Why is America floundering? Quite simply because we have become a land where hard questions are largely unwelcome, and hard work is considered inconvenient, uncomfortable and unnecessary - traded for the fool's gold of easy answers, slick promises and short-cut folly. The myth regarding the value of litigating, or threatening to litigate, everything is but one example.
This morning making the web is this story:
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-party-crasher-sues-wife-50m-164827120.html
about, Tareq Salahi who is suing his wife for $50 million dollars claiming her affair with a Journey band member was designed to profit her and them (Journey, the band) while harming him in various ways.
That she had an affair, regardless of the reason, speaks to her character. However, the suit rings hollow and shows what a wasteland the judicial system has become if it does not simply get thrown out. Why? Here's why - Salahi and his wife are names you may recognize as the couple who crashed a White House state dinner in 2099.
Think about it. Didn't Salahi himself condone self-promotion for gain, grand-standing and social conventions' disregard by his act with his wife of crashing the important dinner in the country's most significant venue? Where was his regard for people's feelings then? Where was his regard for rules and conventions then? What did he think his wife would think life on the big stage was about after they staged that stunt? And no. I do not condone her affair, mixed signals from him or not. But he's surprised? If so, Mr. Salahi must not be a very bright bulb.
Wake up Tareq! You helped create this Frankenstein. Now you want to complain that the monster's loose? Stinks doesn't it? Choices DO have consequences - regardless what we in America would like to believe today. When the law is used flippantly, before long it serves less and less value, used instead for crap like this. Might Mr. Let's Be Famous at the White House have been injured, emotionally and financially? He might have. However, didn't he have a large hand in at least creating an environment where the pain would occur?
As Americans we want the economy to improve. Understandable. And we are going to depend upon the officials we elected to get us out of a mess we collectively created, based on a continent-crush with Europe by the left (Yes, that Europe the one in even bigger economic shambles), and our growing disdain for anything hard? Right. How about we, beginning with me, discontinue the practice of keeping up with the neighbors - who are also living over their household budget (if they even have one)? How about all of us, beginning with me, get a grip on the notion we are NOT our stuff, money won't buy happiness (or wealthy celebrities would not take their own lives with some regularity - and I mean BIG celebrities with loads of cash), and the law is a weak reflection of us running from ourselves?
Please understand, I love America. Have no interest in living anywhere else. Yet, deep love and hard, pointed questions about me/us, do not mean I do not love me (or you, or us). Rather, I would argue vigorously just the opposite is true. It is an unwillingness to ask hard questions, work through rather than avoid pain, and see myself/us as I really am rather than some fantasized notion of me (you, or us) that is the path to greater effectiveness.
Mr. Salahi, take your lumps and get out of the court-house. If that's really what the former Ms. Salahi is about, you'd be well-advised to let her join the band and play on. If something in America doesn't begin to change, and fairly soon, you will have your pick of other individuals who want to play your it's about me, until me bites me game.
WAKE UP Bart. The greatest part of the journey is embedded in the hard questions and their answers, the work required to answer the questions and the continual pursuit of new hard questions. Look in the mirror, do you see Tareq peeking over your shoulder at times? Or are you Tareq?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
The VERY Low Bar of the Law II
Need you any evidence of the VERY low bar set by "the law", take a gander at the defense's request to drop the charges against Penn State administrators accused of failing to effectively notify the proper authorities about alleged pedophile, Jerry Sandusky's molestation of a child on the Penn State campus. Both are asking the charges be dropped on technical issues.
Shut up with the, "Those issues are in the law for use, and can be valuable to the legal process." I get that legal breath. Read the title of the post! The VERY low bar of the Law - that's the point. A child was molested, and HIS life will NEVER be the same again, nor apparently will a number of other young men. Young men whose productive lives had yet begun. Young men, already identified "at risk" battling the current of growing up against the current of other likely foolish adult choices, sodomized, and two grown men who had long productive lives want out of their responsibility for failing to protect the children on a legal technicality? Now that's what I call being a real man - on the part of BOTH their attorneys and the two men.
Again, shut-up legal breath with the, "Well the two men are just heeding counsel." Here's a newflash lost in America in 2012. Attorneys provide a SERVICE. If they provide counsel I do not believe is ethical, moral or appropriate - I am the CUSTOMER and I say, "Thanks, but that answer is unacceptable."
Both men are interested in ONE thing - avoiding responsibility for what they failed to do - use their grown-up executive brains to protect the innocent. Didn't. Now they want their mommy, the law, to protect them. Odd, if they used their own standards, they don't get protected.
They may get off. Some do. I hope their own grandchildren's young lives never depend upon men who run behind legal technicalities as their grandfather's have!
However, what am I thinking? This is America where innocent life is illegally taken literally each day. Life I said, the VERY low bar of the law. Here's the saddest part of all - we, collectively are the law. Next time you here Oprah, Ellen, Bill, or some other shill talking about how we have "evolved" think again.
Father we need your protection - from ourselves.
Shut up with the, "Those issues are in the law for use, and can be valuable to the legal process." I get that legal breath. Read the title of the post! The VERY low bar of the Law - that's the point. A child was molested, and HIS life will NEVER be the same again, nor apparently will a number of other young men. Young men whose productive lives had yet begun. Young men, already identified "at risk" battling the current of growing up against the current of other likely foolish adult choices, sodomized, and two grown men who had long productive lives want out of their responsibility for failing to protect the children on a legal technicality? Now that's what I call being a real man - on the part of BOTH their attorneys and the two men.
Again, shut-up legal breath with the, "Well the two men are just heeding counsel." Here's a newflash lost in America in 2012. Attorneys provide a SERVICE. If they provide counsel I do not believe is ethical, moral or appropriate - I am the CUSTOMER and I say, "Thanks, but that answer is unacceptable."
Both men are interested in ONE thing - avoiding responsibility for what they failed to do - use their grown-up executive brains to protect the innocent. Didn't. Now they want their mommy, the law, to protect them. Odd, if they used their own standards, they don't get protected.
They may get off. Some do. I hope their own grandchildren's young lives never depend upon men who run behind legal technicalities as their grandfather's have!
However, what am I thinking? This is America where innocent life is illegally taken literally each day. Life I said, the VERY low bar of the law. Here's the saddest part of all - we, collectively are the law. Next time you here Oprah, Ellen, Bill, or some other shill talking about how we have "evolved" think again.
Father we need your protection - from ourselves.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Dog Training and Connection
Today, on the radio program, New Life Live, hosted by author Steve Arterburn , along with Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. Sheri Denham a fascinating point was made by Cloud.
Cloud, co-author, along with Dr. John Townsend of the powerful, "Boundaries" series noted that recently his family had a young puppy that they believed needed training. The decision was based upon the puppy's breed, Rottweiler/Doberman mix (talk about doggie fire-power). The trainer came in and watched the dog briefly interact with the family. Almost immediately, the trainer noted it was significant that the dog, though just a puppy, did not make eye contact with family members. Instead the pup was constantly scanning the landscape. The trainer commented, "That's bad. That's predator behavior, which we have to fix by teaching the puppy how to connect with each of you."
Incredulous, the family ask how that could be done. For the following week the family was to carry treats in their pockets and any time the puppy made eye contact, and held it, he got a treat. Within a very short time, the predator behavior of failing to make connect was gone - because the young dog associated connection and treats.
What, pray tell, was that discussion doing on a call-in program about relationships? A great deal actually.
Cloud went on to talk briefly about the importance of eye contact between people who love each other (hey, it is Valentine's Day), in developing connection - the glue of lasting, mutually satisfying relationships. He asked the humorous question, "In your relationship, does your partner get "treats" if he or she uses eye contact and works to build connection? After laughing Arterburn and Denham asked, is it possible that the thing that damages the connections in your relationships (spouse, significant other, children, work, whatever) is the fact that when people you supposedly care about come into the room, you do not make sincere, lasting eye contact signaling their value to your and your desire to connect with them - instead you scan the room - as if there might be better options?
As I contemplated the notion further, I was reminded of those times I've felt least satisfied at parties, family gatherings, even church. It hit me. I was the problem (I know that will be a news flash to some of you who know me). As I scanned the room, like a politician who cares for no one and everyone to the extent his or her vote is still in play vote. The people I had barely connected with as I scanned the room felt deeply how little regard (or love) they were being shown. My eye communication said, "I am making sure I choose the best among you," or "I am available to to a future, better option should it occur (as opposed to fully engaged with you NOW)." Gracious, how many times had I pridefully dissed people right in front of me, my former spouses, my sweet kids, dear friends, or my family who has put up with my crap for 52 years. What a sad scary answer that turns out to be.
The Bible regularly comments, Old and New Testament about the notion of, "Seeing, yet not seeing." Dogs get it. Wow - why didn't I? Humans need that connection provided by sustained eye contact every bit, almost certainly more than Fido.
I was in the car literally 10 minutes before I had to get out. Thanks Henry for the guts to throw out that topic which got you lampooned initially (dogs and connections on Valentine's Day) . I will never look at Fido quite the same. More importantly, I hope I am more intentional about providing the "treat" of connection to those who I love and care deeply about, as well as those I am attempting to serve, or get to know. WAKE UP Bart!
BTW the way, to hear additional great ideas on relationships check out: www.newlife.com for a radio station in your area. After all, it isn't every Valentine's Day you get a hint about how to build love with a doggie biscuit!
Cloud, co-author, along with Dr. John Townsend of the powerful, "Boundaries" series noted that recently his family had a young puppy that they believed needed training. The decision was based upon the puppy's breed, Rottweiler/Doberman mix (talk about doggie fire-power). The trainer came in and watched the dog briefly interact with the family. Almost immediately, the trainer noted it was significant that the dog, though just a puppy, did not make eye contact with family members. Instead the pup was constantly scanning the landscape. The trainer commented, "That's bad. That's predator behavior, which we have to fix by teaching the puppy how to connect with each of you."
Incredulous, the family ask how that could be done. For the following week the family was to carry treats in their pockets and any time the puppy made eye contact, and held it, he got a treat. Within a very short time, the predator behavior of failing to make connect was gone - because the young dog associated connection and treats.
What, pray tell, was that discussion doing on a call-in program about relationships? A great deal actually.
Cloud went on to talk briefly about the importance of eye contact between people who love each other (hey, it is Valentine's Day), in developing connection - the glue of lasting, mutually satisfying relationships. He asked the humorous question, "In your relationship, does your partner get "treats" if he or she uses eye contact and works to build connection? After laughing Arterburn and Denham asked, is it possible that the thing that damages the connections in your relationships (spouse, significant other, children, work, whatever) is the fact that when people you supposedly care about come into the room, you do not make sincere, lasting eye contact signaling their value to your and your desire to connect with them - instead you scan the room - as if there might be better options?
As I contemplated the notion further, I was reminded of those times I've felt least satisfied at parties, family gatherings, even church. It hit me. I was the problem (I know that will be a news flash to some of you who know me). As I scanned the room, like a politician who cares for no one and everyone to the extent his or her vote is still in play vote. The people I had barely connected with as I scanned the room felt deeply how little regard (or love) they were being shown. My eye communication said, "I am making sure I choose the best among you," or "I am available to to a future, better option should it occur (as opposed to fully engaged with you NOW)." Gracious, how many times had I pridefully dissed people right in front of me, my former spouses, my sweet kids, dear friends, or my family who has put up with my crap for 52 years. What a sad scary answer that turns out to be.
The Bible regularly comments, Old and New Testament about the notion of, "Seeing, yet not seeing." Dogs get it. Wow - why didn't I? Humans need that connection provided by sustained eye contact every bit, almost certainly more than Fido.
I was in the car literally 10 minutes before I had to get out. Thanks Henry for the guts to throw out that topic which got you lampooned initially (dogs and connections on Valentine's Day) . I will never look at Fido quite the same. More importantly, I hope I am more intentional about providing the "treat" of connection to those who I love and care deeply about, as well as those I am attempting to serve, or get to know. WAKE UP Bart!
BTW the way, to hear additional great ideas on relationships check out: www.newlife.com for a radio station in your area. After all, it isn't every Valentine's Day you get a hint about how to build love with a doggie biscuit!
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Proud of Texas' New Law
On October 1st of 2011, a law in Texas went into effect, requiring women about to undergo an abortion to undergo a sonogram prior to the abortion procedure. Now, Planned Parenthood (aka your tax dollars at slaughter) is complaining that women sometimes "Covered their ears as the sounds of fetal heartbeats echoed in their exam rooms."
Wow, what a news flash.
Suddenly, even vaunted science cannot hide the reality that the "fetus" is not an it. It is a thing, a living thing, a human thing - whose life is about to be snuffed out. That might be disturbing to a woman about to participate in silencing the fetal heartbeat? You think?
Do I think every person who has had, or wants an abortion is a monster? I do not. Do I think it is more than reasonable to assume many have been sucked in by the societal machine that sucks out infants? Yes, frankly I do. And, I am elated that the science so often used by the Left to do harm is now making it unmistakably clear that the "choice" is a choice between life and death. The choice between unselfishly accepting responsibility for one's actions and blaming them on circumstances. By and large as a nation, we'd rather not do that, it's too uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable? How uncomfortable must it be to be a fetus at the hands of an abortion doctor?
I am proud to be a Texan where this law is concerned. I can only hope common sense is contagious! I'm not optimistic on this front sadly. Too much selfishness, too much money, too much responsibility - we don't do those things. It's 2012 and we're what? Sophisticated? Right.
Wow, what a news flash.
Suddenly, even vaunted science cannot hide the reality that the "fetus" is not an it. It is a thing, a living thing, a human thing - whose life is about to be snuffed out. That might be disturbing to a woman about to participate in silencing the fetal heartbeat? You think?
Do I think every person who has had, or wants an abortion is a monster? I do not. Do I think it is more than reasonable to assume many have been sucked in by the societal machine that sucks out infants? Yes, frankly I do. And, I am elated that the science so often used by the Left to do harm is now making it unmistakably clear that the "choice" is a choice between life and death. The choice between unselfishly accepting responsibility for one's actions and blaming them on circumstances. By and large as a nation, we'd rather not do that, it's too uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable? How uncomfortable must it be to be a fetus at the hands of an abortion doctor?
I am proud to be a Texan where this law is concerned. I can only hope common sense is contagious! I'm not optimistic on this front sadly. Too much selfishness, too much money, too much responsibility - we don't do those things. It's 2012 and we're what? Sophisticated? Right.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Marcus' Legacy
Funerals are never easy. First, they are painful reminders we are mortal. Second, someone's company has been lost as we know it. Heck, even grumpy folks have someone for whom they were good company. Little did I know a funeral would be an encounter that would challenge me to reconsider my own tendency to judge.
Marcus Standish was the son of Steve and Glenna Standish, owners of a client company and fine folks to boot. He was one, who by earthly expectations, too young to go. He was only 21. As each of us is unique in his or her own way, so too was Marcus. Quick to smile or laugh, deeply and authentically, Marcus was a lover of life, AND of each of the people who were part of the tapestry of his relatively short life.
The cast of individuals who made up Marcus' life was diverse. Some might argue a bit more diverse than he could manage effectively. Yet, Marcus's legacy is just that - he did not try to manage or control people. He enjoyed the heck out of their company - right where they were when he met them. Executives, addicts, classmates, co-workers, Special Olympians, accomplished athletes, children, adults, brilliant, clueless . . . . didn't matter. He enjoyed the company of the entire lot. If ever anyone modeled unconditional love, Marcus would be near the top of that list.
What Marcus may have lacked in effective boundaries, he made up for with authenticity. As alluded to above, some who knew him well might argue the absence of those boundaries were part of Marcus' somewhat bumpy road in life. Perhaps so. However, at least one other perspective deserves additional consideration. What if time with Marcus, his sometimes painful, hard-fought, short journey not withstanding, introduced a glimpse of the only one who can make life make sense - Jesus - to someone he loved with those imperfect boundaries? Take it to the house that someone who knew Marcus Standish will never be the same again, for that encounter, and only God knows where HE (God) might take the time spent with Marcus for that person (or persons).
I, for one, will NEVER forget an act at Marcus' funeral so steeped in unconditional love it was almost hard for me to take in. It shined such a bright light on how judgmental and critical I have been (and sadly will likely be again) that it made my stomach turn inside out - for all the right reasons - it convicted me to the core. The act was breathtaking in its depth.
As guests were seated, the diverse crowd of Marcus' friends and acquaintances who were not biologically related occupied a portion of the crowd near the front on one side. They, like those directly related to him, were clearly grief-stricken at a deep, deep level. Sadly, I have been to at least one other funeral in a church for an individual who had diverse cast of friends. And, in that instance, observed more than a few questioning the very presence of those friends at the funeral. Not here - not at a funeral for Marcus. His enduring legacy was about to show itself in a daring, mind and heart-bending manner.
After a time, the pastor asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak regarding Marcus, or the occasion. One of those who would rise to speak was Glenna, Marcus' mother, to whom Marcus was so dear (as is Mason her other son). She began by thanking the entire crowd for their attendance. However, her first specific comments were directed purposely to Marcus' grieving assembly of friends. Though sad, likely beyond description, Glenna spoke with amazing calm as she said, "To those of you here who were Marcus' friends, I know Marcus loved you. He considered you his family just like he did me, his dad and his brother. And, while he and I did not always agree about some of you, he loved you - and that is enough for me. You will always be part of my family."
Did she just say what I think she said? Surely I was dreaming. Surely I did not hear a grieving mother, reach out to comfort those with whom she may have disagreed at times. I floundered to take in what I believe was a mother, still in shock at her loss, yet not so much in shock she could not extend grace at a time when others might have spewed the venom of anger, or resentment, or looked for someone to blame; God, these friends, someone . . . anyone.
I was not dreaming. I did hear that. I did hear love, consolation, grace - the essence of Marcus' legacy begun in a few sentences to hurting young adults, also grieving the loss of his smile, from his mother!
Momentarily, as the realization hit me, I could hardly breathe. The white hot light of my petty judgments regarding others (friends and foes alike), critical comments and accusing stares and plain stupidity in failing to grasp the gift of the people who God himself has allowed to cross my path was searing, painful and surgically precise in touching my own proud heart. Had Marcus been able to see inside my stone heart during our few encounters, he might have said to me, "You're missing out Bart. Folks have a lot to give you - that judgment is killing you - and more importantly, them."
That episode, a mother's courage, willingness to admit her own faults in the midst of grief, love for those loved by Marcus - warts and all, and willingness to set aside her own feelings to share those of her dear son for his friends, mirror the love of the Savior Marcus was early in getting to know. Today, that love is perfected for Marcus. And, his legacy will live in the lives of others, some who will live forever with him, and HIM. Thank you Marcus for challenging me to be a better me. Thank you Glenna for showing me that being a parent means more than just giving instructions. It also means the humility to learn from our children.
Marcus Standish, indeed the road less traveled. Thank you Marcus!
However, tonight as I reflect on the priviledge of having known each, and those who loved them, what strikes me is how similar the legacy each leaves behind - love, attributes in each's character in an unusually strong manner, Evidence of the truth of the earliest verses of Genesis where God says He will create man in His image. Marcus and Sandy both left behind an example of what unconditional love looks like, in practical every day life.
Consider Sandy in this episode, 29 years ago. It was December 31st. Billy Joel was playing in Dallas. Single, I decided to bolt Abilene where I was living, come to Dallas unannounced to hit the concert and then spend the night with my high school friend and college roommate, Steve Mack and his bride of six months, Sandy (who he met at Abilene Christian, where we had been students). Yes, they were married, but we'd been friends, me and Steve for six years - he'd only known her four (yes, insert, Bart is a dork here). I knocked on the door and Sandy answered. "Hi, Bart," she said with some doubt in her voice and a strange look on her face. "Hi Sandy, Steve home," I asked like the trip had been planned for months. Steve's face popped into the opening of the door, he asked with some aggitation in his voice, "Bart, what are you doing in Dallas?"
The upshot? I was uninvited, expected to stay in their apartment, had forgotten it was Sandy's birthday (her first as a married woman). She graciously invited me in, said they'd be out but gave me the key, apologizing for not being able to entertain me. I was an idiot!!! (That only started to change recently, I am saddened to say). I spoke with Sandy, two weeks before she died - she was still gracious to me, and had been for each of the 29 years in between. Sandy loved me, and other people in one way - unconditionally, right where they were.
Here funeral was a collection of friends who had been touched by that love in many different, tangible ways. Her children spoke with amazing composure, given the circumstances, strengthened by the touch of her love. Love she got from knowing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she was loved by Steve, and more importantly by the God who created her and gave His own son to bring that love to life in her.
Marcus, he was quite a young man. He truly never met a stranger. Marcus's greatest strength was he was fascinated by, friendly to, and willing to enjoy being with you, whoever you were; portfolio or penniless, profound or profane, postured or propped up - didn't matter to Marcus. He could, and would love you just the same. A quick smile, willing to share the shirt on his back, and interested in getting to know your story - regardless what it was, Marcus made people feel comfortable just being who they were at the time he met them.
Marcus's love, love that also came from having surrendered his big heart to the heart that never fails - Jesus - powered an act so outrageous today, I shall NEVER forget it. I will be challenged by it, more so that hundreds of sermons I have heard, if I live to be an old, old man. His mother, Glenna, stood before the audience. Though grief-stricken, she looked directly into the crowd at a group of young adults who were Marcus's friends and said something close to, "Marcus loved you all. You were his family. Me and Marcus did not always agree on who his friends were. And, even today, I will be honest, some of you make me nervous. But Marcus loved you. And that is enough for me. Me and Steve learned alot from Marcus about loving unconditionally. So today, thank you for being here, for loving Marcus. You are part of our family too."
I know Glenna Standish. She does not just throw words like "love" around. Her willingness to extend Marcus's love to everyone present spoke loudly about the legacy Marcus has left behind.
Tonight, I miss Sandy. I know Steve, their sweet kids and so many others do as well. I did not know Marcus as well, or as long, but I know he will be sorely missed for what his unconditional love could teach folks, even by those of us who did not know him nearly as well as Steve, Sandy and Mason. BUT, despite our sadness at their passing
Marcus Standish was the son of Steve and Glenna Standish, owners of a client company and fine folks to boot. He was one, who by earthly expectations, too young to go. He was only 21. As each of us is unique in his or her own way, so too was Marcus. Quick to smile or laugh, deeply and authentically, Marcus was a lover of life, AND of each of the people who were part of the tapestry of his relatively short life.
The cast of individuals who made up Marcus' life was diverse. Some might argue a bit more diverse than he could manage effectively. Yet, Marcus's legacy is just that - he did not try to manage or control people. He enjoyed the heck out of their company - right where they were when he met them. Executives, addicts, classmates, co-workers, Special Olympians, accomplished athletes, children, adults, brilliant, clueless . . . . didn't matter. He enjoyed the company of the entire lot. If ever anyone modeled unconditional love, Marcus would be near the top of that list.
What Marcus may have lacked in effective boundaries, he made up for with authenticity. As alluded to above, some who knew him well might argue the absence of those boundaries were part of Marcus' somewhat bumpy road in life. Perhaps so. However, at least one other perspective deserves additional consideration. What if time with Marcus, his sometimes painful, hard-fought, short journey not withstanding, introduced a glimpse of the only one who can make life make sense - Jesus - to someone he loved with those imperfect boundaries? Take it to the house that someone who knew Marcus Standish will never be the same again, for that encounter, and only God knows where HE (God) might take the time spent with Marcus for that person (or persons).
I, for one, will NEVER forget an act at Marcus' funeral so steeped in unconditional love it was almost hard for me to take in. It shined such a bright light on how judgmental and critical I have been (and sadly will likely be again) that it made my stomach turn inside out - for all the right reasons - it convicted me to the core. The act was breathtaking in its depth.
As guests were seated, the diverse crowd of Marcus' friends and acquaintances who were not biologically related occupied a portion of the crowd near the front on one side. They, like those directly related to him, were clearly grief-stricken at a deep, deep level. Sadly, I have been to at least one other funeral in a church for an individual who had diverse cast of friends. And, in that instance, observed more than a few questioning the very presence of those friends at the funeral. Not here - not at a funeral for Marcus. His enduring legacy was about to show itself in a daring, mind and heart-bending manner.
After a time, the pastor asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak regarding Marcus, or the occasion. One of those who would rise to speak was Glenna, Marcus' mother, to whom Marcus was so dear (as is Mason her other son). She began by thanking the entire crowd for their attendance. However, her first specific comments were directed purposely to Marcus' grieving assembly of friends. Though sad, likely beyond description, Glenna spoke with amazing calm as she said, "To those of you here who were Marcus' friends, I know Marcus loved you. He considered you his family just like he did me, his dad and his brother. And, while he and I did not always agree about some of you, he loved you - and that is enough for me. You will always be part of my family."
Did she just say what I think she said? Surely I was dreaming. Surely I did not hear a grieving mother, reach out to comfort those with whom she may have disagreed at times. I floundered to take in what I believe was a mother, still in shock at her loss, yet not so much in shock she could not extend grace at a time when others might have spewed the venom of anger, or resentment, or looked for someone to blame; God, these friends, someone . . . anyone.
I was not dreaming. I did hear that. I did hear love, consolation, grace - the essence of Marcus' legacy begun in a few sentences to hurting young adults, also grieving the loss of his smile, from his mother!
Momentarily, as the realization hit me, I could hardly breathe. The white hot light of my petty judgments regarding others (friends and foes alike), critical comments and accusing stares and plain stupidity in failing to grasp the gift of the people who God himself has allowed to cross my path was searing, painful and surgically precise in touching my own proud heart. Had Marcus been able to see inside my stone heart during our few encounters, he might have said to me, "You're missing out Bart. Folks have a lot to give you - that judgment is killing you - and more importantly, them."
That episode, a mother's courage, willingness to admit her own faults in the midst of grief, love for those loved by Marcus - warts and all, and willingness to set aside her own feelings to share those of her dear son for his friends, mirror the love of the Savior Marcus was early in getting to know. Today, that love is perfected for Marcus. And, his legacy will live in the lives of others, some who will live forever with him, and HIM. Thank you Marcus for challenging me to be a better me. Thank you Glenna for showing me that being a parent means more than just giving instructions. It also means the humility to learn from our children.
Marcus Standish, indeed the road less traveled. Thank you Marcus!
However, tonight as I reflect on the priviledge of having known each, and those who loved them, what strikes me is how similar the legacy each leaves behind - love, attributes in each's character in an unusually strong manner, Evidence of the truth of the earliest verses of Genesis where God says He will create man in His image. Marcus and Sandy both left behind an example of what unconditional love looks like, in practical every day life.
Consider Sandy in this episode, 29 years ago. It was December 31st. Billy Joel was playing in Dallas. Single, I decided to bolt Abilene where I was living, come to Dallas unannounced to hit the concert and then spend the night with my high school friend and college roommate, Steve Mack and his bride of six months, Sandy (who he met at Abilene Christian, where we had been students). Yes, they were married, but we'd been friends, me and Steve for six years - he'd only known her four (yes, insert, Bart is a dork here). I knocked on the door and Sandy answered. "Hi, Bart," she said with some doubt in her voice and a strange look on her face. "Hi Sandy, Steve home," I asked like the trip had been planned for months. Steve's face popped into the opening of the door, he asked with some aggitation in his voice, "Bart, what are you doing in Dallas?"
The upshot? I was uninvited, expected to stay in their apartment, had forgotten it was Sandy's birthday (her first as a married woman). She graciously invited me in, said they'd be out but gave me the key, apologizing for not being able to entertain me. I was an idiot!!! (That only started to change recently, I am saddened to say). I spoke with Sandy, two weeks before she died - she was still gracious to me, and had been for each of the 29 years in between. Sandy loved me, and other people in one way - unconditionally, right where they were.
Here funeral was a collection of friends who had been touched by that love in many different, tangible ways. Her children spoke with amazing composure, given the circumstances, strengthened by the touch of her love. Love she got from knowing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she was loved by Steve, and more importantly by the God who created her and gave His own son to bring that love to life in her.
Marcus, he was quite a young man. He truly never met a stranger. Marcus's greatest strength was he was fascinated by, friendly to, and willing to enjoy being with you, whoever you were; portfolio or penniless, profound or profane, postured or propped up - didn't matter to Marcus. He could, and would love you just the same. A quick smile, willing to share the shirt on his back, and interested in getting to know your story - regardless what it was, Marcus made people feel comfortable just being who they were at the time he met them.
Marcus's love, love that also came from having surrendered his big heart to the heart that never fails - Jesus - powered an act so outrageous today, I shall NEVER forget it. I will be challenged by it, more so that hundreds of sermons I have heard, if I live to be an old, old man. His mother, Glenna, stood before the audience. Though grief-stricken, she looked directly into the crowd at a group of young adults who were Marcus's friends and said something close to, "Marcus loved you all. You were his family. Me and Marcus did not always agree on who his friends were. And, even today, I will be honest, some of you make me nervous. But Marcus loved you. And that is enough for me. Me and Steve learned alot from Marcus about loving unconditionally. So today, thank you for being here, for loving Marcus. You are part of our family too."
I know Glenna Standish. She does not just throw words like "love" around. Her willingness to extend Marcus's love to everyone present spoke loudly about the legacy Marcus has left behind.
Tonight, I miss Sandy. I know Steve, their sweet kids and so many others do as well. I did not know Marcus as well, or as long, but I know he will be sorely missed for what his unconditional love could teach folks, even by those of us who did not know him nearly as well as Steve, Sandy and Mason. BUT, despite our sadness at their passing
Friday, February 03, 2012
Gravel and Diamonds
As I begin working to organize a joint 35th Class Reunion for the classes of 1977, 1978 and 1979 at Lubbock Christian High School, I discovered the item pasted below, while looking for an image I could use of the Reunion FB page.
I am proud of LCHS. The letter shows a sense about youthful romance, which is going to happen, sometimes setting the stage for relationship patterns the rest of one's life (more often than not it seems those patterns are negative, unproductive ones). The discussion in the posting, including the piece of a letter sent to young people who appear to have an interest in each other, exhibits an unapologetic balance, sorely needed in our culture - including the Body of Christ.
Sex is real. God created it, and intends a special mind and heart boggling purpose for it, in a specific context. He loves us enough to provide story after story in His own Word about the consequences of doing it ANY other way! His was is not cultural, time-bound, or old-fashioned. We have believed so since we first starting walking the rotating ball - to our collective detriment. Sorry Lady Gaga. You may have artistic talent. You haven't a clue what the special gift of sexuality was meant to be. And your "contributions" sadly will produce more long-term heart break not less, more gravel fewer diamonds.
Finally, those of you whose heads might be exploding at this old fashioned post by me, ask yourself this, which is more common in nature, gravel or diamonds? Which is more valuable? Diamonds are rare. Created over long periods of time, under great pressure. And their value is based upon how rare they are - NOT how common! More sex, in different ways, with different people will not increase the value of sex. To the contrary it diminishes the value of sex, and more tragically, the lives of the people splashing around in it. Really! - Just ask Marilyn Monroe, or Demi Moore. They were/are liberated aren't' they. How is that working out?
One more reason I am proud to be an Eagle! So here's to first kisses done right, romance begun when it can be handled with at least a glimpse of emotional maturity (at say 17, 18 or beyond), modest dress (dad's, what the heck are you thinking sending your daughter's out with their panties on display), and heart-lifting, person affirming sex based on the manufacturer's instructions (versus some cheap knock-off, at 17 or 57).
Romance at LCHS by Peter Dahlstrom (appeared January 1, 2010, in the Reflections magazine)
Thanks Mr. Dahlstrom for having the courage to educate about one of life's important matters.
I am proud of LCHS. The letter shows a sense about youthful romance, which is going to happen, sometimes setting the stage for relationship patterns the rest of one's life (more often than not it seems those patterns are negative, unproductive ones). The discussion in the posting, including the piece of a letter sent to young people who appear to have an interest in each other, exhibits an unapologetic balance, sorely needed in our culture - including the Body of Christ.
Sex is real. God created it, and intends a special mind and heart boggling purpose for it, in a specific context. He loves us enough to provide story after story in His own Word about the consequences of doing it ANY other way! His was is not cultural, time-bound, or old-fashioned. We have believed so since we first starting walking the rotating ball - to our collective detriment. Sorry Lady Gaga. You may have artistic talent. You haven't a clue what the special gift of sexuality was meant to be. And your "contributions" sadly will produce more long-term heart break not less, more gravel fewer diamonds.
Finally, those of you whose heads might be exploding at this old fashioned post by me, ask yourself this, which is more common in nature, gravel or diamonds? Which is more valuable? Diamonds are rare. Created over long periods of time, under great pressure. And their value is based upon how rare they are - NOT how common! More sex, in different ways, with different people will not increase the value of sex. To the contrary it diminishes the value of sex, and more tragically, the lives of the people splashing around in it. Really! - Just ask Marilyn Monroe, or Demi Moore. They were/are liberated aren't' they. How is that working out?
One more reason I am proud to be an Eagle! So here's to first kisses done right, romance begun when it can be handled with at least a glimpse of emotional maturity (at say 17, 18 or beyond), modest dress (dad's, what the heck are you thinking sending your daughter's out with their panties on display), and heart-lifting, person affirming sex based on the manufacturer's instructions (versus some cheap knock-off, at 17 or 57).
Romance at LCHS by Peter Dahlstrom (appeared January 1, 2010, in the Reflections magazine)
Romance has always been a part of coeducational school life. When you put boys and girls together, there is going to be romance. Sometimes it can be a huge problem. Distraction. Impropriety. Jealousy. Tears. Threats. Fights. Absenteeism. Truancy. The list of symptoms can be long. In some schools, these problems rank in the top 5 of discipline incidents. This is not the case at LCS. Because of the good character of our students, and the good parenting that prevails, the example set by our faculty and staff, the spiritual training and encouragement the students receive every day, and the high standards that the school’s policies support, all of our discipline issues are atypical for American schools today. The environment is actually very retro, like say to 1930’s/40’s, as far as behavior, respect, and a fun, friendly atmosphere. And teenage romance is included. The total absence or rarity at LCS of school violence, vulgarity, drugs/alcohol, and ludeness/promiscuity are remarkable to all who know about 21st century American schools, unbelievable to some.
But romance is alive. Every culture approaches romance and its adolescents in its own way. Some have arranged marriages, with no dating or individual choice permitted. One Christian sect practices “bundling”, actually sewing a girl and a boy into separate sacks and putting them in bed together to get acquainted socially and romantically. (Experience has proven that this method is not 100% effective.) Other societies require chaperones to accompany all couples on dates. Many parents set their own family rules. Minimum ages. Curfews. Double-dating only. Approved activities and locations. Now parents can even activate a GPS locator function on the smart phones, know where the dating couple is all the time. (Or at least where the phone is!) All of these strategies have their merits and failings. But what is the best way to handle teenage romance between Christian boys and girls?
The best way is personal responsibility based on a willingness to live and act in submission to God’s will and the wishes of their parents. The world laughs at such a suggestion. But I see it taking place here every day, every year. I would say that as junior highs and high schools go, we have fewer ongoing romances than most. I think that because of the small class size, constant companionships in activities, and the daily spiritual emphasis, with the same teachers year after year, a family atmosphere develops. Nobody wants to date their sister or brother! And many of them are such good friends, that they don’t consider dating one another or becoming romantically involved. Very often these special friendships form when a new, “eligible” student enrolls. But they are all fun to watch, especially when they handle them so well. And most of them do, which always reinforces my conviction that it can be done well, with modesty and respect and wholesomeness. It is a sad commentary that most people believe that it can’t be done. It is really a denial that this great gift from God, this normal, mysterious, exciting romantic love, can’t be received and enjoyed by young people, (and old people), within His will.
I have a form letter that I privately hand deliver to couples that sometimes need a gentle reminder about our PDA policy, Public Display of Affection. Here is an excerpt.
“It is important to me that people think the right things about both of you and about the school. It is a sad thing today that in our society people assume the worst about a couple when they see that they have a romantic and physical attraction. I do not think that about you two. We have a policy that says couples are not to show affection openly in any physical way. It is a good policy for many reasons. It is not to imply anything bad about anyone’s motives or character. I have not seen you do anything that I would consider improper or sinful but your feelings for each other are too obvious with the constant and regular hand holding and hugging, the occasional snuggle or perhaps even the stolen kiss on the cheek. I don’t think these are silly or juvenile. They are natural and special in their proper time and place. But please don’t do these things on campus, either in the halls or in class or chapel. Some people are immediately offended by these things, younger children cannot understand them and may be confused or misled by them, and school is just not a good place for them.”
I do not average using this letter once a year. It has always been well received. I have never had to go to the next step of contacting parents. This is responsibility at its best. Is it a struggle for Christian young people to handle this wonderful gift, the “love of touch”? Of course! Wasn’t it for you and me? But our message in Bible classes and chapels at LCS is that it is not impossible, that Satan and much of contemporary culture are constantly lying to them when they say, “Love is lust. Genuine affection and romantic love must to lead to lust and promiscuity.” I am not so naïve as to think that our kids never fail in this struggle. I know that they have at times through the years, and it is always sad. But is it not unforgivable and not insurmountable. And it is not the norm. A sweet, self-disciplined, high school romance, in a wholesome environment, can be a beautiful memory and great preparation for serious relationships in later years. LCHS has had numerous, happy, successful Christian marriages grow out of these school romances. And that’s not such a bad thing, is it? I personally know that this was one clear intention of the founders of many Christian colleges and universities, to create an environment in which Christian young men and women could find each other, fall in love, and marry for life. I cannot criticize that motive.
Now don’t worry. We do not promote romance at LCHS. But we don’t police it or harass it. We start from a position of trust, expecting the best and not the worst. We have curriculum that promotes chastity, celibacy till marriage, and gives specific advice and strategies to young people about how to successfully be “in love” and still honor God and Christ. Most of all we encourage them this has been done, that it is done, all the time, with God’s help, and that they can do it. The rewards for obeying God in this great gift will be enormous, to themselves, the church, the country, and the world.
Thanks Mr. Dahlstrom for having the courage to educate about one of life's important matters.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The VERY Low Bar of the Law
Over the past decade a dizzying number of scandals (for lack of a better term) have become public, the most recent the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky child molestation debacle. Before someone's head explodes, I understand the legal process has not played out. The presumption in this country is asserted to be innocent until proved guilty. However, the point of this piece is not guilt or innocence, rather, an issue I want to suggest is more serious. Yes, I said more serious (than guilt or innocence).
There is a problematic myth now pervasive in America, and perhaps around the world which is likely at the root of why these problems continue to occur. Frankly, I'd like to suggest for consideration, such tragic misadventures will increase in number, scope and magnitude if we do not quit confusing the "symptoms" with the "problem." The myth which has become truth (though false) is that the law (American civil and criminal statutes) represents a high bar for personal conduct. NOTHING could be further from the truth. Viewed even slightly objectively, the law presents a very low standard of conduct (unless perhaps one is in the vast majority of attorneys who need the myth to justify the most common manner of practicing law in America).
Consider the following example. While on two different advisory committees to organizations, the issue of background checks was raised. The organizations, supposedly concerned about children as they were kid activity organizations, were investigating their background check procedures. The first, whether it needed them, the second, how to reduce the cost of conducting them.
Frankly, the necessity of the questions is troubling enough. It has not been that long ago when the vast, vast, majority of people were what and who they appeared to be. Regardless, consider how the second discussion proceeded. The organization wondered if such checks could be done for less than the $2.00 per background check they were currently paying. After all, they considered a great many applicants and the cost of such checks was beginning to be quite a sum. Was that sum a good business decision we were being asked to discuss? If so, might there be a less expensive manner for achieving such information. Having worked at point point five years as an HR consultant who had occasion to visit with another consultant (Imperative Information) who focused on and provided effective, accurate background checks, I was aware that cheap web-based background checks, such as those used by the organization on whose advisory committee I served, should barely be allowed to be called background checks. Research by Imperative had shown for example that the data base used by background check companies regarding the Texas Department of Corrections was incorrect almost 50% of the time. In fact, the woman, Darlie Routier (sp) who was accused of taking the life of her two young sons was on Death Row for almost two years before her conviction even appeared in the TDC data base. As such, she could have turned in an employment application, or volunteer application at a child care agency for two years without them knowing she was a convicted murderer.
Here, however, the low bar of the law reared it's unmistakable head. When I provided this information, asking, "If we are only spending $2.00 per check, why are we looking to lower the cost further, rather than asking whether we are wasting $2.00 on information that is quite likely of little value and may even be misleading at best?" Immediately, a highly regarded employment law attorney also on the committee spoke up. "Bart, you do not understand, regardless of potential errors, we do not have increased risk here because we are meeting the industry standard as measured against or peer organizations." Folks, this man is a fine, if professionally deluded fellow. A leader in his church, the community and his profession. And his concern is the industry standard? Are you kidding me? He went on to discuss ad naseum how our "risk" would be determined by whether what we were doing (a $2.00 per check) was consistent with what other organizations who dealt with children were doing, rather than whether a child had been molested or abused by someone who the organization have only determined to have such a past record at great expense. Expense to who? How expensive might it be to a child to be abused, or slain?
So, despite his many generous acts, which remain generous, the defense "I wanted to make sure I did not violate Penn State processes in doing something incorrect. So I reported the matter to my superiors" is supposed to be taken of him doing what was necessary? His superiors are being defended by a number of quarters with the defense they did all the law required? And that's okay with us collectively? If the highest bar in Joe Pa, or his superior's life is Penn State procedures and their violation their standard are LOW - period.
Many business people defended Arthur Anderson in the Enron scandal, which cost countless individuals their retirement savings by saying, "They were in a tough spot, Enron's leaders who their clients." And so, if a client want's one to break the law and abuse others, the fact that it's a "tough spot" or "going to cost money" means we go along. Too many times today the answer is, "Yes."
Wake up America!!!!!! The law is a low bar. it always has been, it always will be. Should it have taken a change in the law to eliminate segregation? Should I only drive responsibly and courteously because it's the law? Should I continuosly haggle with my children's mother without remorse so long as "I don't violate a divorce decree"? Should I only comply with the terms of a contract because it I do not I will get sued? Come on "adult" America. Let's get our heads out of our collective rear-end.
And, again, before someone over reacts, I am not urging rushing to judgment without appropriate due process. However, I am arguing against the insanity of "risk management" that is nothing other than covering our selfish, scared butts masequerading as healthly living because it's been accepted as the standard (a very low standard).
Let's make this even simpler. How is "risk management" working for us? At Penn State? Texas Tech (where the Board, the coach, and a parent - who thinks someone would elect him for public office, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt they possessed very little integrity between them combined)? Enron? Tyco? Adelphia? Arthur Anderson Accounting? The Catholic Church? Bernie Madoff (for years)? Athletes who acknowledge after the fact they broke the rules, "Like everyone else?" And the list could go on and on. Have we forgotten the age old story of the Emporeor's New Clothes. YES. The legal profession has lead us to believe - and we let them - that the Emporeor (known as our behavior) has new clothes. The law will protect us from us! Really? No it won't nor has it ever. The law is, at best, an incredibly low bar, which seldom compels human behavior to any signficant degree (it's a character, spiritual issue, whether we collectively want to face it or not). And to allow oneself to be lead to believe that, especially by individuals who have a vested interest in us believing that something else, is NUTS! And the running scared because we/I might get sued frenzy that is now America is concrete evidence. Further, it is idiotic to think that at some point we will have "enough" risk management. No - more of the same will simply produce more of the same. At some point, we will either be driven out of any semblance of an ability to live in community or we will say, one individual at a time, I will take the risk that I cannot control others, I can control me, and I will do the right thing regardless of the cost.
BTW - Do I hate attorneys? No. No more than I hate other people, which I do not. However, I know too many attorneys not to recognize that each of them, like me, are human. Further, any enterprise where big dollars and humans mix there will potential manipulation for gain (and, though I am absolutely in favor of the free market system, I am not so naive as to be blinded to some of its weak spots). I know a number of fine, fine attorneys. In fact some of the small percentage who are willing to acknowledge the law as a particularly low bar.
What I have the "right" to do and what might be right to do are in my experience NOT the same thing. Have your legal rights replaced what is right for you to do? If so, I hope your son or daughter does not encounter some instituation whose rights exceed those of your child's. If so, my heart will go out to your child, and I would simply say to you, I am sorry but you've/we've just experienced first hand exactly the world we have chosen.
Don't all of us want more than that?
There is a problematic myth now pervasive in America, and perhaps around the world which is likely at the root of why these problems continue to occur. Frankly, I'd like to suggest for consideration, such tragic misadventures will increase in number, scope and magnitude if we do not quit confusing the "symptoms" with the "problem." The myth which has become truth (though false) is that the law (American civil and criminal statutes) represents a high bar for personal conduct. NOTHING could be further from the truth. Viewed even slightly objectively, the law presents a very low standard of conduct (unless perhaps one is in the vast majority of attorneys who need the myth to justify the most common manner of practicing law in America).
Consider the following example. While on two different advisory committees to organizations, the issue of background checks was raised. The organizations, supposedly concerned about children as they were kid activity organizations, were investigating their background check procedures. The first, whether it needed them, the second, how to reduce the cost of conducting them.
Frankly, the necessity of the questions is troubling enough. It has not been that long ago when the vast, vast, majority of people were what and who they appeared to be. Regardless, consider how the second discussion proceeded. The organization wondered if such checks could be done for less than the $2.00 per background check they were currently paying. After all, they considered a great many applicants and the cost of such checks was beginning to be quite a sum. Was that sum a good business decision we were being asked to discuss? If so, might there be a less expensive manner for achieving such information. Having worked at point point five years as an HR consultant who had occasion to visit with another consultant (Imperative Information) who focused on and provided effective, accurate background checks, I was aware that cheap web-based background checks, such as those used by the organization on whose advisory committee I served, should barely be allowed to be called background checks. Research by Imperative had shown for example that the data base used by background check companies regarding the Texas Department of Corrections was incorrect almost 50% of the time. In fact, the woman, Darlie Routier (sp) who was accused of taking the life of her two young sons was on Death Row for almost two years before her conviction even appeared in the TDC data base. As such, she could have turned in an employment application, or volunteer application at a child care agency for two years without them knowing she was a convicted murderer.
Here, however, the low bar of the law reared it's unmistakable head. When I provided this information, asking, "If we are only spending $2.00 per check, why are we looking to lower the cost further, rather than asking whether we are wasting $2.00 on information that is quite likely of little value and may even be misleading at best?" Immediately, a highly regarded employment law attorney also on the committee spoke up. "Bart, you do not understand, regardless of potential errors, we do not have increased risk here because we are meeting the industry standard as measured against or peer organizations." Folks, this man is a fine, if professionally deluded fellow. A leader in his church, the community and his profession. And his concern is the industry standard? Are you kidding me? He went on to discuss ad naseum how our "risk" would be determined by whether what we were doing (a $2.00 per check) was consistent with what other organizations who dealt with children were doing, rather than whether a child had been molested or abused by someone who the organization have only determined to have such a past record at great expense. Expense to who? How expensive might it be to a child to be abused, or slain?
So, despite his many generous acts, which remain generous, the defense "I wanted to make sure I did not violate Penn State processes in doing something incorrect. So I reported the matter to my superiors" is supposed to be taken of him doing what was necessary? His superiors are being defended by a number of quarters with the defense they did all the law required? And that's okay with us collectively? If the highest bar in Joe Pa, or his superior's life is Penn State procedures and their violation their standard are LOW - period.
Many business people defended Arthur Anderson in the Enron scandal, which cost countless individuals their retirement savings by saying, "They were in a tough spot, Enron's leaders who their clients." And so, if a client want's one to break the law and abuse others, the fact that it's a "tough spot" or "going to cost money" means we go along. Too many times today the answer is, "Yes."
Wake up America!!!!!! The law is a low bar. it always has been, it always will be. Should it have taken a change in the law to eliminate segregation? Should I only drive responsibly and courteously because it's the law? Should I continuosly haggle with my children's mother without remorse so long as "I don't violate a divorce decree"? Should I only comply with the terms of a contract because it I do not I will get sued? Come on "adult" America. Let's get our heads out of our collective rear-end.
And, again, before someone over reacts, I am not urging rushing to judgment without appropriate due process. However, I am arguing against the insanity of "risk management" that is nothing other than covering our selfish, scared butts masequerading as healthly living because it's been accepted as the standard (a very low standard).
Let's make this even simpler. How is "risk management" working for us? At Penn State? Texas Tech (where the Board, the coach, and a parent - who thinks someone would elect him for public office, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt they possessed very little integrity between them combined)? Enron? Tyco? Adelphia? Arthur Anderson Accounting? The Catholic Church? Bernie Madoff (for years)? Athletes who acknowledge after the fact they broke the rules, "Like everyone else?" And the list could go on and on. Have we forgotten the age old story of the Emporeor's New Clothes. YES. The legal profession has lead us to believe - and we let them - that the Emporeor (known as our behavior) has new clothes. The law will protect us from us! Really? No it won't nor has it ever. The law is, at best, an incredibly low bar, which seldom compels human behavior to any signficant degree (it's a character, spiritual issue, whether we collectively want to face it or not). And to allow oneself to be lead to believe that, especially by individuals who have a vested interest in us believing that something else, is NUTS! And the running scared because we/I might get sued frenzy that is now America is concrete evidence. Further, it is idiotic to think that at some point we will have "enough" risk management. No - more of the same will simply produce more of the same. At some point, we will either be driven out of any semblance of an ability to live in community or we will say, one individual at a time, I will take the risk that I cannot control others, I can control me, and I will do the right thing regardless of the cost.
BTW - Do I hate attorneys? No. No more than I hate other people, which I do not. However, I know too many attorneys not to recognize that each of them, like me, are human. Further, any enterprise where big dollars and humans mix there will potential manipulation for gain (and, though I am absolutely in favor of the free market system, I am not so naive as to be blinded to some of its weak spots). I know a number of fine, fine attorneys. In fact some of the small percentage who are willing to acknowledge the law as a particularly low bar.
What I have the "right" to do and what might be right to do are in my experience NOT the same thing. Have your legal rights replaced what is right for you to do? If so, I hope your son or daughter does not encounter some instituation whose rights exceed those of your child's. If so, my heart will go out to your child, and I would simply say to you, I am sorry but you've/we've just experienced first hand exactly the world we have chosen.
Don't all of us want more than that?
Thursday, January 12, 2012
He Was Right - Would Not Trade
The day after my wife and I separated, the precursor to a divorce, I encountered a man at church I knew casually. I explained to him how helpful something he had said at a recovery meeting just days before had been. He thanked me. He then made an assertion, which I believed at the time to be nuts. He said, "If I could get back what I had but to do so would have to give back what I have now in terms of knowing God, myself, and others, I would not make that trade." As I said, I thought he was nuts. He was not.
Today, I can say with sincerity I have never had greater clarity about who I can be absent God's love and leading. I can accept responsibility for a dark story that began with an ill-advised relationship in college, destroyed two marriages and has left my children living the painful double life of divorce (my prideful, foolish generation's gift to the country). Because of God's love, and that of others, including though by no means limited to Ken & Shirley (my parents), Janna and Kendra (my dear sisters), Bart Hamilton and Bart Kunkel (my brothers-in-law), Kellie Stockton (my former spouse), Bryan Duncan (my mentor and friend at Celebration Fellowship), James Reeves (the pastor at Celebration who first, along with Kellie, really kicked my behind), Steve Mack, Steve Eldridge, Mark Love and Brent Matthews (four finer friends a man could not have) - and many others, I know that the dark story does not define me, unless I choose to allow it to do so.
I feel lighter than air having experienced grace at the most practical level, life with Godly people who know the secrets and have said repeatedly, "We love you. Just keep putting one foot in front of the other. You didn't get here overnight, you won't get to a new place overnight. However, God will reward the effort to change along the way." He has. In spades, as the expression goes.
My buddy? His comment about the trade? Dead on. I was fortunate to live life with Kellie Stockton for almost 15 years. I know she too wants to know the Father's heart. Wish I had done so many things differently to nourish that desire in her rather than obstruct it. Woulda, coulda, shoulda - didn't. On we both go, literally in God's grace.
Me, though so difficult for three innocent children, I am another who would not make the trade. God will watch over Kellie, Ashton, Alexys and Andrew and show me how to be a godly friend, and effective father in the situation we provided Him to work with. That's what He does; make things new. I do not make the comment lightly. I wish it could have been otherwise. I was too hard-hearted, prideful and selfish. One more reason to look out the windshield and not the rear view!
Here's a hint. Don't wait and be forced to consider the trade. Love those in your life TODAY. Nourish their vulnerabilities. Be honored they have shared them with you. Let God show you how to navigate the challenges of life as you go.
Today, I can say with sincerity I have never had greater clarity about who I can be absent God's love and leading. I can accept responsibility for a dark story that began with an ill-advised relationship in college, destroyed two marriages and has left my children living the painful double life of divorce (my prideful, foolish generation's gift to the country). Because of God's love, and that of others, including though by no means limited to Ken & Shirley (my parents), Janna and Kendra (my dear sisters), Bart Hamilton and Bart Kunkel (my brothers-in-law), Kellie Stockton (my former spouse), Bryan Duncan (my mentor and friend at Celebration Fellowship), James Reeves (the pastor at Celebration who first, along with Kellie, really kicked my behind), Steve Mack, Steve Eldridge, Mark Love and Brent Matthews (four finer friends a man could not have) - and many others, I know that the dark story does not define me, unless I choose to allow it to do so.
I feel lighter than air having experienced grace at the most practical level, life with Godly people who know the secrets and have said repeatedly, "We love you. Just keep putting one foot in front of the other. You didn't get here overnight, you won't get to a new place overnight. However, God will reward the effort to change along the way." He has. In spades, as the expression goes.
My buddy? His comment about the trade? Dead on. I was fortunate to live life with Kellie Stockton for almost 15 years. I know she too wants to know the Father's heart. Wish I had done so many things differently to nourish that desire in her rather than obstruct it. Woulda, coulda, shoulda - didn't. On we both go, literally in God's grace.
Me, though so difficult for three innocent children, I am another who would not make the trade. God will watch over Kellie, Ashton, Alexys and Andrew and show me how to be a godly friend, and effective father in the situation we provided Him to work with. That's what He does; make things new. I do not make the comment lightly. I wish it could have been otherwise. I was too hard-hearted, prideful and selfish. One more reason to look out the windshield and not the rear view!
Here's a hint. Don't wait and be forced to consider the trade. Love those in your life TODAY. Nourish their vulnerabilities. Be honored they have shared them with you. Let God show you how to navigate the challenges of life as you go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)