If You Can’t Stand the Heat…

As an HR professional, I sometimes see articles that are especially relevant for our times.  This one caught my eye, and we should all be educated on this serious workplace issue, especially before tonight’s Game 5:

Addressing Employee Behavior Changes

Everyone has a bad day at the office occasionally. Day to day work can admittedly be a grind at times, and some office environments can be highly competitive.  Yet when an employee suddenly begins to have a lot of bad days, or he or she displays behavior that seems odd or even alarming, it’s time for HR to take action, experts say.

Professor Lane Violation, author of the new book (Rebound: Bouncing Back from a Loss) on identifying and addressing dramatic employee behavior changes, has seen some erratic employee actions over the years, and he detailed the warning signs for attendees at the NBA Cares Conference in Dallas, TX this week.

“If you have an employee who suddenly shrinks from the moment, or in clutch situations, doesn’t demand the ball, you could have an employee on your hands with personal issues,” he declared.  Violation said that it is critical to notice employees who are normally active in the workplace who towards the end of the work day tend to stand in the corner, waiting for things to happen. 

 

“If one of your co-workers can’t adjust to the pressures of their responsibilities, the whole team loses.  Other team members may be inclined to avoid that person, and defer to others when the clock starts to run out, but long-term, you could be hurting both the individual and the team.”

It is a common misconception that shying away from the pressure and disappearing when the employee is needed most happens to average employees often.  “It is the superstar in your midst that is the most likely candidate to choke when the expectations rise.  In those moments, he becomes withdrawn and let’s others carry the load.  It’s not fair, and left untreated, everyone’s performance will suffer.  It’s only a matter of time before business revenues are impacted, too.”

Violation listed the consequences of not dealing with one of these usually great employees when he visibly checks out on the job. 

 

“It’s a safety issue.  If one employee will not or cannot participate fully at work, this could be a sign that they will be a danger to themselves or others in the future.  In good conscience, the co-workers should take it upon themselves to notify HR, or the authorities if the situation warrants.”

Recent history backs up this concern for an employee who stands idly by while his teammates pick up all the slack.  In the U.S. Senate report about the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas on Nov. 5. 2009, the assailant was described as “a ticking time bomb” and that his sometimes erratic behavior had been ignored by others.

“Passing the ball too quickly, not facing the basket, biting fingernails, avoiding contact in the lane – these can all be signs of a larger problem in the future,” said Ima Chucker, Cleveland-based workplace psychologist, and author of the best seller, Taking Your Talents Elsewhere: Why Your Former Employer May Secretly Be Happy You Quit.

So how can a co-worker offer help to the disengaged employee without being seen as a threat?  Violation recommends professional interventions, such as the resources of the employer EAP (Employee Assistance Program).  “Unless you think you can get the job done with one team member standing practically on the sidelines while deadlines to perform come and go, you are going to have to take steps to help the person,” Violation said.  “Hoping that a replacement worker will rise to the occasion is too big a risk.  You have to coax your best to act that way under pressure.”

Don't assume an employee has “turned bad” just because they have a sudden change in behavior, said Drew Afoul, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based employment attorney. “He may have a problem that is legally protected.”


“Sometimes, these situations involve a medical issue or disability,” Afoul argued. “In those instances, after any immediate safety risk is addressed—and that includes the safety of the employee acting strangely—management should ensure that it properly guards any medical information that has been shared on Twitter or otherwise, and should also watch for any issues that may be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or similar state statutes.”

Employees should refrain from making such situations a matter for gossip.  Medical privacy should be respected, although that can sometimes be difficult if not impossible.  “The guy is standing there while everyone else is running around sweating, competing, doing whatever it takes to win.  It’s impossible not to notice that something is wrong with that guy,“ said a co-worker of a certain employee who suffered from shrinkage in big moments at work.  “I can’t give him the ball ‘cause he’s not looking for the ball.”

“When that happens, I ignore him and try to do everything myself.  Hopefully, that will be enough.”

Professor Violation does not believe that a change of scenery is always the answer.  “Just allowing the employee to relocate to, say, South Beach will not solve the underlying problem.  The damage usually runs deeper than even a 5 year beach vacation can fix.”

“If you aren’t comfortable approaching a co-worker, express your concerns with your supervisor or someone in human resources,” Afoul said.  “Before it’s too late, and the final buzzer sounds.”

Hope and Change for Washington

Hope and Change.   

This is what we were promised.  Frankly, we deserved it for our loyalty.  After years of enduring failure, we could wait no longer.  Things were not headed in the right direction, and no amount of positive press conferences or staff upgrades could change that fact.  2005, 2006, 2007 were disastrous, and leadership was making one bad decision after another.  The future was slipping away, and we were being told to wait.  “Stay the course” sounded like a recipe for years of futility.

Change was needed, so we went looking for hope.  Finally, we drafted a young, can’t miss prospect, showered him with money, and expected him to perform beyond his years.  He said all the right things.  He performed well under pressure, albeit on a smaller stage.  He kept the opposition off balance, and impressed crowds wherever he went.  Some said that he was unproven; that he would wilt under the bright lights; that he was a flash in the pan, a celebrity without a resume; but we had hope.  We would ride this phenom to the top. 

 

When he finally arrived to lead us to the promised land, our level of anticipation was palpable.  Change was here, and now the future was filled with infinite possibilities.  The media swooned and covered his every move.  We thought we were suddenly winners.  We developed swagger overnight.  Those were heady days in DC. 

 

Then, as quickly as expectations rose, the bottom fell out.  Just our luck.  Our savior broke down and could no longer deliver as advertised.  Some of the youth that supported him the most, the ones that bought hats and t-shirts with his name on it, cried.  Most just shrugged, resigned to losing again.  It looked as if we would have to wait a little longer for hope and change to materialize in Washington.  Maybe it would never come.

Fortunately, there is good news on the horizon.  Slowly and methodically, he is heeding the advice of his handlers, taking his time (some might say ‘dithering’), and he is getting better.  He is retooling his game.  He is working on his mechanics, fine tuning his stuff.  By next April, he should be ready to again dazzle the crowds and confound the competition.  2012 is looking again like it will be an all-star season.  No one will be able to touch him, and I for one will cheer for him and mock the competition all year long.  By next November, we  will look back without remembering these sad days of 2011.

 

Hurry back, Steven Strasburg.  One year ago today, June 8, 2010, I was at Nationals Park to witness you strike out 14 Pittsburgh Pirates in 7 innings during your major league debut.  You represent the hope and change that we Nationals fans desperately need.  Hurry back, before the crowds give up hope.

It’s the first anniversary of Stras-mas.  Happy Stras-mas to all, and to all a good night.

 

Play ball!

Weiner Roast

In 2011, Hollywood will be releasing a record of 27 sequels, the most in a single year in history.  This includes Part IVs of Mission: Impossible and Pirates of the Caribbean; this includes 5 fifth sequels, like X-Men V; this includes 2 seventh sequels, like Planet of the Apes; and this includes 1 eighth sequel starring Harry Potter.  It seems that no one like a sequel better than Hollywood, although our political ruling class enjoys re-running the same tired scandal script every few weeks.

The plot is always the same.  Boy meets girl, boy wins an election, boy becomes drunk with power, boy suffers from ‘personal failings’, public scours Internet for lewd pictures of the women who tempted the weak politician.  There are only 8 Harry Potter movies, but this political sex scandal movie has been retold hundreds of times.  From Sally Hemings to Fannie Fox to Donna Rice to Monica, boys have been behaving badly for centuries in America, and Rep. Anthony Weiner’s most recent personal travails represent a shoddy remake of a storyline that should have run its course long ago. 

Rep. Weiner’s troubles are damaging to be sure, but recent sequels to this age-old story have been much more salacious and frankly, much worse.  At least Weiner didn’t father a child with his housekeeper and hide the facts for 10 years while allowing his wife to publicly defend him against charges that were actually true (like Arnold).  At least Weiner didn’t hire prostitutes to satisfy his ‘failings’ (like Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Congressman David Vitter).  At least Weiner didn’t solicit gay sex in a public restroom, and then blame the entire affair on his “wide stance” and involuntarily habit of tapping his foot under the stall wall (like Sen. Larry Craig).  At least Weiner didn’t leave the country, and lie about his whereabouts for several days in order to be with his Argentinean soul mate (like Gov. Mark Sanford).  At least Weiner didn’t cheat on his wife once she got sick (like current presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and past presidential candidate Edwards), and at least he didn’t pay hush money to cover up the affair and the existence of the love child (Edwards). 

At least Weiner’s indiscretion did not involve a cigar or lying during a disposition (like Bill).  At least Weiner didn’t pretend to be someone else while trolling Craigslist for dates (like Rep. Chris Lee).  At least Weiner didn’t commit adultery and pay off the family to keep things quiet (like Sen. John Ensign).  At least Weiner didn’t go on public dates with his mistress while his wife was still living under his roof (like Mayor Giuliani).  At least Weiner didn’t ask his wife to stand next to him at the podium while he confessed to a gay love affair (like Gov. Jim McGreevey).  In fact, given the history of this sordid franchise, Weiner-gate is rated G in comparison…OK, PG-13.    

His conduct, without question, is embarrassing and demeans the office he holds, not to mention his marital vows.  At least Weiner was frank with the public after only a day or two (get it – ‘weiner’ and ‘frank’ in the same sentence?  Clever.).  At least Weiner never demagogued about family values, or used his religious faith to protect himself from reproach.  At least this remake might be over quickly, before the empty popcorn bucket hits the floor.  That would be a pleasant and welcome surprise.      

Someday, Stallone will give up on the Rambo and the Rocky franchises, and Pixar will stop making Toy Story movies.  Can’t we give up on these sex scandal sequels in American politics?  I guess we won’t, as long as there is still an audience and willing cast members (and I use the word ‘members’, pun intended).

This season truly represents The Weiner of Our Discontent.

Draft Jesus 2012

A Message to the devotees of the Draft Jesus 2012 Movement:

I have read the comments on a variety of websites expressing dissatisfaction with the current crop of Republican candidates for the nomination of the party. I can certainly sympathize with those viewpoints. Romney, Huntsman, Giuliani and Pawlenty have all taken socially liberal stands in the past on climate change, same sex marriage and health care. Newt and Santorum cannot attract independents in a general election. Bachmann and Palin lack intellectual and policy heft. Herman Cain has a proven ability to get you a pizza, hot and delicious within 30 minutes, but not much else in terms of electability. Given this cast of characters, it is no surprise the religious conservative “Draft Jesus 2012” movement has gained traction. This grass roots effort is misguided, however, and misses some key weaknesses of Christ as a major party candidate in 2012.

Christ has a proven ability to draw a crowd, so raising enough money to run a credible national effort would not be an issue. In addition, His pro-life bona fides are unquestioned, making Him a darling of the social conservatives. I mean, He brought Lazarus back to life, but in a nation tired of the divisive culture war and evenly split on a woman’s right to choice, it is reasonable to ask if that’s enough to bring out the primary voters and caucus attendees He will need to propel Him beyond the early tests in New Hampshire and Nevada. While He may offer some benefits as a candidate, ultimately He cannot win.

The playbook to defeat Jesus in the election could be written by a Republican child. First and foremost, after spending the last 3 years questioning the circumstances surrounding President Obama’s birth, do you really think that Jesus could withstand a Trumpian scrutiny of His birth records? As far as we know, there is no short OR long from birth certificate (on paper, stone tablet, or otherwise) to be found, and all we have is the word of three self-described “wise” men, a moniker dripping with elitism. For 3 years, conservatives have raised doubts about Obama with the standard line that “we don’t know anything about him.” Well, how does Jesus help the party advance that argument when no one can say with any certainty what He was up to before age 30? His story about being raised by a single mother (His father was conspicuously absent most of the time) will insulate Him against some liberal lines of attack, but you have to wonder if there isn’t a family skeleton in His closet.

His association with tax collectors is the stuff of legend, and would make Him radioactive to the Club for Growth crowd headed by political giant killer, Grover Norquist. Let’s accept that it is unlikely that He would sign Norquist’s No New Tax Pledge, since He has refused to swear allegiance to anything or anyone, except His Father, of course. I can see the attack ads now using Christ’s words against Him.

Deep voice over grainy imagery of poor, hard working families on the unemployment line: “When it comes to taxes, what would Jesus do?” Jesus voice: “Give to Caesar what is Caesars.” “Jesus – wrong on taxes, wrong for America.”

Not only is He agnostic on raising taxes, He is the original ‘spread the wealth’ candidate. Remember, it is well documented that He said, “If someone takes your coat, give him your cloak as well.” Watch David Axlerod spin that verse into a full-throated support for a welfare state of endless entitlements. I can hear Obama now – “Jesus and I agree!” Once Hannity and Huckabee started focusing on this kind of socialistic talk, Christ’s days as national front-runner would be over.

Republicans for decades have enjoyed a distinct advantage on the question of which party will keep you safer, astounding since 9/11 happened on the GOP watch. The nomination of Christ for President would destroy that perception advantage in a day. ‘Soft on defense’ would be the rallying cry. His “Turn the Other Cheek” doctrine makes Him a modern day Neville Chamberlain, and instantly labels Him unelectable, particularly at a time of 2 U.S. wars and international instability. The GOP needs a warrior, not a carpenter.

I understand that many Republican base voters think He can walk on water, but once the opposition starts digging into the record, He could take the entire party down with Him and hand Obama the election in a rout of Biblical proportions. His negatives would grow with each passing news cycle as the jackals in the lame stream media start focusing on misinformation. Think about all the potential avenues of attack:

• His famous address about separating the sheep from the goats will be perverted into a discriminatory, anti-immigrant message by the Far Left.

• Did I mention His breaking bread with prostitutes? Hopefully a You Tube video won’t mysteriously surface of one of these ladies washing His feet with their hair. That will not play well in Peoria, I can tell you!

• The staff scandal of Judas taking a bribe will be resurrected on 60 Minutes, no doubt with the image of Judas kissing Jesus being replayed endlessly for the shock value.

• Peter, who many project to be a potential running mate, is on record having denied Him no less than 3 times. These denials would be like a rock, weighing down His campaign.

• If you think John Kennedy had it rough in 1960 having to declare that he would not be taking direction from the Vatican, there is no way to spin a statement like “Thy will be done” into a demonstration that Jesus is His own man on policy issues.

• We will be reminded that Christ’s first act in public was changing water into wine at a wedding. Wait ‘til the Democrats spin that miracle story into a tale of drunken debauchery at an all-night party in the desert.

Christ will portray Himself as the ultimate Washington outsider, but will need to clean up the image to gain the support of middle class voters. Don’t forget, the last President with facial hair was Taft, so the beard will have to go. Sandals might have worked when He whipped up the beatniks on a hillside with his “flower power” speeches, but He’ll need real shoes to project the appropriate presidential gravitas to be taken seriously by the atheists, agnostics and various Protestants groups. I think it goes without saying that the Jewish vote is lost, even though His family was instrumental in the establishment of the Jewish homeland. Americans have notoriously short memories, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.

His debate habit of answering questions with questions will not work in the crucible of a national campaign. David Gregory, Katie Couric, Chris Wallace – do you think they will let him get away with those non-answers like “I am who you say I am.” The Saturday Night Live cast will certainly have fun with that one.

It would be a miracle if Christ won the Republican nomination this year, so I recommend that He wait until 2016. That will give Him time to re-invent himself. Americans love a second act (or Second Coming, as it were). During this election cycle, Obama will be tough to beat. In short, I would say to conservatives that Jesus is not the answer to your prayers in 2012.

Admit it, all you “Draft Jesus 2012” devotees. His positions are closer to Dennis Kucinich than Ronald Reagan. Cheer up, though…maybe Trump will reconsider.

Smoke and Mirrors

Last month during the first GOP Presidential debate of the 2012 nominating season, Rep. Ron Paul was asked whether he believed that the sale and use of heroin should be legal in the United States.  Paul’s position on this subject is well known to those who pay attention to these sorts of things.  He is a true Libertarian when it comes to our drug laws, and he supports full legalization.  In his view, drug prohibitions are an unwarranted government intrusion into personal decision making.  To paraphrase his comments that particular evening, Paul responded by asking the audience for a show from those who would start using heroin if it was legal to do so.  Of course, this comment earned the expected chuckle from the conservative audience.  Legalization would not magically convince the good citizens of South Carolina to shoot up.  He made his point.

Ron Paul’s position just became a bit more main stream after a report was released by the Global Commission on Drug Policy.  The commission, whose membership includes former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former U.S. official George P. Schultz, who held cabinet posts under Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, the former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, and business mogul Richard Branson, make a strong case that the war on drugs has not only been lost, but is unwinnable.  The report further states that the money spent on enforcement, incarceration and eradication, if shifted to education and treatment, will reduce drug related societal problems and save money.  It calls for new national policies based on empirical evidence, not moral judgments.

From the report:

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won.

"Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers.

"Arresting and incarcerating tens of millions of these people in recent decades has filled prisons and destroyed lives and families without reducing the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations. There appears to be almost no limit to the number of people willing to engage in such activities to better their lives, provide for their families, or otherwise escape poverty. Drug control resources are better directed elsewhere."*

*Quotes from MSNBC.com article

This headline news item represents another milestone for the Libertarian movement that has incrementally moved public opinion in their favor.  State by state, the movement has celebrated victories that have allowed medical marijuana to be grown and sold.  In California, the state could not do without the tax revenue that the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry is generating.  As California has learned, “legalize and tax” can reduces expenses and raises revenues for the state.  This doesn’t even take into consideration increased business at local 7-11s for munchy snack foods, like Doritos and Funyons.

So I challenge all of the growing ranks of GOP contenders fighting for the opportunity to face off against Obama in November 2012 – where does personal freedom and personal responsibility end and government oversight, regulation, and enforcement begin?  Before you answer, think through your response to the inevitable follow up question, “so when it comes to the war on drugs, are you ready to ‘cut and run’?”  I believe that this is an issue where the fault line between the Tea Party Libertarians and the evangelical Christians will be most pronounced, and Obama, at least today, has staked out the ‘stay the course’ position:

 "Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated. Making drugs more available — as this report suggests — will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe," Office of National Drug Control Policy spokesman Rafael Lemaitre said.

Does the government have a responsibility to protect society from the collateral damage and indirect costs that open, legal drug usage may cause? 

Personal freedom versus the morality of drug use.  Choose wisely.

Poor Piper Palin Pouts "Phooey"

An Open Letter to Piper Palin, 10 year old daughter of former half-term governor of Alaska:

Dear Piper,

I read your quote in the newspaper this morning, and it made me sad.  It seems that you told a Time magazine reporter, “Thanks for ruining our vacation.”  Did someone tell you that your bus trip was a family vacation?  If so, I can understand your disappointment, but let me explain some things to you that will be hard to understand.

You are not on vacation, even though you are not at home.  This is a business trip of your mom’s design.  Mommy and Daddy are not paying for this trip.  Your mom’s political action committee, SarahPAC, is paying all the bills for the trip.  Using PAC money to fund a personal family vacation would be unethical at best, illegal at worst, so please understand – this is not a family vacation, although it might be fun at times staring out the tinted windows watching the people wave and honk their honks. 

 

If this were a vacation, you would not have arrived 10 minutes away from Mitt Romney’s scheduled presidential campaign announcement in New Hampshire to upstage him.  If this were a vacation, you would not be traveling in a custom bus with right wing patriotic sounding buzz words plastered on the side.  If this were a family vacation, you would not have been dragged to Washington, D.C. for Rolling Thunder on Memorial Day.  If this were a family vacation, your mom would not be doing press avails with Americana backdrops in the camera shot at every opportunity.  If this were a family vacation, mommy would not be having as much fun.

Your mom has probably told you that the press is bad, and that they are out to get you.  While that may be true on occasion, you should know that you are not on vacation, and that your mom really loves and needs the press.  The press provides mommy with publicity, and publicity helps mommy sell books and demand 6 figure speaking fees.  So remember, you may think that the press is ruining your vacation, but the press is actually helping to finance all of your future vacations!

One more thing – if mommy makes you put on a pretty dress and walk on stage with her next summer in Tampa, that is not a vacation, either, and the press will try to ruin that experience for you, too.  Mommy pretends that she doesn’t like the press, but it is a game – a fun game that mommy knows how to play and how to win.

When you are older, you will understand.  We’ll go ice fishing together and kill some wild animals.  I promise.

Sincerely,

Your daddy

PS – Mommy and I talked, and you can play the game with us if you want.  Mommy said it would be OK if you showed the bad Time magazine reporter your raised middle finger one time, if you get mad.  She said it would be cute and play well in South Carolina.  It is NOT a sin if it is politically motivated.  Just be sure that you smile when you do it, and hold the pose for 3 seconds.  Then we'll buy you an ice cream.

Where Have You Gone, Jimmy Olsen?

I watched part of an interview with Bill Moyers last night on The Daily Show.  As Jon Stewart declared, Moyers is the most famous personality on PBS not made of felt and rubber.  I know the name of Bill Moyers, and I am familiar with his stellar reputation, but I “can’t say with certitude” that I have seen his work in the past.  I was nonetheless fascinated by a few comments he made during the discussion on the state of journalism.

Moyers said in response to a question that “news is what people are hiding; the rest is just publicity.”  While this is not true when it comes to tornado coverage, I do appreciate the point as it refers to personalities in the public eye.  Network infotainment programs have blurred news and opinion and marketing beyond easily recognizable distinctions.  Real news requires hard work to uncover, but hard work costs time, effort and money.  Even worse, sometimes the investment of hard work, time and money reap no programming dividends.  Parroting selectively released public information from popular personalities and politicians is easier, less expensive, and sadly, more profitable.  Follow the money.  Most news today is publicity, an extension of People magazine, if you will. 

    

The drive towards the mirage of objectivity in news has cowed the media into giving equal weight to all points of view, regardless of factual underpinnings of the claim(s).  In fact, non-factual content is usually more entertaining.  Our pols struggle to remain relevant and are forced to shout above the crowd to be noticed.  The quickest way to be noticed in a crowded digital landscape is to shout the ridiculous.  Look at Trump’s ability to lead the list of GOP hopefuls for the nomination, albeit briefly, based primarily on his bombast, name recognition, and shameless pedaling of a falsehood.  Certainly his standing in the polls was not driven by a thoughtful review of his policy positions and character.  C’mon.  That would require hard work, time, and money.  This is the guy who didn’t understand what the right of privacy had to do with the abortion debate.  It’s only the lynchpin of the legal basis for Roe v. Wade.  He was, and is, correctly labeled as a carnival barker, and a very good one at that.  The news programs became his publicity machine.

 

Sarah Palin takes a bus trip, without an agenda and without a stated purpose, and yet we follow her without a reason to do so.  We debate whether this is an effective way to kick off a presidential campaign that she has not declared.  If we ignore her, she will tweet something controversial and then retreat.  If we pay attention, she will provide us with no information of any value.  This is what passes for journalism - following a bus.  I miss the days when real reporters were allowed to ask ‘gotcha’ questions in the pursuit of truth.  “What did you know, and when did you know it?”  Now, tough questions are ‘biased’ and therefore out of bounds.  If Trump is a carnival barker, then Sarah represents the entire carnival, and media is buying front row seats to the show with our money.

The challenge in this environment for a busy electorate is separating the fact from the fictional, and I am starting to think that not enough people care anymore to spend the time researching the distinction.  My favorite illustration of this apathy revolves around a quote from Newt Gingrich, after he disparaged Paul Ryan’s sacred plan to transform Medicare into a voucher system: “Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood”.  Now providing an actual quote from a politician, within context, regarding a major issue of the day, is dishonest.  Clearly, we live in an age where up is down, and black is white, as long as it is repeated often enough.  In a just world, Newt would have folded his campaign after making such a ridiculous statement.

 

It’s not just Newt.  Jon Kyl recently claimed that 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities were abortion-related. The actual number is closer to 3 percent. A Kyl staffer defended the comment by explaining it “was not intended to be a factual statement.”  Of course it wasn’t.  And we were not surprised to know that facts were not going to be allowed to get in the way of a good sound bite.  We moved on to the next topic, quickly forgetting the last topic.

Simply put, I don’t know what to believe anymore.  Cynicism, once worn as a comedic cloak, is now becoming a suit of armor through which hope cannot penetrate.  Age will do that.  With some friends, I developed the smooth stone concept.  As we all know from basic physical science, rocks that are pounded by waves of water over long periods of time eventually lose their rough edges and submit to nature.  They become smooth, allowing the water to pass over more readily.  For me, a smooth stone describes someone who has lost their ability to disagree, to be shocked, to fight back, against forces more persistent, more engaged and more ruthless.  The smooth stone can no longer resist.

The independent voters in this country are in danger of becoming smooth stones, and the death of aggressive, thoughtful journalism may be the last wave that washes away their ability to disagree, to be shocked, and to fight back.  It is hard to hold back the current.

We live in a media world where one is ‘steadfast’ on Fox News, and ‘stubborn’ on MSNBC; one has ‘common sense solutions’ on CNN, and is incapable of understanding nuance on PBS; one is ‘principled’ on ABC, and ‘close-minded’ on NBC; one is a contrarian to you, but an idiot savant to me.  Science tells us that objectivity is impossible.  We change that which we observe.  Today, we just observe only those things that won’t change us.  It’s just easier that way.

Chris Mooney had an interesting piece in Mother Jones on the scientific basis for deeply held opinions being impervious to factual assaults.  His article (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney) is a must read if you want to understand how humans can ignore facts that do not match their deeply held beliefs, and how the dissonance can actually cause a person to become more entrenched in their beliefs, facts be damned. 

I’ve had enough talk of socialism, communism, and capitalism.  What I want is more journalism.