Summary

“Never pay any attention to what critics say. Don’t forget there has never been a statue set up in honor of a critic.” -Jean Sibelius, 206h Finnish Composer. Finlandia and the Karelia suite, et al.

Which is more likely to gain attention, taking a snot at someone, or saying, “I agree.”? Which is easier, roundly criticizing someone, or coming up with a better plan--then working it while subjecting yourself to criticism?

Given that criticizing is easy and gains attention, it is understandable that so many people indulge in this activity, often to exclusion of getting positive done. Understandable, perhaps, but not acceptable.

Transcript

“Never pay any attention to what critics say. Don’t forget there has never been a statue set up in honor of a critic.” -Jean Sibelius, Finnish Composer. Finlandia and the Karelia suite, et al.

Which is more likely to gain attention, taking a shot at someone, or saying, “I agree.”? Which is easier, roundly criticizing someone, or coming up with a better plan--then working it while subjecting yourself to criticism?

Given that criticizing is easy and gains attention, it is understandable that so many people indulge in this activity, often to exclusion of getting anything positive done. Understandable, perhaps, but not acceptable.

Let’s take a look at my favorite quote about critics: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” ― Theodore Roosevelt. Medal of Honor winner, 26th President of the United States.

Being a critic allows for what many people see as the best of both possible worlds: It allows one to be involved, to be seen as contributing, but with no responsibility. And we are not only surrounded by critics, but criticism is washing over us almost every time we turn on the radio, TV, log onto certain social media or even hangout in the coffee room at work. Even the family Thanksgiving dinner table is not immune; and isn’t criticism the polar opposite of being thankful? Important point: sarcasm is a form of criticism. While it might have a place when appropriately used in  comedy, it never has a place in person-to-person conversations.

When we hear leaders in the major parties speak, what percentage of the time are they slamming the other party’s people and ideas, vs the percentage of the time they are praising the virtues, with some specific proof attached to add credibility, of their people and policies? Personally, I have heard enough criticism of both parties to believe that neither one of them is worth much. In essence, I am believing what both parties are saying about each other. Here’s an analogy. You are shopping for a car, and are considering Toyotas and Hondas. In this example, when you go to the Toyota dealership, the salesperson takes up most of your time telling you how bad the Hondas are. And vice versa at the Honda dealership. You might be inclined to at least somewhat believe both of them and either put off your purchase or look for a Ford or Mazda.

Todays key point: There is nothing wrong with criticism, but a little bit goes a very long way. Let’s use less than 5% of our time and energy criticizing, and the rest planning,

Summary

“If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.” -The Apostle Paul, writing to the people of Corinth Later we’ll see that the Dalai Lama says something quite similar. What a wonderful reminder to me, as I struggle to get my thoughts and words exactly right two times a week, every week. If I do not ground everything that I do, including this podcast, in love, I am just a(nother) clanging cymbal.

Healthcare in general, and pre-existing conditions in particular, are much in the news. Let’s talk about love as a pre-existing condition.

Transcript

“If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.” -The Apostle Paul, writing to the people of Corinth. Later we’ll see that the Dalai Lama says something quite similar. What a wonderful reminder to me, as I struggle to get my thoughts and words exactly right two times a week, every week. If I do not ground everything that I do, including this podcast, in love, I am just a(nother) clanging cymbal.  

Healthcare in general, and pre-existing conditions in particular, are much in the news. Let’s talk about love as a pre-existing condition.

Prior to 2014, pre-existing medical conditions were not covered by health  insurance. If you had a serious condition, you could not get care unless you were able to pay for it out-of-pocket--if you couldn’t, you would continue to suffer. A pre-existing medical condition is a negative.

Let’s look at love as a pre-existing heart condition. Unlike pre-existing medical conditions, love as a pre-existing condition is a positive. And more than that, I am making the case that it is a requirement. It is a requirement if you want to make things better. If your focus is on simply being right, then steer away from loving others; loving others will conflict with your desire to win, your desire to be right, and will push you, inexorably, into finding what is right rather than being right. Starting with finding what is right for the other person.

And there’s another difference. Pre-existing medical conditions are unwanted, and the struggle is to rid ourselves of them. Love, seen here as a pre-existing condition, is terribly fragile, and will vanish in a moment if we are not focused and committed. Just as we fight to rid ourselves of medical conditions, we must fight to seize--and to hold onto--love as a pre-existing and, ideally, an always-existing, permanent condition. Here’s a quote, “Love is coming through for the other person when you don’t much want to.” -Will Luden

Today’s key point (yes, it comes early in the podcast today): You cannot--cannot--love another and focus on being right and making them wrong. Pick one.

None of this means that you cannot work to persuade. Spend a bit of time getting to know something about the other person. What makes them tick. It is easy to find out what they believe by asking open-ended questions, now find out why they believe it. Open ended questions like, “That was helpful; how did you come to that conclusion?” Compare that with, “What? So you are a Trumpist” or, “What? So you are a Never-Trumper? (pick one one of those--neither leads to a useful discussion).

After you have established some sort of a connection, shown genuine interest, “Earn(ed) the right to be heard.” as some put it. And I like the way they put it. After that, you have a reasonable chance to be heard yourself. No, now is not the time to state your beliefs, start with where they are (now that you actually know where they are), and gently lead them toward your thinking. And, who knows, you might even learn something from them by following this path. Learn something about them, gain a new perspective on your own beliefs--or simply make a new friend. Yes,

Summary

“People do business with people they like.” Simple truth. And a double-edged sword. Here are two helpful corollary quotes. “People like people who are like themselves.” Tie that to the first quote, and you see that people see themselves belonging to defined affinity groups, and gravitate toward other members of those groups. Now for the third quote, “We are all like each other in many important ways.” All. Of. Us. Give me less than ten minutes, and we’ll unpack this in a way that will be useful to you. (And, yes, I am quoting myself in this podcast.)

Transcript

“People do business with people they like.” Simple truth. And a double-edged sword. Here are two helpful corollary quotes. “People like people who are like themselves.” Tie that to the first quote, and you see that people see themselves belonging to defined affinity groups, and gravitate toward other members of those groups. Now for the third quote, “We are all like each other in many important ways.” All. Of. Us. Give me less than ten minutes, and we’ll unpack this in a way that will be useful to you. (And, yes, I am quoting myself in this podcast.)

Take these three observations, and you have a roadmap for success. Let’s look at each of the three steps:

“People do business with people they like.” Be likable because it is true that people do business with people they like. By “business” I mean any kind of transaction, not just cash in exchange for a product or services. Any human transaction or exchange.

“People like people who are like themselves.” This is the first clue to how to be likeable--assuming that you already know that being rude or antagonistic are both “being likable” knockouts. So, you might ask, what if it is not obvious that we are alike? Answer, we are all more alike than we are different. Yes, all of us.

Take a look at the above drawing; there are two messages here: 1. We have more in common with each other than we have differences and 2. By working together, by using each other’s strengths to makeup for our weaknesses, the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.  

“We are all like each other in many important ways.” Look for the common ground with the other person(s), the areas that we are alike. We all share our humanity, and on top of that we all share a gold mine of similarities; shared geography, what we like, what we don’t like, pets and hobbies, ambitions, fears--the list is literally endless. The key to uncovering these similarities, these connections, because that’s what they are, is to ask open ended questions. And keep asking. People do love to talk about themselves. There is a second key here (but Will, I thought you said there was one key), is to actually care about the other person as you are asking questions and looking to discover connections. This podcast is not an exercise in manipulation, this is an exercise in connecting. This “second” key is fundamental to everything in life. The first key that I spoke about is specific to what we are talking about today.

Learn these skills, practice them often, and use them to your advantage, and to benefit all those around you.

These are tools; use them well.

But, Will, what if I don’t like that other person, what do I do then? Let’s look at a Lincoln quote, “I don’t like that man. I must  get to know him better.” -Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States. Stunning. For many of us, if we don’t like someone the impulse is to avoid them whenever possible, and, perhaps, to criticize them we are not around them. The last thing we want to do is connect with them. Not Abe; he seemed to understand that if he got to know the other person better, that he could find things to like--perhaps even admire. Seems like he had his own version of these three steps.

Earlier we talked about how this podcast is not ...

Summary

Haven’t we all heard that phrase over and over again? If we listen to the people who describe the division, it seems like one side has it all right and the other side is somewhere between imbecilic and evil--perhaps both. Tell me if you have heard either or both of these assessments. “The voters on the other side are racists, sexists, xenophobes and generally uneducated. Furthermore, many of them used their votes to betray their gender and race.” Or, alternatively, “The voters on the other side are looking to spend money that is not theirs in order to get everything free, everything from college to healthcare to food and housing. Furthermore, many of them are not qualified to vote in the first place.”

Those assessments are based on all the wrong assumptions, which, in turn, are based on the wrong questions. Let’s work through that today and come up with the right questions and issues. When we do that, our differences can, and should, become our strengths--not potentially our demise.

Transcript

Haven’t we all heard that phrase over and over again? If we listen to the people who describe the division, it seems like one side has it all right and the other side is somewhere between imbecilic and evil--perhaps both. Tell me if you have heard either or both of these assessments. “The voters on the other side are racists, sexists, xenophobes and generally uneducated. Furthermore, many of them used their votes to betray their gender and race.” Or, alternatively, “The voters on the other side are looking to spend money that is not theirs in order to get everything free, everything from college to healthcare to food and housing. Furthermore, many of them are not qualified to vote in the first place.”

Those assessments are based on all the wrong assumptions, which, in turn, are based on the wrong questions. Let’s work through that today and come up with the right questions and issues. When we do that, our differences can, and will, become our strengths--not potentially our demise.

We allow ourselves to be all wrapped up with labels; political leanings in general, specific party affiliations in particular, and identities like gender, race, sexual preference, religious affiliation--and whatever else the label makers can come up with to divide us. Yes, divide us. They need to keep us divided along lines they outline so that we will have to choose up sides, and remain loyal to the side that has been chosen for us.

And these labels, political parties, identity groups, etc., are designed to steer us in one direction or the other when it comes to key issues in our communities and our world. Issues like immigration, healthcare, education, geography and abortions. And climate change and so many, many others. This formula, this equation, starts with labels and uses those labels to steer us toward selecting our stance on the issues of the day, and the political allegiance based on those labels.

We are working the equation backwards. And when we approach any task backwards, we wind up in a jam. The jam we are in today is a deep, dysfunctional and widening division in our country. If we do not do something, starting now, we will fail. The world’s oldest democracy, the most powerful nation, militarily and economically, the world has ever seen, will totter and fall. “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” -Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States.

Here’s how qet get a head start on fixing things; start with finding common goals instead of starting with labels. I promise you that with people of good intentions and goodwill, there is no topic, no issue, no matter how controversial, were we cannot come together and find common goals. To do that, we first need to ask the right questions. Let’s look at some examples:

Summary

Isn’t having a thick skin and soft heart the best combination? Sadly, that’s the opposite of what we see developing around us today. The push for safe spaces, 25% of the student population at a university claiming PTSD because of the 2016 elections, urging the use of a growing number of pronouns and the general slide in the direction of any taken offense is the fault of the of the other person--not the responsibility of the person claiming to be offended--all speak to a society of folks who have thin skins, and believe that being thin-skinned is somehow virtuous. And the thinner the skin, the harder the heart. The easily offended are among the first to stage an illegal protest, urge confrontation, hound people near their homes or in restaurants, and claiming that others’ actions will “kill millions” or would create “Armageddon.” Yes, those are actual quotes. All the while laying blame for their hard-hearted thoughts and actions on the “other side.”

Transcript

Isn’t having a thick skin and soft heart the best combination? Sadly, that’s the opposite of what we see developing around us today. The push for safe spaces, 25% of the student population at a university claiming PTSD because of the 2016 elections, urging the use of a growing number of pronouns and the general slide in the direction that any taken offense is the fault of the of the other person--not the responsibility of the person claiming to be offended--all speak to a society of folks who have thin skins, and believe that being thin-skinned is somehow virtuous. And the thinner the skin, the harder the heart. The easily offended are among the first to stage an illegal protest, urge confrontation, hound people near their homes or in restaurants, accuse others of being despicable humans, e.g., racists or Nazis, and claiming that others’ actions will “kill millions” or would create “Armageddon.” Yes, those are actual quotes. All the while laying blame for their thin skins and hard-hearted thoughts and actions on the “other side.”

The thick skin, soft heart maxim, recommendation, really, is similar to the twin Results With Reason tenets; the two main tenets that we believe in at Results With Reason are:

Personal Responsibility; practice it, teach it and

Be Your Brother’s Keeper.

The similarity, and the power of both sets of principles, lies in the equal pairing of what are commonly seen as opposites. Thick and thin are clearly opposites; few people pair the two concepts at all, much less pair them correctly. Taking personal responsibility and being equally responsible for others are, sadly, seen as opposites by too many people. In Chinese philosophy, Yin and Yang describes how seemingly opposite forces can be highly complementary, each reinforcing the other in a way that not only adds the power of one to the other, but more than multiplies the power of the two together, creating a powerful and productive force.

Let’s take a look at how today’s pairing, Thick Skin and a Soft Heart, complement each other, and also tie with the two Results With Reason main tenets. In today’s highly divided nation, a thick skin is required for many types of exchanges, in person or online. Whether navigating family conversations, comments and political stances taken at work, or dealing with ridiculous posts on social media, that tough outer layer, designed to shed ignorance and vitriol the way a rain slicker is designed to shed water, is vital. The first thing that a thick skin accomplishes is allowing us to listen calmly to others before we respond. And after we listen and absorb, we can then respond with love and logic to even the most outrageous comments and attitudes. And that’s the second thing that a thick skin allows; it protects our hearts, allowing them to remain soft--no matter the provocation. Soft hearts can be very persuasive; they allow us to think clearly,

Summary

Does anyone remember the phrase “The Silent Majority” from the late 60s and 70s? It was used by Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, quite successfully, to portray a group of citizen voters who, while relatively quiet, were fed up with, and by possession of larger numbers, could outvote the activists on the other side. Nixon won by a landslide in ‘72, winning 49 of 50 states

There are those who believe that Trump had a version of Nixon’s Silent Majority, with those “hidden” voters confounding almost all of the pundits, allowing him to win 30 states, and 306 of the available 538 electoral votes.

Let’s talk about what I see today as the Exhausted Majority.

Transcript

Does anyone remember the phrase “The Silent Majority” from the late 60s and 70s? It was used by Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, quite successfully, to portray a group of citizen voters who, while relatively quiet, were fed up with, and by possession of larger numbers, could outvote the activists on the other side. Nixon won by a landslide in ‘72, winning 49 of 50 states.

There are those who believe that Trump had a version of Nixon’s Silent Majority, with those “hidden” voters confounding almost all of the pundits, allowing him to win 30 states, and 306 of the available 538 electoral votes.

Let’s talk about what I see today as the Exhausted Majority.

We can start with the drawing below.

For those of you enjoying this on the podcast, it is pretty easy to imagine. We’ll get there quickly. The genesis for this drawing was me going slightly nuts trying to place myself politically on a left/right continuum. I was “left” on some things, and “right” on others. I was Politically Homeless.

The first crack in that linear, compartmentalized left/right thinking came when I heard Jimmy Carter say in 1976 that he was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I did not know you could do that. That reprieve from compartmentalized thinking fell apart when fiscal conservatives and social liberals started to segment themselves into differing--and warring--segments. Some fiscal conservatives insist that we go back on the gold standard, and other conservatives believe that to be insane. Some social liberals believe it is absolutely necessary to use a multitude of new pronouns, and others are certain that would be pandering to political correctness.

One one side of this drawing, I have put the folks who I see as “Disgusted and dropped out.” They have had it, and don’t want to play anymore. Somewhat understandably, they have lost faith in the process. On the other side (note the lack of terms like “left” and right”) are those for whom the system is working; I call them “Benefitting and dug in.” They really don’t care if things are right or wrong, serving the country well or not, moral or immoral; they are getting what they need. And that’s enough for them.

They rest of us I describe as “Frustrated and skeptical, but still wanting/hoping for a change.” Picture this with me, the two groups on either side, and the rest of us in the middle. For want of a better name, I call them The Exhausted Majority.

I am tempted to ask you where you see yourself, but I’d be falling into the label trap that I work so hard to avoid. Labels like LGBT, conservative, liberal, left, right and progressive put us all into frames of mind where we feel the need to attack and defend on general lines, to try to argue and debate with nothing more than cliches, sound bites and the very labels themselves as the tools of discussion. And we all know how that goes. No wonder that so many of us are exhausted.

Instead of labels, let’s try discussing our various positions on issues as conversation starters and ways of communicating thoughts and intentions. For example, instead of asking if someone is a Democrat or Republican as a wa...

Summary

Starting in Honduras in Central America in mid-October of ‘18, a migrant caravan of at least 5,000 people is committed to traveling through Guatemala and Mexico to enter the United States. The question swirling about this caravan is, “Is this an organic migration of people intending to gain peaceful entry into the US, or is it an invasion--perhaps influenced or even supported by others?”

Here’s the better, necessary, underlying question, “Do we want open borders, or do we want secure borders?”

Links and References

Migrant Caravan

Ask the Right Questions

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Starting in Honduras in Central America in mid-October of ‘18, a migrant caravan of at least 5,000 people is committed to travelling through Guatemala and Mexico to enter the United States. The question swirling about this caravan is, “Is this an organic migration of people intending to gain peaceful entry into the US, or is it an invasion--perhaps influenced or even supported by others?”

Here’s the better, necessary, underlying question, “Do we want open borders, or do we want secure borders?” Pick one. There is no middle ground. Here’s a parallel; are the water pipes in your home leaking? The answer is pretty much “yes” or “no.” Slow leaks simply take a bit longer to do their damage. An occasional drip can either be ignored or dealt with almost any time.

Here’s why the question about open borders is the underlying and better question. If you support open borders, then this caravan--and the many others that may pop up if this one is successful--is not an issue. People would be legally crossing an open border, in much the same way that people are free to cross from one state in the US to another. There may be some logistical issues, e.g., how do we process, feed, house and give medical aid to this many people at the same time, but the core issue of whether they should be welcomed or not goes away. N. B. (There, I am using that again.) Note well that if you are for open borders, don’t hedge: stand up and declare your position. No waffling. And tell your fellow citizens what you expect the combination of open borders and a welfare state will create.

Conversely, if you want secure borders there is no question about what to do with this or other caravans; you stop them at the border. That’s a necessary part of what it means to have a secure border. The logistical issue here is what’s needed to stop attempted illegal crossings of this size. The first thing that needs to be done to stop illegal crossings is for the US to go on record internationally, stating that it has taken a non-negotiable, bipartisan secure border stance. Once people outside the US get it that we have, and will enforce, this policy, caravans like this will not recur. And, as with the people who want open borders, if you want a secure border then stand up and state your position. Be clear. No waffling.

Perhaps you have noticed that I have been talking about a secure border, not a wall; that’s for two reasons. First, a wall in every place along the border would not be the best solution to effect the desired secure border goal. Second, the word “wall” can have--or be given--a negative connotation, e.g, “He has put up a wall against everything good in his life.” Having a wall is not the desired goal, a secure border is; walls are only a part of getting to that goal. (BTW, have you ever noticed that some of the wealthier folks who are against a border wall have security walls surrounding their homes?)

My strong vote is for a secure border.

Summary

Do Brett Kavanaugh and O.J. Simpson seem like an odd pair? Give me a few minutes, and we’ll see some key parallels; parallels that tell us a lot about how the law and politics in the US have become so wrongly conflated.

Links and References

J’Accuse...Kavanaugh!

Hatfield-McCoy

Ask the Right Questions

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Do Brett Kavanaugh and O.J. Simpson seem like an odd pair? Give me a few minutes, and we’ll see some key parallels; parallels that tell us a lot about how the law and politics in the US have become so wrongly conflated.

Orenthal J. Simpson was clearly guilty; his lawyer and the jurors no doubt knew that as well. Simpson was found not guilty because historically so many black men have been falsely accused--and convicted--of crimes against white women. (Ron Goldman was merely collateral damage.) The jury was making a statement about past injustices; it was not rendering a verdict based upon the evidence in this case. Somehow, freeing Simpson was seen by the jury as proper in the light of the historical injustices involving whites and blacks.

Brett Kavanaugh was seen as guilty for very similar reasons. Many men have gotten away with assaulting women for a very long time; Kavanaugh was seen as having committed the crime based on nothing more than an accusation, an accusation that was not only uncorroborated but in many parts refuted, as a cry for historical justice. Again, somehow, seeing Kavanaugh as guilty was seen as proper in the light of the historical injustices involving men and women.

Today’s podcast goes beyond reinforcing the point that two wrongs do not, cannot, make a right. Clearly, two wrongs are at least twice as bad as one wrong.

One of the points we are making today is that morals and ethics, and right and wrong, can so easily get all tangled up when we think that allowing an injustice today can make up for historical injustices. With the Simpson verdict, Nicole Brown Simpson’s family, and Ron Goldman’s family, were left with not only no justice--but with a public slap in the face. And the American judicial system was deeply embarrassed and compromised. Pressing the Kavanaugh accusations and pronouncements of guilt badly damaged an innocent family, embarrassed the Senate and damaged the credibility of the Advice and Consent process. Perhaps more importantly, the whole world witnessed the attempt to further politicize the Supreme Court of the United States, and try to make it another legislative branch, negating a key part of the brilliance of our founding documents: the separation and balance of powers.

Now let’s look at the Hatfield-McCoy feud effect. This feud is part of our lexicon, and is used to describe damaging and unceasing feuds of unremembered origin. And while the origins may be murky, the dislike and hate are real and growing. Aren’t we in danger of an unceasing and growing Democrat-Republican feud--a feud of murky and unremembered origin--if we aren’t there already? More than just taking the side of one party or the other, anyone with a conviction who has the temerity to express it in public, stands to be shunned, loudly insulted, or even physically attacked. This is all part of the fallout of stains on our national character like the Simpson verdict and the Kavanaugh attack.

Today’s key point. When we take preconceived notions of what’s right and wrong, and who should be encouraged and supported and who should be rejected, into our thought processes and actions, while setting aside the evidence of that is going on today,

Summary

The coming November 2018 midterms will be hugely important. Will Trump be impeached, or will he have another crack or two at nominating Supreme Court Justices? Is the country drifting further to more redistribution? Will we take secure national borders seriously? Who--if anyone--is going to successfully address the ridiculous healthcare and college costs?

Advice from others: We are urged to vote, and to encourage others to vote. ACLU Colorado writes, “Voting is one of our basic rights, but it is meaningless if we don’t take time to make our voices heard.” I agree. And it is dangerous and irresponsible if we vote but don’t work hard to understand in depth what we are voting on. As is increasingly the case, the emphasis is being placed on on the rights, in this case the right to vote, not the equal or greater responsibility attendant to each and every right.

Here’s my advice: Don’t vote. You heard right, you read it correctly; don’t vote.

Unless.

Links and References

Why We Vote

ACLU Colorado

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

The coming November 2018 midterms will be hugely important. Will Trump be impeached, or will he have another crack or two at nominating Supreme Court Justices? Is the country drifting further to more redistribution? Will we take secure national borders seriously? Who--if anyone--is going to successfully address the ridiculous healthcare and college costs?

Advice from others: We are urged to vote, and to encourage others to vote. ACLU Colorado writes, “Voting is one of our basic rights, but it is meaningless if we don’t take time to make our voices heard.” I agree. And it is dangerous and irresponsible if we vote but don’t work hard to understand in depth what we are voting on. As is increasingly the case, the emphasis is being placed on the rights, in this case the right to vote, not the equal or greater responsibility attendant to each and every right.

Here’s my advice: Don’t vote. You heard right, you read it correctly; don’t vote.

Unless.

Unless you have thoroughly scrubbed and understand the issues at hand and the people who are running. And the history behind the issues and the people. Are you listening carefully to the opinions of those with whom you disagree? How many news sources do you consult? Do you regularly read or listen to sources that you know will give you very different views and opinions? If you have an opinion about Supreme Court Justices, have you actually read the part of the Constitution that deals with the role of the courts in general and Justices in particular? And don’t forget the parts about the balance of powers.

Before you support any sort of get-out-the-vote campaign, even the part about getting out your own vote, make sure that campaign focuses on targeting qualified voters. Not just citizens who have correctly registered, but registered citizens who have fulfilled their responsibility to have performed truth-seeking research, applied unbiased logic to the facts during their research, and tested their conclusions through discussion with equally qualified voters who have come to different conclusions. That’s what it takes to be an informed voter. Voting with any less preparation is irresponsible and self-indulgent.

Any right comes with an equal or greater responsibility. Just as, for example, Second Amendment rights come with responsibilities, so does the right to vote. Anyone who possess a gun must take the responsibility to be well trained,

Summary

Once upon a time, most of us rooted for the loveable underdog. You know, the Little League baseball team from Nowhere, USA that was up against the team from a big city; the team that had won the championship two of the last three years. These kids and their parents had been selling candy door-to-door for almost a year to fund the trip to the big game. Or the personable but nondescript singer on a major TV talent show who was competing against well-trained and attractive contestants. The scrappy, work hard, never-give-up, refuse to accept failure, person or team or country caught our imaginations.

Today, the trend has nothing to do with underdogs; the clear push is to be against the successful, characterized as the overdog. Not because this person or group was mean or arrogant in their success. Not because they cheated. Not because they took themselves way too seriously. But simply because they succeeded, and succeeded big time. That is enough to make them not only disliked, but it makes them the enemy. Yes, succeed and you become the enemy.

Links and References

Resenting Success

Columbus Day

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Once upon a time, most of us rooted for the loveable underdog. You know, the Little League baseball team from Nowhere USA that was up against the team from a big city; the team that had won the championship two of the last three years. These kids and their parents had been selling candy door-to-door for almost a year to fund the trip to the big game. Or the personable but nondescript singer on a major TV talent show who was competing against well-trained and attractive contestants. The scrappy, work hard, never-give-up, refuse to accept failure, person or team or country caught our imaginations.

Today, the trend has nothing to do with underdogs; the clear push is to be against the successful, characterized as the overdog. Not because this person or group was mean or arrogant in their success. Not because they cheated. Not because they took themselves way too seriously. But simply because they succeeded, and succeeded big time. That is enough to make them not only disliked, but it makes them the enemy. Yes, succeed and you become the enemy.

Let’s go back to the 1776 Revolution, Revolution 1.0 (the first revolution) in the US. Who doesn’t look back with fondness and pride at the ragtag Continental Army that wintered in Valley Forge in ‘77-’78? "Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery." General George Washington, February 16, 1778. This soldiery came back and defeated the strongest military the world had ever seen.

Now let’s go part way around the world and forward in time to the newly-birthed nation of Israel. Who didn’t root for that scrappy band of refugees, homesteaders and holocaust survivors to defeat the combined might of its neighbors and other nearby enemies who were dedicated to its eradication? Their enemies refused to accept the UN partition and fought to eliminate Israel in ‘48. And again in ‘67 and ‘73 when Israel once again had to fight for its survival?

Today, the anti-big, anti-successful crowd sees these two nations, the US and Israel, as linked together as examples of international evil. Yes, both countries got bigger and stronger after their shaky starts. Israel out of a desire to exist. The US, initially, as part of a drive to expand its territory and economy to support a growing population--population growth stemming from children born here along with massive immigration.