Driven to Support!

Within the last month, a new discovery has been made in the field of driver safety. After exhaustive research and the analysis of mounds of empirical data, it has been determined that the driver of a vehicle can be negatively affected when an external magnetic field enters the space immediately surrounding the driver’s vehicle.

Like many in the USA I drive to work during the morning rush, which I consider to be between 7:00am and 9:00am local time. It was during this time that I experienced, through observation, the erratic behavior that has led to my conclusion. Many would look at what I do for a living and wonder to themselves: “What credentials does this guy have for making such a grandiose supposition?” I can easily explain this away with the knowledge I have of drivers from around the world. I have driven in the majority of the states in the USA and I have driven in Paris, France, while living there for a period of six months in 2000. In addition to these, I have driven in New York, NY, Washington, DC, Antwerp, Belgium, Geneva, Switzerland, Venice and Florence, Italy, Amsterdam, Netherlands and many other cities around the world. I have been in the working world for more than 20 years and have commuted to the workplace for every job I have held. Just having the experience of driving in Paris, France for six months is enough to provide me with credible commuting analysis skills!

Knowing that magnetic fields can affect the drivers of a vehicle isn’t really sufficient. Consequently, I am making it my personal goal to communicate this finding to as many people as I can. The safety of every man, woman and child riding in a vehicle is at stake and I cannot morally stand by and allow thousands to be maimed or killed by this wonton disregard of a threat to public safety! Please, read further if you wish to help me in this call to arms.

What is this phenomenon that I’m talking about? It is simply that the application of magnetic icons on a vehicle contributes to the impairment of the driver’s abilities. After taking note of and examining vehicles in my area that have had magnetic icons applied to the exterior of the vehicle, I have determined a correlation between driving skills and the existence of magnetic icons on the exterior of the vehicle. It was only when I came to this realization that I felt compelled to help save as many as I could from the grief that this scenario will create.

I have determined that the degree to which the driver’s abilities are impaired is directly proportional to the number of magnetic icons attached to the vehicles exterior. Let me provide you a few examples.

First let’s discuss the family minivan that has 14 magnetic ribbons showing support for everything from AIDS in Africa to POW/MIAs and soldiers in Iraq. I’m convinced these people show their support this way because of the large canvas provided by the lower portion of a minivan’s back hatch. While having a good heart and showing support for these causes isn’t something I have issue with, actually it is something I am happy for, the vast change in the vehicle’s magnetic field causes erratic behavior in the driver’s seat. This is evidenced by the vehicles inability to stay properly in one lane, the lack of a turn signal when the use of one would be advised, the inability for the vehicle to stay at one constant speed and the general lack of purpose with which the driver drives. Not only does the application of multiple magnetic ribbons affect the driver’s abilities, but the magnetic field it creates at the rear of the vehicle increases the chances of another car being drawn to the rear bumper of the minivan. One must be ever-vigilant for these vehicles and one must realize the effects of these magnetic ribbons are multiplied when accompanied by a less than pristine exterior and when displayed with a “God is my co-pilot” bumper sticker! Let’s hope that God is in the passenger seat, for the driver and passengers may get to meet their maker far earlier than they thought, thanks to the fervency of their support for these “ribboned” groups!

Our next example is the one ribbon person. The driver who displays one ribbon will usually exhibit normal driving skills, though they may sometimes be forgetful. Their forgetfulness is noticed when they leave the little “heart” center of their ribbon in its place, making the display look like a glob with two tails rather than an elegantly folded over ribbon. The added magnetic field created by the un-removed center of the ribbon usually isn’t a problem and generally does not contribute to decreased driving ability. However, when the center of the ribbon, the ribbon itself and another magnetic device is applied to the vehicle, one can see a decrease in driver perception and in the driver’s care for those around them. Some studies have suggested the addition of the extra magnetic article in conjunction with the center of the ribbon is just enough to begin the degradation of the driver’s abilities. If the center of the ribbon had not been left on, the threshold of magnetic distortion required to affect driver competency is, in some cases, not reached. Therefore it is always recommended that one use the center of the ribbon elsewhere, like on a refrigerator, cash register or even little Billy’s Radio Flyer.

The final example we will discuss is the vehement, red-neck sports fan. You know these folks by the large magnetic appliqué’s that grace the sides of their truck. Sometimes these vehicles will be held together with wire and duct tape and many will be spattered down the side with tobacco juice, letting you know a spit-cup is not the preferred mode of expulsion. Nearly 30% of the time the vehicle will have a gun rack on it with at least one gun being displayed. 10% of the time these vehicles will have tires that are bigger than a BMW Mini. Nearly all of these vehicles will have at least one beer can in the truck bed. What makes these drivers particularly dangerous is they generally start out with a lesser degree of driving skill, but only because they believe they will roll over anything that gets in their way. Add to this attitude the effects of such large magnetic items that purport “Superbowl Champions” or “My team can kick your teams butt!” and we are asking for a disaster to happen. You can tell that you are near one of these behemoths when you hear the clear “buzz” of all-terrain truck tires approaching. If you are stopped at a light and you can clearly see the drive-shaft of the truck next to you, you are in the presence of one of these trucks. Now all you must do is check the doors to see if they have taken on the added risk of sports team fanaticism. If they have, please provide this vehicle with a wide berth and a great deal of latitude in controlling the traffic in front of you. Be especially wary if you notice a great deal of mud caked on the underside of the vehicle. This means the owner is not used to driving on hard surfaces and should be treated with kid gloves by those who are drivers of a different class. Do not underestimate the possibility of total disregard for normal traffic laws when near one of these vehicles. Turn signals are usually not used, either because they don’t work or because the owner of the vehicle feels that they are big enough to get away with anything, including turning right from the left hand turn lane. Protect yourself! Let these folks get away from you!

All-in-all, the ribbons being displayed are in support of groups that need the support, so I don’t doubt that the intentions of the supporters are holistic and real. Even in the case of sports team fanaticism, I don’t question whether the person really is a fan of the team. It is within this bizarre correlation between magnetics and how these drivers act that I find I am befuddled. With this in mind, I humbly suggest that we adopt a new mantra for showing our support of different groups. This is why I say “Magnetics in moderation! Apply responsibly!”

Copyright JGR 2007, All rights reserved.

American Idol Revisited

Hi Folks:

After a discussion last night with a dear friend about my initial blog entry, I have realized that the intent of my first entry may be misconstrued. Please read further for more clarification.

During my discussion I realized some of what I wrote earlier might seem overly harsh or punitive. This was not the intent.

My first goal was to communicate that people that have a dream of performing live for millions should have loving, nurturing advocates coaching them. Further these advocates should be setting the correct expectation for those trying to live their dream. Critiquing people in the manner Mr. Cowell does is one thing; a thing that I do not believe is a nurturing act. Those who are acting as advocates for their performers should take great pains to ensure their performer knows exactly what to expect when they enter the realm of performance competition. The coach/advocate should encourage them to reach for their goal; to strive to find their best voice. However, they should also be perfectly clear that this must be done over a period of time.

For the performer, learning and practice must occur and feedback must be given and truly internalized by the performer before they should believe they can do more than become fodder for a demeaning TV appearance. The advocate or coach should have the fortitude to tell the performer that their performance isn’t up to snuff, if this is indeed true. This would be doubly true when the performer is going to be compared to the best of more than 100,000 other performers.

It is true that a person may only want to appear on national TV, to have their 15 minutes of fame, if you will. If this is the performer’s sole reason for auditioning, then so be it. They have all the power in the world to audition. This doesn’t bother me at all.

However, when someone who clearly couldn’t make it past the first American Idol audition shows their complete disappointment and in some cases their complete and utter dismay when the judges provide a triple “No” assessment, I’m completely inclined to blame the people around them for setting them up for failure. Someone close to these dumbstruck people should have said “You are good, but I’m not sure your voice and stage presence is at the level needed to get past the first American Idol audition.” To me, staying silent when you know a person is going to get hurt is like saying: “Even though there are 99 out of 100 chambers that have a bullet, I think you should go ahead and try to beat the odds” when a person has a revolver pointed to their temple! Yes, they might beat the odds, but the result of not doing so can be catastrophic and the odds of a catastrophe are too high to hope the good outcome will occur. Why are we unable to competently help when providing the help simply requires we tell the truth in a loving and gentle way?

As children, we learned much from our parents or guardians by being told “No!” Many times we just accepted that our parents or guardians were looking out for our best interests. Other times this caused a big fit on our part, but we eventually understood that we had to abide by the restrictions of a wiser person. I can remember some of my fits from my younger years, which is why I’m convinced patience is one of the paramount requirements for raising a child. Many times we, as children, didn’t like these restrictions but we did acquiesce. Now remember, during our younger ages this corrective instruction was done in a very direct and over-bearing way. True. Love was generally the driver behind the admonition, but their stern direction was not cushioned by insulative words. As we grew, our parents or guardians realized that our higher cognitive functions were starting to develop and the softening words entered their admonitions more and more. When we reached adulthood many folks, including our parents or guardians, began to approach us as someone of equivalent emotional intelligence. This sequence describes how nurturing and loving protection occurred for many people in the first 16-25 years of their lives.

Sadly, I believe many of the examples we see of people who appear completely crushed when they fail to make it past audition #1 on American Idol have not had someone in their lives to help guide them to a proficient and skilled performance. To help someone develop into a brilliant performer, one has to give the performer true, actionable and nurturing guidance. One must tell the performer that learning and improvement never stop; that there is always one level higher that we must continue to strive for. This type of coach or advocate is what I believe is completely lacking for these crushed performers.

What is even more disturbing . . . I believe many are being guided by people that are doing the opposite of what I just said is needed. Over-sheltering a person or glossing-over a person’s development needs does them a disservice. When a person truly needs improvement but is told; “You are special! You are fantastic! I can’t imagine it being any better!” they are being set up for assured failure and disappointment. Why is this the case you ask? Simply because this well-meaning person has taken away the opportunity for the performer to learn or improve. Not only does this hurt the performer, but the over protective person suffers too. Imagine the performer finally meets someone that does give them honest and nurturing feedback, where do you think the performer’s trust level with the over protective person goes? If you guessed down the tubes, you are right.

Come on people! Let’s stop coddling our children and relatives that want to excel at an art or a sport. Let’s love them and provide them the right words to allow them to realize we would like them to reach their highest level of success, but let’s also let them know that it is a very rare thing to become a world-renown icon. Before you let your child audition for a play or for a musical competition, you must tell them that you truly hope they win. But this statement must be immediately followed up with something like: “As I have said, I hope you win. But please don’t think that winning this competition determines your value or determines the amount I love you. Judges are wrong all of the time and some are just plain prejudiced. Remember, we all have good days and we all have bad days. Let’s hope you get to have a good day during your competition and let’s hope the judges treat you fairly!”

Copyright JGR 2007, All rights reserved.

Is Marriage About Equality?

What you are about to read is an effort to boil down the marriage equality argument to nothing but pure logic – those things that no person can argue the validity of.

Many of us in the United States like to believe we argue well, but then fail to see that much of our argument is built upon a foundation of items that are at best inconclusive. These are what I call our “blinders.” Because we argue from this position, the argument continues to roil with one side stating their inconclusive beliefs while the other counters with their inconclusive beliefs. Factually, this process is inefficient and is not focused on solving anyone’s problem in a reasonable amount of time.

So with the issue of marriage equality, where do we start? We can’t go to religion because there are variances in what each religion says about the relationships we have. This means that this argument is inconclusive whether you, the reader, like it or not. Not everyone agrees with your religion. Sorry.

Do we argue about the history of marriage? We could, but again we tread on the unsteady soil of inconclusiveness. Polygamy is acceptable in some circles while divorce is forbidden by others. Countless examples of history exist, all tainted by the view of the writer. The very same event can be documented ten different ways, yet it was the exact same event witnessed by each writer. Again we find we are in inconclusive territory.

Do we argue about fairness? I don’t believe we should. Fair is again a word that can be translated a myriad of ways. Just ask anyone who is African-American that lived in the Southern area of the US 50 to 70 years ago. You would have gotten several different opinions on what is “fair” several years ago, many times based solely on the color of someone’s skin. No, fairness is not a good approach either.

What about arguing that the future of our society depends on maintaining certain structures exactly as they are today? No. Again this is a false argument. One only need look at the fact that the very same argument has been used over and over again to scare people into believing the future of our society depends on one structure. Bah! I say. Society is malleable and ever-changing. Pretending that it will not or should not change is Pollyannaish and is based out of the fear people feel when change is on the horizon.

‘Women aren’t smart enough to vote.’ ‘Women are not good at science’ ‘Women are too emotional to run a company well.’ ‘A black person’s vote should not be considered equal to that of a white person’s.’ ‘If we give blacks equal citizenship, our government and society will be on a down-hill spiral to dysfunction!’ ‘Marrying between races is misogyny and is a sin against God and mankind.’ All of these statements are paraphrases of statements made in defense of positions that were at their core completely wrong. Rather than argue on the basis of whether the treatment of a given subpopulation was unequal, many grasp at arguments that pull our attentions away from this very question.

Now that most of you reading this understand why such arguments don’t serve our population well, I’ll move on to discussing equity in how our government treats their constituents.

According to the US Government and the IRS, marriage is “only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.” (Publication 17 (2006), Your Federal Income Tax ) Notice that this specifically says “man and woman.” Just by looking at this statement, one can tell the definition is exclusive. This definition excludes any other arrangement of humans or any other arrangement of a human and another entity.

An argument of someone marrying another entity besides another human is rediculous. Why, you ask? It is rediculous because the “other entity” doesn’t have the ability to choose their fate. Other entities are subservient to human-kind. Those who are Christian would say that this is the design that God intended. We are stewards of all things on the earth, but we are not here to lord-over all other entities, whether they be animate or inanimate. Because entering into a partnership with a computer changes the relationship from owner and tool to something that is usually understood to give both parties equivalent input into the partnership, you have changed the definition of a partnership. A computer, as of today, cannot provide input into a relationship. A computer is not capable of self-determination. Therefore a computer and a man or woman should not be allowed to form a partnership. The same could be said of members of the animal kingdom and of children or adolescents. None of these entities have the capability to understand the true impact of a partnership decision and consequently should not be allowed to declare a partnership nor should they be forced into a partnership by another party.

But what about the man and woman thing? Why is this exclusive or unequal? It is exclusive because it denies a segment of the adult population the rights and privileges bestowed upon another segment of the population and it is in many ways fiscally damaging for those that are denied the privilege.

There are more than 1,000 privileges that our government extends to married couples the moment they are wed. These benefits include items like being able to join a veteran’s group to the right to file your taxes jointly. These benefits allow parental assumption by a step-parent, the right to death benefits, the right to insurance for a partner without having to declare the benefit as an increase to their income. There are so many benefits, that it would be foolish to try to list them all here. Suffice it to say, people who are in a “non-traditional” relationship or are a part of a “non-traditional” household are left without these benefits. It is not possible to argue that this situation is a situation based upon equivalency.

Doesn’t the government recognize marriage to build a strong populace? Aren’t these benefits there to encourage the building of strong partnerships in our society? Don’t these benefits encourage parents to stay together to raise their children? Well, yes. In some ways this view could be true. But on the flip-side of this question, doesn’t the building of most adult partnerships benefit our society? And when these partnerships don’t benefit society, are they not usually prosecuted by our society (Enron for instance)? Should the only time a child is benefited by governmental rules be when that child is in a man/woman centric household? Is the only reason people get married procreation? Are all married couples a boon to society or to their children?

You see? This is why the argument cannot be made on such emotional and non-factual structures. Because there is always an emotional counter-argument to every argument someone provides on the basis of religion, belief, fairness, history and interpretation, deciding governmental action on these bases is not what we should be doing.

Equivalency can be proven. If one partnership structure of two adults gets one benefit, then the other partnership structure of two people get the same benefits. If one partnership structure of two adults and three children get a benefit then another partnership structure of two adults and three children get the same. This is equivalency. But when one group is given greater benefits while at the same time harming the remaining constituency because of the lack of said benefit, it is obvious that equivalency doesn’t exist. Sadly, this is where we are today.


Copyright JGR 2007, All rights reserved.

American Idolucinations

Ok. Tonight I watched some of the new season of American Idol. I’ll get to this in a second . . .

If you are reading this and since this is my first post, please don’t expect to see perfect grammar or to find a fount of profound thoughts in this blog. That isn’t why I’m writing it. I’m writing because I find it therapeutic and I hope to connect with folks that have a similar outlook on life. Feel free to rip apart the content or the grammar in this blog, but I can’t promise I’ll respond nor do anything else with your comments.

Now, let’s get back to American Idol. What I experienced in tonight’s show (16-Jan-2007) worries me. Never before have I seen so many people who placed so much importance on an audition for something that in Intelligencia-speak is nothing more than pap. Folks who would otherwise seem cogent and well-adjusted provided some of the worst audition footage I have ever seen. Yet these people think they have a shot at being the one person that a HUGE number of Americans will love listening to. Holy crap! There must have been no oxygen in the Minneapolis convention center!

The question? Who are the people that have pumped up these beings? Where are the parents that should have set REALISTIC expectations for their children? What brand of glue have these so called singers been sniffing? The glue had to be industrial strength no doubt.
I sing. I sing a lot and I can tell when someone strays from the key that they started in. If I audition for something, I know the words to the song well enough that my nerves will not usurp my mental processing. When I audition and I know that my efforts were not as good as they should have been, I can accept it. I do not fall apart while looking for the arms of someone who is over-protective and over-coddling.

Please don’t misunderstand my motives here. I’m not being cocky. I’m not being condescending. I’m realistic and I know something like American Idol isn’t where I ever would be. Nor would I consider myself able to percolate up to such a level. I’m a good choral and small group singer, but a soloist I’m not. However, I do know my musical abilities, including my solo voice, supercede those who thought their auditions deserved some modicum of respect, when what they just did sounded worse than a piglet being slowly slaughtered.

If, in the remarkably unlikely chance someone who auditioned in Minneapolis but shouldn’t have, reads this, please take some advice from someone that isn’t a famous celebrity. Never, ever, ever audition for something like American Idol again! If you can’t keep your voice within one key, don’t even consider singing outside of your own shower! If you are unable to match pitch, focus on some other area of your life! You have a much, much greater chance of making your mark in this world by doing something . . . actually anything else. In short, CHANGE YOUR DREAM!

What I’m saying is we all can benefit from a good helping of realism. Each and every one of us should strive to be great. This I don’t disagree with. But we should also breathe in the stale air of realism. Look at the population of the US. What percentage of the US would be considered famous? One-tenth of one percent? One-one thousandth of one percent? I would gamble no. We are talking about millionths of a percent. I repeat MILLIONTHS of a percent. We have little chance of being the one out of ten million that rises to the upper-most crust of society. This is reality folks. We all face these odds.

Then what do those of us that wish to be famous do? Constantly strive for the greatness you want! What? You just contradicted the paragraph before! No. I said be realistic. Strive and push to be great, but constantly search for what you can be great doing! I’m 39 years old and I still don’t know what it is that I can do greatly, but I know there is something. I may die not knowing what it was that would have brought me fame. If this happens, so be it. I’m happy where I am and I know that every day brings a myriad of changes; changes that may change my life for good or bad. I’m thankful that life does change, but I don’t expect the change will put me in the heady glow of fame. I’m mediocre, average, in the middle, not remarkable. I am what I am meant to be and I’m happy because what I’m meant to be could be so much less than what I am right now.

Copyright JGR 2007, All rights reserved.