==============

“You know, when I sit in meetings and things are very tense and people take things extremely seriously and they invest a lot of their ego, I sometimes think to myself, ‘Come on, you know, there’s life and there’s death and there is love.’

And all of that ego business is nonsense compared to that.”

–

Christine Lagarde

===================

“Meetings are indispensable when you don’t want to do anything.“

–

John Kenneth Galbraith

============

Meeting plans.

Plans as in walking into a meeting with a plan in mind <sometimes an agenda and sometimes a meeting strategy>.

I have been in a number lately that made me think I needed to write about meetings and as I mapped out some of my thoughts I thought I would google ‘meeting plans.’

Holy shit.

There is a shitload of incredibly bad advice online with regard to business meetings, managing meetings and what you should do when meetings start going bad. What makes all of this already bad advice even worse is the truth  that meetings rarely goes as planned. Ok. Not ‘rarely’ … let’s say ‘never.’ So if you are going to judge your meeting against some master plan you’ve developed, some agenda and desired objectives you may as well go home now and start drinking.

Now.

That isn’t to say you shouldn’t have a plan. Or have an agenda. Or even some specific objectives for a meeting. There are clearly some basics everyone should do <or it would be considered business malpractice> with regard to any business meeting:

    Have a clear idea of why you want to have the meeting.

    Define an objective for the meeting.

    Develop an agenda, even if it’s loose and only in your head.

    Have an idea of what you want to get out of the meeting.

    Know the critical things you want to say, communicate, or ask.

But, that said, the best meetings don’t follow the plan they become a little more dynamic moving beyond the simple construct of “how it was supposed to go.’

Here is a business truth.

Good meetings, more often than not, are like herding squirrels.

On the other hand.

Bad meetings, more often than not, are like herding dead people.

Yeah. Not a lot of people talk about it but meetings that tightly follow an agenda and do not foster a little bit of heated/passionate discussion & debate are more likely to be a bad meeting than a good meeting <either that or bad unthinking people were in the meeting>.

In good meetings people have very different views about the topic. They offer a lot of ideas. Sure. The ideas can be all over the place but … well … ideas are ideas and involvement is good. this means that often a good meeting organically grows & shrinks … and let me tell you … I have never seen a meeting plan or agenda which said “grow here” and “shrink here.”

Now.

The other thing that affects meeting plans is meeting pacing. A meeting can lull you into complacency, it’s moving along smoothly and then, uh oh, somehow some shit appeared and hit the only fan in the room. Ok. Maybe not ‘shit’ but the meeting obviously shifts – gears & direction. I would note here that good meetings rarely move along in one gear. They shift gears. Oh. And they shift lanes.

Yeah.

This is certainly a point in which the meeting can become dangerous and, yes, it can certainly become an emotional/ego mind field and, yes, it is bad if it becomes a demolition derby <I called this ‘managing meeting pivots‘ in my meeting trap post>. But even with all of that … it doesn’t mean the meeting has ‘gone wrong.’

Or that anyone has done anything wrong in the ‘planning.’ It just means that the meeting has some life <which is good … and beats the alternative>.

Anyway.

Good meetings tend to have two things <even if the plan goes awry>:

1. Closure

It doesn’t have to be closure on whatever it is the meeting was about.

It doesn’t even have to be closure on a ‘list of things to do.’ You just need some closure on something. A good meeting just needs some type of closure on something so that everyone can walk away feeling like something was accomplished.

This is value confirmation. If there is no closure there is no value <and you won’t care about part 2 of what I am going to say — the story>. By the way, ‘another meeting’ is not closure. In fact … that, in and of itself, confirms lack of closure. Never agree to another meeting unless it follows “okay, we agreed to do this, this and this … and we will have another meeting on this & this.”

Never walk away from a meeting without some closure on something. Never.

2. The story.

No one should misconstrue this thought as “developing a story for the meeting” in your planning <because you should avoid wasting energy thinking about that … with some rare exceptions>. This is … well … what’s the story from the meeting.

This is also more important than a shitload of people think it is.

Thinking about it while you are in the meeting <or at least being aware of it> means you will decide to not argue & fight &correct every single thing in a meeting.

Thinking about it means you will decide to ‘never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake” <Napoleon>.

Thinking about it means you prioritize what is important as it is being discussed in the here & now <and not because you thought it was going to be important before the meeting>.

Thinking about it means you recognize that a meeting is less memorable just because you had some ‘closure items’ … and more memorable for something else.

Closure items confirm value in a meeting.

The story creates the memory/take away.

Think of this as if the press were covering the meeting — what would be the headline and story the next day. Don’t laugh at this thought. Meetings live on way beyond the time everyone gets up and leaves. The better you are at defining the story the better your meetings will be perceived <and talked about>.

Now.

What is the best thing about these two particular ideas? They adapt to the meeting, they are not defined in some meeting plan.

Look.

All meetings have a plan and almost all meetings have their plan fall apart.

And when it does start falling apart the initial feeling is most often a sick, sinking feeling. You know that you are not the only one sitting there going ‘what is going on … and … we’re not making any progress.’

The good news? You are not the only one feeling it.

The bad news? You are most likely partially responsible for the debacle.

Inevitably someone, maybe even you, will choose to change some dynamic in the meeting … maybe switch it up a little, switch gears or switch topics. And by altering the flow of the meeting the agenda, the plan, either adapts or gets destroyed … or worse … ignores the realities taking place in a meeting and constricts it. And maybe it is that last point that makes some rigid meeting plan of action/engagement so silly. A plan lives in some speculative reality, the meeting itself depicts reality.

I can tell you which should win.

I admit.

It drives me crazy when someone says ‘well, that didn’t go as we planned did it?’ You need to be flexible with regard to your meeting plans as well as flexible with your methods within the meeting itself.

Truth. 99% of good meetings don’t go as planned. Period.

======

“be stubborn about your goals but flexible about your methods.” the best advice I’ve ever received.

——

(via youarewortheverything)

==============

Meetings.

Rules.

Protocol.

The way things are done.

Bla bla bla bla.

Business is challenging enough without having to stick with ‘methods of what is right & wrong’ most of which are actually just simply things you ‘like or dislike.’ I say that because having the luxury of interacting with dozens of different businesses I sometimes have the opportunity to see something somewhere which reminds me that … well … I should remind someone else of something. And I just spoke with 3 young business owners yesterday about their new business.

This one has to do with meetings and managing the interaction between team members in a meeting. There are some basic business meeting truths everyone learns to accept <whether business people like the truth or not>. Suffice it to say that any time there are a bunch of people, and senior experienced people, in a business meeting you can count on it always being a maze of challenges and objectives interspersed with a nice dose of conflict of thinking & ideas.  Knowing that … most of us invest gobs of energy developing an agenda and pounding it into everyone’s head that we need to follow the agenda and say what we all agreed to say.

Generally speaking? … what a waste of good energy.

Suffice it to say the agenda, the plan, rarely survives after the initial engagement and, while the construct of the original plan of attack may remain, what happens within that construct becomes an ongoing series of mini battles of ideas, words and facts. That means, in the reality of meetings, that sometimes a lot of things said or done in a meeting are a means to an end.  And while the ‘means’ feel painful in the moment, well, in the end it was the right call.

The right decision or the right action. This is a surprisingly difficult lesson for a shitload of business people <uhm … it took me far too long to grasp it>.

Well. It is actually more difficult for older business people than younger business people. Younger business people inevitably have less rules and more worries about being & looking smart. On the other hand … older business people have more rules and, sometimes oddly, use them at the sacrifice of looking as smart as they could be.

Anyway.

This isn’t about older more experienced business people versus younger business people … this is about business meetings and management of moments and what I talked about with some business owners who didn’t really have any rules other than doing their best. And that is where talking with younger businesses is truly a joy for me. They rarely discuss status quo and rules and almost always ask me to talk about “in a meeting I want to do the right thing so how is the best way to do it.”

There are so many things that it would most likely take a Michener length book to discuss them all but I just discussed two yesterday so those are the ones I am highlighting:

• Leveraging the pronoun

You learn really early on in new business that different people see different things in meetings and most senior experienced people are smart. You also learn that younger less experienced people usually know some nuance or thought that can contribute to the discussion. This means you have a shitload of people who can contribute. This also means that inevitably in any good meeting discussions will create moments where someone wants to interject a thought. And, uh oh, they are not sure it’s a ’we’ thought or an “I” thought <we all agree versus just an interesting thought that may not align exactly with what the ‘we’ believes or wants>.

I always tell young business people … the worst thing is actually to say nothing.

Ok.

The worst thing is to say something stupid. But let’s assume it is not something stupid and it is simply a “not sure it is an I or a we thought.”

Regardless. Any good business wants someone to speak up even if they aren’t sure it fits into the “we” façade.

So you go out of your way to teach what most people call ‘leveraging the pronoun.’  You teach people to use their pronoun selectively. And experienced business people pay attention to the pronoun. The “we believes” are obvious. They are the things you have discussed beforehand or they are some basic company principles which underpin what you do and what you believe. The “I’s” are a little more difficult. Ok. A LOT more difficult.

Shit is happening in a meeting and you have something to say. You rack your brain … ‘does everyone believe this … does everyone agree … is this just my opinion … ???? <a bunch of yack, yack, yacking going on in your head>.’

I always tell young business people, in this situation, open your thought with an I. Just use “I” and share the thought. And, most importantly, don’t worry about whether the rest of your team agrees or not ... just focus on making the point as smartly and articulate as you can.

The onus is on your other team members to box it in as an “I” or convert it to a “we.”

“Well, I partially agree with Bruce and that thought … it suggests something we have discussed … “

Or

“He is correct … and …”

Or whatever you want to do and say. But as I just sat with three young business owners who think exponentially differently with several incredibly sharp employees … I was unequivocal that in their meetings situations will inevitably arise in which someone can accelerate progress or block downward turns and in either case you don’t want someone sitting on their hands trying to figure out whether everyone agrees or not.

Shift the onus onto the other members in the meeting. The other employees shouldn’t get pissed when someone does it … or scratch their head in confusion … they need to focus on leveraging the pronoun in the direction you want.

I know.

I think I just shared something kind of basic but sometimes I believe we forget to remind people of that type of shit. But when you do remind your team it frees up thinking in meetings and showcases how freely a business can navigate the strength of any business – the “I/we” dynamic. People like to know your business permits “I” to stand up and speak their mind just as much as they like, typically as a conclusion, that “we” can agree on a next step/recommendation/ POV.

Of course, I am sure I don’t need to say this <but I will anyway>, there must be balance in a meeting. It cannot be a constant “I/we” conflict, but, just for the sake of statistics let’s say that the 80/20 rule works well — 80% we and 20% I is probably the most extreme mix you want to have. Keep the “I’s” below 20 and you should be good.

Next thing you learn very early in business <and should go out of your way to teach young business people>.

• Managing the pivot

Every business meeting will demand a pivot or two. It happens. The flow of the meeting has simply gone off course, or worse, it is going in a direction which will inevitably put you in a bad spot.

So you pivot.

Oh. Unfortunately … pivots are difficult. Depending on the situation they can be impossibly difficult.

I tell people to just assume 80% of all pivots will be clumsy & awkward. The 20% elegant pivots are beautiful to watch and often so stylish they appear easy <and everyone should be able to do them> … but they are not. They are hard.

I tell all young business people to not worry about the pivot. Yeah. Of course think about it before you do it … but … getting stuck not pivoting because you aren’t sure how to do it just, more often than not, prolongs the pain in the meeting. The more important thing is managing the pivot.

I tell people to just clean it up if they want … just don’t point out how messy it was. But … what is even better? Just move on. Just like a running back in football if they make a sharp pivot they plant and accelerate. Suffice it to say the faster you accelerate out of a pivot the better off you are when it is all said & done.

By the way. That is a hard business lesson to learn. The natural instinct is to linger on the pivot and clean it up … make it look and feel less clumsy or awkward. The difficulty is that in doing so the focus remains on the wrong thing … that the pivot was clunky. Instead … if you accelerate out of the pivot 99% of the time no one invests any energy thinking back on the pivot itself … they focus on the ‘why the pivot got everyone to a good place.’

Once again … this is much more difficult than many people think.

Oh. Also.

The whole ‘awkward pivot’ thing. As I told these young business owners, when they do their post-meeting analysis they should reflect on pivots with the intent to see if there was a less awkward way <always seeking the elegant of course> but not to invest a shitload of energy reflecting. Hind sight is always 20/20 but you learn pretty quickly replicating that exact situation & context is minuscule therefore you will most likely never run into that exact same situation again.

Sure. Reflect a little.

Sure. Get bummed out it looked clumsy & awkward.

Sure. Let some people bitch & moan about how awkward & clumsy it was.

But, in the end, spend more time discussing how the pivot was managed … because, as I stated earlier, the only thing you really know for sure is that 80% of future pivots will be clumsy & awkward so rather than try and make them less clumsy & awkward it is probably a more effective use of your time to discuss how to manage it.

Anyway.

Business meetings are tough. They are tough for anyone at any experience level. I will admit that working with younger business owners and entrepreneurs when discussing new business and business meetings is fun. They are less likely to worry about rules and how things are done and all the crap that most of us older folk worry about with regard to meeting protocols. More often than not their mantra is respect for the idea & thinking & thoughts as more important than respect for a title & experience & business. Maybe it is because at that age they feel bulletproof <and we older folk forget that after being shot so many times>. But it actually seems like they have an innate understanding that the tide rises higher on the latter if they deliver on the former.

They also seem to have an innate understanding that in today’s world there is a higher value on collaboration & collaborative team thinking <even if it happens in a meeting and even if it contains some disagreement or back & forth in a meeting within team members> because it permits people to not only gain a glimpse of culture and teamwork but showcases thinking <assuming the back & forth leads to some value>. And, maybe most importantly, they seem to have a sense of fearlessness in meetings. Just in talking with these business owners as they discussed what I was telling them you could feel how it created a sense of fearlessness and freedom that no matter what mistakes they made within a meeting they could manage it.

Look.

I have always balked at ‘meeting rules’ and gravitated toward ‘meeting principles’ or ‘effective meeting tactics.’ Rules, to me, in a business meeting inherently constrict a lot of the freedom which inevitably makes for a good adaptable meeting.

……….. waitbutwhy intelligence and truth ……..

Rules constrict the methods <which can vary depending on the context and the situation> which inevitably you need to attain your objective.

I firmly believe if a business is going to demand any meeting protocol it should be built around ‘thoughtful freedom.’ By the way, none of this comes at the expense of respect for anyone in the room. Whatever is said and done should always remain respectful.

Regardless. I maybe think this way because I never ever cared if anyone in any meeting disagreed with me … at any level or title and on my team or from the ‘other side’ … if they had a good idea or a fresh view on what was being discussed … or I was wrong.

Shit.

I have been wrong so many times I am impervious to my wrongness. But, as a quasi successful business person, what I have come to realize is that as long as my rightness outweighs my wrongness I can keep my title, keep my responsibility and keep the respect of the teams around me as well as any business people I interact with.

And you know what? Young business people & owners get that. These guys did I just spoke with. And when they embrace it and do it well? Wow. Man. I would pay for a ticket to that show. That is good stuff.

============

“I had a lover’s quarrel with the world.”

–

Robert Frost epitaph quoting the last line from his poem “The Lesson for Today”

==

Well.

I am a bull in a china shop and I know it.

I have a lover’s quarrel with the world and I know it.

And, frankly, I like it. Some people suggest it is just being contrarian and others suggest it is ‘bull in a china shop’ living.

Maybe. Maybe to both.

But think about this. To me ‘bull in a china shop’ kind of implies that there is this random china shop and for some reason a bull wanders in <that bull would be me in this metaphor>. But – suppose it is actually the other way? Suppose you have a bull. The bull is … well … a bull. It lives its life. It’s content. It’s comfortable being a … well … a bull. Then Life comes along and builds a frickin’ china shop around it. Not just surrounded by fences but within a china shop – caged, contained, restrained, pick your word here – the bull is unable to move without breaking something. What does that mean? Simple normal everyday actions are now destructive. And yet … the bull is simply being a bull. Just being kind of what it was brought in this world to be.

Well.

I like turning it around this way <it makes me feel slightly better>. I like it because it permits me to quarrel with the world … and be in the right. Oh. Right being defined as being myself.

Regardless. If you accept the turned around thought I shared … well … this may surprise you but … acceptance becomes a key thought and mindset. Yeah. Acceptance.

I know that sounds odd because we are talking about possibly crashing around and breaking shit. But the thought is that if you are a bull you accept the reality of the world that is constraining the reality of you. Now. Please understand. Acceptance is not the decision to do nothing. Acceptance is simply acceptance. It is simply the intention to agree with reality. Accepting what is <and what is not>.

I say this even as a true Life contrarian … because I honestly can say that have never found a time where it was better to disagree with reality. It is always easier to agree with reality … and then start ‘doing.’ Acceptance simply means permitting the present to exist … no matter how painful. Which then leads me to the thought that there is a difference between pain and suffering. Acceptance suggests you eliminate the suffering aspect because … well … Life is what it is. Maybe painful … but not worth suffering over.

Anyway. Circling back to the bull <as in me>. Life is a china shop and … well … I can’t build a whole new shop for Life … I just have to learn how to live within it.

That is acceptance and acceptance that, in some odd way, makes Life bearable. I can keep moving and taking action. I can keep … well … quarreling with the world.

Even better? My actions are derived from an intent to ‘do’ … whatever that doing is … and with a recognition that I will probably break some shit <and have to pay for it> and not driven by some reactive sense of desperate avoidance to not break shit or be constantly aggravated with Life being a frickin’ china shop.

Now. You would tend to think that accepting the realness of reality is something we would do automatically.

We don’t.

This may sound obtuse … but in actually living it <this acceptance thing> … I can tell you that thinking this way is quite freeing. Because Life can be painful at times and, yet, I have also found that mostly it is painful only because you are in conflict with what Life seems to be demanding of you. So maybe if you can imagine that by accepting the pain as natural as just part of who you are and the choices you make – you actually limit the pain to such a level it is almost unnoticeable. Oh. In the cases in which the pain doesn’t recede? Well … you end up fighting back against Life a little bit. And I will note … in most cases you are simply fighting inertia. Inertia as in ‘the wrong type of acceptance.’ In fact … i am wrong .. its not acceptance … it is acquiescence <acquiescence as an overall societal default mechanism>. This is where people simply cease to fight against what they see as an inevitable outcome.

All that said. It seems like I am talking about some form of ignorance. And I am. In this case it is self ignorance. Ignorant with regard to self-awareness or just ignorant of reality <knowledge and facts and truth and shit like that>.

An ignorance of maybe our personal Life default mechanism. I imagine the real issue behind ignorance is … well … a natural irrationality. We humans like to think of ourselves as a smart thoughtful intuitive group.

In general … we are not.

For example.

A psychologist described how people are fairly good at predicting the outcome of elections based solely on photographs of the candidates. Well. This is slightly disturbing in that it suggests no matter how much we analyze what a person stands for that a significant part of our choice behavior falls back on some subconscious instinctual gut feeling … that are in many cases typically not rational.

Another example.

Think you can change a friend’s mind about an important issue? Think again. Psychological research suggests the existence of something called the ‘backfire effect.’ This is when by simply mentioning facts that another person won’t like … it will cause ‘double down behavior’ on their original position.

Well. That sucks. No wonder all of us have some level of a ‘lover’s quarrel with the world.’

Anyway. This subconscious irrationality seems to reside in the fact that we people are really really good at utilizing an innate default mechanism … either too afraid or too oblivious to make major changes to our attitudes & beliefs. It is an unfortunate truth that it is part of our natural cultural DNA that we do a whole bunch of maintaining, rationalizing, procrastinating and reinforcing … suffice it to call it “embracing the status quo” type stuff.

Sorry to tell you, but, we don’t really do very much thinking about what’s really best for us and the possibly more drastic changes we might need to make to get there. We do some surface type thinking but not the real deep hard thinking.

So what does this mean? If you don’t quarrel with the world on occasion you simply let Life dictate your life.

By the way. Please note the ‘love’ in the quarrel thought.

I love Life. I love the world in which we live.

Does that mean I like it unchanged? Absolutely not. I want to change things and attitudes and behaviors and therefore I have a lover’s quarrel.

Maybe I am crazy. Maybe it comes down to a crazy personal attitude:

==========

“Do I dare … dare disturb the universe?”

TS Eliot

===========

Whoa. Disturbing the universe. Quarreling with Life on occasion. That’s … well … crazy.

Look.

I tend to think it is fairly typical for us to feel like something is missing or unsettled in our lives. I know I do on occasion. I also think it is fairly typical that even though we feel that way … at any given time … the idea of making any type of major change will tend to seem out of the question. I know I do on occasion.

I tend to believe it is is because you believe you are … well … what you’ve been doing this whole time. I know I do on occasion.

I tend to believe we recognize that something missing and yet we make no real meaningful change <for a variety of good and not so good reasons>.

Well. This paradox, which is actually quite natural in our attitudes & behavior, kind of makes the entire thought of continuing with the way things are <maintain the status quo> seem a little absurd. The fact is you are naturally disturbing the universe – at least your own universe. Identity is not static, it is fluid.

You are constantly becoming a new version of yourself – a different person. Yeah. Dramatic changes may actually be necessary to realign with ‘the world.’ In fact what you feel is ‘missing’ may simply a reflection of the fact that your new version is out of sync with the world and Life. In my words, you are quarreling with the world for the wrong reasons. I say all this psychological mumbo jumbo because this takes some self awareness. It certainly takes battling self ignorance. And inevitably this takes into account self doubt and <by the way> self doubt exists in everyone.

Well. Let’s just say it exists within everyone who tries to live their life with some integrity or values.

Because if you don’t care about your ‘output’ <however output is manifested in your daily life … including your actions> being good … and are okay that being bad is just fine … self-doubt has nothing to attach itself to.

Ok. All that said.

Quarreling with the world.

Disturbing the universe.

We humans ignore all sorts of things that don’t fit our conceptual structures <heads and how we think>. Quarreling is often simply natural chafing against paradigms. And paradigms are a reflection of the defaults we fall into. Some psychologist suggested that paradigm shifts in human societies aren’t made incrementally, but rather in great leaps:

————–

During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.

This negates the truth value of any given idea — but simultaneously demands adjustments of the most dissonant “truth”. Adjustments can employ tactics such as appeals to spiritual beliefs, peer pressure, neglect or diminishing of significance (and vice versa), discrediting a source or messenger, reliance upon tradition, appeal to authority, etc.

——————-

Well. Those words also apply to us … people .. not just research.

… demands adjustments of the most dissonant “truth.”

Wow. That’s us people. We need a crisis of anomalous data before we accept change. Therefore … dramatic changes are not just quarrels with the world but arguments. Heated debates.

Look.

I imagine my unending quarrel with the world is one that many have. Some are simply more vocal than others … some get tired more easily than others in the quarrel.

I also imagine just to keep my sanity that I embrace the thought that maybe it is simply part of who I am that I see myself freed of what may often be seen as natural boundaries all with the hope to someday reach a larger vision of possibilities. I certainly do not seek to imply simple optimism or a some utopia to be arrived at in the distant future. It is simply the journey to something better.

Better than what is today.

Maybe I quarrel with the world because today’s world can be a harsh and difficult one scattered with cruel weather surrounding character and soul. And I accept the pain as I sometimes stumble down a path can be strewn with ruins of what was and outdated cultural monuments.

I like to think I reject the past and embrace the past at exactly the same time.

============

“Beyond the wall another wall, on the wall stopped dead one sentinel.”

Regina Derieva

============

I accept the walls.

I accept the sentinels who stand watch over the status quo.

I accept the china shop.

Maybe I just like to think of it as larger with new freshly painted walls. And maybe I simply am quarreling with the dead sentinels standing upon the walls.

I have a lovers quarrel with the world.

I do the best that I can.

I take solace in something Augusten Burroughs said:

===============

“I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions.” 

===============

I am flawed … I have good intentions … and I will quarrel with the world.

Look. I know that the world, itself, is a good ‘quarreler.’

It challenges, tries to push you down and sometimes makes you feel like there is no hope.

No hope for being better. No hope for change.

Me?

In acceptance I find some type of courage <not sure that is the right word> to defeat these feelings.

I am flawed. But I know I have a good intentions. I know I am a bull and I don’t particularly like someone tried to build a china shop around me.

All that said, well, I have a lover’s quarrel with the world.

=================

Originally posted 2014

—

“Haply the Law that rules the world allows to man the widest range;

And haply Fate’s a Theist-word, subject to human chance and change.

This “I” may find a future Life, a nobler copy of our own”.

=

Sir Richard Burton

—

Well.

I was tempted to call this “is this all there is?” … but instead decided on talking about being noble and finding what Sir Richard suggests is a future Life a nobler version of our own. I call it ‘a nobler version of I.”

I think anyone my age, of my generation, having either grinded out the day to day work life … or even loved every minute of the 2,800 work hour years invested <that last was me> … has stood back one day and said “is this all there is?” I would suggest in that little question we are actually questioning the bigger question — whether we are living a noble life <or ‘is there a nobler version of I?’>.

Now.

I love working. I am probably a borderline workaholic. It kills me a little each day I am not working. I have had two of my closer friends say in different words that my work defines me.

I cannot argue. And, frankly, I don’t want to. But that’s not the point <although it will contribute to my point>.

A significant amount of people in my generation are ‘dropping out of the rat race’ and shifting to ‘doing something that matters’ <let’s call it ‘doing something nobler’ for the sake of this post>. They are doing so like it is a light switch moment in Life.

Off with ambition and ‘work.’ On with noble and ‘purpose.’

Watching closely, younger people see what is happening, hear our words, and are questioning whether the work world my generation created isn’t lacking something or that there is something wrong with ‘this rat race they built.’ Therefore they are coming out of the blocks into the working world looking for careers ‘doing something that matters.’ Seeking to make some grand gesture or higher purpose investment of time & effort.

Well.

With all due respect to my generation <and hopefully young people listen and follow along> I think we are making a mistake. In my pea like brain I think this whole discussion of ‘purpose driven business’ or even ‘business with a conscious’ is kind of wacky. Ok. Maybe not wacky, because it has great intentions, but misguided. It is so, well, grand. I tend to believe we would be better off focusing on the gestures.

Teaching that work can be done with purpose … not TO a purpose.

Teaching that purpose doesn’t have to be grand … but rather working with purpose is noble in and of itself.

Inevitably it seems to me that we would be better served if we simply taught people <and encouraged people> to be the noblest version of themselves regardless of what they did in the working world and who they worked for.

Yes. We all want the ‘grand gesture.’ But. Maybe, instead, we should be seeking the ‘noble nudges.’

That said.

Living this way is something I call being a tugboat in Life. You nudge the ships around you keeping everyone and everything on course. Therefore being a ‘nobler version of I” can actually be found in nudging.  This means Purpose can be found in everyday actions. The largest benefit? You can be noble all the time. Even noble throughout what some people may call ‘the grind.’ In fact … I could argue that this is the noblest of noble living.

Nudging at exactly the right time … at the right moment <because, let’s face it, some moments are more important than others> and you can steer someone back on course.

You can be noble upwards <to someone who is managing you>. You can be noble downwards <to the ‘someones’ you manage>.

Noble is found in smallness. I learned early on in my career … working under the management of some spectacular managers <and spectacular people> that there were moments that if I could take one straw off their back, or even better, be aware enough to not put another straw on their back — it was a burden they could carry and make it to the next moment. My best team members did the same for me when I became  manager.

There are moments in work life where you can make a difference in people’s lives.

How they think.

How they adapt.

How they cope.

How they carry a burden they may have assumed.

Even how they make a decision <that could steer them down one path or another>.

Therein lies nobility. Emerson suggested the most valuable thing was an active soul. He called this active soul one which unites and animates the farthest pinnacle and the lowest trench.

I am sure my soul dwells more often in the trench. But I am confident if I remain true to myself and remain true to being as noble as possible <and the noblest version of I> I know I can not only dwell in the trench and be okay … but get to see, and maybe visit, the pinnacle on occasion.

I imagine, metaphorically, in Life and in our work life we must explore the farthest pinnacles and lowest trenches. Day to day can often be ‘the trench.’ And the trench … even if you live it nobly … is relentlessly unforgiving:

“We judge ourselves by our best intentions and most noble acts but we will be judged by our last worst act.”

Michael Josephson

We do our best … and most often our best is pretty good … good intentions and most noble acts. Yet. Even with good intentions … we make mistakes or miss things. And get judged on ‘our worst acts.’ Maybe that is why work is, well, called work.

Work is called work <and not pleasure or leisure> because it is … well … work. Working, in and of itself, is not a purpose but HOW you actually conduct yourself as you work can be done with purpose. In fact. If you choose to do so, work can be done in a nobler fashion and with noble intent.

How was I able to work 2800 hours year after year? I imagine that without realizing it was because I embraced the nobler aspects, the nudges, of the everyday work. The belief that if I was aware enough I could measure up to scrutiny of nobility by doing the right things in the right moments. The moments that not only made good shit happen, but happen to make good people be the best they could be.

Is that not success?

Is that not living a life with purpose … or maybe better said … living life purposefully?

And isn’t this having a career with a purpose?

Having a successful career and making a difference doesn’t have to be made up of some grand gesture nor is it simply found in the company vision you work at. Success, and nobility, resides in HOW you do what you do — how you go about it and how ‘noble’ you are in your attitude & behavior.

—————————–

“How melancholy a thing is success. Whilst failure inspirits a man, attainment reads the sad prosy lesson that all our glories “Are shadows, not substantial things.” Truly said the sayer, “disappointment is the salt of life” a salutary bitter which strengthens the mind for fresh exertion, and gives a double value to the prize.”

Sir Richard Burton

—————————–

I worry my generation is disappointed with their careers and work life for the wrong reasons. We are melancholy with this thing we called success and profits and momeny and “things”. Maybe we are melancholy because our noble glory was to be found in nudges and not grand gestures and we forgot about the importance of the little things that make up HOW we do things.

Anyway.

A nobler version of I. I cannot think of many things better to be aspiring to — a nobler version of ourselves.

But maybe we should be teaching how it can be done in the everyday work Life rather than treating it as if it is a light switch Life decision.

In the end.

I will always seek to find a nobler version of I … in everything that I do. That said. I sleep well at night.

=======================

Originally published April 2014

——————————————–

=====================

Telling teens they are stupid is, well, stupid. To be clear. We may not actually verbally tell teens they are stupid but we older folk have no qualms treating them like they are stupid … which … uhm … is actually telling them we think they are stupid.

Yeah.

One of the biggest problems adults have with regard to the generation gap is … well … themselves.

Adults.

Teens are not the problem in the generation gap. Shit. Young people are not the problem with any generation gap.

I do not care if we are speaking about teens, or young people in the workplace, the problem remains the same … we older folk tend to treat young people like they are stupid <but go home each night easing our minds by saying to ourselves “but I never told them they were stupid”> .

Now.

We can be clever in how we do so and sometimes we can even be fairly good at masking it … but you know what?

Young people are pretty frickin’ smart and young people are pretty frickin’ insightful and young people are pretty frickin’ aware of what is going on around them … and they can tell we think they are stupid even if the words coming out of our mouths sound something like “good idea … something we should be thinking about” <thought bubble above older person saying it says “how naïve, that’s stupid, ok, act like you actually care so they don’t think you think they are stupid …“>.

I am a little unsure of why we older people treat teenagers like they are stupid.

Do we feel it is a rite of passage that they must go thru? <like joining a fraternity or sorority?>.

Is it for self-esteem? <the more stupid we make them feel the smarter that we feel?>.

Is it out of fear? <that we will look stupid to them … or they will be smarter than us?>

Is it simply the inability to let go of the past? <”if they could only learn how and what we learned … – insert a nostalgic ‘sigh’ here …”>

All I know is that teens are not stupid.

Far from it.

As I wrote in my Beautiful Brains article the teen brain is capable of the same smart decision making as an adult … yes, as smart, it is just that their brain lining has not completely formed and therefore there is some sensory overload they have to navigate that older brains do not.

But.

This is not stupidity.

Look.

Here is what I know.

Tearing the young down serves no real purpose. In fact … I would like to point out that building up the young can serve a real purpose.

====

In 1968, psychologist Robert Rosenthal walked in to a primary school class and told the teacher that he would be conducting a Harvard aptitude test on all of the students to find out which ones were bloomers or spurters (anticipating that these students were brighter and showed more potential than the rest). By the end of the year, sure enough these students went on to have not only higher grades but also did better on their IQ tests, so what was the catch?

Rosenthal later revealed that the ‘Harvard’ tests conducted were completely bogus and the children dubbed bloomers and spurters were in fact chosen at random! Because the teachers had been given the notion that these children were brighter than the rest, they ended up engaging and challenging them more often seeing their mistakes as a learning experience and setting higher goals.

This confirmed the teachers suspicion that they were in fact much brighter than the rest.

====

When adults expect the young to do well and show intellectual growth, inevitably young people deliver the goods. On the other hand … when adults lower expectations it inevitably provides suitable excuses for ‘less than performance and growth’ and may in fact actually discourage growth in a variety of ways. If we continue treating young people like they are stupid <which is NOT the same as telling them they are stupid> and feeding them propaganda about their stupidity and failings naturally they’re going to start believing all the crap and almost start expecting stupidity like traits.

Older people are not granted some magical power that makes them non-stupid simply because they have become older. They are not some special breed of human that has no failings and no desire to maintain some power & control.

I tell you where teens are truly not stupid.

They do not buy the whole ‘positive thinking’ being shoved down their throats. They see firsthand that positive thinking alone doesn’t get you shit and they give you shit if you try and tell them it does <and is the key to their future success>. Most teens see very quickly that positive thinking is fine in theory, but really only helpful to those with more wealth and access to a decent education. For everyone else it is empty platitudes. They don’t want platitudes they want wisdom that hlps them get where they want to go.

Teens are not stupid.

Not stupid intellectually & smarts-wise nor with regard to Life.

While we think they can only see what is in front of them in the moment they are watching the larger world swirling around them with eyes wide open. They may not be in a rush to get into this crazy looking adult world <would we adults if we looked around?> but they clearly, and smartly, are assessing the world in front of them and around them.

Let me end by saying treating teenagers like they are stupid is … well … stupid.

===

“If parallel lines do not meet it is not because meet they cannot, but because they have other things to do.”

—

Vladimir Nabokov

=======

“Looking back, I didn’t lose my way.

I never knew where I was going in the first place.”

—

William Chapman

========

Ok.

While in personal life there is an inordinately high external value <people looking in on you & the business> on focus and consistency, in the business world this value fluctuates. And, unfortunately, in the business world there is no real ‘code’ on when to be consistent and when to be inconsistent <therefore it can sometimes be a crap shoot … and you pay dearly if you bet wrong …>.

Regardless. Suffice it to say, adaptability, which is this generation’s path to success, is inevitably tied to some inconsistent behavior.

Uhm.

Inconsistency. That is what change is all about. Focus is a 5 lane highway, not a one lane highway, and includes some spot over a horizon which you cannot see nor can you clearly define as in ‘see this beautiful picture? This is your destination.” The horizon focus is a less tangible destination … it is sometimes just a thought in mind.

Whew. Yup. I just typed that.

And that may seem contrarian to all the business folk waving their hands in the air in panic over some disconnected fragmented world in which ‘we need to make it simple to forge our way thru this chaotic world.’

Look. To forge your way thru a chaotic world you will get bludgeoned to death if you treat it like a straight line gauntlet. Yes, doing it that way is truly running a gauntlet <note: and a lot of people get bloodied running a gauntlet and some do die>.

In a chaotic world in order to effectively adapt you actually have to be … well … ‘serpentine.’ <In-Laws movie reference to the old folk>.

What’s worse?

This doesn’t just pertain to tactics but even strategy has to be adaptable <a tinge of inconsistency>.

A lack of adaptability is foolish. Or maybe let’s just say the being consistent for the sake of being consistent is foolish:

===

https://brucemctague.com/foolish-consistency

===

Now.

Just because I like to bitch about the ‘branding world’ I would like to take a moment and rant a little about how this “inconsistency is bad” discussion has infiltrated the business world to such an extent that a bunch of ‘experts’ have flocked to companies under the nomenclature of ‘brand consistency experts.’ Their whole premise and reason for being is that those of us in business don’t understand how to run a business and sell and do it in a way that doesn’t really create ongoing success <or highest brand value>. Or they adamantly state that we need an unchanging “how to” guide so that we know what we are supposed to do with ‘brand.’

Look.

I am all for insuring that a business develops a core value <and brand> value proposition and I am all for aligning an organization around that position but … please … please don’t tell me if I do something ‘inconsistent’ I am going to detract from my ‘brand.’

Please … please … don’t tell me about stringent consistency rules necessary to ‘build a brand’ … a ‘brand’ which theoretically only exists in a mind  and crafted in the minds of someone else.

Please … please … don’t confuse focus with consistency.

Consistency in today’s business world is much more complex … and much more sensible … than how it was thought of in the past. In the ‘old days’ you placed a stake in the ground, danced around it and then held it up like ‘capture the flag’ daring anyone to come up the hill and capture it … and wave it so people could see it.

It was unmoving and you gave ground grudgingly.

In today’s world we act more sensibly — we actually do, watch, observe and react/adapt. This means the ‘brand consistency’ is often more a measure of how one adapts and responds than it does in the initial stimulus.

I say that because experts will come in discussing <pontificating> the most basic level of brand consistency – single logo is always used in a similar way, a single typeface used with particular guidelines on typography, and consistent colors tied to similar design styles. If they stopped there, while I would wonder why I paid them anything, at least I could argue with … well … nothing.

But then the experts keep blabbing.

They start encouraging guidelines that doesn’t make every piece of marketing material look like a member of the same family but instead, under the guise of consistency, starts all looking the same. While the argument is that the brand has its own unique “look” which enables a consumer to recognize it as belonging to that brand proposition and distinguish it from competing brands … it also has a nasty habit of becoming … well … bland.

Uninteresting.

I imagine the discussion gets tough with ‘those who demand consistency’ <be safe> because what really matters to maintain true consistency is the intangible not tangible — not how it looks but rather the main brand proposition … the focus on who you are and what you offer.

I admit. Brand consistency can be a tricky topic. Anyone can argue, and should, that consistency done well creates a great advantage … one called “recognition”. That recognition can have attitudes & attributes attached to it that are negative or positive <for some reason all the brand consistency experts never talk about that> but suffice it to say … at least you are getting in the heuristic game. Recognition is a nice feature <has value> to your brand because, frankly, people don’t really like ‘new.’ We like the sound of new and we like it conceptually, but we dislike actually spending money on it. We associate risk to new.

Regardless.

Consistency is used as a bludgeon with businesses under the guise that if you don’t do it a consumer could be ‘confused’ or they could mistake your brand with a competing brand … and that means potentially losing customers. Once again. The experts oddly never bring up the counter discussion … that some inconsistency creates a richer brand and a more interesting ‘consumer relationship proposition.’

Effective consistency in today’s business world is one in which not all is seen but yet everything is connected in some way.

===

“The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition.  Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flashes, or short-circuits of reasoning.

In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness. The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links.”

Arthur Koestler

===

Guardians of effective consistency need to see the unseen and connect the inconsistency in some form or fashion to a horizon point.

Deliverers of effective consistency <let’s call us ‘the everyday working schmucks’> are kind of screwed in today’s business world. You can clearly have focus and your consistency may be less clear to those around you.

If I have two major gripes in today’s business world it is that we, leaders & managers, need to:

–      Better recognize the unseen portions of consistency <the focus within the inconsistency>

==

–      Better accept the unseen portions of consistency <the focus within the inconsistency>

Inconsistency and consistency <embracing both> is a skill & an art. I would note embracing some inconsistency and yet maintaining some consistency is kind of the key to being successful in business.

Yeah.

That sounds difficult … it sounds too complex … but it is truth. Unfortunately business is complex … and business needs consistency … and inconsistency. They are two parallel paths and I would argue you only run into problems when they blend into one.

That said. If they are truly two parallel paths, what is the glue?

Focus.

That’s what holds the two parallel lines together.

But that’s probably an entirely different post.

———-

“Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.

You killed my father.

Prepare to die!”

–

“Stop saying that!”

<the Princess Bride>

———–

“Why are we so full of restraint?

Why do we not give in all directions?

Is it fear of losing ourselves?

Until we do lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves.”

=

Henry Miller

——————————

Ok.

Life, or at least success in life, is inevitably tied to some version of focus and consistency. Now. In discussing this we need to acknowledge there are two sides to the focus & consistency coin – one side is you and the other side is how people view you.

Maddeningly, sometimes, this coin may have a high value on one side and an incredibly low value on the other side <despite the fact one would believe a coin would have the same value on both sides>.

Your side. You may have a sense of consistency and focus with regard to how you think and where you are going in Life … I say ‘may’ because it may be a 10 lane highway and you wander along that highway. That said … you feel like you have some focus and consistency.

Oops.

The how people view you side. Other people view your changing lanes and changing speeds as inconsistent unfocused behavior <most people prefer you ‘staying in your lane>.

This means you are actually doing well, you are doing the right things to be a successful interesting well rounded person … and yet you may actually be penalized by the people around you. Penalized? Suffice it to say that consistency may have the highest value it has ever had in the history of the world so if you don’t exhibit it you lose value in people’s eyes.

Why? Well. Two reasons.

First.

Today’s world is structurally hostile to inconsistency. And, yet, <maddeningly> inconsistency is what makes us grow and be enriched and adapt in positive ways.

————–

“Life itself consists of phases in which the organism falls out of step with the march of surrounding things and then recovers unison with it—either through effort or by some happy chance.

And, in a growing life, the recovery is never mere return to a prior state, for it is enriched by the state of disparity and resistance through which it has successfully passed.”

=

John Dewey

—————-

Inconsistency means you are falling in and out of step with the march of things surrounding you. Yup. Whether you like it or not we are not always in sync with what is going on around us … and … well … those moments out of sync may make you, and everyone else, uncomfortable … but they are Life & character shaping moments.

Regardless. Personal change confuses people. It confuses them because they don’t want to have to work that hard … they want you to remain unchanged so that they can build some expectations which inevitably streamlines their own behavior. If you are inconsistent it forces them to … well … work.

I am not suggesting people don’t want to work … it’s just that they want to CHOOSE what they will work on and, well,  your changing is not their choice. Therein lies the strange but true paradox of consistency in Life. As you become personally enriched thru some inconsistency … at the same time … you are devalued in in the eyes of others as they view your inconsistency.

More becomes less.

What an unfortunate Life formula. My main point? Today’s world is structurally hostile to inconsistency.

Second.

Today’s world is structurally hostile to nuance. Nuance & subtlety not only doesn’t sell it invokes ‘space’  <or a perceived lack of clarity> in which others are more than willing to place something <and very often something you did not envision or want>.

Now <part 1>.

You may argue that nuance has nothing to do with consistency but I would ask you to take a step back and view this thought from the perspective of “what people see & hear” versus “what you say and do.” In most people’s minds ‘true’ consistency contains no nuance.

It cannot.

Nuance begets some sense of inconsistency in what you may mean … and in today’s world those minuscule spaces created by nuance are immediately filled and actually widened beyond their initial nuance small space into chasms of vitriol, doubt, second guessing, judgement and anything & everything except possibly the true facts behind the original nuance.

Now <part 2>.

People are not stupid. Once someone realizes nuance is a precursor to pain, anguish and character assassination … that someone is smart enough to decide to be consistent <no nuance or subtlety> and offer an unending stream of meaningless drivel <or say nothing> so that there are no gaps or spaces for others to take advantage of.

Consistency is safe. It many not be particularly illuminating … and it certainly seems to encourage a calculated blandness … but it is … well … safe. Today’s world encourages safe. Today’s world is structurally hostile to nuance.

Ok.

All that said.

Let me be clear about consistency … and inconsistency … and you being your best. Today’s world wants you to be your best … but maybe not quite all the time.

————-

“On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

George Orwell

————–

Inconsistency takes work.  More work than consistency. And the work is found in the coin I described at the beginning — inside-out <decisions and attitude and behavior> as well as outside-in <as noted earlier … it makes other people work and they take it out on you … and you have to deal with it>. It also takes some work because although we all claim to know where we are going and what we want we kind of make that up as we go. What I mean is that most of us kind of want to be the best <or our best> … but maybe not all the time … and most of us kind of know what we want <but it can lack some specifics> … which all means we have to be adapting here & there.

==

“Looking back, I didn’t lose my way.

I never knew where I was going in the first place.”

William Chapman

==

To be clear.

Successful people are generally deemed successful in hindsight <less easy to judge within the experience>. Their ‘path to success’ looks clear and consistent and focused in that hindsight. And, yet, it is most likely their inconsistency which gave them the little bursts of energy to pass others on their way to success. Those little blips are overlooked or mis-defined as focus or consistency when viewed as historical activity.

They never knew where they were truly going just that they wanted to get somewhere and most times that looks like a fairly consistent, focused progress path.

Sure.

Maybe I am over valuing the blips of inconsistency … however … I would suggest that a little inconsistency can create that little tweak which can make, or unmake, your world … shit … THE world. Those little inconsistencies may have been representative of the little windows of opportunity one gets on occasion.

==

“It only takes a tweak to make the whole world new.”

Terry Pratchett

==

Anyway.

Tweaking your world, adapting to Life, inevitably means some inconsistency. And … as noted earlier … the world is hostile to inconsistency.

That makes it very very difficult to embrace some aspects of inconsistency.

I imagine my real point is that all you really need is a blip or two of inconsistency on occasion <or on a consistent basis> to tweak your world.

And some inconsistency can actually make you personally happier but make the people around you a little less happier.

==

Some other thoughts I have shared about consistency and inconsistency:

===

https://brucemctague.com/libre-et-independante

===

Plus.

Just being consistent for the sake of being consistent is foolish.

===

https://brucemctague.com/foolish-consistency

====

===

“Even as we learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this.

Such violence, such evil is senseless. It’s beyond reason.  But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living.

The people we lost in Aurora loved, and they were loved.

They were mothers and fathers. They were husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future, and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled. And if there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited, and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives.

Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”

–

President Obama after Aurora shooting

===

<originally written & posted October 2, 2015 and again on November 5, 2017 and, yet, appears relevant today>

The shooting at the community college in Oregon.

As the president said last night … we seem to be having this conversation far too often in the United States.

Any shooting of innocent people is bad.

Unexplainable shootings seem worse. And because they seem unexplainable we seem to want to go back and reverse engineer information and try and explain the action of someone who does something which seems unexplainable to the everyday schmuck like me <to be clear … reverse engineering is 99% accurate … its predictive engineering that is less accurate>.

The reengineering always seems to offer possible solutions … and yet … offer no solutions at all.

And, yet, moments like this make us want to do something … to say something … to solve whatever this something is. All the while serious looking overly somber news people all over the country, as well as an obviously aggravated President Obama, comment on and lament what can only be called a tragic situation. That is all good … but what none of these people seem to nail down is a cohesive strategy to address fundamental reasons for the amount of gun violence that has somehow seeped into the everyday American Life.

Please note I said ‘cohesive’ because the voices shouting seem anything but aligned:

One shouts ‘its guns!!!’ <gun control issues>.

One shouts ‘its mental health !!!’ <psychological profiling and privacy issues>

One shouts ‘its domestic terrorism !!! <implying it is some thoughtful effort to change something>

<and a few oddly, and slightly absurdly, shout ‘its Obama’s fault !!!’>

How about we put all the ‘ones’ together and think about a common strategy.

McTague hand drawn relationship on Gun Issue

What do all of these events have in common?

There is a gun.

There is an individual.

There is society <the environment in which the gun and the individual reside>.

Gun control.

I get steamed at both sides on the gun control discussion. Freedom to own a gun does not absolve the freedom from ‘responsible gun ownership.’ On the other side … eliminating guns is just not feasible.

While I certainly don’t have all the political answers I do admit that some aspects of calls for more gun control resonate with me <all the while fully understand that Americans are hardly agreed on the issue with less than 50% wanting stricter gun laws but a majority want better background check>.

And I do know that “a feeding frenzy of new gun legislation is not the answer.” What I do know is that I would rip up all gun control legislation <I believe it is something like over 200 things> and start from scratch.

–      I want responsible people who accept the significant responsibility that comes along with owning a gun to be able to own a gun.

It doesn’t seem absurd to demand some level of ‘prove responsibility’ to own a gun. Force registration at police offices or military facilities. Prove you know how to handle a gun <all guns you may have>.

–       Any weapon the military uses for military action shouldn’t be in the hands of the everyday citizen. Period. Full stop.

If someone has military experience, then maybe they have earned the right to own an assault like weapon. But I would also make the Military responsible for military trained people who own these guns.

–       Ammunition used for hunting or ammunition for non military use.

That’s the only kind of ammunition you can have.

–      No more concealed weapons. If you have one, show it.

If I am a non gun owner I want the opportunity to decide to not be near a gun if I want to. If I am a gun owner I want to be fully aware of who else has a gun around me. If I am a police officer I want to be able to see who has what and who doesn’t.

I am sure I am missing something but this whole situation and discussion aggravates my sense so much I leaned in with what I would call the basic common sense thoughts.

The individual <and mental state of mind>.

The flippant “it’s not the gun, it’s the person’ argument is downright silly. Please, PLEASE, everyone just accept it is a symbiotic relationship.

One cannot live without the other.

Next.

The flippant “it’s a mental health issue” … well … suffice it to say “yes” … and then point out if you truly believe we can profile everyone in the entire united states, evaluate them on some set of ‘possibility criteria’ and then track them … well … you are on drugs <which is a completely different issue>.

We cannot institutionalize everyone, or anyone, who has thoughts of suicide, moments of anger at society <or some aspect or group they focus their anger on> or even people with depression and some inclination of some public display of their overall dissatisfaction with Life.

Professional health needs to suck up their pride, and differences, and come up with some basic assessment tool. By the way … has anyone ever heard of ‘social media tracking?’ I can almost guarantee that 90% of all Americans leave an internet footprint … and 99% of the assholes who pick up a gun and shoot some innocent victims certainly do.

I would subjugate one of my privacy freedoms, as a citizen, if the professional health industry said ‘we have a specific assessment tool which will be scanning all online activity which reflects indicators of mental health issues tied with possibility to pick up a gun and kill innocent people.’

C’mon. I have probably met a half dozen social media tracking companies with some technology that tracks words and clicks and even your breathing <it seems> to such a point I am pretty sure they can accurately tell me when I will need to go to the bathroom.

For fuck’s sake. Amazon knows what I want before I want it … certainly we can come up with a tool like this.

Beyond the professionals … there is … well … people … uhm … you & I <and their relationship with potential ‘tragedy creators>. I don’t want to go back to Soviet communism where neighbors reported on neighbors to the KGB … but … for cryin’ out loud … if we simply raised our hands for the people we were 80% sure needed some help … at minimum … they get help … and even better … we cut down on these tragic events by 80%.

To be clear on that last point … perfection may be sought … but will never be attained. Evil does win on occasion <whether we like it or not>.

Society.

Let me begin with …

The picture emerging of Mercer is of a killer who had an interest in mass shootings, having reportedly recently posted on a blog about a gunman who killed two US journalists live on air in August.

He described Vester Flanagan as a man who “wanted the world to see his actions” before adding: “Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

Oh. Let me add …

In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.

Sigh.

I sometimes think we are our own worst enemy. Regardless. Let me tell ya one thing I know for sure … if someone wants to commit suicide and leave a legacy <be in the limelight> that people will remember forever … just do it, or something, in front of today’s media <and then the entertainment industry will run with it from there with TV specials, movies, docudramas, whatever>.

The core of much of the entertainment industry in America – movies, TV shows and, yes, I consider today’s cable news as entertainment <albeit disturbing entertainment> – is based on killing and violence. We glorify the violence & the violent at the same time as we are saddened by it.

In addition … while we depict the violent as ‘evil’ we just as much showcase them as misguided or ‘faults of society’ <not forcing any accountability or personal responsibility for actions on the asshole who actually pulled the trigger>.

The consequences of this is that our society breeds a sense of ‘victim’ even for the purveyor of the tragedy.

Society?

Shit. Well … we just need to be better dammit.

<sigh>

If not us then who?

Look. The champions for gun ownership point out that the Constitution of the country gives people the right to own guns. I would suggest those people think contextually with regard to that thought … at the time America had no standing army … just citizen militia. Everyone was expected to pick up their gun in defense of this new nation we had just created.

Basically, at that time, everyone served in the military.

I would suggest to the people who suggest ‘more guns’ that maybe if we had a mandatory one year military service <or community service if you do not want military> for everyone then everyone would be properly trained as well as properly assessed.

–

note:

The Swiss require part-time military service from each male citizen between the ages of 18 to 34. Women may serve voluntarily. In a nation of eight million people, about 20,000 soldiers a year attend basic training for 18 to 21 weeks

–

Do I truly want that? No.

Do I truly believe it would resolve a shitload of the issues we have now with regard to guns and violence? Yes.

I am all for maintaining our constitutional rights, but, please, PLEASE, could gun rights people think about the context in which the constitution was crafted.

In the end.

I am all for responsible people owning hand guns. That is their choice and, as a country, we deemed that as one of our inviolate rights.

I am all for responsible mental health profiling.

I am all for a responsible society.

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite. It is a complex issue that demands we do something because that is what adults do to protect their children.

I am sure I am missing something and I am relatively sure I will come back and rewrite portions of this but this topic makes me so angry and so sad at the exact same time I just gotta stop for now.