Get it yourself !

I am just plain shocked. I'm so shocked, I needed to vent. So, this will be a quick rant. :-)

I am in a Marriott Courtyard in the London area. And, I just ordered room service; as I did not want to eat in the restaurant because of the time required. I figured room service would be quicker.

Well, I already have a bottle of water in my room. I return to the US tomorrow, and I can't take the water through security. So, since I was ordering room service, I figured I could get a glass of ice with my meal.

Well !

The person taking my room service order told me in no uncertain terms that there was an ice machine just at the end of the hall by the lift (that's an English elevator).

I felt like Ralphy as he sat in Santa's lap. I was speechless as she reviewed my order and terminated the call with "that's it then".

I'm sure I will find this humorous at some point. But, as a platinum Marriott member, I'm not real happy about being told to "get it myself". That said, maybe I am taking my elite status too seriously. And, maybe I needed to be reminded of a few things.

I wonder if they read my "I want" blog. ;-)

Sent from my iPhone

Full Spin Ahead !!

What were we thinking? Did we not learn anything from Afghanistan and Iraq? Why in the world are we in yet another military campaign against another Arab country?

I find our (American) involvement in the Libyan conflict shocking and hypocritical. Libya is a sovereign country. Sure, they are likely in the middle of a civil war. Was Iraq any different? I thought (according to Democrats) Iraq was a mistake. So, why are we (the US) embarking on yet another intervention into the affairs of another sovereign country? Are Democrats allowed to incite wars, and Republicans are not?

Oh, and what would the US do if another country tried to come into our country to "enforce a no fly zone"? How can we not see that this is a really bad idea?

I keep hearing from the talking heads on the news, that the difference between this "conflict" and the "conflicts" in Iraq and Afghanistan is the support from the other Arab nations. I am pretty sure the Saudi's were very supportive of getting Saddam (nut case that he was) out of office. And, I also keep hearing that this is not about changing the regime; but about protecting the civilians within Libya. I remember hearing this same message during the Iraq war.

And the media!! Wow!! I just watched a news report (UK news channel), and they showed a generic picture of a helicopter landing on a aircraft carrier. The part that raised my eyebrows was the story going along with the video. The news had someone from the military to speculate on what that helicopter was doing. Did you get that? This was not a journalist reporting facts, this was a journalist making up a story to match the image on the screen. There were no facts stated! Did you read my "Is the head dead yet" blog?

One thing is for sure, our government officials keep overstepping the bounds of their office. And, who appointed the UN as the world police force? Why are we (the US) spending our hard earned resources on this conflict? Whose side are we on, and why?

Yes, we have to be on one side or the other; we are clearly bombing just one side of this conflict. I don't know about you, but that signals taking sides to me. Why do we feel the need to take sides?

What about the hypocrisy of this administration? I still remember all the Bush-Bashing that went on during the 2008 election over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, how can this administration do something like this?

Well, this looks to me like another case of "do what I say and not what I do". What a shame. This looks bad on so many fronts, because it IS bad on so many fronts. But, for some reason, this administration keeps thinking that they can do anything they want to do, and, the media will help them sell it to the American people. Shocking.

Here we go: Full Spin Ahead!!

Sent from my iPad

Hope and Faith

I was just recalling a lunch time conversation I had with some friends back in the late summer of 2008. In this conversation, we were of course talking about the upcoming election. And, as I recall, one of my friends said something that seemed odd at the time; but it has stayed with me since then. They said "at least Obama will bring Hope to the people".

As I said, I did not give it much thought at the time. But, of late I have been reminded of this and other comments by other friends. I have seen a pattern emerge from all the various conversations and comments. And, I feel compelled to talk about this pattern. That said, I'm not really sure where to begin. My thoughts and memories are swirling around in my head right now, and I am looking for the thread to pull in order for all this to make sense. So, here goes.

What do you think of when you hear the word "Hope"?

Well, for me, Hope is something that goes with a situation, where the odds are against something good happening. Or, when something bad is happening and the odds of the situation being corrected are not good. To me, we need Hope when things look the worst, and we want (or need) to get beyond the situation that we are facing.

As a country, were we so bad off that we needed some kind of miracle? Why would we need Hope?

I think it is safe to say that there were a great number of people who were unhappy and/or disillusioned, and, that this was somehow attributed to our government. We then have to ask ourselves what is the root cause, if we want to understand the need for Hope; the need for Change.

Why were people unhappy and disillusioned? Well, if you have expectations that you will be rich (for example), and, you are not rich, you would probably be unhappy and maybe even disillusioned.

Aren't we a bit spoiled? Don't we in this country have so many more opportunities than those elsewhere? Shouldn't we be happy with and thankful for what we have? And, isn't it really greedy and selfish of us to be wanting more, given what we already have?

Moreover, haven't we been manipulated (see "Is the head dead yet" blog) into thinking that we are somehow being treated unfairly; because there are people who have more than we have? Haven't we been convinced that our neighbor has something we should also have? And, after all, who's fault is it if our neighbor has more than we have?

Now we are getting somewhere: it's the governments fault; at least in the minds of some people. And, it's the governments responsibility to make this right. This explains why we would put our Hope for Change into a single man.

Wow! What a brilliant campaign Obama ran! The media created the mindset, and the Obama campaign capitalized on this big time. If this does not send chills up and down your spine, you should read the "Masters or Servants" blog and the "Is the head dead yet" blog.

Are "we the people" so absolutely self centered (spoiled) that we can only think of ourselves (see "I Want" blog)? Seriously. Why are we so focused on what our neighbors have? Why aren't we focused on being thankful for what we have, instead of lusting after what our neighbors have?

This seems to me to be a root cause. And, the really sad thing is that this gives our "Masters" a way to manipulate us. All because we cannot get away from our envy. It's ironic really. People put their hope into a government that ultimately sees them as "Servants".

My hope is that people in this country will focus more on doing the right thing, and that people will be less envious and selfish. But, this is not something I expect (or hope) that the government will do. People have to make individual choices. I'm just hoping they make the right choices for the right reasons.

Why are people hoping for the government to do something? I think we have a second root cause here: the government is seen as the highest authority.

As Americans, we have a Constitution which spells out our God given Rights. These Rights are not given to us by the government. These rights are in fact to protect us from the government, and, ultimately from people who might use the government for their own purposes. These rights come from God, as "One Nation Under God". And, God is the highest authority.

Our money all indicates our collective "trust" in God. Yet, we put our hope and faith in one man? I can see now why some of the conservative talking heads make reference to Obama as a deity. I don't like this tactic, by the way. But, given the way the campaign was run, I can see the rationale for their position.

Do we really, as a nation, trust God? Well, if you read my "What are the odds?" blog, you will see that things are changing. And, I think this gives us the "why" for the question of why we would put our hope and faith into a single man or a government.

Based on the Rally (or Revival) in Washington D.C. Last summer, there are still those who have hope and faith. But, what about the future? I believe we are a very blessed nation, and that our trust in God is the reason for these blessings. My hope is that one day people will wake up to realize this fact.

Sent from my iPad

Is the head dead yet?

I don't know about you, but I have noticed a distinct difference (over the last decade) in the way "the press" presents information to "the people".

I was always taught that "the press" was supposed to be part of the checks and balances for a democratic system of government. Freedom of "the press" was envisioned as a means to keep the people of a democracy properly informed, so they can take action in the event their government starts to do things that are against the fundamental principles of their constitution. And, as such, "we the people" have (over time) developed a trust for "the press"; that they will keep us properly informed. In fact, I think the trust for "the press" is advocated in the earliest levels of public education.

I travel internationally for my job. And, from 2004 through 2009 I spent a considerable amount of time in Europe. I used to enjoy the different points of view I would get from the different media channels in Europe. I felt privledged and even enlightened to be exposed to such a diverse range of cultures. I began to consider myself a citizen of the world, rather than just an American citizen.

I can still remember the debates I had with my international friends over things like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, George Bush, and America's position as the hegemonic force in the world. I have to admit that some of their perceptions (or arguments) of American arrogance were beginning to gain ground with me.

Then, something happened. I can't put my finger on it precisely. But, I began to feel less enamored with the international media. I realized that things were being said that were simply not based on actual facts. I can still remember sitting in my hotel room watching one of the international media channels, and thinking to myself "are they seriously putting this dribble on television".

Then, it occurred to me: I was hearing "themed" messages. Messages within a message intended to plant impressions. And, the themes I was hearing were the themes I recognized from my discussions with my international friends. In fact, they were practically identical.

Of course, I went through the classic denial: why would the media want to manipulate the message? It just did not make sense. Then, it occurred to me that the media had been very effective in getting their message through to my friends, because my friends were parroting the message back to me and amongst themselves during our lunch time debates. And, it occurred to me that the media had been quite effective in shaping the perceptions of my friends.

Imagine: an organization you trust to give you accurate information is actually giving you a crafted message. So, why? Why would the media want to deviate from just giving the facts? Why would the media want to advocate a "position", by embedding messages within their reporting of the facts? Well, if the public trusts the media to keep them informed, then the public is likely to believe whatever the media says. And, if I wanted to manipulate or control public perception, what better way to do this; than via a media that is already trusted by the public at large.

Yes, I know that this is a classic conspiracy theory. But, before you stop reading, I'd like a chance to make my case. If you have been following my blogs, you know that I use a very logical approach to make my points. I'm not your classic conspiracy theorist - I'm an independent thinker. And, if you will allow me, I would like to share some of that independent thinking on this topic.

So, what would motivate a journalist in general, or the media at large to begin advocating specific themes? Have you read my "Masters or Servants" blog? In this blog, I talk about the psychology behind the elitist frame of mind. If you haven't read that blog, you really should (I'll save your place here for you).

Seriously, anyone out there that believes our current media personalities are humble servants of society? Well, maybe some of them are, but, what about the vast majority? What do you think motivates them to do their job each day? Money? Fame? The power of being able to shape the perception of millions (even billions) of people? Are our media personalities striving to be Masters or Servants?

For the purpose of proving our conspiracy theory, let's just say that we don't believe that the majority of today's media personalities are motivated by a sense of public service. And, I think it is safe to say that media companies are big businesses; which means they are likely motivated by money and power. Convinced yet?

What's your favorite football team? Basketball team? How dedicated are you as a fan? Do you watch every game on TV? Go to every game in person? Wear merchandise that advertises your loyalty to the team? Do you get into heated arguments about your team?

We all like to belong; it's part of the human psyche. And, we tend to manifest our need to belong in different ways. Some join gangs. Others join political parties. And, still others adopt a sports team.

We all need to belong. But, more importantly, we like for our memberships to be exclusive. And, even better, we like to be unique or elite within an elite organization. It's the rush of power, that only membership in an elite organization can deliver.

So, if I'm a member of a particular political party with a particular ideology, wouldn't I talk about my ideologies; much the same way I cheer for my favorite football team? Wouldn't I do what I could to help my party to gain influence; much the same way I wear clothing promoting my favorite team? In particular, wouldn't I want and strive for influence within my political party?

Who was it that said "I would not want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member"?

Have you noticed that our media personalities have become more "dramatic" in the way they present the news. They seem to particularly like to report on events where there's lots of human suffering; like the most recent tragedies in Japan.

I guess some of that is the public's fault, as we do like to slow down in traffic to see the carnage of an accident. But, the media seems to thrive on human tragedies - to the point were they will play the same clip over and over again, trying to come up with new ways to describe the visuals. And, of course, they have to be "the best", so they add a little drama to distinguish themselves from the other media personalities who are reporting the same story.

The entertainment factor in the news is becoming more prevalent. And, it would seem that the entertainers are not above using their fame to advocate their political positions. Personally, I miss the true journalists.

So, what do you think? Do we need to worry about journalists and a news media that are politically biased and/or motivated by money and power?

And, what about all the drama? I heard a song on the radio that inspired me to write this blog. The song asked: "is the head dead yet". I immediately thought about the current day media's lust for human tragedy, and their desire to dramatize everything.

I started to think about my experiences with my international friends, and I realized that the media is key to being able to manipulate public opinion. Thus, the media is a valuable resource for today's "Masters". If that does not convince you, I don't know what will.

Actually, I probably should mention how the media can manipulate public opinion. We humans have lots of fears. And, the media likes to exploit these fears. For example, we are so afraid of dying in a terrorist attack, "we the people" are willing to give up our liberties, and right to privacy, to gain some level of security. And, the media recently used these fears to advocate a position in support of the new virtual strip search machines we travelers now have to deal with every time we fly.

I might be unique, but I do not fear death. It gives me the ability to focus on what I am losing as a result of everyone else's fears. It also gives me the ability to be unemotional regarding the role the media is playing in the manipulation of public perception.

It seems to me that the media has become a tool for propaganda and entertainment. I miss the simple truth. And, I am really tired of all the drama.

Sent from my iPad

I want

I am writing this blog as I sit on a transatlantic flight. So, please forgive me if I use some metaphors that seem "testy". Each time I make this flight, I get to observe something new from one of my fellow passengers. And, in fact, this is why I am publishing this blog ahead of the two others that I have been working on for some time. Some things just bring out the worst in people. I am talking about selfishness.

What is selfishness? It's simply putting your wants above the wants or needs of another; even to the point of being rude or discourteous.

The last time I was on this flight, I was fortunate enough to get a bulk-head seat. This means that I got a seat in the front of the cabin. Imagine two aisles on the plane. And, imagine the seat on the left aisle of the middle section; as close to the front of the plane as possible. This particular seat was on the left side of the middle section. Now, on this particular plane, there's only one bathroom in this coach cabin; at the front of the aisle next to me. This is extremely convenient for the folks sitting on the same aisle. But, it is not so convenient or those who are sitting on the other aisle; basically half the plane's seats.

Let's role play. Imagine you are in my seat sleeping (as this is an overnight flight), when you are awakened by someone crawling across the space in front of you; literally trying to step over the feet and legs of everyone sitting in this section (three people). Do you get upset with the person, or do you simply move your legs to allow them to pass? Keep in mind that this person will need to return to their seat, once they are done in the bathroom. Now, let's reverse the roles. Imagine you are the person who needs to use the bathroom, and you realize that you need to walk all the way back to the next cabin in order to get to the bathroom. Should you crawl over the people to get to the bathroom? What's the "right" thing to do in this situation? Mind you: I am not just talking about the person doing the crawling.

While you are pondering this example, I would like to give you another.

Economies are made up of producers and consumers. Consumers get their goods and services from some form of market. Producers place their goods in the market, setting the price based on their cost to produce; plus some profit. So, based on this simple model, what do you think happens to the cost of goods produced by a producer, if that producer's labor costs go up? Well, either the producer's profit would have to drop. Or, the cost of the producer's goods would have to go up. For the sake of this argument, let's just assume that the free market will act to control the amount of profit a producer can put on the goods and services they provide to the market; I want to leave the topic of greed to another post. So, the focus here is on the impact rising labor costs have on consumer prices, and the root cause for the increasing labor costs.

Have you ever thought about the impact a raise in your salary would have on those who are consumers of the products and services you (or the company you work for) produce? Or, did you simply think about your self? Ever wonder where inflation comes from? Well, I admit this is a simplified model. And, I admit that this explanation does not take in to account supply and demand. But, the correlation between labor costs and consumer prices has to be obvious. Did you ever take the time to consider the impact a salary increase would have on the broader economy? It might be a bit euphoric, but, imagine if everyone's salary stayed fixed. Would you be willing to fix your salary, if it could result in stable prices? After all, aren't you a consumer as well as a producer?

Just in case you are wondering, I have the same seat on this flight as the last flight. So far two people have crawled over my feet to get to the bathroom. Come up with an answer yet?

So, is it selfish to take a salary increase, when you know this will likely have some kind of impact on consumer prices? It's a vicious cycle. Prices increase from inflation. This leads to necessary increases in salaries; in order to keep up with inflation. But, where does it end? It's a vicious cycle indeed. Wouldn't it be nice if instead of only thinking about ourselves, we could consider the greater good?

I've been following the battles over the unions. And, when I got on this flight, the parallels struck me and motivated me to write this blog.

Unions serve a purpose: to negotiate compensation for the labor force. The intention was good (as is most always the case). If unions where used as a checks and balances against greedy business owners or executives, I would not think twice about their role. But, unions have evolved into political machines; trading power for favors just like our political parties.

Who does the union really serve? It's members? Or, does the union provide political power to it's leaders, such that this political power can be used to manipulate our government representatives. If you've read my post on "Masters and Servants", you should be able to identify unions as yet another political organization, that is interested in maintaining their political influence.

I am seeing union members protesting because they are going to have reductions in their benefits, or, they are going to have to pay more for their benefits. Tell me, do these people think they are the only ones impacted by the state of our economy? Are these people so selfish that they don't care about the perpetual cycle we are in regarding compensation and prices?

Where, pray tell, should the money come from to pay for these benefits? I could understand, if employers where treating their employees poorly. But, is this really a case of employee abuse? Somehow, I don't think so. It looks to me like these union members are not thinking about the rest of us Americans. Isn't that the definition of selfishness?

Government employees have had unions for some time. And, these folks are per capita some of the best paid folks around. Automobile workers have been unionized for decades, and they are very well paid as well. Doesn't this indicate that we should endorse unions? After all, if we all join unions, we could all have nice big salaries. Then what? Who will be left to pay? The union today is being used to the exclusive benefit of their members, and to the potential deficit of everyone else. So, are unions the answer?

What happened to the auto industry in the last decade? Two out of three companies went bankrupt. Why do you think this is? Well, perhaps the price of cars has gotten out of reach of the average consumer. What do you think drove up car costs? Industry experts agree labor costs are the biggest factor in auto prices.

In fact, if the government had not stepped in, the auto industry would have been forced to make some serious changes. So, why did the government step in? Simple: they wanted to maintain their positions of power and authority. The unions helped the government folks stay in office, and the government bailed out the unions - er, uh - the auto industry out of bankruptcy. And, we the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. How is that not selfish?

Now let's look at government employee unions. Where are the checks and balances? If unions are protected by the government, and, the government is protected by the unions, where will we end up? Well, if government salaries keep increasing, then the cost of government will have to increase as well. Guess who pays when that happens?

So, whose interests are being served by unions? Is this really something for the greater good? Or, is this a "club" of people who are selfishly looking out for themselves.

Here's the saddest part: the number of people in this country, who are thinking "I want", is quickly outpacing the number of people who are looking out for the country at large. Instead of thinking about the country's future, these people can only think of themselves.

How long before there's no one left to pay the bills? After all, being selfish is about getting something for yourself - no matter the cost or who has to pay. Ask what you can do for your country; not what your country can do for you. We need to get our financial house in order. And, I for one think everyone needs to do their part.

I saw a poll that indicated people only want to balance the budget if the services they need are not touched. In other words, let someone else pay the price. "They want" to have their cake and eat it too. But what about very one else? I find this shocking and maybe even disgusting. Why can't we put an end to a government where we give entitlements to a group of people, in order to get something back from them - a vote. Not only is this a selfish way to run things, it will breed corruption and inequity.

If we cannot decide which special interest programs (entitlements) to cut, we should cut them all. And, if "we the people" don't start putting our "I want" attitudes in check, I'm not sure what America will look like a couple of generations from now. You think I am kidding, just take a look at other nations where the population has an "I want" attitude. This "I want" mentality is really the root of America's troubles.

Checkpoint: two more people have crawled over me since my last report.

I will be the first to admit that credit cards got my generation in trouble. When I was fresh out of college, I got my first credit card. And, I quickly became enslaved to my credit cards. It took me a while to figure out that my "I want" attitude was costing me dearly. But, I was young and stupid. And, I figured it did not matter, as long as I got what "I wanted".

I was lucky. I was able to curb my appetite for "stuff", and eventually I worked my way out from under a mountain of debt. Unlike the auto industry, I did not go crying to the government for help. I knew that I was the one who created the problem, and I knew that I was the one who needed to fix the problem. I bought less stuff, and worked more to pay off my credit card debt. I wish more Americans would do the same. Clearly, this latest financial crisis is proof to the contrary.

As I said earlier, America's "I want" attitude is a serious problem. Based on the polls, and my own observations of human behavior, I'm not optimistic. This is one time where I would really like to be wrong.

Sent from my iPad