Home

Your present verses your future self

10/28/2018

Brian Sunday Posts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

This is mainly for any younger readers out there (although I hope all can get something from it).

I believe YOLO (“You Only Live Once” for you old people) is still a saying.
So… my question is – how are you living? Specifically, how are you living with regard to your future self.
Since YOLO, are you living such that when you are on your death bed, you can look back and appreciate the present you?
The idea of considering your future self is certainly not my concept.
However, I DO have some questions.

Will you be able to look back in 10, 15, 25, 50 years and tell yourself you did everything you could to set yourself up for what you wanted to become. Will you be able to say, “I’m successful” (however you might end up defining success) because of what I did now?
Will you be able to tell yourself you did the best you could in your high school classes? You didn’t just quit because an assignment was hard?
Will you be able to tell yourself you did the best you could in your high school extracurricular activities to ensure a potent job application / resume / college application? Or set yourself up for, and apply for, college scholarships?
Will you be able to tell yourself you did the best you could in college or trade school?
Will you be able to tell yourself you did the best you could in working your way up “the food chain” at work? Did the best you could at every task, every position, ever opportunity? Throughout your career?
Will your future self appreciate the amount of time you spend on your cell phone or social media or watching TV or …?
Are you setting him/her up to be comfortable?

Are you helping to create a better society? Are you helping others in need such that you can look back and say, “I was a pretty good person”?

The one person you will never be able to escape is you. You will, hopefully and if you are smart, move away from your parents. Brothers and sisters may move to other areas of the town, state, country. And if they don’t, you will still be able to avoid them. Friends and coworkers may come and go.  Even your spouse will be avoidable on occasion.
However, you are stuck with you. 365 days each year – 24 hours each day – 60 minutes each hour – 60 seconds each minute. You will be there. Even if you don’t look yourself in the mirror, you will still be there.
You will live in the house you are setting yourself up for now. You will drive the car you are setting yourself up for now. You will eat the food and take the vacations you are setting yourself up for now.
You will live in the comfort, or lack thereof, you are setting yourself up for now.
You will live in the society you are helping to create now.

Will you appreciate what you hear when you get the answer?
Will you have done everything you could to set yourself up for success? However your future self will define success.
Will you have done everything you could to set yourself up to have time for family and friends, leisure activities?

Are you doing all you can to ensure your future self appreciates your current self and what you are doing for you!?
Will you be happy, and specifically happy with yourself, due to what you are doing now?
If not, why not?
Is it time to change something about yourself?

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

The Law – Frederic Bastiat (Commentary Part II)

10/21/2018

Brian Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

A continuation of my previous commentary on – or just providing relevant parts of – The Law…
As with last entry, all hiliting and italics are mine. Comments in brackets [] are also mine.

Let us start this time with philanthropy. Forced that is…

“Here I am taking on the most popular prejudice of our time. It is not considered enough that law should be just, it must be philanthropic. It is not sufficient that it should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of his faculties, applied to his physical, intellectual, and moral development; it is required to extend well-being, instruction, and morality, directly over the nation. This is the fascinating side of socialism. But, I repeat it, these two missions of the law contradict each other. We have to choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free [please leave aside the issue of Schrödinger’s cat – we are not in boxes]. Mr. de Lamartine wrote to me one day thus: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program; you have stopped at liberty, I go on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second part of your program will destroy the first.” And in fact it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly conceive fraternity legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice legally trampled under foot. Legal plunder has two roots: one of them, as we have already seen, is in human greed; the other is in misconceived philanthropy.”

“Before I proceed, I think I ought to explain myself upon the word plunder. I do not take it, as it often is taken, in a vague, undefined, relative, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptation, and as expressing the opposite idea to property. When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated, that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this is exactly what the law ought to repress always and everywhere. If the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, I say that plunder is still perpetrated, and even, in a social point of view, under aggravated circumstances. In this case, however, he who profits from the plunder is not responsible for it; it is the law, the lawgiver, society itself, and this is where the political danger lies.”

“…as a friend of mine once remarked to me, to say that the aim of the law is to cause justice to reign, is to use an expression that is not rigorously exact. It ought to be said, the aim of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is not justice that has an existence of its own, it is injustice. The one results from the absence of the other.”

“You say, “There are men who have no money,” and you apply to the law. But the law is not a self-supplied fountain, whence every stream may obtain supplies independently of society. Nothing can enter the public treasury, in favor of one citizen or one class, but what other citizens and other classes have been forced to send to it.”
What so many either forget or ignore (to primarily their benefit – if only to make them feel better and even superior … “look, we are providing for those in need”. That they are using other’s money without consent seems to be lost on them)…

“Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it [government or those socialists supporting such a government] concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State— then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion— then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State.”

“Are political rights under discussion? Is a legislator to be chosen? Oh, then the people possess science by instinct: they are gifted with an admirable discernment; their will is always right; the general will cannot err. Suffrage cannot be too universal [I understand the socialists are now looking at 16 as the new voting age!]. Nobody is under any responsibility to society. The will and the capacity to choose well are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! Are the people to be forever led about by the nose? Have they not acquired their rights at the cost of effort and sacrifice? Have they not given sufficient proof of intelligence and wisdom? Are they not arrived at maturity? Are they not in a state to judge for themselves? Do they not know their own interest? Is there a man or a class who would dare to claim the right of putting himself in the place of the people, of deciding and of acting for them? No, no; the people would be free, and they shall be so. They wish to conduct their own affairs, and they shall do so.”
“And if mankind is not competent to judge for itself, why do they [Democratic Socialists] talk so much about universal suffrage [the right to vote, especially in a political election]?”

I think the last paragraph, taken as a whole, very well explains the political oxymoron of the current socialist (read – Democrat) movement – as well as all such movements prior to it. People are completely capable of taking care of themselves – that is why we need government to do it for them – provide welfare, healthcare, Section VIII housing, etc. They have the intelligence and discernment to determine the best people to run the country – but we now have approximately ½ the population that can’t (won’t?) make enough money to pay the taxes used to run it, much less take care of themselves and their family. Hmmmmm. If you are as confused as I am, I am grateful to not be alone.

“…there is not a grievance in the nation for which the Government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it any wonder that every failure threatens to cause a revolution? And what is the remedy proposed? To extend indefinitely the dominion of the law, i.e., the responsibility of Government. But if the Government undertakes to raise and to regulate wages, and is not able to do it; if it undertakes to assist all those who are in want, and is not able to do it; if it undertakes to provide work for every laborer, and is not able to do it; if it undertakes to offer to all who wish to borrow, easy credit, and is not able to do it; if, in words that we regret should have escaped the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, “the State considers that its mission is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people”—if it fails in this, is it not obvious that after every disappointment, which, alas! is more than probable, there will be a no less inevitable revolution?”
“What is law? What ought it to be? What is its domain? What are its limits? Where, in fact, does the prerogative of the legislator stop? I have no hesitation in answering, Law is common force organized to prevent injustice—in short, Law is Justice. It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property, since they pre-exist, and his work is only to secure them from injury. It is not true that the mission of the law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our will, our education, our sentiments, our works, our exchanges, our gifts, our enjoyments. Its mission is to prevent the rights of one from interfering with those of another, in any one of these things.”
“The law, then, is solely the organization of individual rights that existed before law.
“So far from being able to oppress the people, or to plunder their property, even for a philanthropic end, its mission is to protect the people, and to secure to them the possession of their property. It must not be said, either, that it may be philanthropic, so long as it abstains from all oppression; for this is a contradiction. The law cannot avoid acting upon our persons and property; if it does not secure them, then it violates them if it touches them.”
“Depart from this point, make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, industrial, literary, or artistic, and you will be lost in vagueness and uncertainty; you will be upon unknown ground, in a forced Utopia, or, what is worse, in the midst of a multitude of contending Utopias, each striving to gain possession of the law, and to impose it upon you; for fraternity and philanthropy have no fixed limits, as justice has. Where will you stop? Where is the law to stop? One person, Mr. de Saint Cricq, will only extend his philanthropy to some of the industrial classes, and will require the law to slight the consumers in favor of the producers. Another, like Mr. Considerant, will take up the cause of the working classes, and claim for them by means of the law, at a fixed rate, clothing, lodging, food, and everything necessary for the support of life. A third, Mr. Louis Blanc, will say, and with reason, that this would be an incomplete fraternity, and that the law ought to provide them with tools of labor and education. A fourth will observe that such an arrangement still leaves room for inequality, and that the law ought to introduce into the most remote hamlets luxury, literature, and the arts. This is the high road to communism;
in other words, legislation will be—as it now is—the battlefield for everybody’s dreams and everybody’s covetousness.” [me thinks we also are there]
“Law is justice. And it would be very strange if it could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal?”

To sum it up:
“God has implanted in mankind also all that is necessary to enable it to accomplish its destinies. There is a providential social physiology, as well as a providential human physiology. The social organs are constituted so as to enable them to develop harmoniously in the grand air of liberty.”

Man I wish I were that good. And he was only 49 years old!

Maybe each and every Politian should read, and heed, his essay in its entirety. More than once.
Oh, and maybe the Constitution of the United States along with it. More than once.

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

What of yourself is yours?

08/02/2015

Brian Sunday Posts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

I am sorry to say, but you have very little that is intrinsically yours. Your time, your talent and your thoughts are pretty much the extent of it. And it is what you DO with that time as well as those talents and thoughts that become everything else that is yours. You usually accomplish this by turning them into money with which you then purchase other things (goods or services).
To what should be a limited extent, living in society requires us to give up some of what is intrinsically ours for an individual and collective benefit. We expect (but have no specific right to) such things as protection – other than self defense (e.g., military, law enforcement, fire protection, etc), education (to a level that is of benefit to society – currently set at the secondary level), clean water, power, etc. Many of these things (depending on where you live) are provided by the State and/or local government. In order to pay for them we must pay taxes.
The question then becomes, how much of ourselves – what is intrinsically ours or what we turn that into – can society demand? To how much does it have the right? Most specifically, to how much does it have ANY right if that demand does not in turn provide direct benefit to us (such as what is listed above).
A professional photographer in NM is told she is breaking the law by not photographing the union of a same-sex couple. She refused to use her time and talent in that manner on religious grounds. She was told that it was discrimination and was compelled to do it. The Supreme Court ruled that Elaine Photography violated New Mexico’s Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony. She was ordered to pay over $7,000 in legal fees.
In 2013 an Oregon baker, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, refused to use his time and talents make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Since Aaron Klein, co-owner, declined to provide a cake for a lesbian “wedding” they now face $135,000 in “damages” for the “emotional suffering” of the couple and are under a “gag order” denying them their 1st Amendment right to present their side of the story. The bakery closed its doors in Dec. 2013.
Other cases (and losses) include a Washington state florist and a Colorado cake artist who refused to do work for same-sex couples and a Kentucky T-shirt printer who declined to make shirts promoting a gay pride festival. All being forced by the state to use their time and talent with neither individual or collective benefit.
“Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence.
Writing in Forbes, 8/28/2013, Josh Steimle states:
“If we want a level playing field with fairness and justice for all, let the law focus on crimes of violence, and let individuals use persuasion in all other matters. This means letting people get away with doing wrong, as long as they commit no act of outright aggression. Even if it is wrong for Elaine to discriminate, we must be tolerant of such behavior if we want to live in a free society with a thriving entrepreneurial base. Those who take joy in this case because the law has ruled in their favor may come to regret a future day when that precedent is used to rule against them. The better way is to not give government such power in the first place.”
Bottom line: Individuals should not be compelled to part with what is intrinsically theirs when that parting provides no specific benefit to them or the society in which they live as a WHOLE. And especially when that parting violates their Constitutional rights.
Of course, not to suggest the effects of the issue above are not of great significance, the major overreach of government at this time is the “Affordable Care Act”. The government forcing its citizens to purchase a specific product and at a specific minimum level. And telling the providers of the end-service (e.g., the medical professionals) they must accept payment as dictated by that service – thereby minimizing the value of their time and talents. In addition, it is a disregard for not only what is intrinsically an individuals – using it for something that is no benefit to them individually (since virtually all already had what they wanted/needed) – but, often times, going against their 1st Amendment rights as well as using the fruits of their time and talent solely for the benefit of others.
Keep in mind, from the standpoint of many of the “powers that be” promoting these issues, it is not truly about any individual or even any of these items. It’s about the mindset. The immature, sophomoric way of viewing individuals vs society. This leads to the fallacy of equality. When T. Jefferson stated, “all Men are created equal” he was referring to their intrinsic VALUE – specifically in the “eyes” of our Creator. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that we are not all equal in every respect. Yet this theory of equality is what leads to Socialism/Liberalism/Progressivism and the eventual downfall of a society (as should be noted from the history of every society of any significance that has tried it).
As well, the underlying reason many (most?) of those that proclaim these positions is to support their own agenda. They won’t admit it, but this is their way of saying “I want to do what I want to do and they rest of you should let me do it.” And those in power continue that statement with “and YOU need to fall in line and do it to.” They just couch it I such a way as to declare they are SO benevolent to others all the while expecting the benefit, if achieved, to eventually get back to them and their issue. If nothing else, eventually society as a whole just becomes liaise faire and let’s anybody do anything. This is a version of Anarchy. Nay, the DEFINITION of Anarchy.
The answer to the question? Apparently even your time and talent are no longer yours. The government can force you to use them as they dictate. Is thought next? King George III is back!

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

Noise, Noise Everywhere!

08/18/2013

Brian Sunday Posts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

It is becoming more and more noticeable to me of late just how noisy society is.  Noise is EVERYWHERE!

Virtually from the moment we wake (to that ever annoying alarm), or head out into society in the morning if we are lucky enough to have a quiet home, until we fall back asleep at night we are bombarded with noise.  Radios, traffic, emergency sirens, other people talking (often, usually, at a volume far higher than is really necessary), bells ringing (I have the “honor” of working at a high school), aircraft, and loud speakers.  Even elevators and call waiting have to have music or annoying advertisements/messages.

Why are we so afraid of quiet?  Not even silence (but that is for later).  Just quiet.  My wife and I were out for a nice dinner a few evenings ago.  The restaurant was quite upscale (it was her anniversary – don’t get the idea we are wealthy and do that all the time) so one might expect a certain level of soft ambience fitting the setting.  One might even expect a piano in the corner playing soft music by which diners could have peaceful conversation (yeah, I get the irony of suggesting a piano making noise in a rant about too much noise – just go with me on this).  However, not so.  While the first hour or so was quiet by comparison, the people around us still didn’t seem to understand the concept of hushed conversation around a table.  Yet another sign of the oh so prevalent apathy about which we (ok, I) have spoken in the past (and about which I am finding a great need to launch into a tirade again!).  However, later in the evening, the “lounge” next to (and part of) the restaurant became excessively loud.  A live band was playing.  There is no barrier between the lounge and the restaurant.  It was not a soft jazz band.  We may as well have been in the front row of a live Rock concert.  And of course those in the lounge had no choice but to “yell” at each other to be heard above the music.  Conversation in the restaurant became virtually impossible.  Luckily we were just a few minutes from leaving.  However, we ate quite early that evening.  For many, the time we were leaving was the normal time to begin an evening out.  My question, where does one find a peaceful evening out?

Although I think I was born old in that I have never been a “let’s go hang out in a bar and yell at each other over the music” kind of guy, I actually have no problem with that kind of club.  But when EVERYWHERE becomes that kind of club I’ve got to wonder about the mind frame of society.  Why, why, why are we so afraid of quiet?!

These are just a few examples.  Bottom line: it is virtually impossible to find a quite spot in society.  I challenge, no I DEFY, anyone to actually find a quiet spot in public.  I, unfortunately, do not have the means to purchase a 1000 acre ranch in Montana.  I think that might be what it takes.  Even in one’s own home (and my wife’s is quite insulated) you will hear the noise of cars driving by, planes over head, lawn mowers, etc.  If not so much inside, having a peaceful drink on one’s patio is impossible.  There, one isn’t even insulated to a limited extent.  When I visit many other neighborhoods (thankfully not ours of yet), I hear all that above as well as neighbor’s loud “discussions”, music blaring, kids riding their motorized mini-cars or small motorbikes, dogs barking (which I understand dogs are want to do, but owners COULD be cognizant of their neighbors and limit the animals) and all sorts of other non-silence about.

I read a letter to the editor the other day (don’t ask me why – it is a rare occurrence since they tend to annoy me – hold that thought (yes, I DO know what you are thinking)).  It matters not the subject or the periodical but this person states emphatically that “Silence is deafening and unfriendly.”  Silence is not deafening.  Silence is not unfriendly.  How absurd!  Where do people come up with such nonsense?  In fact, based on the definition from Webster “himself”, silence is “forbearance from speech or noise” or the “absence of sound or noise”.  So, since it is NOISE that tends to be deafening, silence would be the exact opposite of deafening!  For those that may have been contemplating asking why letters to the editor tend to annoy me, you now know.  I contend that to suggest silence is deafening is to suggest someone afraid of their own thoughts.  Maybe they are afraid of evil demons living inside their head that are only silenced by noise from outside.

Don’t think this is just a problem in the U.S. either.  I have traveled the world.  Noise is everywhere!  In fact, noise has gotten so bad around the globe that the World Health Organization in Geneva has even published a document entitled Guidelines for Community Noise.  It begins by stating, “Noise has always been an important environmental problem for man. In ancient Rome, rules existed as to the noise emitted from the ironed wheels of wagons which battered the stones on the pavement, causing disruption of sleep and annoyance to the Romans. In Medieval Europe, horse carriages and horse back [sic] riding were not allowed during night time in certain cities to ensure a peaceful sleep for the inhabitants. However, the noise problems of the past are incomparable with those of modern society.”  It goes on to provide disturbing data on just how bad the noise problem in society is.  As well, according to the Health Promotion International group, “Noise pollution is an ever-increasing problem in modern technological society. It is well documented that repeated exposure to even moderate levels of noise can be injurious to health, but often unappreciated are the more pervasive physiological and psychological effects.”   The group further discusses the relationship of noise “to chronic sleep disorders and to cardiovascular problems”.  Even according to National Wind Watch, “there is overwhelming evidence that [the noise from] wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder-type diseases, at a nontrivial rate.”  Wind turbines!  They are not only dangerous to birds (yeah, I really don’t care) but cause stress disorders in humans that live nearby.  Is it any wonder that this society is going postal?

It is therefore not our parent’s fault that we have issues. Nor is it our own.  I contend EVERY human ailment is due to noise.  Until we can get it under control we should forgive those poor people in prison and release them all.  How can we hold them responsible for what is clearly the cause of noise created by society as a whole?!  Oh quit having a heart attack.  That was hyperbole (look it up).

I could go on and on.  I think you get the picture.  The REAL question is:  who is willing to buy me a ranch in Montana?!

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

Class / Refinement / Sophistication / Style — Continued

03/17/2013

Brian Sunday Posts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

We ended off last time with “What has this got to do with us?”

Leonardo da Vinci once said, “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.”  While I will appeal below to a few “experts”, we will first appeal to logic, to rational thought, to critical thinking.

Pride in appearance and speech begets pride in other aspects of your life.  What you feel when you wear “dressy” clothes.  The attitude you have.  Some people claim they feel stifled when wearing a suit or nice dress. I’m not so sure that is truly the case.  You undoubtedly feel less comfortable than you do in your favorite pair of sweats – especially since most aren’t used to wearing quality clothing on a regular basis in this day-in-age.  On the other hand, there is a sense of quality.  There is a sense of status if you will.  You feel like people are going to have a higher opinion of you than is the case when you are wearing shorts and a t-shirt [and they DO by-the-way].  However you might feel in a pair of sweats – comfortable, relaxed…  I’ll guarantee you don’t feel respected when you are out and about in flip-flops and shorts and a t-shirt.  In fact, there may have been a time when you witnessed, either personally or someone else, someone “of quality” looking down with distain upon the manner of dress.  You’ve seen all kind of writings about people who look down with derision upon those not acting properly, those who do not speak properly, those who do not dress properly.  I believe that if we would be honest with ourselves we would admit that when we are “dressed up”, for lack of a better term, – at least what we would call it now days – it makes us feel good.  It does make us feel there is a quality about us – a quality that is not there when we are in a shorts and t-shirt and flip-flops or sweats or pajamas on our way to Walmart.  So keeping in mind those feelings, we should acknowledge our relationship with other people, how we treat other people, how we act toward other people, how we act with other people, is also of higher quality.  It changes us for the better.

This goes for speech as well.  There have been many times throughout history, and I would dare say even today, when you hear people refer to how those from the lower class speak – anywhere from Old Town London where people on the “lower side” (working-class Londoners) are speaking in a Cockney accent to what we would claim now about Hillbillies or those of the “lower class” in the South.  When you are speaking in such a manner you are not relating on an equal level with those that take pride in the way they speak.  The phraseology that they use…  The grammar they ensure is correct…  On the other hand, I’ve heard many a time, “he understood me, the message got across, what difference does it make how I speak?”

As you will see below, this doesn’t necessarily work as well out there in the real world, the business world as an example, where people look with derision on those who just don’t take the time to put forth a good foot, either in the they dress or speak.  It shows laziness, it shows sloth, it shows you just don’t care about the way you look, the way you speak, about the way you carry yourself. About the way you relate to other people.  And, like it or not, business owners or those in the HR department or hiring managers for an organization, want to hire and keep people that aren’t lazy – people that present themselves in all manner of care.  They want people that are going to take the time and make the effort to present themselves in a manner that is befitting the company – or people of quality period.  When you do not present yourself in that manner you are losing out on opportunities you may otherwise have – opportunities for which you may have educated and trained yourself over many years.  But more importantly, you are demonstrating to the rest of society that they are not worth the effort.  Not that you are of less value.  But that you are not worth the time.

Aside from the aforementioned (previous post) “supporting, ill-mannered, gracious less, disrespectful society” affecting the rest of us, numerous studies have been done that demonstrate the detrimental effect of ignoring proper dress and speech on relationships, work and culture. This part of what has changed is not good for humanity as a whole – which then, directly and indirectly, does affect all of us on an individual level.  How we dress and the manner in which we address each other and our speech in general translates to our attitude toward life and the effort we put into our society. As well, people that are given an inch will take a mile (not my saying but a great one).  The “old ways” may not be the best in all regard, but they are far better than the Dark Ages – for which, I would suggest, we are again heading.  We do though seem willing to accept that civility in general is lacking and we are ok with that.  It confuses me though that while people don’t object on a societal level, they certainly object on a personal one.  Well, societies are made up of individuals…

One type of example [and there are far too many to address in a single post] is the numerous studies done on dressing for work-at-home jobs (and elsewhere).  All these studies conclude that how a person dresses affects work performance (even though nobody else can see you).  The suggestion that having a home based business allows you to “go to work” in your pajamas or sweats is true.  However, the studies show that your neighbor, being in the same business working from his home but dressing as if he were heading to an office in the city, would run rings around your productivity.  Dress affects attitude.  Dress affects alertness.  Dress affects performance.  Dress affects the bottom line.  You don’t believe me?  How about a few examples?

Forbes recently had an article entitled Casual Summer Work Environment Kills Productivity and Profits.  The article claims that, too the employees, Casual Work Environment Means “You don’t have to work”.  A business owner providing a “casual summer” [or casual Friday] work schedule is setting the company up for failure. Subtle statements may result in:

• Employees don’t have to work at their normal level of quality,

• The company does not value the overall impression given to the customer,

• Customer service is not important,

• Profits are secondary to pleasing the employees, and

• The business is not intended as a long term venture.

The article goes on to say “People use the heat as an excuse for dressing casual. Unfortunately, many employees don’t know what is ‘too casual’ for the office. The dramatic difference in employee appearance taints the company’s image. This can confuse consumers.”  And finally, in the article’s “Tips For Building A Culture Of Success During Summer” (since that is often when companies institute the more casual dress policy) it states “avoid casual Friday. This policy insinuates that Friday is a ‘non-work’ day.”

In the instruction to her paper The Effect of Casual Dress on Performance in the Workplace, Sarah Maloney Hughes of The Master’s College states in the Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences:

“The way you look directly affects the way you think, feel, and act . . . . When you dress down, you sit down—the couch potato trend. Manners break down, you begin to feel down, and you’re not as effective” (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000, p. 39). Stephen Goode (2000, p. 4) states the findings of research psychologist, Jeffery L. Magee, that “Continually relaxed dress leads to relaxed manners, relaxed morals and relaxed productivity” and “leads to a decrease in company loyalty and increase in tardiness.”        Dolbow suggests that the accepted casual dress in the office workplace is causing “casual attitudes and a lack of office decorum” (2000, p. 10).

Other examples…  in these cases, effects of dress code on students.

1) LPSRoyalTimes.com (Leadership Public Schools, Oakland, CA)

Fri, Mar 2nd, 2012 | By Livia Looby

19 Schools in Chicago did a study on student’s behavior by making one day a dress code day, one was a dress down day, and the other one was a regular day.  There were 211 referrals given out on dress code days, 233 on regular days, and 322 on dress-down days. The study done in these 19 schools showed that by having a dress code it did decrease the bad behavior in school.

2) Recent research at Sam Houston State University offers some evidence:

The research was conducted by Jimmy Creel and Angela Stallings, while completing work on their doctorates in education in SHSU.  Creel studied the impact of dress codes on black students in a Houston area suburban school district, while Stallings concentrated on Hispanic students.  “It is possible, based on our findings, that the benefits of a standardized dress code implemented and maintained over time may very well have a positive effect on student achievement,” she said. Creel said their study showed a number of positive benefits, including “improved campus morale and reduced discipline violations, increased school pride, improved collaboration and teamwork among students…”  Also, “enhanced image of students and the school in the community, minimization of the effects of economic variations among students, and reduction in the overall cost of student wardrobes.”

Considering speech in society and/or workplace:

In the book How To Turn Your Abilities To Cash, “master salesman and successful author” Earl Prevette devoted Chapter IX to How To Improve Your Speech, Voice And Manner.  He said –

There are three definite reasons why one should endeavor to speak correctly. Namely:

(1) People never judge you by what you don’t say. They judge you by what you say, and if you can do this well, it will influence people to have confidence in you. Therefore, form the habit of pronouncing each word correctly, and to speak with care and dignity.

(2) Speech is the only means to make yourself understood. By not pronouncing your words correctly and by not speaking with the proper care, your listener may get the wrong meaning out of what you say.

(3) The correct pronunciation of each word, enunciating each syllable, will not only improve your speech, but will also enable you to spell correctly more easily.

He goes on to say, “Speech, Voice and Manner are all fundamental parts of our living. The use one makes of these reflects how he lives. The study of Speech, Voice and Manner develops social poise and a more desirable and pleasant personality. The three personal attributes of character enumerated are all dependent to a large degree upon each other. The improvement and development of one means the improvement and development of all.”

In Appropriate Language by Stacie Heaps:  “One of the most important things you can do as an employee and colleague is to use appropriate language in the workplace. In the business world, making a good impression and projecting yourself as mature, intelligent, confident, and professional is critical to long-term success. Inappropriate language, whether spoken or written, can negatively affect your credibility and put off or even offend those you work with. Both in speech and in writing, take the time and make the effort to use appropriate language.”  Her 8 rules for appropriate language begin with “Use standard English and follow established rules of grammar”.

According to Science for All Americans by F. James Rutherford and Andrew Ahlgren, “The class into which people are born affects what language, diet, tastes, and interests they will have as children, and therefore influences how they will perceive the social world. Moreover, class affects what pressures and opportunities people will experience and therefore affects what paths their lives are likely to take—including schooling, occupation, marriage, and standard of living. Still, many people live lives very different from the norm for their class.”

A final note from George Washington, the 1st President of the United States – from his The Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation

-Wear not your clothes foul, or ripped, or dusty, but see they be brushed once every day at least and take heed that you approach not to any uncleanness.

-Think before you speak; pronounce not imperfectly, nor bring out your words too hastily, but orderly and distinctly.

There is so much more but I promised my wife to keep my posts under 2000 words on Sunday – although I seem to be breaking that promise of late.  All of this translates to our dress and speech being a factor in how we view and treat each other.  We have “dumbed down” society through both.  Since most have lost this sense of style, class, refinement – how might we get it back?  We will look at possible solutions at a later date.  Until then, what are you going to do?!

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

Class / Refinement / Sophistication / Style

03/03/2013

Brian Sunday Posts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

This is a “passionate” subject for me and I admit I will not do it justice.  But I must say something if for no other reason than my having a clear conscience.  It won’t help but…

I wish to discuss two things today – dress and speech.  Two subjects, each having volumes of books devoted to them.  I am going to concern myself primarily with our lower and middle class.  For the most part, the upper class of society has kept up with tradition and it is of limited concern the minimal amount they may have “fallen”.  And for any wishing to “run in those circles”, they will as well.  This will of course set those of the “politically correct” persuasion on edge.  I am singling out those “less fortunate”.  Yet another nail in the coffin of the “99%”.  It is not due to a dislike for them.  I myself am a member of the middle class.   However, it is what it is.  And as the old saying goes, “what you are is your parents’ fault, if you stay that way it is your own.”  As well, for those familiar with this blog you will realize I do not now, nor will I in the future, care.  The politically correct have been, and continue to be, significant contributors to this problem so their thoughts on the subject are irrelevant.

I have an “app” on my phone called BeSpeak.  For those that do not have a wardrobe consultant (I do), it helps the “style impaired” with what clothing is best suited to them and how to dress properly.   There is another called SnapDress.  It allows one to actually take a picture of clothing to determine if it is appropriate for your “profile”.  The 21st Century does have some amazing technology (if used appropriately).  However, technology or not, many just don’t care.  They do the minimum necessary to fit into the minimum, current dress for which their “industry” calls.  There is no doubt in my mind that the current state of dress and speech are not only demonstrative of the degradation of our society and culture as a whole, but contributed to their downfall.  I spoke before about civility in cyberspace.  This, of course, is only a small piece of the overall issue.  Civility in general is lacking.  Call it how you want – it is virtually lost in society as whole.  How we treat each other – opening doors for females, thank you notes, RSVP, saying please.  Our music, our television shows, our movies.  Our dress in public (even in private…).  What little civility exists is quite limited these days and is primarily found in the upper echelons of the financially well off.

From the time of the Renaissance to mid-20th Century the world operated in a more formal and dignified manner.  The elegance and grace with which they conducted themselves was astonishing.  While everything was certainly not perfect, they, for the most part, represented themselves in dress and speech in a civilized way in their everyday lives.  This translated to a cultured and urbane society at every level.

As an example – Downton Abbey.  My wife has gotten me hooked on this television show about a late 19th Century – early 20th Century English earl (the Earl of Grantham), his family (the Crawley family) and the servants that work for them.

I am really not that excited about the actual story.  It is interesting to an extent but I am far more interested in the portrayal of the times and methods of interaction – the clothing, language and manner of speaking with and treating each other.  While they are certainly not always “nice” to each other, they are formal, even polite, and proper in their relations and dress.  It is a dignified and refined manner of interaction and presentation.

And this is not limited to the “upstairs”.  It is not limited to the earl’s family and his circle of friends.  The “downstairs” staff also functions in this manner.  They address each other at all times in a formal manner.  Mr. Carson (the butler), Mr. Bates (Lord Grantham’s valet), Mrs. Hughes (the head housekeeper), Mrs. Patmore (the head cook).  You have to be as “lowly” as a mere footman or scullery maid (pretty much the bottom of the chain and quite young anyway) to be addressed by your first name.  But at the time you are promoted to a higher level, you immediately are referred to in the formal manner.  In the U.S. we came to be somewhat less formal even before that timeframe.  But the extent of that limited informality came in such situations as the Southern Plantations (or cities for that matter) where females were still addressed as “Miss” and first name (even those married) while men were still always addressed as “Mister” and last name or just plain “Sir”.  Within families or with very close, longtime friends (and normally in more private affairs) these rules were usually relaxed.

In additional to how they address each other and the formal manner in which they speak, is the way the dress.  Regardless of your position, you dressed “properly”.  Even the “lowly” footman wore white tie and tails to serve dinner and what we would consider black tie at other times on duty.  When they are not on duty they still were appropriate slacks and “sport” coats or more casual suits.  When the men went hunting it was in suit and tie (casual, but a suit none the less).  When outside they virtually always wore a formal hat (vice baseball cap).  When on a picnic the women wore dresses.  Not a formal gown of course.  That was reserved for the evening meal or other such formal occasion (where the men wore white tie with double-cuff sleeves (aka – French Cuff)).  During one episode one of the female relatives (Isobel Crawley) showed up at the manor in quite appropriate daytime dress to speak with the family.  When invited to dinner she politely refused because she was not wearing proper dinner attire (although what she WAS wearing was far nicer than what people these days wear to an evening out).  While many may suggest that this is the household of a noble and so appearances must be kept up, scenes from elsewhere in the show prove otherwise.  Scenes from the town showed that EVERYBODY dressed and acted as formally as their station in life would allow.  Shopkeepers wore suits.  Even mechanics working on machinery wore suits.  Gentlemen farmers and their farmhands wore suits.  Females were always in dresses.  I cross “the pond” to the US and look at old time photos of the Wright brothers in their bicycle shop (lest you believe this is just on TV – see original photo below), men panhandling for gold in rivers, ladies of all walks and stations of life.  They ALL were in suits and ties or long dresses often with lace.  East Coast or West, North or South.  “White Collar” or “Blue Collar”…  People cared about their appearance.  People cared about how they presented themselves to others and it made for a far more well-mannered, gracious, respectful society.

OW in shop

Orville Wright in his shop (the one working in the suit)

And now we are in the present…  I’ve actually seen people in upscale hotel (not motel) lobbies, stores, parks and other place of public dressed in pajamas.  People wear sweats and “flip flops” out to a sit down restaurant – sometimes formal (fast food restaurants are bad enough).  Places that used to have dress codes (including a rack of jackets and ties for the gentlemen that “forgot” to wear his) now have people in jeans and t-shirts.  Grown men at church in shorts, a t-shirt and athletic shoes (or even flip flops again).  Boys out in public or going to school with pants hanging off their derrière, underwear showing and continually having to pull them up so they can walk without tripping.  Other than just looking ridiculous, it has got to be problematic.  Why would one add to the problems they already face?  Girls think it absurd as well by the way.  While I will not go so far as to advocate the complete formality of the past, I certainly would be ok with not even considering going outside without a casual suit or sport coat (and maybe even tie).

Concerning speech…  I am led to understand, by actual high school English teachers, that what has been considered “informal speech” in the past is now acceptable in virtually any manner of our lives.  Miss Manners be damned.  While we have always had “formal” and “informal” (slang?) grammar, “acceptable” grammar at all levels has been reduced to the lowest common denominator.  Using a preposition to end a sentence with?  No problem.  Using “can” in place of “may” (can I go to the restroom)?  That’s fine.  Listing a group of names with that of the speaker first?  Perfectly acceptable.  It is just an informal way of speaking and we are to accept it in polite society.  Why teach correct English when we can just modify the standards to what the average 3th grade student of the past used.  “Can I go to the restroom?” from a High School student.  How ridiculous.  And their English teachers allow it!  What they fail to realize is in fact polite society does NOT accept it.  You will be looked down upon and treated with distain.  And then wonder why you can’t advance your station in life.  We are leading our lower and middle class children into believing they can work their way up the corporate and societal ladder without regard to how polite society speaks and acts.  They are being held back without even knowing it.  Then they blame “the man” for “keeping them down”.  It is not the man.  It is their own acceptance of what our society, at its lower levels, now accepts as the norm and teaches (or at very least, accepts) in its schools. As an aside – don’t get me wrong.  Our schools are doing much better than that for which many give them credit.  In some regards though we are not having our students live up to a high enough standard.  We are accepting lowered societal standards.  We are dumbing down society.  More on schools in a future post.

This leads to a situation today where the crudeness of, the vulgarity in, our speech is beyond the pale.  It is inexcusable and indefensible.  Mainstream songs, movies, even television shows demonstrate crassness never before imagined – often in the name of free speech.  I am in no way desiring to limit free speech by law (except in obvious case of libel, slander, danger (yelling fire in a crowded theater), and such situations).  However, it is a mark of polite society to limit our OWN speech.  We shouldn’t have be have laws or policies against it.  It should be taught and observed from the youngest age that it is just not done.

What strikes me most is how we’ve lost this.  “Things change” we are told.  “Keep up with the times” we are told.  That would be great if the times were improving.  I would submit in many respects our times ARE improving.  Our technology is making the world “smaller” via communication and transportation improvements.  It is improving medical care and therefore our quality (and length)  of life in many respects.  However, I defy anyone to demonstrate how changing to a more informal (for lack of a better word) society in dress and speech is making our culture – our society – a better place in which to live.  We are losing all respect for ourselves and our fellow man.

Now of course you may say, “What has this got to do with us?”  We like the more informal way of life.  It works for us and we are hurting nobody through it.  With which I would disagree.  Your being ok with, and supporting, ill-mannered, gracious less, disrespectful society affects the rest of us.  We will discuss this next time.

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

Randomness or Weariness

01/27/2013

Brian Sunday Posts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

So, working on taxes.  Not happy.  Which I think is kinda a requirement when doing taxes.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m all for paying my fair share. Whoa! Almost sounding like a liberal there. Wait. No. I’m ok. Libs are for OTHERS paying THEIR “fair share.”  Hard to keep this stuff straight sometimes.

So, where was I?

I have been somewhat remiss in my blogging.  My excuse?  No, I have not run out of things to say.  By far.  I’m going with illness and work. Of course, had my wife taken proper care of me I would not have gotten sick.  Of this she is well aware.  Mainly because I made her so.  Work on the other hand is work.  For some reason the payroll department seems to want me to show up to “earn” my pay (sorry, my wife’s pay – I suspect I will get that wrong many times today).  Sigh!  Maybe switching to Liberal wouldn’t be so bad.  I’m sure somebody out there wouldn’t mind having their money stolen and given to us for my wife’s benefit.  Off topic (although I’m not yet sure what the topic of the day is).

Where was I?  Working on taxes.  Boy is that a fun thing to do.  You are always caught between loving and hating the thought of a large return.  Loving it because it is “found” money.  Hating it because when you think about it, and you should, it is YOUR money that you lost in the first place.  While it is never fun to write yet another check to the government so it can waste even MORE of your hard earned money, getting a refund of your interest free loan to those bureaucrats is not the best thought either.  Although I am nowhere near the end of this year’s journey into the annual tax nightmare, I have no doubt I will be writing that check.  To all you Libs out there, you are welcome.  To all you conservatives out there, where the heck are you?  What’s the deal leaving me to continue to fund bridges to nowhere, midnight basketball and mating habits of African Bullfrogs (or was it Australian?).  Next time get off your sofa and vote!  I blame YOU far more than the bottom-of-the-pyramid Libs.  They are just sheep.  Pawns with no desire to educate themselves.  Apathetic.  Easier to just follow their government shepherds and eat whatever the mass media feeds them.  But enough of that.

So many things to discuss.  So many things in this country that need tweaking or a major overhaul.  So many things I am just not in the mood to discuss today.  I am tired.  Illness?  Work?  The problems of this country and the world?  I don’t know.  Just tired.  The more I venture out and view the actions and interactions of my fellow man, the more tired I grow.  Maybe not tired.  Maybe weary.  At church today we were instructed on the parts of the whole.  Not to despair at whatever part you are to play.  The example, for those of you that have ventured into the world of the Bible, was of a physical body.  The foot, the hand, the ear, the eye.  Each has a reason for being.  Each should except its role and understand it has an important part to play.  The idea is that we individuals also have a specific role to play.  A role in the totality of mankind.  I sat there and thought about that (yes, I can think and pay attention at the same time).  I thought many of the problems we have in society may very well come from many of us not “playing” our role.  Not satisfied with being a foot or an ear.  Always thinking that someone else has a better role to play and against all the talents with which we’ve been blessed we try to be something we are not.  Why is that?

For some odd reason we look up to the White Collar workers – the doctors, lawyers, professors, etc.  We look down on the “unskilled”, Blue Collar workers – the garbage man (sorry, sanitation engineers), custodian, cook, etc.  Why is that?  When we come home from work in the evening on “Trash Day” are we not glad the can is empty and prepared for another week of our rubbish?  When we go out for a nice evening on the town or a Sunday breakfast are we not glad there is a cook in the kitchen of our chosen restaurant?  Are we not happy the end of each work day does not include having to take our waste basket to the dumpster?  Someone will be there after we leave to clear it out.  We all have a role to play.  We should be not only thankful for our own, we should be thankful for that of each of our fellow man.

That said, I see much of the problems of society and the world stemming from individuals that want to play a role for which they are not suited.  As mentioned, we all have God given talents (and yes, God still gave you talents whether you believe in Him or not).  To be truly happy in life, it behooves us to make a determined effort to recognize and appreciate what ours are and make it our life’s ambition to select an appropriate role.  A role that uses the talents we have.  Not only for our benefit, but the benefit of all.  Not only would we be happier, but mankind as a whole would be far better off.

So many want to be something they are not, should not and often cannot.  But for whatever reason – envy; desire; pressure from peers, parents, others in authority – they insist their “lot in life” is not theirs.  They MUST be something they are not.  They MUST be something for which they are not prepared.  For which they have no talent.  If an individual’s talents lie in a specific area and they fail to use them, something in the play of mankind is not getting done.  A role is not being played.  This tends to throw everything out of whack.  Take my word for it (or not, don’t really care all that much today), everything is out of whack.  The play is not following the script.  This leads not only to unhappiness on the part of the individual but a “disturbance in the force” (yes, I actually said that).  There is currently a major disturbance.  I believe my weariness derives from this disturbance and, in part, my lack of time, talent or treasure to fix it.  I know, I know.  Who the heck am I to take the world on my shoulders?  I’m actually not.  My weariness stems from the knowledge that neither is anyone else.  So many of us are not fulfilling our role.  Nobody individually is able to solve the problem.  However, as each domino falls due to someone not fulfilling their role, those around it, fulfilling their obligation or not, are also brought down.  This leads to the state of affairs in which we now find ourselves.  Sigh…

Ok…  back to taxes.  The topic or the task?  As long as everyone is of the understanding that I am (sorry, my wife is) being robbed and my (sorry, her) treasure is being wasted, I will get back to the task.  However, if I learn in the future that some of you out their actually believe I am (she is) not paying my (her) fair share, I shall delve DEEPLY into the subject and pelt you unmercifully with the facts.  You WON’T like it I assure you…

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…