Banish Common Sense
If you have spent any amount of time listening to the radio in the last couple of days, you probably heard mention of this year’s list of overused or useless words and phrases that should be banished. If you haven’t, you can check out the full list by visiting Lake Superior State University’s website. Personally, two off of their list that I most agree with are “green” and “bailout”.
Now I am not at all opposed to the concept of going green for the most part but what I find really annoying is the fact that there really is no agreed upon definition for what is or is not green. If you talk to one person, a product is not green unless every aspect of it is environmentally friendly. On the other hand, a lot of people consider products, let’s say shampoo, that themselves are environmentally friendly but may not be packaged the same, still to be green. And what about products that the contents really aren’t that great but the packaging is fully biodegradeable? And what is environmentally friendly – methane from cows…I will assume at this point that you get the picture. If you want to introduce me to new terminology, please be sure that there is actually a definition for that term first.
Bailout. As with several million other Americans, my frustration with this word is endless so I won’t even start. You can get a general idea of my thoughts if desired by reading my post “For $700 Million, the Answer is…”It’s Not My Problem.”
But I do have a suggestion for a word that it seems has unfortunately become useless. Common sense. Apparently, looking around at the world today – the politicians, the executives, the influencers, etc. – common sense is not something that is used with any regularity. So often, I wind up dumbfounded when listening to those who are purported to be “experts” in their fields. I often think to myself “Does this person actually believe the things coming out of his or her mouth?” I mean, regardless of your particular education or experience in life, if you just take a moment to step back and apply common sense to a lot of the scenarios playing out around us and be honest enough to acknowledge the results even if you don’t agree with them, one couldn’t help but ask them, “Are you serious?”
So with this reasoning, I woefully submit to the list the now useless term, common sense. RIP.
Filed under: Tips and Advice | Leave a Comment
Tags: bailout, banished word list, common sense, green, lake superior state university
Assessing the Impact of ?#@*&%!
The big story this week is once again coming out of Chicago. People nationwide are talking about the corruption charges facing Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. One discussion point in particular that has arisen from this scandal caught my attention – where is the line between business as usual and corruption? Pondering this question, it occurred to me that the answer directly relates to communication and, well, common sense.
Most of the quotes attributed to Gov. Blagojevich, and even one from his wife, that are being pulled from the complaint contain some form of the “F-word”. For example, when referring to the Chicago Tribune, he states, “our recommendation is fire all those f*****g people, get ‘em the f**k out of there and get us some editorial support.” Later he speaks of President-Elect Obama saying, “motherf****r [the President-elect] his senator. F**k him. For nothing? F**k him.” A quote from the Governor’s wife also contains the word, “to hold up that f*****g Cubs shit. . . f**k them.” These statements have infuriated people across the United States. But are we angrier about the content of the above statements or about the way in which the statements were made?
Consider this. If the above statements were made without the cursing and in a gentler manner, would there even be a corruption complaint with these statements included? I’ll revise the above quotes to allow us to better assess the impact of the cursing in comparison to speaking, as many of our mothers told us to for years, with a polite, firm tone without it.
When talking about the Tribune, “Our recommendation is that those individual’s that we have identified be disciplined and possibly terminated from their current positions. We hope in the future to have more support stemming from your editorials.”
In reference to Obama, “I’m very upset about President-Elect Obama wanting us to select his choice for senator without being willing to help us with our current situation as a sign of his appreciation.”
His wife’s quote, “It may upset them but we need to consider putting a hold on the Cubs deal.”
All of a sudden, the statements don’t look or feel so bad to us when we hear or read them. So is the line between business as usual and corruption found in the manner in which a statement is spoken? Apparently, it very well could be.
Let’s quickly look at another, more personal, example. How many of us have become really pissed off at our partners because of something that they said? How many of those partners, when confronted, have looked completely confused about what they did wrong? Has the ensuing argument ever contained the words “the way you said it…”
This is a classic argument in my household usually occurring after comments like “Do this…” or “What the hell were you thinking…” Had the comment been altered a bit and presented “Would you mind doing…” or “I didn’t understand why you chose to…” oftentimes the argument would be avoided completely.
Another scenario that the way in which we speak is frequently an issue is with children. I often find myself attempting to explain to them that it is okay to feel angry, hurt, or upset but it is not okay to scream at me or throw tantrums. Instead a better way to handle would be to simply talk to me and say, “Mom, it really made me angry when…” Sound familiar?
Filed under: Tips and Advice | Leave a Comment
Tags: blagojevich, communication, corruption, cursing, fine line, obama, scandal
http://www.addsyou.com
username=MjAwOC0xMS0yOSAwMTozOTowOA==
Filed under: Tips and Advice | Leave a Comment
It’s All In HOW You Vote
A couple of days before election day, an article was printed about what the odds really were of an individual actually casting a deciding vote. It reported the odds to be about 1 in 60 million for the average person. Why, I wondered, would they print this immediately before election day? It seemed almost to want to discourage Americans from showing up at the polls by telling them that it didn’t really matter whether or not they cast a ballot.
Let me offer you another perspective. America is founded on the right to vote. If the majority of Americans decide that they vote doesn’t really matter anyway and no longer vote, our very foundation collapses. Our system only works if people vote. Regardless whether or not my vote is a “deciding” vote in an election, it is important. And our collective vote is the deciding factor in all elections.
The way we communicate information is almost more important than the information that we communicate. Had the story I read provided the individual statistic alongside what the impact of a collective group of voters impact, the story would have been a positive article that may have led even more to their polling place today. Instead, as I heard one of my acquaintances remark, it worked to reinforce the argument that most of us I am sure have heard many times…”Look, my vote didn’t matter anyway so why bother?”
One of the most thrilling aspects of this years election is the excitement that it generated in so many Americans that has already this morning resulted in huge voter turnouts. If you haven’t gone out yet, stop reading and GO VOTE!
Filed under: Tips and Advice | Leave a Comment
Tags: ballot, election, matter, perspective, vote
Not too long ago, I responded to a forum question that asked viewers if they had different personality traits at home than they did at work. Before I responded, I glanced through some of the responses already posted. Every person on there had said no, they were the same no matter where they were. My response started, “Well it may just be that I’m crazy but unlike everyone else here, I have some definite differences.” At work I am organized, patient, rarely (if ever) get angry, and am fairly outgoing. At home, I can never find my keys, or remember to take medicine, have been none to get impatient and irritated, and am pretty shy and quiet unless I am around my family or close friends. Around them, I can have a pretty big mouth, caustic wit, and definite opinions on just about everything.
Looking back on that now, I don’t think that it’s a bad thing.
Every one of those that had responded prior to me on the forum had stated in some form or another in their post that of course they didn’t change, their morals at home remained their morals while at work -almost as if the person who had first asked the question was insulting them by asking it. This seemed kind of obvious to me. I mean, with the exception of the sociopaths of the world, don’t we all have our own individual core morals that pretty much remain with us throughout our lives? Granted, for every ten people you talk to you will probably find ten different sets of core morals but, regardless of what they are, they do exist. For me the question was more superficial. A good example of what I mean by this is the subject of politics.
Do you find it appropriate to communicate,debate, and/or promote your personal political beliefs at work? The upcoming presidential election is expected to bring in record numbers of voters, making it what is likely the most universally popular election of our generation. The debates have all had record numbers of viewers and voters have had previously unheard of interaction throughout the campaign with the use of Twitter and MySpace. It is diffiult to find someone who does not have a political opinion. At home, I am free and open with my political opinion and arguments. I downloaded ringers for my mobile phone supporting my candidate, and on days when I forget my coffee cup at home, I will choose the cup at 7-Eleven that supports my candidate. But this is as far as I go bringing politics to work. Unless directly asked, I do not discuss who I support and if I am asked, I smile and decline to state. The only exception to this rule would be my working “friends”, and then I simply state my preference and refrain from being drawn into an argument. To do otherwise, I believe, is to invite discord into the office – and that is never a good thing.
On the other hand, in the state of New York, there are currently some teachers who are suing for the right to wear campaign buttons in the classroom. If allowed to wear the buttons, could this be perceived as teachers forcing their political views on the students? Or would it be an invaluable lesson to students about the importance of becoming involved and voting? If the latter is true, then couldn’t the teacher’s achieve the same effect by wearing “Remember to Vote” buttons to class and only wearing their campaign buttons on their personal time? It would certainly decrease the risk of controversy. Even if the teachers were level-headed enough to wear the campaign buttons and refrain from doing any active campaigning to the students otherwise, they would still face the problem of parents. A large number of Americans feel very strongly about their political beliefs and not all are level-headed enough to see a situation like that as merely a “learning opportunity”.
So what are your opinions? Do you have different personality traits at home vs at work? Should politics be brought into the workplace at all? If so, where do you draw the line – at bringing in a coffee cup with your candidates name on it, campaigning in the office, or where? I’d love to hear your views.
Filed under: Tips and Advice | 2 Comments
Tags: communication, morals, personality, politics, workplace
Common Sense Crisis Continued…
I wrote last night a post for Everyday Life (http://everydaylifeonline.com) about a recent robbery in my neighborhood called Too Close to Home. In it I express the anger I felt towards the person that robbed MY store and indignation at the fact that he felt the right to effect MY life. I have similar feelings regarding the Common Sense Crisis.
I read a news report last week about how other countries in South America and across the world were even angrier than before at America and commenting on how greedy and selfish Americans are. The economic woes that are wreaking havoc through our financial market are doing the same for market throughout the world. Other countries are worried about how they are going to survive – especially those countries that we have gone in and “reformed” who now rely upon the strength of our economy to keep their own economies viable. These countries are viewing the acts of the decision-makers on Wall Street and in our government that caused this meltdown representative of all Americans.
This makes me angry. How dare these decision-makers mess with MY country? Who do they think they are to cause me to be viewed as arrogant, selfish, and greedy? Because they fell prey to the Common Sense Crisis and acted extremely unwisely, I am now expected to pay for it both here at home and it appears, throughout the world.
Filed under: Notes and Commentary | Leave a Comment
Tags: common sense, economic, financial, international, wall street
Crisis in America!
No, I am not referring to the economic crisis. Or the healthcare crisis. Or the…Okay, so maybe there is more than one crisis in America today. The crisis that I happen to be referring to today is the Common Sense Crisis.
Everyday it seems that we are presented with new evidence of this crisis as it works to take over the country. Think that it doesn’t affect you? Think again. The lack of common sense employed by the lenders here in America has not only succeeded in sending our economy into a tailspin but has created an uproar against American greed throughout the world. Thanks, guys, I have always wondered what it would be like to be viewed as a greedy, inconsiderate idiot who is completely unable to handle my own money.
Recently someone in my neighborhood complained about being constantly stopped by the police and treated as if he was a gang member or someone of the like. He said that he felt he was being “profiled” and treated unfairly because of the way he dressed. So I offered him a suggestion to help him to resolve the problem – don’t dress, act like, and spend time with known area gang members. (I came up with this solution by applying common sense). He responded by asking me why he should have to change anything about himself. Because if you present yourself like a gang member, you will be treated like one. Change the way you present yourself and logic dictates that the way you are perceived and treated will change as well. This explanation appeared to go straight over his head so I decided to put it another way.
During the summer, if you noticed someone slowly strowling through your yard late at night, dressed all in black and in a heavy jacket and ski mask, would you expect the police to stop this person and find out what is going on? If instead of stopping them, several police drove right past him without investigating things, would you be angry or upset? Why? Because of the way he was dressed and appeared to be presenting himself? Now apply this scenario to someone doing the exact same thing but dressed in tan shorts and a white t-shirt. Not so worried anymore are you? Common sense, my friend, common sense.
Do you have any stories about the Common Sense crisis in America?
Filed under: Notes and Commentary | Leave a Comment
Tags: america, common sense, crisis
Quick answer time (use the first response that pops into your head). Do you often use deception in your interpersonal communications?
Most of us will first answer “No” because we don’t like to think of ourselves as being deceitful. Honesty and truthfulness are traits that are highly valued within ourselves and in others. But take a moment and think about things again.
Each day when we arrive at work, most of us have at least one person (though frequently well more than one) ask us “How are you?” or some variation of it (i.e “How was your weekend?”, “How’s it going?”, “How’re you feeling?”, etc.). And generally our response is something along the lines of “I’m fine” or “It was great”. Then we change the subject by either asking the same type question to them or by moving the conversation directly into work (effectively re-focusing the topic to someone or something other than ourselves. Many times though the truthful answer is something else entirely. Perhaps we had an argument with our significant other or family. Maybe we are extremely stressed and worried about financial concerns. Whatever the reason is that we are in truth feeling something other than “fine” or “great”, rarely do we express anything different to those that ask at work.
Does this scenario sound familiar? How many times a week does this happen to you?
So why do we turn what is usually meant to be a polite greeting into deception? The specific reasons are endless and each situation is different. Researchers have found that we frequently make statements that are less than truthful due to one or more of the following reasons: To avoid hurting or offending someone, to emphasize our best qualities, to avoid conflict, and/or to alter the speed of a relationship. Most of us were taught that professionalism is a desirable trait. Our society generally expects us to be able to seperate our personal and professional lives and it is typically thought of as unprofessional for us to carry our personal problems into work with us. So rather than risk being thought of as unprofessional we automatically reply “I’m great, Jane. How are you?”
Now, I will give you a second chance.
Quick answer time (use the first response that pops into your head). Do you often
use deception in your interpersonal communications?
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Tags: interpersonal deception theory
In my previous post, I praised the strategy employed by John McCain by choosing Sarah Palin for a running mate. Little did I know at the time how scary things would become. His strategy worked so well that America now has a new “celebrity” (to use McCain’s own words) in this campaign. And this “celebrities” draw seems to have clouded many Americans sense of political judgment with the thrill of possibilities.
Time and again, over the course of the last week, I have heard, read or been told that someone (most often a woman) was considering voting for McCain now simply because of the fact that Sarah Palin (a woman) was now on the ticket. “How exciting it would be to see a woman in the White House!” and “It is a good possibility that McCain might die while in office and we would finally have a woman president!” are some of the more popular comments that follow their announcement. And it is here, that I must take a moment to interject a couple of quick comments. First of all, how morbid are we becoming that we would elect a president on the basis that we hope he will die quickly in order to make room for his running mate to take office? Second, personally I think that it would be more exciting and an even greater victory for women, if the first woman president was someone that America had elected as president, not just someone who got there by default. The only reason that I have not really heard from those who are now thinking to vote for McCain/Palin is because of how qualified Palin is to lead the greatest country in the world over the course of the next four years. And that leads me to wonder (and to fear) if many of us are really thinking clearly. Would we really elect a president because of the sensationalism of it rather than their political merits?
Take a moment and think about things. Remove gender and race from the political equation for a moment (or if it makes it easier for you, imagine all the candidates as white males). After doing this, review what you know about them, their history, their beliefs, their policies, and their visions fot the future of this country. Be truthful – are you still leaning the same way? Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren’t but at least now you know whether or not you have fallen prey to the hype or if you are voting on the facts.
Filed under: Tips and Advice | 2 Comments
Tags: common sense, communication, election, listen, mccain, palin, sensationalism, voting
For $700 Billion, the Answer Is…”It’s Not My Problem.”
Faced with this scenario, more than 250 employees at Republic Window and Doors in Chicago decided to stage a sit-in to demand their vacation and severance pay. Their sit-in has become national news and has drawn the attention of numerous figures including the Rev. Jesse Jackson who attempted to act as an intermediary between the workers and Bank of America, the institution who owns Republics line of credit. He attempted to persuade BofA to extend Republic’s line of credit to allow these workers to keep their jobs or at the very least, extend it enough to allow the employees to all receive the pay they expect.
It has been reported that Bank of America’s response was something along the lines of the employees pay wasn’t their problem.
I have a problem with this. Not just with the callousness in the attitudes of some of those involved, it goes further than that. My understanding of the principles of economics in our country is that jobs and employment are essential for recovery. And no one should know that better than a member of the industry that (a) started this mess in the first place and (b) is the beneficiary of a $700 billion bailout financed in part by the very same employees that “aren’t their problem”. So it seems that this situation is very much BofA’s problem and that this is exactly the type of situation that a portion of the bailout should be used for. The last thing that I expect is that anyone of the “brilliant” minds out their in the banking industry will recognize this and make it their problem so Bush…Obama…members of Congress…Senators? Stand up and step in here – you passed the bailout, you handle the issues.
Filed under: Notes and Commentary | Leave a Comment
Tags: bailout, bank of america, chicago, factory, jobs