To Be a Rock and Not to Roll

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9


There is Classic Rock Music and then there are Classic Rock Songs. Any Mount Rushmore of Classic Rock Songs includes Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven”. The other three on my “Rushmore” are “Nights In White Satin” (Moody Blues), Comfortably Numb (Pink Floyd) and All Along The Watch Tower (Jimi Hendrix). My wife has vetoed the playing of these at my funeral, but if I outlive her…watch out.

However, a problem has arisen with respect to “Stairway to Heaven”, a problem which I thought had been resolved long ago. Another band from back in the day, Spirit, had a song titled “Taurus” that starts out a lot like STH. I thought everybody knew this. Then I realized that a lot of people who used to know this are now dead or can no longer remember much of anything; certainly not Spirit or Randy California. (He did vocals, played guitar and was one of the band’s founders. He actually got his name from Jimi Hendrix. But that’s another story and also involves a Randy Texas. Randy California’s real name was Randy Craig Wolfe which should have been cool enough if you ask me.) Spirit’s instrumental “Taurus” was written and recorded a couple of years before STH. In fact, Spirit was a pretty hot band in the late 60’s and Led Zeppelin actually opened for them a couple of times. They no doubt heard “Taurus” and I guess the tune stuck in their head. They tweaked it just a tad, but it’s basically the same music used in the “Stairway to Heaven” intro.

So when Stairway to Heaven came out, those of us fortunate enough to have Spirit’s first album, creatively titled “Spirit”, immediately recognized the intro music as being essentially the same as Taurus. However, by this time the mainstream was starting to get on board with what would become Classic Rock. In addition, Spirit’s second album had come out with their biggest hit, “I Got a Line On You” (had nothing to do with drugs…or did it?). Spirit became known for that one hit and Led Zeppelin turned out to be one of the greatest rock bands ever. Spirit, the band was forgotten and Taurus, the song, became a footnote in Rock N’ Roll history.

Then this week we hear that Spirit’s founding bassist Mark Andes and the estate of the late Randy California are planning to file a copyright infringement lawsuit and seek an injunction that would prevent Zeppelin from re-releasing the album containing the song, which the band has plans to do this summer. I guess someone forgot to tie up a loose end somewhere. I always figured that some 40 odd years ago Spirit quietly got a check under the table and agreed to keep their mouth shut. And no one was going to pay attention to their handful of burned out fans who were mumbling something about Taurus and those English bastards ripping off our guys.

It’s still hard for me to imagine that this music is over 40 years old. That it’s being re-released and that someone would file suit over it is even more incredible. The cynic in me thinks that the lawsuit is just all part of the promotion. Once again Spirit is getting a check under the table along with a wink and a nod for helping out.

(Randy California died in 1997. He drowned in the Pacific ocean at the age of 45 while rescuing his 12-year-old son Quinn from a rip current near the home of his mother, Bernice Pearl, at Molokai, Hawaii. He managed to push Quinn (who survived) toward the shore.)


And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When all are one and one is all, yeah
To be a rock and not to roll

And she's buying a stairway to heaven

Talent or Skill or Something More Part II

Last time we talked about the importance of talent and skill, the differences between talent and skill and how to evaluate them. We noted that while talent and skill are critical to success, they are not enough. The application of talent and skill requires a strong work ethic as well as the right attitude. We’ve all seen talented and skilled people who lacked the work ethic to be successful. And, then there are those who have the talent, the skill and the work ethic; but their attitude is so negative or downright poisonous that it negates everything else. We proceeded to conclude that if you hire a person who has talent, skills, a strong work ethic and the right attitude; you would expect to have a winner. We noted that organizations go to great lengths to evaluate candidates with regard to these key factors. And then we asked the question: Why do we see so many poor hiring decisions?

Before addressing that question, we need to clarify what we mean here by poor hiring decisions. Just because a hire does not work out, does not mean that it’s a poor hiring decision. Sometimes an organization is so far gone, that even the most capable and qualified candidate cannot succeed. What we’re talking about here is the case where the strategy and resources are such that it is reasonable to expect a successful outcome. Under those conditions, how could a talented, skilled, hard-working professional with a great attitude not be successful?

We alluded to it last time. I called it the “situation”. A better term would be “relevant background”. Specific industry knowledge and experience are critical in certain sectors. In service industries the required knowledge and experience is very critical. And the smaller the organization, the more critical that knowledge and experience becomes. Time and again I have witnessed companies hire executives who lack the “relevant background” to succeed in their organization. It’s risky for me to give specific examples. They know who they are. But, let’s be honest we’ve all seen it. Some of us have had the painful experience of working for one of these companies. Some of us have even been hired for positions we should not have been hired for just because we could check off four out of five boxes: Talent-check, Skills-check, Work Ethic-check, Attitude-check, Background/Experience- meh…close enough.

Realistically, it can be virtually impossible to find candidates who check off every box at the optimal level. My advice to clients is to set REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS for each for these five key factors. Obviously, those requirements will vary by the level and responsibilities of the position. As a general rule, for lower level roles where you have the time and resources for training; you should focus more on talent, work ethic and attitude than skills and background/experience. But when you get to management and executive level positions, especially those closest to operational and commercial activities, you better be CHECKING ALL OF THE BOXES. Don’t get blinded by exceptional candidates who lack the relevant background and experience to succeed in the position. Set reasonable requirements for ‘background/experience’ and do not compromise.

There is a tendency, especially when “non-industry” people are involved in the hiring decision (you know who you are), to hire for the board room not for the business. While I think it’s good to have the outsiders’ perspectives on hiring, just remember…they are outsiders. Sometimes you have no choice other than to go with their decision. But, you can tilt the odds in your favor by starting out with the right specs for the position. And those specs should include industry background/experience that is clearly relevant to the position.

If you happen to be the candidate in one of these “beauty contests”, you should do your own “box checking” . If you lack the relevant background and experience, ask those with whom you interview about the importance of these key factors. And if you get short, empty answers or different answers from different interviewers, those are big red flags. Park your ego at the door and be honest with yourself. Lacking the background and experience in this specific industry segment, can you succeed in this position in this organization?

Talent or Skill or Something More

Talent: A special ability that allows someone to do something well. Innate ability or aptitude.
Skill: The ability to do something that comes from training, experience or practice. Developed talent or ability.
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Every company wants to hire the best person for the job. And every person wants the job that is best for them. Seems simple enough. So why are there so many hiring mistakes? Why do so many companies hire the wrong people and why do so many people take the wrong jobs? People are involved and that always makes it messy. I have certainly come to understand that there are no “sure things” when it comes to hiring. One thing that is “sure” is the difference between TALENT and SKILL. What is not so sure is how one determines or measures talent and skill levels? And, when it comes to doing a specific job, which is more important, talent or skill? And are they even enough?

I have a number of clients who test for talent. These tests tend to measure a candidate’s intellectual capacity or critical thinking ability. They may also use assessment tools to identify work behaviors and management styles. I am actually a big believer in the use of testing and assessments to determine if a candidate has “the required” talent and personality to fit the position (and/or the company). And clearly there are positive correlations between test/assessment results and job success. But, I see some employers setting the bar so high or the specs so tight on their testing that they unnecessarily eliminate candidates who have developed exceptional skills for the position. Or they try to use the one size fits all approach to testing. News flash: Safety people have different profiles than Operations or Sales people. So if you’re going to test and profile candidates, make sure that you are using the right tools in the right way. Otherwise, you will end up eliminating some of the best candidates and selecting from a very small pool of candidates who “pass the tests” or “fit the profile”. You may even end up hiring someone who has the “talent” but lacks the skills to do the job. The old saying “Hire for talent, train for skills” is great advice as long as you’re prepared to “train”. And, oh by the way, can you afford the time and missteps that come from placing a talented, but “unskilled”, person in the job?

Ideally, you want to hire people who are talented AND skilled. And for management and executive positions, you absolutely need both talent and skill. In addition to “testing” for talent, past performance can say a lot about talent level. It can also be a strong indicator of skill. It is often said that past performance is the best indicator of future performance. It’s a simple formula right? Person has the ability (talent) + person develops the ability (skill) = positive performance. Well, not exactly. POSITIVE PERFORMANCE IS NOT ONLY A FUNCTION OF TALENT AND SKILL. It is also the result of application (work), orientation (attitude) and situation (industry, company, location, economy, etc….not the Jersey Shore guy).

So, we can test, assess and interview in ways that help us determine a candidate’s talent level. Education, certifications and past experience/performance also tend to reflect talent and some level of skill. They also give us a sense of application (work) and orientation (attitude). Therefore, if we hire someone who is talented, skilled, possesses a strong work ethic and positive attitude and all of this has been demonstrated with a successful track record of performance, we have a winner. Maybe, maybe not.

The most over-looked and under-estimated variable in the “performance” equation is the “situation”. I call it Ego’s blind spot. And the further up the organizational food chain one travels, the bigger the blind spot. Smart, successful people like to hire other smart, successful people. Self-made birds of a feather flock together. Give a hiring committee a talented, skilled candidate with a record of accomplishments and “executive presence” and you have the proverbial “slam dunk” placement.

So why do so many “slam dunks” hit the back of the rim? We’ll talk about that next time.

Homeless

“To know oneself, is above all, to know what one lacks. It is to measure oneself against the Truth, and not the other way around.”- Flannery O’Connor



From a USA Today article by Lori Grisham

Someone has recently taken up permanent residence on a park bench outside St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Davidson, N.C.

It's "Homeless Jesus," a bronze sculpture by Timothy Schmalz installed in February, which depicts Jesus lying on a park bench under a blanket. His face and hands are covered. His feet, wounded from the crucifixion, are exposed.

"It makes people think about their faith commitment and the plight of the homeless in this country," the Rev. David Buck, St. Alban's minister, told USA TODAY Network.
It's "life-size, interactive, and in keeping with our church's commitment to social justice," he said, noting that the church considers art to be connected to spiritual growth.

The community, which Buck describes as "affluent," has mostly expressed positive reactions to the piece, he says, adding that everyone from atheists to conservative Christians have expressed admiration.

"We wanted to remind ourselves that our faith expresses itself not in beautiful buildings only, but mainly in care for those less fortunate, the marginalized," he said.
A plaque near the sculpture calls the artwork a "visual prayer" for Kate MacIntyre, a member of the church who died in 2007.

A church member gave the statue as a gift in memory of Kate MacIntyre, a former member who died of cancer in 2007. MacIntyre loved public art and helped start art initiatives in the Davidson community, Buck said.

"Homeless Jesus" cost $22,000, but the church did not foot any of the bill, according to Buck.

**********************************************************


I guess I just don’t have a Christian heart. Whatever faith I profess must not go deep enough. Because my reaction to the above report was “really?” While I do believe that Christians (and people of all faiths along with ethical atheists and society in general) should do their part to help those who are less fortunate; how much help is enough? And what sort of help should be offered? When does help just become a way of enabling those on a self-destructive path to enjoy a more comfortable ride? And when does help redirect someone to a better life?

There are a lot of causes for homelessness. Many of the homeless have mental problems. There are drug and alcohol abuse issues. And many of these are veterans. A high percentage of kids who grow up in foster care, end up on the street when they are too old to remain in “the system”. There are the teenage runaways and sexually abused. A disproportionate number of LGBT young people end up on the street. (Ironically many of them rejected by Christian families and communities that now buy $22,000 bronze art pieces to remind themselves not to neglect the homeless.)

We can “think about” our “faith commitment” and the “plight of the homeless”. And perhaps thinking about it will make us feel better or feel worse or just feel. We can also do something by providing basic food, clothing and shelter to those in need. In the grand scheme of things it really does not cost us that much to help the homeless and Jesus pretty much commands us to do so. But don’t play the “Jesus was a homeless person” card. Jesus was much more than a person and although He did not make it His home, He owns this planet and all of creation. In this Easter Season, I don’t see Jesus sleeping on a park bench. He has work to do. We all have work to do.


Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ – Matthew 25: 34-40

If You Don’t Like The Weather, Just Wait….

I read an article this week about Global Cooling. It was written by Keith Schaefer, Editor/Publisher, www.oilandgas-investments.com and titled “Global COOLING – The Real Inconvenient Truth, Part 1.” I must say that Part 1 left me looking forward to Parts 2 and 3. It also led to me look up some other reports regarding the subject of Global Cooling. There’s a lot out there on both sides of the argument. I’m not sure what to believe, but the Global Cooling arguments are starting to make a lot of sense to me. In addition to Schaefer’s recent article, I would also recommend one written last year in Forbes magazine by Peter Ferrara, “To The Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here”,(http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/).

If forced to pick a side in the debate, I come down on the side of Global Cooling. Do I think human activity is having an impact on the earth’s environment? Yes, of course. But compared to the impact of ocean temperature cycles and sun spots, we are just a blip on the map of climate change history. When one reads the reports and reviews the data, it makes some sense that we are heading for a period of significant global cooling. After providing a summary of warming and cooling periods since the Middle Ages, Schaefer makes the following observations about more recent temperatures:

1. Temps continued to fall from 1953 until the mid-1970s – despite rising CO2 levels. This was during the single most industrializing time on earth—and temperatures fell while CO2 levels rose.

2. Another point: if CO2 emissions cause global warming the layer of the atmosphere 5 to 10 km (3-6 miles) above the earth where CO2 interacts with sunlight should be warming more quickly than the earth’s surface. In fact, temperatures at these levels have been unchanged since accurate balloon measurements became available 50 years ago.

3. There has been a large outcry about the decline of Arctic Ice. While Arctic sea ice extent is just above average levels, Arctic sea ice is near record thickness: the volume of ice in the Arctic last fall was 50% higher than 12 months prior, following a very cold summer in 2013 in which temps climbed above freezing only 45 days compared to an average of 90 days. I bet you didn’t read about that.

4. There’s a lot of ice at the other end of the globe too. In eight of the last ten years global sea ice extent has bested the 30-year average, aided by an Antarctic sheet that in October hit its highest extent since record keeping started in 1979.

5. The Northern Hemisphere had its second, third, and fourth highest snow extents on modern record in 2010, 2011, and 2013. In the United States 2013 brought the largest year-over-year drop in temperature on record and the winter is on track to be labeled the third coldest in 200 years.

Evidence of this cooling is everywhere – even if politicians and the media try to pretend it isn’t. Of course, the media has short memories. Only 40 years ago, in mid-1974 Time magazine ran a cover story entitled “Another Ice Age?” noting a 12% increase in New Hampshire snow cover in 30 years.

Conclusion: over the last 1,200 years the earth has been through several pretty extreme temperature swings. What gives?
The answer lies with the sun. Cold periods coincide with solar minimums, which generally happen every 150 to 200 years. Warm periods coincide with solar maxima, which happen every 700 years or so.



And then there is this from the Ferrara article:

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states:

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”


And if you have 75 minutes to invest in the subject, the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is an eye-opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ&feature=player_detailpage

Perhaps I am being overly influenced by the winter of 2013-2014 here in North America. While we experienced one of the worst winters in recent memory, other parts of the Northern Hemisphere had record warmth and little moisture. There are plenty of data points from the last 50 years that point toward global warming. But I am inclined to believe that something else is going on over time that has gone on before. Our lives are short and we view our time here as special. As our scientific knowledge grows, we come to believe that we know cause and effect. And knowing cause and effect, we should be able to find solutions. Or can we? If today’s climate is too hot or too dry and we can’t fix it, where does that leave us? And if over the next 150 years the winters get longer and colder and humans can’t fix that either; perhaps they will just blame us for going too green, too soon.

Otto

'Thank God we can't tell the future. We'd never get out of bed.”
- Tracy Letts, August Osage County.

Otto is an old dachshund whose story went viral last week. It’s a sad tale, but with a happy ending:

“A 13-year-old Dachshund will be reunited with his owners after the elderly couple left him tied up outside a California animal shelter, with a heartbreaking note attached saying they were too sick and poor to cover the dog's medical expenses.

The dog, named Otto, was found outside of the Baldwin Park Animal Shelter near Los Angeles with a hand-written note asking that he be put to sleep because his owners could not afford to care for him, Yahoo News reported.

The note reads, "Our dog is 13 1/2 years old he is sick starting yesterday with bloody stools, vomiting," according to the website. "Had a skin disease for a few years. We are both seniors, sick with no money. We cannot pay for vet bills, or to put him to sleep. He has never been away from us in all those years, he cannot function without us, please put him to sleep."

Workers at the shelter reportedly notified Leave No Paws Behind, Inc., a foster-based rescue operation that specializes in seniors. Yahoo News reported that when Otto was later examined by a veterinarian, it was determined that his condition could be treated and that he likely had more years in which to live.
The rescue group reached out to the dog's owners -- after it was clear the Dachshund had been well taken care of -- to reunite the pooch with the couple.”


I was glad to hear that Otto was rescued, treated and will return to his elderly owners. Sounds like he might even outlive them. Otto dodged a bullet. (Perhaps quite literally if his owners had been Texans.) But it does beg the question, when is it time to put down an old dog? One of ours, Dillon, is 15 years old and he’s still hanging in there. We also have a 5 year old dog, Boudreaux, who pesters Dillon and keeps him active. But the old dog is reaching the end of the line. Dillon has lost about half of his teeth, does not see well, his hearing is about gone and arthritis has taken a toll on his hips and legs. He wakes us up early (real early) every morning and when we don’t wake up or get up he stumbles off into the bathroom to use the tile floor as he still recalls the scolding he got once upon a time for going on the carpet. We don’t like cleaning up his mess in the bathroom, but what are you going do? Whack old Dillon with a newspaper for being old? Even Boudreaux seems to understand that his old friend and mentor can’t help it.

My wife says we need to get a pup and start breaking him in so Boudreaux won’t be alone when Dillon is gone. I say that I’m not sure I want to start up with another dog. The actuarial tables say that I would most likely outlive another dog. But what happens when Boudreaux is gone. Do we get another pup so the surviving dog doesn’t get lonely in his old age? At some point, the oldest dog becomes the last dog and I’d just as soon not leave one behind when I check out.

Thinking about when should a dog’s life end always brings me to the controversial subject of when should a person’s life end. First off, animals and humans are different. God did not make animals in his own image. So we are special and sacred. Therefore, I’m pretty conservative when it comes to the pro-life/abortion discussion. But, I tend to lean to “the left” when it comes to “end of life” issues. When people say that it’s up to God to decide when a person’s life should come to an end, I am inclined to agree with them. But when they go on to argue that it’s our duty to do everything to keep people alive for as long as possible, I must respectfully disagree. There is that “quality of life” conundrum. Who gets to say when the quality of a person’s life is so bad that it’s time to pull the plug? And there’s the other side of the question, who gets to say when the quality of a person’s life is so bad that you “plug” them into some device in the first place? Can we have it both ways? Can we accept that God says when we die, but we say how long, as well as "how" we live even after all indications are that God has said it’s time to die?

There is no one right answer for every person and every situation. I know that I do not want to be dumped off at the county hospital someday with a note on my ‘jammies saying that I’m too old and sick to take care of anymore. Especially, if like old Otto, I have a few more good years left in me. At this point, I plan on using Dillon’s tile floor standard . As long as I’m not making a mess on the carpet, I say life is worth living.

Cracks

Why did Allen, Texas build a $60M football stadium? Simple answer…BECAUSE THEY COULD. Why are people all over the nation, including many in Texas, now cracking up over the news that Eagle Stadium is…wait for it…cracking up? Simple answer…HUMAN NATURE.

When it comes to spending money on sports and entertainment; and make no mistake, Texas High School Football is big-time entertainment in these parts; Americans in particular are willing to spend money. Their own as well as that of the taxpayers. Just the tax exemptions alone on municipal bonds issued for the building of sports complexes cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $150M per year. The city of Arlington TX borrowed over $300M via tax-exempt bonds to help Jerry Jones build the Cowboys’ new stadium. And it is turning out to be a good deal for Arlington. The stadium is constantly in use for sports and entertainment venues (most of them, oh by the way, vastly superior to Cowboy games) and the economic impact on the city of Arlington is huge.

Allen, TX envisioned a similar outcome from their investment. It’s not just about high school football. It’s about other sporting events, concerts and revivals (don’t forget, this is the Bible belt.). For the time being, those cracks in the stadium are a minor setback and probably brought about by the hand of God to teach a lesson in humility to the folks in Allen.

But the bigger question for all of us is how much money should we spend on sports and entertainment? What do our tax codes and our personal spending habits say about our priorities. How do we spend our time? I promise you that aside from work, I spend more time watching, reading and talking about sports than anything else. At the end of the day, most Americans must admit that they are more interested in sports and entertainment than they are in the health, education and welfare of themselves or the fellow citizens. We won’t take the time to vote, go to church, help someone in need or even just read a book; but we will find the time to watch American Idol or our favorite sport. So don’t feel too smug about the cracks in Eagle Stadium. We’re all standing on shaky ground.