Almost daily I see articles posted on the internet about interviewing. Most are targeted at candidates. They focus on the toughest interview questions and the best answers. How to dress for an interview. How to sit. How to make eye contact. Gender-related interview tips. Generational considerations…how should a baby boomer candidate respond to a Gen Y interviewer? The only subject other than job interviewing with a wider array of tips and advice is golf. And I would say the outcomes for job seekers is about the same as the outcomes for golfers. You look and act like you know what your doing but your scores don’t get any better.
To be clear, it is important that you dress appropriately, speak clearly and know how to answer the basic interview questions. But the most important consideration for a candidate is not “How do I get this job?” The most important one is “Can I bring value to this organization?” That should be the primary purpose of your interviewing process. And nowadays it is definitely a process. Certainly for management and executive level talent, the process may go on for weeks and months. A candidate will go through multiple interviews with various people. It is tedious, stressful, necessary and, if done well, revealing.
Sadly, the truth is that most organizations do not do a very good job of interviewing. Even those who believe they have a very thorough interview and evaluation process, tend to select candidates based on factors other than “value to the organization”. Value is important and it is a factor, but it usually trails way behind appearance, personality, work history and how well does the hiring authority like the candidate. And herein lies the greatest risk for both the candidate and the employer. If, on a scale of 1-10, you are a 10 on the “personal” factors and resume, but only a 3 on value; you may get the job, but you aren’t likely to keep it very long.
“Value to the organization” is a big subject on its own and depends on multiple factors. That is a major reason why it is so difficult to determine a candidate’s value to the organization during the interview process. In most cases, it is actually the candidate who is best suited to make that determination. The problem is that most candidates want the job too much and are unwilling to make an honest assessment of their “value fit” for the position and/or the company.
Next time we’ll talk about what a candidate should consider in determining their value to a potential new employer.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
2-4-6-8... How Do We Negotiate?
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain.
Your cup runneth over again
- from the song December, by Collective Soul.
So why did the bottom drop out of American public education just as per-pupil spending soared? Basic economics provides a compelling answer, though countless blue-ribbon commissions, and indeed much of the present national dialogue about school reform, have failed to acknowledge it: the $250 billion public education industry behaves precisely like any other publicly protected monopoly. Union negotiators in the private sector know that if they insist on protecting incompetent workers and cling to outdated work rules, especially in the global economy, the company will begin losing market share, and union members will lose their jobs. In public education, by contrast, collective bargaining takes place without the constraining discipline of the market. When school board representatives sit down with union officials to negotiate a labor contract, neither party is under pressure to pay attention to worker productivity or the system's overall competitiveness: if the contract allows some teachers to be paid for hardly working at all, and others to perform incompetently without penalty, there is no real economic danger for either side. After all, most of the monopoly's customers, the schoolchildren, have nowhere else to go. Historically, tax revenues have continued to flow into the schools no matter how poorly they perform.
The words written above are not mine. They were written in 1997 by Sol Stern (City Journal). The article “How Teachers’ Unions Handcuff Schools” is a good read and very timely even though it was written 14 years ago. It really gets down to the core of the public employee collective bargaining controversy. Economists would characterize public employee collective bargaining as a Monopoly Union Model. This model states that the monopoly union has the power to maximize the wage rate (and benefits, work rules, job security, etc etc.); and the employer then has the right to choose how many people it can afford to hire. The problem comes when the affordable level of employment cannot satisfy customer demand. The customer (parents/students) can either pay more, settle for poor service (higher student-teacher ratios, limited curriculum), relocate or go to private school (aka pay more).
Unions started back in the day because certain industries had monopoly or near monopoly power over workers. All of us from working class backgrounds owe a debt of gratitude to the union movement. Even today, the threat of unionization is a key factor in motivating many employers to pay more and treat their employees better than they might otherwise be inclined to do. So I am not anti-union, at least in theory. But having managed Teamsters once upon a time, I must admit that unions are pain in the ass. And in a deregulated, competitive trucking industry, guess what? The Teamsters overplayed their hand and lost their position as power players in that industry.
If public employees (or any group of employees) have what is essentially monopoly power, including the political leverage to handpick those with whom they will be negotiating pay, benefits and working conditions; we have a serious problem. In the public employee market where “collective bargaining takes place without the constraining discipline of the market”; it would appear that the only constraint is the taxpayers’ willingness to spend more money. And clearly the taxpayers are fed up. If the public employee unions are to survive they must face the same realities that all employers, government or private, face everyday when they turn on the lights. Stated simply, those are economic reality and the reality of providing value to the customer.
Employers and employees who ignore these realties eventually cease to exist.
“Come now, let us reason together…” Isaiah 1:18
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain.
Your cup runneth over again
- from the song December, by Collective Soul.
So why did the bottom drop out of American public education just as per-pupil spending soared? Basic economics provides a compelling answer, though countless blue-ribbon commissions, and indeed much of the present national dialogue about school reform, have failed to acknowledge it: the $250 billion public education industry behaves precisely like any other publicly protected monopoly. Union negotiators in the private sector know that if they insist on protecting incompetent workers and cling to outdated work rules, especially in the global economy, the company will begin losing market share, and union members will lose their jobs. In public education, by contrast, collective bargaining takes place without the constraining discipline of the market. When school board representatives sit down with union officials to negotiate a labor contract, neither party is under pressure to pay attention to worker productivity or the system's overall competitiveness: if the contract allows some teachers to be paid for hardly working at all, and others to perform incompetently without penalty, there is no real economic danger for either side. After all, most of the monopoly's customers, the schoolchildren, have nowhere else to go. Historically, tax revenues have continued to flow into the schools no matter how poorly they perform.
The words written above are not mine. They were written in 1997 by Sol Stern (City Journal). The article “How Teachers’ Unions Handcuff Schools” is a good read and very timely even though it was written 14 years ago. It really gets down to the core of the public employee collective bargaining controversy. Economists would characterize public employee collective bargaining as a Monopoly Union Model. This model states that the monopoly union has the power to maximize the wage rate (and benefits, work rules, job security, etc etc.); and the employer then has the right to choose how many people it can afford to hire. The problem comes when the affordable level of employment cannot satisfy customer demand. The customer (parents/students) can either pay more, settle for poor service (higher student-teacher ratios, limited curriculum), relocate or go to private school (aka pay more).
Unions started back in the day because certain industries had monopoly or near monopoly power over workers. All of us from working class backgrounds owe a debt of gratitude to the union movement. Even today, the threat of unionization is a key factor in motivating many employers to pay more and treat their employees better than they might otherwise be inclined to do. So I am not anti-union, at least in theory. But having managed Teamsters once upon a time, I must admit that unions are pain in the ass. And in a deregulated, competitive trucking industry, guess what? The Teamsters overplayed their hand and lost their position as power players in that industry.
If public employees (or any group of employees) have what is essentially monopoly power, including the political leverage to handpick those with whom they will be negotiating pay, benefits and working conditions; we have a serious problem. In the public employee market where “collective bargaining takes place without the constraining discipline of the market”; it would appear that the only constraint is the taxpayers’ willingness to spend more money. And clearly the taxpayers are fed up. If the public employee unions are to survive they must face the same realities that all employers, government or private, face everyday when they turn on the lights. Stated simply, those are economic reality and the reality of providing value to the customer.
Employers and employees who ignore these realties eventually cease to exist.
“Come now, let us reason together…” Isaiah 1:18
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Just Keep Talking
"The less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it."
Otherwise known as the Law of Inverse Relevance (LIR). We must credit the LIR to a fictional character, Sir Arnold Robinson, who spoke those lines back in the 80’s during the first episode of Yes Minister, a BBC comedy series. I suppose the real credit goes to the writers Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. They also get credit for this jewel:
“Politicians like to panic. They need activity - it is their substitute for achievement.”
And so we watch our government, at all levels, flailing around and trying to figure out how to satisfy “we the people” without taking goodies away from some of “we the people”. What’s going on in Wisconsin today is a classic example. It’s not a matter of IF someone will have to give up something, it’s just a matter of who. And guess what, those who are being asked to give up something are having a fit. At the national level it’s why we resist making meaningful spending cuts or increasing taxes.
Yes, I’m ok with increasing taxes in order to bring down the national debt even though increasing taxes would only amount to a drop in the bucket compared to spending cuts. Our tax revenues account for well under 20% of GDP. Let’s assume that “we the people” would support a 10% increase in taxes across the board. Best case scenario in 2011, we increase revenues $300B on a $3.8 Trillion budget with a projected $1.3 Trillion deficit.
Another way to look at it is that for the past 50 years, tax revenues as a % of GDP have been in the 15-20% range, regardless of tax policy. Pre-Bush tax cuts we were closer to the 20% number, so we’ll use that. And let’s use the optimistic 2011 GDP forecast of $15.2 Trillion. Even with the higher tax rates our revenues would be just over $3 Trillion, well short of the proposed $3.8 Trillion spending budget. We would need a GDP of $19 Trillion and the higher tax rate to support a $3.8 Trillion budget. So when the politicians are struggling to cut $100 billion (that would be 0.1 trillion), I think we are in big trouble. We have to cut spending, seriously cut spending.
And I’m not one of those who insists that we must pay off our national debt. That’s crazy. Some level of debt is acceptable. Since WWII, our debt as has ranged from 1/3 to 2/3 of GDP. But we are now close to a debt level that equals GDP and will soon exceed it. Since 1984 our GDP has grown by over 350%. Our national debt has grown by over 850% !!! Clearly an unsustainable pace.
Another way to look at it is that IF we maintain our current debt level at around $14 trillion, our GDP would need to reach $21 trillion for us to get back to a what would still be considered a relatively high 66% debt-to-GDP ratio. That also means our GDP needs to increase by almost 50%. The good news is that is very doable over a decade or perhaps less.
STEP 1 IN RETURNING TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IS DO NOT ADD TO THE CURRENT DEFICIT…PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION. Cut spending, raise taxes, whatever; but do not add one more penny to the national debt.
That means putting everything on the table including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Given our demographics and the rising costs of healthcare, we cannot resolve the debt problems without addressing these three areas. These three and the defense budget are the big buck items. We have to cut, cap and/or figure out a way to pay for them.
In talking about the government, Will Rogers once said: “If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?” Will Rogers was making a joke. I’m not sure that it was just stupidity that got us into the current mess, but I am sure that stupidity will not get us out of it. Neither will talk. The time for talk is over. It’s time to fix the problem.
Otherwise known as the Law of Inverse Relevance (LIR). We must credit the LIR to a fictional character, Sir Arnold Robinson, who spoke those lines back in the 80’s during the first episode of Yes Minister, a BBC comedy series. I suppose the real credit goes to the writers Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. They also get credit for this jewel:
“Politicians like to panic. They need activity - it is their substitute for achievement.”
And so we watch our government, at all levels, flailing around and trying to figure out how to satisfy “we the people” without taking goodies away from some of “we the people”. What’s going on in Wisconsin today is a classic example. It’s not a matter of IF someone will have to give up something, it’s just a matter of who. And guess what, those who are being asked to give up something are having a fit. At the national level it’s why we resist making meaningful spending cuts or increasing taxes.
Yes, I’m ok with increasing taxes in order to bring down the national debt even though increasing taxes would only amount to a drop in the bucket compared to spending cuts. Our tax revenues account for well under 20% of GDP. Let’s assume that “we the people” would support a 10% increase in taxes across the board. Best case scenario in 2011, we increase revenues $300B on a $3.8 Trillion budget with a projected $1.3 Trillion deficit.
Another way to look at it is that for the past 50 years, tax revenues as a % of GDP have been in the 15-20% range, regardless of tax policy. Pre-Bush tax cuts we were closer to the 20% number, so we’ll use that. And let’s use the optimistic 2011 GDP forecast of $15.2 Trillion. Even with the higher tax rates our revenues would be just over $3 Trillion, well short of the proposed $3.8 Trillion spending budget. We would need a GDP of $19 Trillion and the higher tax rate to support a $3.8 Trillion budget. So when the politicians are struggling to cut $100 billion (that would be 0.1 trillion), I think we are in big trouble. We have to cut spending, seriously cut spending.
And I’m not one of those who insists that we must pay off our national debt. That’s crazy. Some level of debt is acceptable. Since WWII, our debt as has ranged from 1/3 to 2/3 of GDP. But we are now close to a debt level that equals GDP and will soon exceed it. Since 1984 our GDP has grown by over 350%. Our national debt has grown by over 850% !!! Clearly an unsustainable pace.
Another way to look at it is that IF we maintain our current debt level at around $14 trillion, our GDP would need to reach $21 trillion for us to get back to a what would still be considered a relatively high 66% debt-to-GDP ratio. That also means our GDP needs to increase by almost 50%. The good news is that is very doable over a decade or perhaps less.
STEP 1 IN RETURNING TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IS DO NOT ADD TO THE CURRENT DEFICIT…PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION. Cut spending, raise taxes, whatever; but do not add one more penny to the national debt.
That means putting everything on the table including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Given our demographics and the rising costs of healthcare, we cannot resolve the debt problems without addressing these three areas. These three and the defense budget are the big buck items. We have to cut, cap and/or figure out a way to pay for them.
In talking about the government, Will Rogers once said: “If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?” Will Rogers was making a joke. I’m not sure that it was just stupidity that got us into the current mess, but I am sure that stupidity will not get us out of it. Neither will talk. The time for talk is over. It’s time to fix the problem.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Why God Loves Sports
In case you haven’t heard, a game is being played this Sunday. It is a very big game, played by very big men and a lot of people care way too much about the outcome. I’ll be happy either way because I like both the Packers and the Steelers. (But I will be rooting for the Packers.)
Of course our culture is obsessed with sports, not just football. But sports obsession is not just an American malady. Ever watch World Cup Soccer? How about the Olympics? I will admit that we Americans are more obsessed with sports than most other nations, but there are good reasons for this obsession. We have incredible access to sports, if not to play then certainly to watch. And we have money to spend on our sports obsessions.
Whether we should or not is another question. But it’s undeniable that we do. Just ask Jerry Jones.
I think our love of sports goes deeper. Human beings are wired for play. God made us not just for work and worship; he also made us for play. We are made to play and to enjoy watching others play. As we are made in God’s image, I think He also likes play. At times sports bring out the best of His creation. And, unfortunately, at times sports bring out the worst.
God loves sports even though he knows who will win and who will lose. He doesn’t care much about that. God loves sports even though too much money changes hands, legally or otherwise. He knows that some play in the light and some play in the dark. But, He still likes sports because sports are fun. (He created fun too, you know.) He likes to see how we will play and how will we cheer for those who play. He likes to see how we will handle winning and, perhaps more importantly, how we will handle losing. So enjoy the Super Bowl and behave as though God were sitting there beside you with a beer and a slice of pizza. (And maybe…just maybe, He’s even wearing a cheesehead this year.)
Of course our culture is obsessed with sports, not just football. But sports obsession is not just an American malady. Ever watch World Cup Soccer? How about the Olympics? I will admit that we Americans are more obsessed with sports than most other nations, but there are good reasons for this obsession. We have incredible access to sports, if not to play then certainly to watch. And we have money to spend on our sports obsessions.
Whether we should or not is another question. But it’s undeniable that we do. Just ask Jerry Jones.
I think our love of sports goes deeper. Human beings are wired for play. God made us not just for work and worship; he also made us for play. We are made to play and to enjoy watching others play. As we are made in God’s image, I think He also likes play. At times sports bring out the best of His creation. And, unfortunately, at times sports bring out the worst.
God loves sports even though he knows who will win and who will lose. He doesn’t care much about that. God loves sports even though too much money changes hands, legally or otherwise. He knows that some play in the light and some play in the dark. But, He still likes sports because sports are fun. (He created fun too, you know.) He likes to see how we will play and how will we cheer for those who play. He likes to see how we will handle winning and, perhaps more importantly, how we will handle losing. So enjoy the Super Bowl and behave as though God were sitting there beside you with a beer and a slice of pizza. (And maybe…just maybe, He’s even wearing a cheesehead this year.)
Saturday, January 29, 2011
8 Signs It's Time to Change Jobs
Over the past couple of years people were just happy to have a job. But now with an improving economy and increased hiring, some of you are taking stock of your current employment situation. When do you know it’s really time to change jobs? A few years ago this list came out and it’s credited to Richard Bayer, Ph.D., chief operating officer of The Five O'Clock Club (www.fiveoclockclub.com), a national career-counseling network based in New York City:
1. You don't fit in. Your values don't match the company's. If your colleagues are "dishonest and focused on getting ahead regardless of legal or moral barriers," Bayer says it's time to quit before an Enron-style scandal sinks the ship.
2. Your boss doesn't like you and you don't like him or her. If your boss never asks your opinion, and never wants to chat or have lunch with you, and if you disagree with his or her agenda and dislike their style, your days are numbered. Adds Bayer: "If you've ever done something that undermined your boss, you might as well get out now."
3. Your peers don't like you. Feeling isolated, gossiped about, and excluded from the inner workings of the organization is a very bad sign, as is feeling that you're not part of the team and wouldn't socialize with your colleagues even if they asked you.
4. You don't get assignments that demonstrate the full range of your abilities. "Watching all the good assignments go to others, while you're given the ones that play to your weaknesses or are beneath your professional level, should tell you something," says Bayer. Likewise, if it seems the boss doesn't trust your judgment, you're in trouble.
5. You always get called upon to do the "grunt work." Everybody has to take on a dull or routine task now and then, but if you are constantly being singled out to do the work no one else wants, alarm bells should ring.
6. You are excluded from meetings your peers are invited to. Sound familiar? If it's painfully clear that your ideas aren't valued, why stick around?
7. Everyone on your level has an office. You have a cubicle in the hallway. Bayer notes that, whatever your title, your digs can speak volumes about your real status in the organization. If your peers have offices with windows and you're asked to move into a broom closet - no matter what the official explanation - start cleaning out your desk.
8. You dread going to work and feel like you're developing an ulcer. Ah, here's yet another of your symptoms, and a particularly nasty one at that.
Any of these signs striking close to home? If so, it might be time to update that resume and start looking for greener pastures.
1. You don't fit in. Your values don't match the company's. If your colleagues are "dishonest and focused on getting ahead regardless of legal or moral barriers," Bayer says it's time to quit before an Enron-style scandal sinks the ship.
2. Your boss doesn't like you and you don't like him or her. If your boss never asks your opinion, and never wants to chat or have lunch with you, and if you disagree with his or her agenda and dislike their style, your days are numbered. Adds Bayer: "If you've ever done something that undermined your boss, you might as well get out now."
3. Your peers don't like you. Feeling isolated, gossiped about, and excluded from the inner workings of the organization is a very bad sign, as is feeling that you're not part of the team and wouldn't socialize with your colleagues even if they asked you.
4. You don't get assignments that demonstrate the full range of your abilities. "Watching all the good assignments go to others, while you're given the ones that play to your weaknesses or are beneath your professional level, should tell you something," says Bayer. Likewise, if it seems the boss doesn't trust your judgment, you're in trouble.
5. You always get called upon to do the "grunt work." Everybody has to take on a dull or routine task now and then, but if you are constantly being singled out to do the work no one else wants, alarm bells should ring.
6. You are excluded from meetings your peers are invited to. Sound familiar? If it's painfully clear that your ideas aren't valued, why stick around?
7. Everyone on your level has an office. You have a cubicle in the hallway. Bayer notes that, whatever your title, your digs can speak volumes about your real status in the organization. If your peers have offices with windows and you're asked to move into a broom closet - no matter what the official explanation - start cleaning out your desk.
8. You dread going to work and feel like you're developing an ulcer. Ah, here's yet another of your symptoms, and a particularly nasty one at that.
Any of these signs striking close to home? If so, it might be time to update that resume and start looking for greener pastures.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
That Giant Sucking Sound
Ross Perot coined this phrase back in the early 90’s as he objected to NAFTA during his campaign for the Presidency. Boone Pickens resurrected it a couple of years ago in describing the impact of foreign oil on the U.S. economy. And now I can think of no better to describe what might happen to our fragile economic recovery in 2011 and is certain to happen eventually.
Ok, I’m on the record as being eternally pessimistic and I tend to be uncomfortable when things are going well. But I take no pleasure in predicting that we will soon be back in recession mode. It’s not complicated. We cannot take 350-400 Million dollars per day out of consumer pockets and expect to keep the economy on track. It just doesn’t work. Some are forecasting that summer gasoline prices will be in the $3.75-4.00 per gallon range. At least a dollar per gallon more than it was in 2010. The United States consumes between 350 and 400 million gallons of gasoline per day. (That’s just gasoline…not diesel or any other petroleum related products).
The knockout punch in 2008 may have been the housing bubble or the credit crunch, but it was set up by months of body blows in the form of rapidly rising gasoline prices. When you take $100 or $200 out of a family’s monthly budget just to buy gasoline, it will soon take its toll on the economy. IF the $3.75-$4.00 per gallon predictions are correct, we will be taking almost $150 BILLION PER YEAR out of mainstream economic circulation. Yes, some of it does stay in this country and some individuals prosper from higher oil prices and spend those dollars on other goods and services. But for the most part, it’s bad for our economy. Depending upon what you believe about how a dollar circulates through the economy when used to buy something other than gasoline, the real economic effect is multiplied two or three times.
However, some are saying that we will dodge the big bullet, at least for awhile. If gasoline prices settle in at around $3.25 per gallon this year as most industry analysts predict, the economy may wobble a bit, but should be able to maintain the forward momentum. The real question is not IF gasoline will get back to $4 per gallon, but WHEN. And when it does, That Giant Sucking Sound will be too loud to ignore.
Ok, I’m on the record as being eternally pessimistic and I tend to be uncomfortable when things are going well. But I take no pleasure in predicting that we will soon be back in recession mode. It’s not complicated. We cannot take 350-400 Million dollars per day out of consumer pockets and expect to keep the economy on track. It just doesn’t work. Some are forecasting that summer gasoline prices will be in the $3.75-4.00 per gallon range. At least a dollar per gallon more than it was in 2010. The United States consumes between 350 and 400 million gallons of gasoline per day. (That’s just gasoline…not diesel or any other petroleum related products).
The knockout punch in 2008 may have been the housing bubble or the credit crunch, but it was set up by months of body blows in the form of rapidly rising gasoline prices. When you take $100 or $200 out of a family’s monthly budget just to buy gasoline, it will soon take its toll on the economy. IF the $3.75-$4.00 per gallon predictions are correct, we will be taking almost $150 BILLION PER YEAR out of mainstream economic circulation. Yes, some of it does stay in this country and some individuals prosper from higher oil prices and spend those dollars on other goods and services. But for the most part, it’s bad for our economy. Depending upon what you believe about how a dollar circulates through the economy when used to buy something other than gasoline, the real economic effect is multiplied two or three times.
However, some are saying that we will dodge the big bullet, at least for awhile. If gasoline prices settle in at around $3.25 per gallon this year as most industry analysts predict, the economy may wobble a bit, but should be able to maintain the forward momentum. The real question is not IF gasoline will get back to $4 per gallon, but WHEN. And when it does, That Giant Sucking Sound will be too loud to ignore.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Why Are We Shocked?
For the past week everyone has had their say or written about the shootings in Tucson. Well, I might as well take my turn.
First of all I don’t know what caused this particular tragedy. I’m not that smart. But I’m not shocked when something like this happens.
Secondly, I don’t know whom we should hold responsible (other than the shooter). I’m not that smart. But I’m not shocked that someone would commit this heinous act of violence.
Third, I don’t know how to prevent this type of tragedy from happening again. I’m not that smart. But, I won’t be shocked when it does happen again.
Why are we shocked? We live in a violent world. The United States is a violent nation. We like our guns and we like to shoot them. I own guns, several guns including handguns, shotguns and rifles. I like my guns, I like to shoot them; and I will use them to protect my family. I believe that we should have the right to bear arms, but not without rules and limitations. It is way too easy for people to get guns in this country. I don’t have a good answer. I know that deranged people will find a way to act on their violent intentions with or without a semi-automatic and a twenty round clip. I know that criminals will find a way to get weapons. So I’m not shocked when someone uses a gun to commit a violent act.
Why are we shocked? Television, movies and video games deliver messages that violence gets results. Some of my favorite movies are those where the lonely hero exacts bloody vengeance on the evildoers. Who didn’t cheer when, in Lonesome Dove, Gus McRae said “They don't know yet, but the wrath of the Lord is about to descend on 'em come sundown”.
Then he proceeds to single-handedly wipe out the villains who had kidnapped and raped Ms. Lorena. When Denzel Washington goes after Dakota Fanning’s kidnappers in the movie “Man on Fire”, it is a beautiful thing. And I was all for Clarence (Christian Slater) shooting that nasty pimp, Drexl (Gary Oldman) in the ‘nads and then between the eyes in True Romance. However, some people cannot separate reality from fiction. Violence becomes a solution. Violence is justice served, payback earned. So again, I am not shocked when someone commits a violent act.
Why are we shocked….when a madman shooter gets not just 15 minutes of fame, but days and weeks and fame forever? For the crazies out there, the only question becomes…how to go out with a big enough bang. Oklahoma City, Columbine, the Beltway Snipers, Virginia Tech…now Tucson. We want to know about them. We need to know about them. But their desire to be known, or at least to do a thing that will be known forever, is somehow part of their madness. I am not shocked when someone on the edge chooses violence as a pathway to celebrity status.
Why are we shocked when a mentally ill person commits a violent crime? Why are shocked when we find out that a violent act was committed by someone “under the influence”? Why are we shocked that someone did not do something sooner when all the signs were there? Why are we shocked? Because we cannot face reality. We cannot face the reality of a problem that is so huge and so unmanageable, that we know it will happen again. So we pacify ourselves by agreeing to “tone down the rhetoric”, to engage in “more civil discourse”, to be nice and respectful, to not use violent metaphors as we compete in politics, sports and commerce. We agree to tip-toe through the crazies and pray that we are not their next target. Why are we shocked?
First of all I don’t know what caused this particular tragedy. I’m not that smart. But I’m not shocked when something like this happens.
Secondly, I don’t know whom we should hold responsible (other than the shooter). I’m not that smart. But I’m not shocked that someone would commit this heinous act of violence.
Third, I don’t know how to prevent this type of tragedy from happening again. I’m not that smart. But, I won’t be shocked when it does happen again.
Why are we shocked? We live in a violent world. The United States is a violent nation. We like our guns and we like to shoot them. I own guns, several guns including handguns, shotguns and rifles. I like my guns, I like to shoot them; and I will use them to protect my family. I believe that we should have the right to bear arms, but not without rules and limitations. It is way too easy for people to get guns in this country. I don’t have a good answer. I know that deranged people will find a way to act on their violent intentions with or without a semi-automatic and a twenty round clip. I know that criminals will find a way to get weapons. So I’m not shocked when someone uses a gun to commit a violent act.
Why are we shocked? Television, movies and video games deliver messages that violence gets results. Some of my favorite movies are those where the lonely hero exacts bloody vengeance on the evildoers. Who didn’t cheer when, in Lonesome Dove, Gus McRae said “They don't know yet, but the wrath of the Lord is about to descend on 'em come sundown”.
Then he proceeds to single-handedly wipe out the villains who had kidnapped and raped Ms. Lorena. When Denzel Washington goes after Dakota Fanning’s kidnappers in the movie “Man on Fire”, it is a beautiful thing. And I was all for Clarence (Christian Slater) shooting that nasty pimp, Drexl (Gary Oldman) in the ‘nads and then between the eyes in True Romance. However, some people cannot separate reality from fiction. Violence becomes a solution. Violence is justice served, payback earned. So again, I am not shocked when someone commits a violent act.
Why are we shocked….when a madman shooter gets not just 15 minutes of fame, but days and weeks and fame forever? For the crazies out there, the only question becomes…how to go out with a big enough bang. Oklahoma City, Columbine, the Beltway Snipers, Virginia Tech…now Tucson. We want to know about them. We need to know about them. But their desire to be known, or at least to do a thing that will be known forever, is somehow part of their madness. I am not shocked when someone on the edge chooses violence as a pathway to celebrity status.
Why are we shocked when a mentally ill person commits a violent crime? Why are shocked when we find out that a violent act was committed by someone “under the influence”? Why are we shocked that someone did not do something sooner when all the signs were there? Why are we shocked? Because we cannot face reality. We cannot face the reality of a problem that is so huge and so unmanageable, that we know it will happen again. So we pacify ourselves by agreeing to “tone down the rhetoric”, to engage in “more civil discourse”, to be nice and respectful, to not use violent metaphors as we compete in politics, sports and commerce. We agree to tip-toe through the crazies and pray that we are not their next target. Why are we shocked?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)