Wow. It's not every day you hear about employees at a Veterans' Hospital stealing personal financial information from disabled veterans and using it for wild shopping sprees.
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_10598073
(Paste the above in to read about what happened at the Edith Nourse Vets' Facility in Bedford)
I think I can see a lot of gray area in certain criminal cases, but not here. I hope these people can find their own forgiveness and salvation, but I would strongly prefer it be done in some type of corrective facility.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
What's Good, What's Bad, and What's (Relatively) Original
** Before I start this entry, I just want to announce to friends, neighbors, and the Venn Diagram overlap thereof that I am the proud new owner of a TV connection (local channels only, but still a huge improvement) and a real, live Internet connection in the house. So if you sent me a Yahoo e-mail (blocked from work) in the past many weeks, I am just going to see it now when I dig out from under the rubble of advertisements about penny Internet stocks and improved, uh...performance.**
The other day, I was accused of using the code words "cool," "sweet" and "uh-huh" as better-sounding proxies for "I'm not listening to you."
I strongly disagreed -- first of all, I was listening to everything being said, and second of all, it made me wonder just how else is someone supposed to convey the fact that they're listening? I meant that not as a rhetorical question or to be a contrarian wise-ass, but in a very sincere and plaintive way -- when I'm listening to something that's generally interesting but not given to two-way interaction, how better to acknowledge during the pauses than to just say things like "sweet," "cool" and "uh-huh"? (I still don't know, by the way, and would welcome any reader input here).
Even better, though, it brought back to mind a blog topic that I introduced a while back but still believe merits further debate/discussion -- good talk v. bad talk.
I don't recommend you do this, but I've actually taken the time to read The Seven Highly Effective Ways to Influence Emotionally Intelligent People from Venus and Mars who Move Cheese in One Minute While Taking the Path Less Traveled and Displaying the Effective Traits of Leadership.
Guess what every one of those books is chomping at the bit to tell you?
To be more effective, to be a better leader/husband/brother/co-worker/ parishioner/ neighbor/boss etc. you need to be a better listener.
Well, that's generally good advice, but it's entirely built upon a premise that I'm not sure I buy -- anytime someone speaks, all those around have some immediate obligation to stop whatever they're doing, fully engage the speaker, and listen.
I respectfully beg to differ.
Personally, I find it very hard -- painful, even -- to listen to those who fail to either enunciate or turn up the volume loud enough so I don't have to strain myself to hear or understand them. At some point, I just stop.
And as much as I'm engaged -- even enthralled -- by stories that involve the interpersonal humor all around us in everyday life, or by observations that start with "Did you ever notice..." I can't pretend to care about someone used to love Skittles but now never eats them, or about how their cat scratched them last night at 2, and then they woke up, but then couldn't go back to sleep until 3, and then the cat scratched them again, so they went right back to bed at four, but when the cat scratched them at 5, they were like, "What the heck?"
My workplace is an eclectic mix of people who are there to fulfill demanding, full-time jobs for senior officers alongside those in a Limited Duty (LIMDU)-status holding tank, whose purpose is to watch the paint dry while they're being out-processed, usually for medical reasons. As you might be able to guess, I fall under the former category, so if I have any prayer of leaving my office before 7 p.m., I don't have time to listen to the eighth re-hashing of your 'escape from Foxwoods' story. So if you start to tell it, I'm just going to look back at my monitor, get back to my job, and remind you that lunchtime or PT would be great for that, but please, not now.
So what amazes me about all these pop psychology and self-help bestsellers is that they're full of advice about how we need to be better listeners, but I've yet to encounter a one that advises readers to become better talkers.
So what is good talk?
There's no single answer. It's way too dependent on the audience and the given set of circumstances, but you could probably just summarize it like this: Might it interest the audience at hand? If it does, it's probably good talk. If it doesn't, it's probably bad talk.
As a little experiment in practicality, think about which of your immediate co-workers are the most-liked and best-respected. Now think about the least-liked and worst-respected. The next time you're in the faculty lounge, wardroom, company cafeteria, or whatever your equivalent break space, listen to what comes out of their mouths. I can almost guarantee you that the most-liked and most-influential colleagues engage primarily in good talk, while those on the wrong side of the coin are quick to engage in bad talk.
** Please note: 'Good' and 'Bad' talking has almost no correlation to how much someone is saying. It has much more to do with the way an audience receives it, and how a speaker reacts to that cueing.
So why did I title this entry the way I did?
If you go back through old entries on this blog, you'll find a few themes running through them:
America is a great, though imperfect, nation.
Lowell, though also far from perfect, is a great and still-underrated city that is on the up-and-up in most ways imaginable.
It's way harder to drive the bus than to sit in the back and throw spitballs towards the front.
Don't go through life with a scorecard. Not everyone's out to get you. Mostly, they don't care.
The other day, I was accused of using the code words "cool," "sweet" and "uh-huh" as better-sounding proxies for "I'm not listening to you."
I strongly disagreed -- first of all, I was listening to everything being said, and second of all, it made me wonder just how else is someone supposed to convey the fact that they're listening? I meant that not as a rhetorical question or to be a contrarian wise-ass, but in a very sincere and plaintive way -- when I'm listening to something that's generally interesting but not given to two-way interaction, how better to acknowledge during the pauses than to just say things like "sweet," "cool" and "uh-huh"? (I still don't know, by the way, and would welcome any reader input here).
Even better, though, it brought back to mind a blog topic that I introduced a while back but still believe merits further debate/discussion -- good talk v. bad talk.
I don't recommend you do this, but I've actually taken the time to read The Seven Highly Effective Ways to Influence Emotionally Intelligent People from Venus and Mars who Move Cheese in One Minute While Taking the Path Less Traveled and Displaying the Effective Traits of Leadership.
Guess what every one of those books is chomping at the bit to tell you?
To be more effective, to be a better leader/husband/brother/co-worker/ parishioner/ neighbor/boss etc. you need to be a better listener.
Well, that's generally good advice, but it's entirely built upon a premise that I'm not sure I buy -- anytime someone speaks, all those around have some immediate obligation to stop whatever they're doing, fully engage the speaker, and listen.
I respectfully beg to differ.
Personally, I find it very hard -- painful, even -- to listen to those who fail to either enunciate or turn up the volume loud enough so I don't have to strain myself to hear or understand them. At some point, I just stop.
And as much as I'm engaged -- even enthralled -- by stories that involve the interpersonal humor all around us in everyday life, or by observations that start with "Did you ever notice..." I can't pretend to care about someone used to love Skittles but now never eats them, or about how their cat scratched them last night at 2, and then they woke up, but then couldn't go back to sleep until 3, and then the cat scratched them again, so they went right back to bed at four, but when the cat scratched them at 5, they were like, "What the heck?"
My workplace is an eclectic mix of people who are there to fulfill demanding, full-time jobs for senior officers alongside those in a Limited Duty (LIMDU)-status holding tank, whose purpose is to watch the paint dry while they're being out-processed, usually for medical reasons. As you might be able to guess, I fall under the former category, so if I have any prayer of leaving my office before 7 p.m., I don't have time to listen to the eighth re-hashing of your 'escape from Foxwoods' story. So if you start to tell it, I'm just going to look back at my monitor, get back to my job, and remind you that lunchtime or PT would be great for that, but please, not now.
So what amazes me about all these pop psychology and self-help bestsellers is that they're full of advice about how we need to be better listeners, but I've yet to encounter a one that advises readers to become better talkers.
So what is good talk?
There's no single answer. It's way too dependent on the audience and the given set of circumstances, but you could probably just summarize it like this: Might it interest the audience at hand? If it does, it's probably good talk. If it doesn't, it's probably bad talk.
As a little experiment in practicality, think about which of your immediate co-workers are the most-liked and best-respected. Now think about the least-liked and worst-respected. The next time you're in the faculty lounge, wardroom, company cafeteria, or whatever your equivalent break space, listen to what comes out of their mouths. I can almost guarantee you that the most-liked and most-influential colleagues engage primarily in good talk, while those on the wrong side of the coin are quick to engage in bad talk.
** Please note: 'Good' and 'Bad' talking has almost no correlation to how much someone is saying. It has much more to do with the way an audience receives it, and how a speaker reacts to that cueing.
So why did I title this entry the way I did?
If you go back through old entries on this blog, you'll find a few themes running through them:
America is a great, though imperfect, nation.
Lowell, though also far from perfect, is a great and still-underrated city that is on the up-and-up in most ways imaginable.
It's way harder to drive the bus than to sit in the back and throw spitballs towards the front.
Don't go through life with a scorecard. Not everyone's out to get you. Mostly, they don't care.
People aren't all good or all bad. Pattern analysis will reveal their character, good and bad.
Stop fighting for the best parking spots, and enjoy the breeze on a nice September day.
Those are all wonderful thoughts, but guess what?
Someone, somewhere, has already said them all. This is why "Good and Bad Talk" really stands out for me. I don't personally claim it at all. In fact, the "Matt" and "Nick" who comment here from time to time are at least as responsible for framing the idea as I am. But that's not the point -- this isn't about ownership. Besides, I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has written about this exact same issue, though they may have couched it in somewhat different terms.
The part that blows my mind is just that this basic, simple idea isn't more widespread in things like Leadership Seminars and the shelves of your local bookstore. Like I just said, I don't claim pure originality here, I just claim amazement at not having seen it before outside of maybe a single George Carlin routine where he makes fun of couples who talk about their vacations.
Here's how you can do your part: The next time you're at some corporate retreat where some guru with a European goatee and chic glasses tells your management about the value of good listening, pipe up and counter with the need to tell people to be better talkers.
And the next time someone calls you to tell you that they saw a great jacket at the mall, but weren't sure about the price tag, and then saw that it was slightly marked down and just decided to say what the heck and go for it, tell them to nip it in the bud -- that's bad talk.
I'm always half-amazed and fully-flattered when I get an e-mail from completely out of the blue from someone I haven't spoken with in months, and they mention that they read The New Englander and they dig it. As I'm sure they've noticed, I've cut back on my operational tempo a bit (Internet limitations and a new set of time constraints) but have still tried to average a couple of meaningful, thoughtful entries each week.
Among all these typed words, if I had to pick any single idea, entry, or thought that I would in turn encourage people to pass on, this is it, right here -- differentiating good talk from bad talk.
Know the difference, and spread the word -- but only to those who would appreciate your words, and listen.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Hamilton Canal Breakthrough
Great news on the local political front yesterday -- the Lowell City Council unanimously green-lighted the sale of 10.9 acres of land to be developed in the JAM area (Jackson-Appleton-Middlesex) -- the cornerstone of what will be known as the Hamilton Canal District.
As a downtown property owner living on the JAM border, I'm naturally psyched -- this area now is still pockmarked by urban blight, but is poised to undergo a massive overhaul.
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_10545246
For a fuller description of what's coming, go to this link:
http://www.hamiltoncanal.com
As a downtown property owner living on the JAM border, I'm naturally psyched -- this area now is still pockmarked by urban blight, but is poised to undergo a massive overhaul.
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_10545246
For a fuller description of what's coming, go to this link:
http://www.hamiltoncanal.com
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Who Serves?
The link below will take you to a NY Times article describing a Heritage Foundation study about who actually makes up the ranks of the modern military -- background and overall demographic profile. Unfortunately, not enough Americans realize that the whole idea of the military being made up disproportionately of the under-educated, the poor, and people of color is a complete myth.
This has only become MORE the case in the post-9/11 climate. Anyone in the military is already familiar with most of this, but it's amazing how much this idea persists among America's chattering classes.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/
The article doesn't get into this at all, but I think a lot of people would be honestly surprised if they knew more about military pay and overall compensation. For a mid-level O-3 serving in the Northeast (that's Captain in the Army or Lieutenant in the Navy) the adjusted annual salary would work out to somewhere in the neighborhood of $75k.
Obviously, there are civilian professions that pay far in excess of that, but it sure ain't a vow of poverty.
This has only become MORE the case in the post-9/11 climate. Anyone in the military is already familiar with most of this, but it's amazing how much this idea persists among America's chattering classes.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/
The article doesn't get into this at all, but I think a lot of people would be honestly surprised if they knew more about military pay and overall compensation. For a mid-level O-3 serving in the Northeast (that's Captain in the Army or Lieutenant in the Navy) the adjusted annual salary would work out to somewhere in the neighborhood of $75k.
Obviously, there are civilian professions that pay far in excess of that, but it sure ain't a vow of poverty.
...No Rocket Surgery Required
I was looking at an otherwise-great picture of the Missus and I standing in Mont Royal Park in Montreal with the whole city behind/below us as a backdrop when I noticed something disturbing -- I was entering my second trimester.
No, that wasn't a typo -- she wasn't entering her second trimester.
I was.
I've kind of noticed for a while that my diet (eat everything in sight, sometimes literally) and lack of aerobic activity was leading to some real growth in the mid-section, but I sort of just sloughed it off, sucking in the gut when I could and just thinking I could hide it because of some shoulder/chest bulk that would keep me from looking like a pear.
That is, until I saw that picture.
So what did I do?
I started making a conscious decision to run nearly every day. I did some basic research and found that every 3500 calories burned more or less kills a pound of fat, so I figure my running regimen will shed about one pound a week -- a healthy goal. I'm also cutting out the Dunkin Donuts in the morning and the Taco Bell in the evening in favor of some lighter fare.
And guess what? Surprise, surprise -- the gut is starting to go away. It's slow-going but I'm confident the gains made so far will stay with me as the new habits become ingrained.
I saw my aunt in Chelmsford this weekend and she commented on how I'd lost weight...(it's funny, that actually just reinforced what the picture taught me -- that there was weight to lose in the first place, something I had been half-wittingly blind to).
So why am I telling you this?
Detailed talk of diets, workouts, or any related gastrointestinal matters is quintessential "bad talk" (subject of a coming entry).
But here's my point -- If you're trying to diet or exercise to lose weight or gain muscle, STOP OVERTHINKING IT.
As one old boss of mine used to quip, "This ain't rocket surgery when you get down to it."
Really, it's not. I'm sure there are some people with naturally slow metabolisms and legitimate health issues that cause them to gain and retain weight, but for the rest of the population, the answer is just to stop splitting the atom.
People spend way too much time thinking and overthinking their diets, when what they should really be doing is finding a little bit of time every day to walk or jog, and just cutting out the worst excesses of what they take in.
Since I've started thinking about it more in the past couple weeks, I've talked to some sailors who had failed PRT "weigh-ins" in the past, and they all talked about what they did to drop the pounds needed to pass.
As you might guess, there were no magical potions, pills, formulas or shortcuts -- they were volun-told to begin running 3 x per week around the base, eat a little bit better, and lo and behold, the pounds came off by the dozens.
I will always love food. I will always love beer. And I will always love conversation.
I will always REALLY love it when the three can be had in concert, so I will NEVER become one of those annoying calorie-counters or people who muse about how "guilty" they'll feel for ordering dessert. In fact, I hope not to return to this topic ever again on this blog (though comments are always welcome as ever).
But I'll run when I can, and I'll cut back on the donuts. I can't guarantee the waistline won't ever start to make its return, but if it does, it'll be no one's fault but mine.
All I can promise you is that I'll spare you the details, and I won't overthink it.
No, that wasn't a typo -- she wasn't entering her second trimester.
I was.
I've kind of noticed for a while that my diet (eat everything in sight, sometimes literally) and lack of aerobic activity was leading to some real growth in the mid-section, but I sort of just sloughed it off, sucking in the gut when I could and just thinking I could hide it because of some shoulder/chest bulk that would keep me from looking like a pear.
That is, until I saw that picture.
So what did I do?
I started making a conscious decision to run nearly every day. I did some basic research and found that every 3500 calories burned more or less kills a pound of fat, so I figure my running regimen will shed about one pound a week -- a healthy goal. I'm also cutting out the Dunkin Donuts in the morning and the Taco Bell in the evening in favor of some lighter fare.
And guess what? Surprise, surprise -- the gut is starting to go away. It's slow-going but I'm confident the gains made so far will stay with me as the new habits become ingrained.
I saw my aunt in Chelmsford this weekend and she commented on how I'd lost weight...(it's funny, that actually just reinforced what the picture taught me -- that there was weight to lose in the first place, something I had been half-wittingly blind to).
So why am I telling you this?
Detailed talk of diets, workouts, or any related gastrointestinal matters is quintessential "bad talk" (subject of a coming entry).
But here's my point -- If you're trying to diet or exercise to lose weight or gain muscle, STOP OVERTHINKING IT.
As one old boss of mine used to quip, "This ain't rocket surgery when you get down to it."
Really, it's not. I'm sure there are some people with naturally slow metabolisms and legitimate health issues that cause them to gain and retain weight, but for the rest of the population, the answer is just to stop splitting the atom.
People spend way too much time thinking and overthinking their diets, when what they should really be doing is finding a little bit of time every day to walk or jog, and just cutting out the worst excesses of what they take in.
Since I've started thinking about it more in the past couple weeks, I've talked to some sailors who had failed PRT "weigh-ins" in the past, and they all talked about what they did to drop the pounds needed to pass.
As you might guess, there were no magical potions, pills, formulas or shortcuts -- they were volun-told to begin running 3 x per week around the base, eat a little bit better, and lo and behold, the pounds came off by the dozens.
I will always love food. I will always love beer. And I will always love conversation.
I will always REALLY love it when the three can be had in concert, so I will NEVER become one of those annoying calorie-counters or people who muse about how "guilty" they'll feel for ordering dessert. In fact, I hope not to return to this topic ever again on this blog (though comments are always welcome as ever).
But I'll run when I can, and I'll cut back on the donuts. I can't guarantee the waistline won't ever start to make its return, but if it does, it'll be no one's fault but mine.
All I can promise you is that I'll spare you the details, and I won't overthink it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Greed and Fear
"Greed is alright, by the way." -- Ivan Boesky, 1986 commencement speech, Haass School of Business
"Greed is good." -- Gordon Gekko, Wall Street
Don't worry, I'm not about to turn this blog into some type of stock-picking site.
And for full disclosure's sake, my ability to trade (or at least to acquire) is halted until I put on my next set of bars, thanks to some current budgetary restraints (for which I blame neither the Republicans nor the Democrats but, rather, myself for taking on my mortgage in addition to other fixed expenses).
Anyway, I want to return to an old adage I've heard about investing:
"The key to successful investing is to be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful."
It's this type of mentality that distinguishes the greats like Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch.
I know I'm just echoing what I said two entries ago, but fear is now the prevailing emotion in the investment world.
If you have the means to invest, and the guts to do it, now is the time to be greedy. Now is the time to scoop up well-established stocks that have taken huge dives in the past week.
Grab what you can, hang on for a while, and just when the tickers start turning from red to green and those very same people re-enter the market, liquidate your positions for nice gains.
"Greed is good." -- Gordon Gekko, Wall Street
Don't worry, I'm not about to turn this blog into some type of stock-picking site.
And for full disclosure's sake, my ability to trade (or at least to acquire) is halted until I put on my next set of bars, thanks to some current budgetary restraints (for which I blame neither the Republicans nor the Democrats but, rather, myself for taking on my mortgage in addition to other fixed expenses).
Anyway, I want to return to an old adage I've heard about investing:
"The key to successful investing is to be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful."
It's this type of mentality that distinguishes the greats like Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch.
I know I'm just echoing what I said two entries ago, but fear is now the prevailing emotion in the investment world.
If you have the means to invest, and the guts to do it, now is the time to be greedy. Now is the time to scoop up well-established stocks that have taken huge dives in the past week.
Grab what you can, hang on for a while, and just when the tickers start turning from red to green and those very same people re-enter the market, liquidate your positions for nice gains.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Rosenbergs and Closure
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/nyregion/17rosenbergs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I saw this headline and read the story in the NY Times and was pretty surprised.
The most major part of the story, I believe, was the decryption of the Soviet cables from New York to Moscow, which is only a minor footnote in this piece on the second page. That, coupled with the testimony of ex-KGB agents who have spoken frankly about the Rosenbergs' case since the fall of the former Soviet Union (and are somehow not mentioned in this article), long settled the twin issues of whether the Rosenbergs were really involved in espionage and how the U.S. government knew what it did.
It's never been entirely clear to me, though, where Ethel figured in (and the Greenglass testimony supports the idea of Julius but not Ethel being the real link to the Russkies).
The Mort Sobell confession only echoes what is already common knowledge, though somehow it seals the deal for the Rosenbergs' kids.
I'm against the death penalty so it doesn't matter whether you're Jeffrey Dahmer, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Julius Rosenberg, or Karla Faye Tucker -- I don't think the government ought to decide whether, or how, you will die.
That's one of the only truly unshakable beliefs I have, even if it puts me in a distinct minority of Americans (and even, amazingly, if it puts me in a minority among American Christians).
That fact alone gives me common cause with those who support certain causes celebres, but that's where I'll draw the line -- I definitely don't see anything 'cool' or 'heroic' about selling sensitive secrets to evil regimes or murdering police officers in Philadelphia.
I saw this headline and read the story in the NY Times and was pretty surprised.
The most major part of the story, I believe, was the decryption of the Soviet cables from New York to Moscow, which is only a minor footnote in this piece on the second page. That, coupled with the testimony of ex-KGB agents who have spoken frankly about the Rosenbergs' case since the fall of the former Soviet Union (and are somehow not mentioned in this article), long settled the twin issues of whether the Rosenbergs were really involved in espionage and how the U.S. government knew what it did.
It's never been entirely clear to me, though, where Ethel figured in (and the Greenglass testimony supports the idea of Julius but not Ethel being the real link to the Russkies).
The Mort Sobell confession only echoes what is already common knowledge, though somehow it seals the deal for the Rosenbergs' kids.
I'm against the death penalty so it doesn't matter whether you're Jeffrey Dahmer, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Julius Rosenberg, or Karla Faye Tucker -- I don't think the government ought to decide whether, or how, you will die.
That's one of the only truly unshakable beliefs I have, even if it puts me in a distinct minority of Americans (and even, amazingly, if it puts me in a minority among American Christians).
That fact alone gives me common cause with those who support certain causes celebres, but that's where I'll draw the line -- I definitely don't see anything 'cool' or 'heroic' about selling sensitive secrets to evil regimes or murdering police officers in Philadelphia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)