Baby steps

I think that when I am unable to articulate the principle behind an opinion I hold, that opinion isn’t very strong. My true opinion is probably, ‘I don’t know.’

During the Olympics, there was a Facebook conversation about countries that pay prize money to their medal winners. Some Americans moaned that their athletes had to pay income tax on their winnings. (US gold medal winners get US$25,000.)

The opinion: IRS Should Not Tax Olympic Medal Winners’ Prize Money!

I was interested in the thinking behind the opinion that this sort of income should be exempt from income tax. I asked some of them, ‘What is the principle behind this opinion?’

I think no one understood what I was asking, because no one answered. That, or they thought it was a boring question. 🙂

If I had to write a general rule, how would I express it?

People who win Olympic Medals should be given tax free prizes? (But not people who win the lottery?)

People who win prizes through their own hard work and achievement should not have to pay tax on the prize? (But not the Nobel Prize?)

I was trying to understand why Olympic medalists are ‘special’. And not military service men and women, teachers, and tennis players. (For instance.)

I left unexamined the question of why the medalists should be paid anything at all. Would they not be motivated enough without it?

I called this posting, ‘Baby steps’, because I’ve been away from this blog for a long time.

 

 

Healing family rifts

I thought my family was pretty normal. I never thought of it as dysfunctional. Not until I took a post-grad course in abnormal psychology. What an eye opener!

My father was married once before. I knew he had one son from that marriage, Jim, because I’ve seen photos from when I was small. Jim must be around 20 years older than I am. When I was a toddler, Jim had an infant son, Jimmie. Our father died in 1970, and I haven’t seen or heard from Jim or Jimmie since the funeral. In the past two years I have been exploring the family tree, doing quite a bit of genealogy research, and I found a photo that’s labeled “Grandpa Dan with Jimmie and Donnie – 1939.” Donnie?! That’s my grandfather, and my half-brother Jim, and he seems to have a younger brother Donnie, maybe 2-3 years younger. That means my dad had two boys. Which would mean I have (or had) two brothers! I never knew them. Recent attempts to trace them have been fruitless, so far.

My mother had 3 sisters, one older and two younger. In the late 1930’s or 40’s the three eldest sisters moved from the farm in Indiana to Los Angeles. The youngest sister stayed with their mother and father on the farm. In the late 1960’s, grandpa died and left rather a lot of money to his wife and their 4 daughters. A few years later, grandma died, and all the remaining assets passed to the daughters. Something happened during that time, having to do with the estate, that caused a row between the California girls and the Indiana girl. I never really knew what it was, but it must’ve been a huge thing: my mom and one of her sisters held onto that grudge against the Indiana sister until they died. That’s 60 or 70 years. Now the three Californa sisters have all died, and I’ve been making attempts to re-connect with my one living auntie. The fight was in the previous generation, and I don’t think it has to do with me, at least, not now that the other sisters are all dead.

So, the family I thought of as pretty normal seems to have a lot of problems, hidden secrets and broken relationships. I think about that quite a bit and have taken some steps to change the family dynamic. No joy yet.

I DO notice that this sort of family break-down isn’t that unusual. I have friends who have broken off relationships with their own children, and with their parents. That’s hard for me to understand, but then, I don’t come from an abusive background. I simply do not understand how fathers can basically disown their children. I just don’t get it.

Anyway, I think I may hire some family researcher (genealogist) to help me with my father’s first marriage and their children. I haven’t been able to find any records of it anywhere so far.

My mother’s Indiana sister is still living, I think. Last year she dropped her lawsuit against my cousin for the mismanagement of her mother’s will (she was the last California sister.) I was named as an interested party in that suit, so she knows my address. Two postcards I’ve sent haven’t been answered. Indiana sister has three sons, my first cousins, whom I haven’t seen since I was in my teens. One of those sons has a pretty well-known basketball-playing daughter, whom I found on Facebook. I sent her a note to let her dad know I was wanting to reconnect, and if he did too, to please email me. No word. But I noticed that shortly thereafter, someone from that town was reading this blog. So maybe I should ramp it up and try the direct approach — like, pick up the phone! I wonder whay I don’t do that? What am I afraid would happen? That she would just not want to talk to me, or that she has passed away and it’s too late.

My interview with Myles Downey (the completion)

Previously I wrote about my opportunity to interview Myles Downey, a business coach I admire very much.

That interview has now been published in the June 2010 issue of Integral Leadership Review. You can read the interview, HERE, on the journal’s website.

I’m really pleased with how it turned out, especially since this was my first ever try at interviewing anyone about anything!

My hope is that readers will find something useful in my writing.

Me, Myself and I

Which is correct?

  1. Give the completed form to Sarah or myself.
  2. Give the completed form to Sarah or I.
  3. Give the completed form to Sarah or me.

Of course, it’s number 3. But many people actually talk like the examples in the other two. It’s often because they can’t remember the grammar rule once there is more than one person involved. Or they are trying to avoid the spotlight on ‘self’ that comes from me.

Here’s an easy way to figure it out, based on what you DO know.

Simply remove the other person from the sentence.

“Give the completed form to me.” You wouldn’t say “Give the completed form to I.” And most of us wouldn’t say “Give the completed form to myself.” Well, we DO hear people say that, but they sound very ignorant when they do.

Use myself only when you have used I earlier in the same sentence: ‘I am not particularly fond of goat cheese myself‘”

“Please send any comments to me.”

“I entered the comments in the database myself.”

“My husband and I are going on holiday.” (Not “My husband and me are… ” , not “My husband and myself are…”)

If the word is the object of a preposition (for example, to me, from me, about me, etc) then use me. I hear SO many people say, “It meant so much to my husband and I.”

It meant so much to I?

Ouch.

StatCounter

I installed Stat Counter on this blogsite a few days ago. It’s great! It counts hits, tracks new and returning visitors, their locations in the world, where they landed, where they exited to, how long they stayed and all sorts of other stats that I’m certain will be useful someday.

StatCounter make no secret of the fact that they aim to become the world’s number one web stat provider. Of course, they have Google Analytics (GA) to beat out.

A friend of mine had GA. When I first installed Stat Counter, I IM’d him to go see my website so I could watch the StatCounts climb. He said GA doesn’t show you your stats until the next day.

Want real time stats? I like StatCounter.

Elections – first past the post

We’re in the final days of the national election here in the UK, and today I realised something that I hadn’t before. There’s a constituency in South Dorset where the labour MP won with 42% of the vote. That means 68% of the people who voted there, did not want HIM as their MP.

I’m not sure what sort of voting system would prevent that, but it does seem a bit wrong in a democracy, that the winner was not supported by the majority. But then I recall there are instances of that in the USA too. A person can win the popular vote and not be president. Call me idealistic (in a loud voice, please) but I think there should be a better way.

What about a system of run-off elections? If there isn’t a majority winner, a run-off of the top two finishers determines the winner. Or make it live on the telly, and you vote off the least popular, one after another, until one remains. But that would make it like Big Brother, where the eventual winner is the least unpopular, rather than necessarily the most popular, if you see what I mean. (And that’s sort of like it is now, isn’t it?)

It’s not a real answer.

How can you be sure that people who vote for candidates who don’t win a seat still have a voice in their democratic government?

Here’s someone’s suggestion: we hold a general election and vote for who we want as PM, and also one person as a representative MP. And then we seat the top 660 vote-getters as MPs. On second thought, that wouldn’t be so good either.

All the peeps who have degrees in politics, I could use your insight into this.

It seems a right mess.

Theoretically, a candidate could win his or her seat with a minority of his constituency’s support. Then they could win the leadership contest of his party with a minority vote as well. Then the party could come in third in the general election’s popular vote, and the hung parliament (no party with a majority) would force a coalition government, and they could decide to make this person Prime Minster of the United Kingdom. NO!

I’m told the Queen can just appoint her Prime Minister. What if Her Majesty rang ME to say “We require your service as Prime Minister”. Wow! That would be amazing. And in that way I could be Prime Minister without a single citizen having voted for me.

That’s my kind of democracy.

Oxford Integral Circle – election fever

Last night the Oxford Integral Circle met up, and the topic for the night was the UK national election.

  • What factors influence your decision on how to vote?
  • How does Integral play a part in it?

A fascinating, and lively (!) discussion ensued, and the evening’s facilitator, Alex Goodall is going to write up our results for publication. But I wanted to write about my own personal insight.

Mostly frustrated by campaign rhetoric, I have tried to look deeper and beyond, in order to see if I can find out what they really stand for. But it’s hard. Candidates govern themselves strictly, and I doubt we get the chance to hear what they really think, or to explore how they arrive at their stances and policies.

I notice that I try to look for some clue as to their development level. Are they Tier 1 thinkers, or Tier 2? Of course, all I have to judge by is what they say and how they say it.

During the second debate, an audience member asked the candidates how they were going to tackle crime in the communities. The question reminded me of one of the sentence stems in Harthill’s Leadership Development Framework (LDF –  a sentence completion test that is a pointer to your complexity of meaning making, or action logic). One of the LDF stems is: Crime and delinquency could be halted if… I thought that was pretty similar to what was being asked of the candidates.

I remember my surprise when David Cameron said something to the effect of, ‘We’ll make sure they know they’ll be punished, and fast, that they know they’ll go to prison.’ Something like that. That sort of answer is a rather low-rated response on the LDF. Then Nick Clegg said something to the effect that ‘we want families and communitites to work together, to improve the social systems to deal with the causes.’ Something like that. He spoke about how while young people are imprisoned, sometimes for quite minor offenses, they learn more ways to re-offend once they’re out. He thought the system was set up to teach delinquents how to be lifelong criminals. (I’m paraphrasing.) That’s a quite late stage action logic was of looking at what’s a pretty complex problem. I don’t remember what Gordon Brown said.

But here’s MY problem. How can I tell if what they say accurately reflects their level of development? Or, is the level of their message geared toward the level they think their constituents will want to hear or that they can understand? I don’t know how to tell. I’m going to watch the third debate tonight through this lens.

I wonder how it would work if I wrote a letter to my local MP (who answers letters) asking him a question in a way that’s intended to reveal his level of development? Or, convince government that senior members must take the LDF and have their results published. Hah!

Consistency is underrated

I’m beginning to think that the main way to success is consistency — consistently taking another step forward, today, into the future you want.

Think about people who you know who don’t follow through with what they say they will do. Some would say, ‘You can’t trust them.’ But it’s not that, exactly. It’s that you can trust them to behave consistently. If they consistently fail to keep their word, then that’s what you can rely on.

Hey. So take a look at where you are consistent. Is it the message you really want to deliver?

Rocks, gravel, sand

Think of all the things you have to do in a day, and metaphorically divide them into rocks, gravel and sand.

Rocks: the most important things, where the outcome matters to you. They might be big things, or not-so-big, but they are important and you want to be sure they are done today. There probably are only a few rocks in any given day.

Gravel: less important things, but they still matter to you. They probably require some time to get done. These need to be done, although not necessarily today. If you take care of some of the gravel bits each day, it doesn’t pile up so as to become an insurmountable mountain.

Sand: either not that important, or don’t take more than a few minutes. Possibly not important at all.  There may an almost limitless amount of sand. The grains of sand are low priority; they may be fun, or interesting, or shiny and new.

Imagine that your day is a good-sized glass jar. There’s room for a lot of rocks, gravel and sand in it. But, since you can’t fit it all in, it matters the order in which you put them in.

Your unproductive day: first sand, then gravel, finally rocks. You can’t easily judge how much sand you can get away with before you fill the jar too full to hold much gravel or any rocks at all.

A pretty normal day: some gravel, some sand, some more gravel, and then if there’s any room left, maybe one rock.

Your effective day: The biggest rock, then possibly other rocks, then a scoopful of gravel to fill in some nooks and crannies, and finally, pour in some sand to fill in all the smallest spaces.

In your effective day, you got the most important things done, quite a few of the next most important things, and still had some time left over for fun and games.

If you regularly have important things that you don’t get done, try a different approach.

Rocks, gravel, sand.

You Can’t Have What You’re Not Willing to Not Have

I used to say that a lot: “You can’t have what you’re not willing to not have.”

I was going to blog about it, and I wanted to look up the original source, but I couldn’t remember where I’d read it. It was, like, more than 30 years ago. So I googled it. On the whole internet, there was only one place where that existed, so I went there to see it. Someone had included in their blog, as a quote, by “my mom”. How cool is that? I thought. One other mother in the world thinks like I do, I thought.

Two days later I was chatting with my lovely daughter, and I told her about it. “That’s me,” she said. “That’s my blog.”

And it was indeed her, on a just-barely-started blog where I couldn’t see that it was her. So it turns out that I am the cool mom who said that in such a way that her daughter quoted her cool mom.

You can see it on RazberryDesgin.Tumblr.com

How cool is that?

Another day I’ll tell you all about what it means. You can’t have what you’re not willing to not have. Think about it.