The other night I was at work and became especially frustrated. That night the restaurant had become thoroughly trashed.
People had let their children throw food and other debris on the floor with not thought of even the most rudimentary clean up before leaving. Table tops everywhere were covered in a thick layer of various sauces. Napkins were tossed or dropped and ended up caught under chairs.
I commented to a co-worker that if I left a restaurant in such a state I would be embarrassed to ever go back. Then, as we mounted the monumental task of returning the dining room to "like new condition" we discussed the fact that our society seems to have lost the ability to feel shame; and not in a good way.
We have "reality" shows that praise teenage mothers and showcase drugged out celebrities and various odd and ends that comprise the dregs of humanity. We have schools where students violently and physically attack teachers... and are proud of their behavior. We have taught our children to never let anyone make them feel ashamed, but is that really a good idea?
Where is the Shame?
I am in no way condoning verbal and physical abuse or using shame as a tool of oppression; but sometimes a little shame is a good thing.
Shame is what a person should feel when they have acted dishonorably. A small dose of shame can even be good when a person comes up short or is found inadequate. It is that shame (and wanting not to feel it again) that motivates a person to become better, to strive to overcome their limitations and rise to the top.
Greatness is not cultivated in a luke-warm atmosphere of bland equality where everyone gets a trophy. It is not found where there is no pain in losing.
Greatness comes from everyone doing their best to be the best. Greatness is found when the young man, shamed by his last place finish, devotes himself to discipline and training so he can win the race.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
between faith and reality
There are times in our lives when we are required to make a proverbial leap of faith. For some of us it is more frequently than others, but we all have that moment when we cannot be sure of the outcome and yet must make a choice.
What is it that separates those who move forward with hope and anticipation from those who shrink back in fear and doubt? I believe the answer lies in the people we choose to be around.
I believe it was Sartre who once commented about one of his students who had come to him for advice on making an important decision. Sartre pointed out that by asking for his advice the young man had already made up his mind and that to find his answer he needed only to understand what he hoped to hear from his teacher and why he wanted that answer.
I often say that, despite what I may appear to be, I am not a flexible person; I simply have thought up multiple contingencies for most situations. And something I find invaluable during strategic times in my life is the wise counsel of trusted advisers.
Just tonight I was thinking about a situation that caught me by surprise and about the men that I sought out for advice on the situation.
At first the entire situation really frightened me. I mean really scared me deep down. But as I started thinking about who I wanted to talk to about the problem I asked myself what I wanted to hear from these people and why.
So, what was I looking for?
Hope.
I believe that I was looking to men that knew me; men that had seen my potential as well as my flaws; men who knew my past and expected me not only to survive but to triumph. I wanted to be reaffirmed that I had meet adversity before, and though I may not have always won that I was still standing.
I don't pretend to be some perfect person or dare to claim that I have the secret of success, but I can't help but believe that I am increasing my odds of victory by surrounding myself with people who give me hope that even if I fail I have it in me to rise and rise again if needed.
Who is it that helps you bridge the gap between faith and reality?
What is it that separates those who move forward with hope and anticipation from those who shrink back in fear and doubt? I believe the answer lies in the people we choose to be around.
I believe it was Sartre who once commented about one of his students who had come to him for advice on making an important decision. Sartre pointed out that by asking for his advice the young man had already made up his mind and that to find his answer he needed only to understand what he hoped to hear from his teacher and why he wanted that answer.
I often say that, despite what I may appear to be, I am not a flexible person; I simply have thought up multiple contingencies for most situations. And something I find invaluable during strategic times in my life is the wise counsel of trusted advisers.
Just tonight I was thinking about a situation that caught me by surprise and about the men that I sought out for advice on the situation.
At first the entire situation really frightened me. I mean really scared me deep down. But as I started thinking about who I wanted to talk to about the problem I asked myself what I wanted to hear from these people and why.
So, what was I looking for?
Hope.
I believe that I was looking to men that knew me; men that had seen my potential as well as my flaws; men who knew my past and expected me not only to survive but to triumph. I wanted to be reaffirmed that I had meet adversity before, and though I may not have always won that I was still standing.
I don't pretend to be some perfect person or dare to claim that I have the secret of success, but I can't help but believe that I am increasing my odds of victory by surrounding myself with people who give me hope that even if I fail I have it in me to rise and rise again if needed.
Who is it that helps you bridge the gap between faith and reality?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Just vs. Fair
For almost 2 months now I have really been gripped by the differences between justice and fairness. I have noticed that many people use the words fair and just as interchangeable synonyms these days, but they really are two different concepts entirely.
As an example; I remember play time as a child. There was always that one guy who was a gifted athlete and excelled at any game he played. He could out run, out bat, out pass, and pretty much out do every other kid in pretty much every type of physical activity. And when this kid played a pick-up game there always seemed to be a long list of special rules invented by the opposing team in the name of "fairness."
These rules would be something along the lines of requiring the phenom to use his off hand or foot or was restricted in how much of the field he could cover; but one thing was common about all the rules intended to make the game fair; they always limited the talented kid to less than his potential but NEVER worked to improve the performance of the other kids.
It seems that not much has changed.
When I hear about new laws or practices being discussed to bring fairness they are all ways to limit the potential and talent of gifted individuals but never a way to bring up those less gifted.
But should fair really be our goal?
One thing I know is that life is not fair.
There are all kinds of situations that people find themselves in that are no result of their actions or decisions; people paralyzed in car crashes, children born with mental or physical handicaps, etc. In less dramatic situations, some are born with great physical or mental prowess and some are born with less. And despite all out best intentions we will never overcome unfairness.
On the other hand, justice is something we can, and should, strive for.
Interestingly, the more I think about it the more I realize that many times what is fair and what is just are in opposition. Looking back to those sandlot baseball games I see that our rules may have made the game fair but justice was certainly not given to the talented young athlete.
Justice says that we will do what we can to remove or limit external hindrances to your success but that you still have to put in the effort to make that happen. Justice means that you are free to play the game but that you might just lose the match, or even that sometimes you won't make the team.
Perhaps that is why the Pledge of Allegiance declares that we are a nation that offers "liberty and justice" and not fairness for all.
As an example; I remember play time as a child. There was always that one guy who was a gifted athlete and excelled at any game he played. He could out run, out bat, out pass, and pretty much out do every other kid in pretty much every type of physical activity. And when this kid played a pick-up game there always seemed to be a long list of special rules invented by the opposing team in the name of "fairness."
These rules would be something along the lines of requiring the phenom to use his off hand or foot or was restricted in how much of the field he could cover; but one thing was common about all the rules intended to make the game fair; they always limited the talented kid to less than his potential but NEVER worked to improve the performance of the other kids.
It seems that not much has changed.
When I hear about new laws or practices being discussed to bring fairness they are all ways to limit the potential and talent of gifted individuals but never a way to bring up those less gifted.
But should fair really be our goal?
One thing I know is that life is not fair.
There are all kinds of situations that people find themselves in that are no result of their actions or decisions; people paralyzed in car crashes, children born with mental or physical handicaps, etc. In less dramatic situations, some are born with great physical or mental prowess and some are born with less. And despite all out best intentions we will never overcome unfairness.
On the other hand, justice is something we can, and should, strive for.
Interestingly, the more I think about it the more I realize that many times what is fair and what is just are in opposition. Looking back to those sandlot baseball games I see that our rules may have made the game fair but justice was certainly not given to the talented young athlete.
Justice says that we will do what we can to remove or limit external hindrances to your success but that you still have to put in the effort to make that happen. Justice means that you are free to play the game but that you might just lose the match, or even that sometimes you won't make the team.
Perhaps that is why the Pledge of Allegiance declares that we are a nation that offers "liberty and justice" and not fairness for all.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Flesh is Weak
I have never really been one for New Year's Resolutions. I have always believed that if something needs to change in your life you shouldn't need the crutch of another trip around the sun to motivate you to action. Which is why this year is odd.
This year I have decided that I need to get my body in better condition... I need to get in shape (regardless of the fact that my present condition is, in fact, a shape).
I guess I can still say that I don't really do New Year's Resolutions given the fact that this is not really a resolution based on the New Year, it just happens that my decision comes immediately following the turn of the year. Actually, the real truth is that my decision comes after viewing the pictures Heather, Aedyn, Jaron, and I took on New Year's Day.
Last year we went to the beach on New Year's Day and have decided to make that a tradition for our little family. This year I was mortified by the fact that when I looked at the pictures, instead of seeing me and my two sons I saw me and my two chins.
Now, I am not one to get all wrapped up in body image or obsess about the way I look, but the pictures of the rather rotund me served as an exclamation point to the fact that I could use some exercise; a reminder of some observations I have made over the past year.
One of the observations I have made is the sad fact that at the age of 32 I can't keep up with my father-in-law when it comes to playing with my son. While they are off running around together I am usually relegated to watching from the couch.
A second observation I have made is that I just don't seem to have any energy these days; and I am tired of living on energy drinks and ibuprofen. And while I realize I am no longer 18 I do realize that feeling 32 should feel a lot better than it does.
The third observation was that after playing on the swings my arms felt like I had finished an intense workout, not a leisurely afternoon at a playground built for children.
Enter the Kettlebell.
I don't have the time nor the money to join a gym at this juncture and it is not practical to purchase equipment such as weights and a bench for our already cramped house.
But why a kettlebell?
I love the simplistic idea of the kettlebell. It is one, solitary piece of equipment. I even read a great article about the use of kettlebells on one of my favorite websites: The Art of Manliness. I have first hand testimony of the effectiveness of kettlebell training from not only a friend of mine but my wife's aunt, who swears by them. Plus, few things sound manlier than tossing around a hunk of iron.
So, despite the official adoption of a New Year's Resolution, I hope that 2011 will prove to be a more fit year than 2010.
This year I have decided that I need to get my body in better condition... I need to get in shape (regardless of the fact that my present condition is, in fact, a shape).
I guess I can still say that I don't really do New Year's Resolutions given the fact that this is not really a resolution based on the New Year, it just happens that my decision comes immediately following the turn of the year. Actually, the real truth is that my decision comes after viewing the pictures Heather, Aedyn, Jaron, and I took on New Year's Day.
Last year we went to the beach on New Year's Day and have decided to make that a tradition for our little family. This year I was mortified by the fact that when I looked at the pictures, instead of seeing me and my two sons I saw me and my two chins.
Now, I am not one to get all wrapped up in body image or obsess about the way I look, but the pictures of the rather rotund me served as an exclamation point to the fact that I could use some exercise; a reminder of some observations I have made over the past year.
One of the observations I have made is the sad fact that at the age of 32 I can't keep up with my father-in-law when it comes to playing with my son. While they are off running around together I am usually relegated to watching from the couch.
A second observation I have made is that I just don't seem to have any energy these days; and I am tired of living on energy drinks and ibuprofen. And while I realize I am no longer 18 I do realize that feeling 32 should feel a lot better than it does.
The third observation was that after playing on the swings my arms felt like I had finished an intense workout, not a leisurely afternoon at a playground built for children.
Enter the Kettlebell.
I don't have the time nor the money to join a gym at this juncture and it is not practical to purchase equipment such as weights and a bench for our already cramped house.
But why a kettlebell?
I love the simplistic idea of the kettlebell. It is one, solitary piece of equipment. I even read a great article about the use of kettlebells on one of my favorite websites: The Art of Manliness. I have first hand testimony of the effectiveness of kettlebell training from not only a friend of mine but my wife's aunt, who swears by them. Plus, few things sound manlier than tossing around a hunk of iron.
So, despite the official adoption of a New Year's Resolution, I hope that 2011 will prove to be a more fit year than 2010.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Stand
My mind has been running all night; so much so that I felt the need to get out of bed at 5:43 in the morning to write a blog about it. And for those that know me... that is pretty significant!
The thought that has been troubling me as of late is the role of Husband and Father; and how often men in our society shirk off the responsibility of these rolls.
This is not really a new topic for me, but tonight (this morning) I am reminded of a scene from probably my all time favorite move: Braveheart.
In the previous scene Wallace accuses the Scottish nobles of settling for "the scraps from Longshank's table" rather than stand and fight for the freedom that belongs to them. In this scene, William Wallace tells Robert the Bruce that if he would only stand and fight that Scotland would stand with him.
I feel that this is very much like the situation I , and I am sure countless men, find myself in from time to time.
Life is not always easy and the responsibility of being a husband and father can sometimes weigh heavy on my shoulders. And it is during those times that I am faced with a decision. I can stand or I can run.
To run means that I back away from fighting for my relationship with my wife. Running means that I decide to do what feels good for me and not what is good for my marriage. Running means that I withdraw emotionally from my wife.
Running is easy.
Running is something I can do without even thinking about it.
Standing is the hard part.
Standing means that I accept the responsibility of leading my family and the possibility that I might fail. Standing means that I choose what is best and not just what feels good right now. Standing means that I press on, even if my wife is distant, hurt, or withdrawn. Standing means accepting my mistakes but vowing in my heart to be a better man today than I was yesterday.
In another scene of the movie, Wallace tells a group of men on a battlefield that they have that same choice: to run or to stand. He says that if they run away from the battle that faces them they will indeed live, but he warns them. Wallace asks them if, one day when they are old, would they wish that on that day they would have stood and fought for their freedom rather than ran away.
I have seen the damage that is inflicted when men run away, so I choose to stand.
The thought that has been troubling me as of late is the role of Husband and Father; and how often men in our society shirk off the responsibility of these rolls.
This is not really a new topic for me, but tonight (this morning) I am reminded of a scene from probably my all time favorite move: Braveheart.
In the previous scene Wallace accuses the Scottish nobles of settling for "the scraps from Longshank's table" rather than stand and fight for the freedom that belongs to them. In this scene, William Wallace tells Robert the Bruce that if he would only stand and fight that Scotland would stand with him.
I feel that this is very much like the situation I , and I am sure countless men, find myself in from time to time.
Life is not always easy and the responsibility of being a husband and father can sometimes weigh heavy on my shoulders. And it is during those times that I am faced with a decision. I can stand or I can run.
To run means that I back away from fighting for my relationship with my wife. Running means that I decide to do what feels good for me and not what is good for my marriage. Running means that I withdraw emotionally from my wife.
Running is easy.
Running is something I can do without even thinking about it.
Standing is the hard part.
Standing means that I accept the responsibility of leading my family and the possibility that I might fail. Standing means that I choose what is best and not just what feels good right now. Standing means that I press on, even if my wife is distant, hurt, or withdrawn. Standing means accepting my mistakes but vowing in my heart to be a better man today than I was yesterday.
In another scene of the movie, Wallace tells a group of men on a battlefield that they have that same choice: to run or to stand. He says that if they run away from the battle that faces them they will indeed live, but he warns them. Wallace asks them if, one day when they are old, would they wish that on that day they would have stood and fought for their freedom rather than ran away.
I have seen the damage that is inflicted when men run away, so I choose to stand.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Holidays
So, the past few weeks have been pretty tough on me.
There is just something about all this consumerism that we refer to as Christmas that can make a guy feel low.
A lot of things this past year didn't work out the way I had planned, and Christmas is going to be, shall we say "skinny?"
I know that Christmas shouldn't be about how much you spend, and my boys are way too young to even know the difference, but that does not change the fact that I still feel the pressure as a husband and father to provide.
I think this is why I always have such a hard time getting into the "Christmas spirit" every year. And every year it seems it all starts earlier and earlier.
I guess that is why I always liked Thanksgiving more than Christmas.
Growing up poor meant there was always that chance that Christmas would be a bust. If there was no money it meant that the gifts I would get were not likely to be the ones I wanted; and that has a way of ruining a holiday that is all about presents. But you couldn't really screw up Thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving was always more about giving than receiving. It was food, family, football... and more food.
Even when times were tough we could find a way to come up with a Thanksgiving diner. A turkey, some green bean casserole, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie and I was good to go.
But maybe this is may chance to change all that.
Now I am the Papa, and Heather and I can decide what becomes tradition in our house.
Maybe we can find a way to make Christmas less about presents and more about presence.
There is just something about all this consumerism that we refer to as Christmas that can make a guy feel low.
A lot of things this past year didn't work out the way I had planned, and Christmas is going to be, shall we say "skinny?"
I know that Christmas shouldn't be about how much you spend, and my boys are way too young to even know the difference, but that does not change the fact that I still feel the pressure as a husband and father to provide.
I think this is why I always have such a hard time getting into the "Christmas spirit" every year. And every year it seems it all starts earlier and earlier.
I guess that is why I always liked Thanksgiving more than Christmas.
Growing up poor meant there was always that chance that Christmas would be a bust. If there was no money it meant that the gifts I would get were not likely to be the ones I wanted; and that has a way of ruining a holiday that is all about presents. But you couldn't really screw up Thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving was always more about giving than receiving. It was food, family, football... and more food.
Even when times were tough we could find a way to come up with a Thanksgiving diner. A turkey, some green bean casserole, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie and I was good to go.
But maybe this is may chance to change all that.
Now I am the Papa, and Heather and I can decide what becomes tradition in our house.
Maybe we can find a way to make Christmas less about presents and more about presence.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Experiment
I just finished watching the movie, The Experiment, with Adrien Brody and Forest Whitaker.
The story is one where 26 guys agree to take part in a sociological experiment. In this experiment some of the men are asked to play the role of prison guards while the other men are asked to be the inmates. In the end the men descend into anarchy, abandoning decency and morality to become little more than raging animals.
The beginning of the movie sets up Travis (Brody) as a bit of a pacifist. We see him marching in a war protest and even answer questions in the pre-test interview to the effect that notions of justice (or as he puts it, "an eye for an eye for an eye) are inferior and that the best path is to "turn the other cheek."
For me, this movie asks a provocative question, "Is the nature of man good or evil?"
The movie is draws from several real psychological/sociological tests that revealed similar moral break downs during the course of the experiment.
As a society we have accepted that a person is a "good" person if they don't murder people or break too many laws on a regular basis. It is a moral litmus test, if you will, that helps us to differentiate good people from bad people. However, studies like those mimicked in the movie show us that given differing situations a person who is considered good can quickly become a "bad" person.
In the real life studies, subjects interviewed after the experiment ended were shocked and horrified by just how far they had been willing to go. Many expressed that they considered themselves to be a "good" person and that before the study they would have said they were incapable of committing the kinds of acts they had done during the study.
Nietzsche believed the heart of a man to be full of darkness, and I have to agree with him on this one point.
But let me take this discussion in a slightly different direction for a moment.
In my opinion, a major difference between me and a modern liberal is that I accept and acknowledge that the heart of a man is wicked and not good. Because of this I am wary and uncomfortable with allowing more and more power to be centralized and relinquishing my freedoms that protect me from the threat of tyranny; regardless of the "good" that is promised to come as a result.
I realize that for civilization and community to exist we must all sacrifice a certain amount of autonomy and liberty. I just think that when we are called upon to make these sacrifices we should do so with the stipulation that there be a great deal of accountability and oversight involved in the exchange. I also believe it is in all of our best interest to ensure that those we entrust with the responsibility to lead our government never be allowed to become so powerful as to risk becoming tyrants.
To that end, I don't believe it wise to vote for representation that openly or by action supports larger governments systems, entitlement programs, or Utopian socioeconomic theories such as Socialism or Communism.
The story is one where 26 guys agree to take part in a sociological experiment. In this experiment some of the men are asked to play the role of prison guards while the other men are asked to be the inmates. In the end the men descend into anarchy, abandoning decency and morality to become little more than raging animals.
The beginning of the movie sets up Travis (Brody) as a bit of a pacifist. We see him marching in a war protest and even answer questions in the pre-test interview to the effect that notions of justice (or as he puts it, "an eye for an eye for an eye) are inferior and that the best path is to "turn the other cheek."
For me, this movie asks a provocative question, "Is the nature of man good or evil?"
The movie is draws from several real psychological/sociological tests that revealed similar moral break downs during the course of the experiment.
As a society we have accepted that a person is a "good" person if they don't murder people or break too many laws on a regular basis. It is a moral litmus test, if you will, that helps us to differentiate good people from bad people. However, studies like those mimicked in the movie show us that given differing situations a person who is considered good can quickly become a "bad" person.
In the real life studies, subjects interviewed after the experiment ended were shocked and horrified by just how far they had been willing to go. Many expressed that they considered themselves to be a "good" person and that before the study they would have said they were incapable of committing the kinds of acts they had done during the study.
Nietzsche believed the heart of a man to be full of darkness, and I have to agree with him on this one point.
But let me take this discussion in a slightly different direction for a moment.
In my opinion, a major difference between me and a modern liberal is that I accept and acknowledge that the heart of a man is wicked and not good. Because of this I am wary and uncomfortable with allowing more and more power to be centralized and relinquishing my freedoms that protect me from the threat of tyranny; regardless of the "good" that is promised to come as a result.
I realize that for civilization and community to exist we must all sacrifice a certain amount of autonomy and liberty. I just think that when we are called upon to make these sacrifices we should do so with the stipulation that there be a great deal of accountability and oversight involved in the exchange. I also believe it is in all of our best interest to ensure that those we entrust with the responsibility to lead our government never be allowed to become so powerful as to risk becoming tyrants.
To that end, I don't believe it wise to vote for representation that openly or by action supports larger governments systems, entitlement programs, or Utopian socioeconomic theories such as Socialism or Communism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)