Business of Theater and Theater of Business: Part Two

There are so many ways to label people, and some of them will be more valid than others.  This is true even with our first impressions.  Some are recognition of the familiar, and can be with empathy.  Some are harsh and judgmental,   It’s not unusual to try to quickly “size up” people, and categorize them so we’ll know what to expect, how to communicate with them, and whether or not to trust them.  But by saying that, it’s also common that people get it wrong.

Some people, whether they realize it or not, make a habit of looking for signs that would suggest vulnerability, or a threat.  When you see a woman in a crowded elevator clutch her pocketbook tightly, you can’t presume that she’s even all that aware that she’s doing it.  It may be an almost unconscious reaction to something she sees, hears, or smells. It could be for a lot of reasons, but one thing for sure: she’s made a decision, rational or irrational- conscious or not, and has acted on it.

Knowing part of the picture can be misleading.  It’s not enough to say someone is a type A or type B personality, unless you’re just trying to assess the stress factors that might cause them to become a coronary patient.  Nor is it enough to know if they are a left or right brain thinker.  Because if you stop there, you’re likely to start presuming things that may not be true.  There’s lots of flavors other than chocolate and vanilla.  But even if there weren’t, there are many different kinds of chocolate.

Even to call a person a whole brain thinker may indicate you see them as having a lot of versatility and social skills, and could also imply that they can certainly “think outside the box”.  But while we should all want to improve and develop how we think and solve problems, you’ll need some different assessment tools to do an effective character analysis.  Hamlet was an incredible thinker, but that was also part of his problem.  We’ll want to look at Hamlet again a bit later.

Carl Jung proposed two pairs of cognitive functions:

A.)  ”rational” (judging) functions: thinking and feeling;

B.)  ”irrational” (perceiving) functions: sensing and intuition

Jung also believed that for each individual, these functions are expressed either in an introverted, or an extraverted way.

Based on this, the standard Myers Briggs Type indicator uses four graphs to pinpoint the person being tested in one of sixteen temperament types by combining the information plotted on each of four graphs.  These graphs are scales of being inclined to be oriented more as:

Introversion (I) or Extroversion (E)

Sensation (S) or Intuition (N)

Feeling (F) or Thinking (T)

Judgment (J) or Perception (P)

Thus, by combining the plotted points, an individual could be assessed as an ESTJ - extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J), or an INFP - introversion (I), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P), and so forth.  These are just two of the sixteen.

According to The MBTI and psychologist Dr. David Keirsey, this gives us four general temperaments that mirror the ancient personality types envisioned by Hippocrates:

Guardian (Melancholic)……MBTI - SP

Artisan (Sanguine)…………….MBTI - SJ

Idealist (Choleric)……………..MBTI - NF

Rationalist (Phlegmatic)…..MBTI - NT

But there is another model.  It’s function is to position individuals on an interpersonal style matrix, and it involves an intersection between only two graphs:

A.) emotional responsiveness or emotional control;

B.) a degree of assertiveness, or lack of assertiveness, also called the “ask or tell” tendency.

At a quick glance, the matrix is divided into four general categories:

Driver (dominance – director);

Amiable (accommodating – collaborator),

Expressive (collaborating – inducement),  

Analytic (deliberating – compliance).

These groupings are quite different from the MB/Keirsey types.  For example, a rationalist (NT) could be a driver, amiable, expressive or even an analytic.

The matrix also goes further to identify comfort and stress relationships by visually defining the distances (or stretch requirements) between styles, and you actually see that on the grid.  For that reason, I like this model, and tend to use it as a primary tool for character analysis.   It makes sense out of some of the potential for conflict and controversy between variant styles.  Additionally, each of these four main groups is divided again by four.  This gives  a total of sixteen variant social styles or sub-styles, and each one of them actually does correspond directly to one of the sixteen Myers Briggs types.

A person may be an analytic, but that they are an expressive analytic is important.  Their home base as an analytic might be derived from a study of the four basic Jungian psychological functions.  It not only helps us know some basic social need, it also begins to identify how they learn.  This takes us back to the Myers Briggs model which shows the expressive analytic as an INFJ.

This brings us back to Hamlet.  In spite of his  exceptional qualities such as a graceful personality, and popularity among his countrymen, his fall from greatness – his tragic flaw was his delay of resolution and action; his inability to act which lead to his primary fallback behavior of avoiding the issue.

Caused by his introversion? Intuitiveness?  His feelings for his father?  His overwhelming sense of needing to get closure, but not able to do so?  Not any one of them, but all of them together.  I’ve seen a number of character analysis results that have Hamlet all over the place.  One director called him an idealist – the ethical intuitive extrovert.  Plotting him as an ENFJ would make him an expressiver driver; another as an ENTJ, or analytical driver, but Hamlet was no driver.

Another assessment was as an analytical amiable, or INTP, but they would be wrong.  If that were true, he would’ve lacked the assertiveness to tell Ophelia to: “Get thee to a nunnery!”  His emotional stability came into question as he faked madness, but he was good at it.  Hamlet was analytic.  He was an expressive analytic.  His expressive fallback to attack was held in check for a while by very deliberative practices in support of his need to be certain, and thus overpowered, at least for a while, by his primary need to avoid.

In fact, every position on any of the four single graphs used in MBTI can and does appear at one time or another in all four social styles.  So it is important to understand that neither the assertiveness scale nor the emotional responsiveness scale is to be confused with introversion/extroversion, or any of the other graphs used in the Myers Briggs model, because they are not interchangeable.

In character analysis, too many variables can distract a director if they just try to determine values by the MBTI.  The process is analytical and takes time.  It’s similar in the beginning to assembling the pieces of a difficult jigsaw puzzle where the image is hard to visualize at first.  But when charting by social style, the corresponding temperament type begins to make sense for two reasons: What they want to happen, and what they don’t want to happen becomes more obvious.  After all, the goal is to find the motivation, isn’t it?

Motivation – The Business of Theater, and The Theater of Business: an Introduction

In theater, every action that takes place on stage during a performance is called a piece of business.  What is it about that particular character that matches up with that particular kind of behavior?  Not just what they do, but why they do it.

Character analysis is an important part of the process of developing the story.  Once the audience, the co-worker, or customer gets a read on the character, they begin to react as soon as that person walks onto the stage.  On “Seinfeld”, as soon as Kramer would come sliding into the room, the audience started laughing.

Our actions tell a story, and sooner or later, someone is watching our performance.  But it’s what is behind the performance; the motivation that drives it that is the important business of theater, and the critical theater of business.  That’s not just a play on words.

The quality of the performance is always judged by the audience, your co-workers, or your customers, isn’t it.  Those who work on improving skills in this area can expect to see improved performance in their business of theater, or their theater of business.  Those who ignore it can expect a poorer quality of performance than might be desirable.  Here’s why.

When your performance, or someone else’s performance is less than desirable, when you’re not getting what you want, or not being treated the way you want to be treated, you’ll feel some tension, won’t you?  Sometimes the stress is subtle, and just it slows you down.  But at other times, you feel you’ve hit a brick wall.

When we run into a wall, we tend to fall back a bit, right?  What does a three year old do when the ice cream falls off the spoon and onto the floor?  Cry?  Scream?  Yell?  Oh, yes!  A three year old doesn’t think about what they may have done to cause the problem.  They just want somebody to fix it.  Their behavior is reactionary.

Most folks don’t even recognize their own primary fallback behaviors under stress, but others will see it if they pay attention.  But just because they see it, doesn’t mean they’ll read it correctly.  In their minds they might be trying to figure out what would provoke them to act in such a way, or worse, judge it to mean something that isn’t true.  And it is for this reason more than anything else, that I would want to share with you the tools of character analysis.

Whether interpreted correctly or not, in the theater of business, there are serious risk factors associated with people reacting under stress.  And if the stress doesn’t go away, the fallback behaviors could develop into a whole series of reactionary behaviors that are even harder to accept, and things could get worse.

Besides affecting individual performance, it can lead to undermining entire systems.  When stories of failures make the news, such as Enron, Arthur Andersen, Lehman Brothers, and others, it often seems that the breakdown in equity was prevalent in the practices of leadership.

In each case, by the end game, all kinds of things had started to go wrong, and lots of bad decisions, spurred by stressful and emotional decisions, lead to a series of reactionary behaviors that brought the house down.  And these are not isolated incidences in human history.  It happens a lot more often than we might be aware of.  Perhaps it was that very regular bit of human nature that lead George Bernard Shaw to say:

“We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”

But we can if we want to; if we’ll do what it takes.  The same tools I’d use for character analysis also apply to real people in real situations.  In fact, that’s what they were designed for.  There are several models used to identify temperament, style, and personal motivation which serves to point out predictable behaviors, and methods of modifying them.  More importantly, it needs to be done without judgmental adjectives and negative profiling, but from a more neutral perspective that aids and encourages understanding.  Perhaps that is the hardest lesson to learn when dealing with yourself, or profiles of real people you know.

I want you to think about Elvis Presley, Madonna, Dwight Eisenhower, General George Patton, Mohandas Gandhi, Adolf Hitler,  John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Mikail Gorbachev.  While each of them displayed quite different personalities from each other, there is one word that has often been used to describe them all: “charisma.”

I speak of charisma as that very compelling talent or attractiveness that would cause others to feel inspired, and want to follow, or in some cases, be like you.  In the story of Joan of Arc, the soldiers didn’t just march along in compliance to military rule, they were committed, and even willing to die for her.

Charisma seems like such an intangible thing, and it’s as if some have it, and some don’t.  But the fact is that it can be defined another way: the ability to get others to want to help you reach your goals, while at the same time, feeling doing so helps them reach theirs.  It means you’ve connected with them.  It means you’re versatile enough to show, and receive empathy from a lot of different kinds of people.

Think of what it would mean to you if your people believe that the “what’s in it for them” is right up there with the “what’s in it for you”.  And, think of what it means to you if they don’t.

That last definition of charisma, having others want to help you reach their goals, while reaching theirs also defines “Equitable Leadership”, because that’s exactly what it is.  When used in workshops, people come away with a better understanding of why people are treated the way they are, and have a much better handle on what other people’s behavior shows how they wish to be treated.

As  leaders, it’s important that we learn how to be open and honest with ourselves and others.  Sometimes when we’re not, the most important person we’re trying to deceive is ourself.  We loose sight of the simple reality that it’s okay to be who we are.

It’s sad to see a person spend their entire life trying to be someone they are not because they think that is the only way to be worthy.  And that can lead to becoming a tragic character.  In drama, what makes a tragic flaw so tragic is that the character often doesn’t recognize it as a flaw.

I enjoyed using a number of assessment tools, but prefer a social style matrix because in addition to being quite valid, it helps me identify conflict and controversy issues by fallback behaviors quicker.  This feature alone makes it very helpful for people in team situations.

But don’t presume they are carved in stone.  In fact, social styles and temperament type indicators are primarily valid within the culture they are observed, and at the time they are taken, though some psychologists have disagreed (especially when their income depends on the particular model they’re selling).  But as Abraham Maslow said:

“He that is good with a hammer (and only has a hammer) tends to think everything is (and sees every problem as) a nail.” 

So, it is reasonable to advise you not to read too much into the assessment.  Everyone needs to remember that your social style or temperament type is never as inflexible as your blood type, no matter how certain you are of its accuracy.  But don’t read too little, either.  Some folks just latch on to some single point about their profile or type, and run with it. It could be like running with scissors. Introversion/extroversion, thinking/feeling – none of these by themselves will give you as clear a picture as you might get by looking at all of it.  And additionally, without the feedback of assertiveness and emotional control as seen within a specified group, it can be quite misleading.

Another thought about a variance between how we’re “wired” and how we behave would be the impact of knowing. Once a person has been made aware of certain strengths and weaknesses, even if so categorized in their own minds, they will begin to apply them to areas where they can leverage a benefit, or avoid something they personally don’t want.  In some situations, what a person subconsciously wishes to avoid or fears becomes much more powerful than some consciously stated desire or objective.  Recognizing that goes a long way towards understanding how politics manipulates the minds of phobic people.

Once made aware of what these perceptions can and do influence, along with the kinds of behaviors that indicate them, a process of behavior modification can begin.  Or, they are certainly at least likely to think about it far more than it would be expected without such feedback.

So, for the person who behaves significantly different than you might expect them due to temperament, look a little deeper to the motivation behind why they might be wearing a mask.  I’m not talking about, or in any way encouraging deception.  What I’m talking about is how a person CHOOSES to present themselves in such a way so they might connect with, and show empathy to others within their work culture and environment.

But don’t be fake or insincere, or you’ll get caught (unless you’re a sociopath).  As any seriously trained actor can tell you, there’s a lot of difference between “pretending” (which is NOT acting), and understanding the motivation well enough to conduct the business in an efficient, and believable manner.  The business of theater is the motivation.  And far more than most people realize, the theater of business is also the motivation.

Failing Even When You Are Sure You’re Right

People often believe they are right, even when they’re not.  Believing something does not make it true any more than disbelieving it makes it false.  But the more strongly one is convinced of their own correctness, the less likely they will be open to criticism to the contrary.  We’ve all experienced having to deal with dogmatic opinions of others in situations where we felt the other person might be misinformed, and in some cases where we feel they are just flat-out wrong.  And even in lesser matters, the differences about the ways people think and feel often give rise to tensions, if not outright conflict, controversy, and confrontation.

When people are working together in an office or job site, they interact with each other.  Each brings to the table certain services as well as currencies used to exchange for the services of others.  So in effect, they’re buying and selling all the time, aren’t they?  We forget that sometimes, and when we do, the “give and take” seems to diminish to just “take”.  And, it can have a negative effect on morale.  As I’m sure you know, when attitude diminishes, so does positive activity, thus reducing the potential for positive results.  The quality of performance can suffer for it.  Ineffective or poor performance is a fairly clear sign that failure has occurred, or is going to, isn’t it?

But don’t we all already know that?  Isn’t it something we would believe to be common sense?  So why is it then, if we know quality performance comes from positive interactions and efforts, do people experience failures so often?  For a few, it might be said that they do not play well with others, but for the most part, people do try to get along with each other, don’t they?  Perhaps it isn’t from a lack of wanting to do a good job, or even to get along with others as much as it is from something they don’t know.  Consider this:

What if your team believes the “what’s in it for them” is right up there with the “what’s in it for you”?  What if they don’t believe it?  What is it that you do that might cause them to buy into what you want, or be cautious or even resentful of it?  Is it from what they think might be a disparity or unfairness in compensation, or is it something else?  In other words, what is their motivation?  And what are they thinking is yours?

In the theater, one of the critical moments necessary to bring things to the level of good performance is when both the director and the actor know the motivation: to understand what’s behind why they are doing what they do.  Each incidental activity on the stage by a performer is called “business”.  It has to make sense to the audience that the character would be motivated to do that piece of business when perhaps other characters would not.  If the actors and the director fail to understand what motivates characters to conduct a piece of “busy-ness”, then you can expect the performance quality to be low, and the “business” could become meaningless.  So, motivation is the business of theater.

The actions and interactions between people in business intertwined with the comedies, tragedies, and melodramas of everyday life also produce a kind of theater.  And in that world, motivation would also be behind the theater of business.  Oh, it is.  I has to be, whether people recognize it, or not.

Business needs to understand what motivates people to create, design, build, and sell their products and other services.  It is also critical that they understand what motivates people to buy them.  And that motivation, what people want as well as what they specifically don’t want, will vary from person to person according to their temperament and style, and often due to information about their culture that can be noticed in their behavior.

It is certainly critical in sales.  Buyers will tell you a lot about what they want by how they act. Pay attention to it, and honor what the customer is showing you by their actions and behavior that points out to what they want to have happen.  And with the same tools of observation, you can also determine what the buyer fears might happen.  What motivates them may not be the same thing that motivates you. When they buy, no matter how rational you think you’ve been, their decision will have been an emotional one.  Learn to read their emotional signals.

While you’re observing them, be mindful of how you are behaving accordingly.  Don’t pull too tightly back into your egocentric self.  If you do, the signal you broadcast will be that what you want is more important than what they want.  People, even when doing so subconsciously, will get a “feeling” about you not only from the words you use, but how you deliver them.

Not just in sales, but whenever we’re talking, we’re making a speech, even if it’s only a sentence. There are three kinds of speeches: to inform, to persuade, or to entertain. In sales, you may at times use all three. But there’s another kind frequently attempted called: “The speech to impress.” It never works. Better still, learn to get beyond simple rhetoric which may present your position argumentatively, by moving to dialogue.  Talk with them, and not at them.  That’s where resolution takes place. Without it, the attempt to close is an attempt to bully.

What about your business?  What about the characters in your production?  In your community of clients?  Are they all supposed to be motivated to want all the same things, and for all the same reasons?  If  you want them to be, you may find it quite difficult to put together such a team as that.  If fact, it is much more likely that your cast of players is made up of all kinds of people who might see things differently than you do more than you might think.  Of course it’s good to stay focused on your objectives, but that may require more of an open mind than some realize.  Without it, you run the risk of overlooking their objectives.

There is a strength to be found in diversity.  That strength becomes effective when you recognize the individuals for what they are, and take the time to know what they want.  If it’s your customer, you’d better find out what benefit they really want, and don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s just price.  I hope you understand that something besides “cheap” will be needed if you intend to keep them happy.

If your employees and you think it’s just the paycheck, or just to not get fired, you can look forward to the kind of low quality performance levels that require supervised compliance instead of enthusiastic commitment.  And do not make the mistake of thinking you can enforce commitment.  That is a myth.  Unfortunately, the mythology of an enforced commitment drives almost every institution – corporate, government or otherwise, on the planet.

Everybody that goes to school learns one thing in common.  And it doesn’t matter how far you go.  If you drop out in the eighth grade, finish high school, college, get a masters or even a PhD, there is one thing you’re all pretty sure about.  And that is:

If you’re standing in line and the person with the authority, the ability, and the will to punish you is looking, you have to behave yourself.  

But if it’s that substitute teacher that never does anything other than say: “Now you boys behave,” you can jump in and out of line and say: “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!”

Don’t believe me?  Go to the nearest interstate highway.  Watch people driving.  When you are coming around a curve and see brake lights coming on, there’s either a wreck, or a highway patrol.  And not just that theres a patrol present; he’s parked, has his door open and is pointing his radar gun.  What he’s doing, ladies and gentlemen, is taking names, and sending people to the principal’s office!

“All the world’s a stage,  and all the men and women merely players…” - Shakespeare

William Shakespeare was talking about the parts we play as being the ages of our lives.  But who you are right now at your current age is the character you need to be aware of.  And not just what you think of yourself, but what other people see in your behavior, and react to.  There are tools available to get that information.  As you learn to use them, and begin to see yourself through the eyes of others, you’re on your way to being able to understand the same kinds of things about your team members.

If Shakespeare is right; if all the world’s a stage, who is your character, and what performance level do you expect out of the role you are playing on that stage – this theater?  Are you being yourself?  It’s certainly okay for you to be you, but it’s not okay to expect everybody else to do it.  People who relentlessly demand that their way of doing things is the only right way, tend to alienate more people than they win over.  Keep an open mind when dealing with others.  There is a difference between judging people and understanding them.

And as with all learning outside of trauma, it is a process.  Be mindful that all along the way, you will be forming opinions.  A caution to be aware of is, that just as soon as you’re sure you know what must be absolute, whatever you may need to question will become increasingly harder to see.

Doing What It Takes: A Story

When you look up and see your own child at some distance away, standing at the very edge of a high place over a drop off that falls into deep water, your heart starts pounding in your ears, and you feel the adrenalin rush.  Almost every parent, for one reason or another, understands that anxious feeling!

Well, he was fine.  He was okay.  As it turned out it was no real danger at all; it was just a swim meet.  But my heart was pounding just the same – parents get excited about that sort of thing, don’t we?  We get excited because we actually watch our children face challenges,  and see first hand how winning or losing effects their attitude.

We had talked a lot at home with our children about setting goals, and some of the necessary action steps we need to take in order to meet them.  But that day when I arrived to watch a county swim meet, I was completely unaware that I was about to learn how the combination of attitude, activity and results are so cleverly intertwined, and inter-dependent.

Remember when we fell behind in school, our teachers would remind us we needed to “bring up our average”?  But so many of us really didn’t understand what exactly was required to do it.  My son showed me what was required.  He showed me by doing something I’d told him to do, without ever making it a habit to do so myself.  That was over twenty years ago, but because what I learned was so clear, I think about it all the time as if it were yesterday.

Among other sports, organizations and activities, all three of my sons were on the swim team in junior high and high school.  They only swam for the school during swim season, and not involved in any year-round swim program.  But some others were, and one boy in particular was a pre-Olympic qualifier.  His name was Bobby.  During my oldest son, David’s senior year, Bobby swam for David’s team’s chief rival.

On that day in the free style relay, I saw them lined up on the block right next to each other.  Leading off for his school, was poised my son David, one of the better swimmers in the county.  And right beside him leading off for his top rival was Bobby, one of the better swimmers in the western hemisphere.

Everybody, and I mean everybody there including me, knew my son David was not going to out-swim Bobby in that event.  Oh, there was a good chance that my son’s relay team would come in second, but we all were certain that Bobby’s team would place first.

At the signal, seven swimmers representing seven schools hit the water.  My son swam well, and I was proud of him, but exactly as predicted, he was second to Bobby in the first leg of the heat, and though it was close, David’s team came in second overall.

My wife and I sat there watching him across the room.  He was talking with his coach.  Then David looked up directly at us, and started heading over towards us in the bleachers.  When he got right in front of me, he just stood there for a moment with a towel around him, and I could tell he was thinking about something; thinking what to say.  I thought I already knew what he was going to say.  I was preparing to hear all the regular excuses, such as:

“I got a bad start off the block.  I messed up my stroke.  I missed my breathing rhythm and took in some water.  I made a bad flip-turn.  I misgauged my distance coming to the touchpad.”

But David didn’t say any of those things.  What he said to me was:

“Hey Dad, I got my time.  I more than beat my average time – I beat my best!  And I’m only nineteen one hundredths of a second away from making the cut for the state swim meet!  And I’ll beat that easy by the finals!”

You should have seen the smile on his face.  And, on mine, realizing that this teenage boy knew something very well that had taken me over four decades to figure out.  It didn’t make the six O’clock news, but it was the best thing that happened to my son that day, and to me.  You see, both of us were validated by the realization of a goal.

Sometimes you say something, and someone you care about listens, then acts on what you said.  And when it works…how powerful is that?  Yet as powerful as the moment was for me, and feeling very impacted by it, the faint question in the back of my mind was:

Will he remember the blueprint he used that day to continue to build those kinds of precious moments for the rest of his life?

Some of you might be waiting to hear how David came back in the finals to beat Bobby by a split-second.  Some Horatio Alger or Tortoise and the Hare story?   Attainable?  Yes.  Realistic?  No.  There was already a huge divide between their habits of practice, and a huge divide between what they both had already taught themselves to believe.

That day at the pool, however, my son David did have a goal.  He was reaching for a higher mark than he had ever reached or even tried to reach before.  And it was something he believed he could get.  Not to win the swim meet, or even beat Bobby, but instead, the goal was to qualify for state.  And by the way, he made the cut.

I believe you should set high goals for yourself, to push yourself, and go after your dreams.  But don’t set goals you don’t believe you have a chance of reaching, because if you think you can’t, you aren’t even likely to try.  You won’t shoot for the stars if you don’t believe you can get off the ground.

As a boy, I remember helping Granddaddy paint the outside of his house.  As I started up the ladder to the top of the second story, Granddaddy asked:

“Are you gonna be able to make it all the way up there?”

I answered:  “I’ll go as far as I can.”

Granddaddy came back with:

“You’ll go as far as you think you can.”

Years later, I heard my friend Chuck Russell speaking to a group, and he said:

“Nobody climbs up a ladder even one rung higher than they think they can go without falling.”

That’s what Granddaddy was talking about.  Now, I call that the freezing point.  And when you thaw out, if you thaw out, you’ll slowly start coming down to a place where you’re comfortable, and feel safe.

It’s the believing what you can do, or what you cannot do that makes all the difference in the world about what you’ll even try.  And by that, you will never get past that freezing point until you believe you can.  Believing is very powerful.

In a 1941 animated film produced by Walt Disney, Dumbo the Elephant could fly.  But he would never try until he believed.  For a long time, he believed in the magic feather which was just a trick played on his mind by a group of crows and a hapless mouse.  The feather never did have a bit of magic in it.  The magic was in the believing.

Eventually, Dumbo lost his grip on the feather, which was very frightening at first.  Up ’til then, he’d believed solely in the feather, even though there was no real power in it.  But with the feather gone, he now had to believe in something else, something real that was a part of himself.  He did, and that’s what saved him.

By the way, for those of you who will remember, what Dumbo believed became obvious by the course of actions he took, and not by anything he said he’d do, or even by anything he said he believed.  As a matter of fact, at no time in the story did he ever say a single word…out loud.  Elephants can’t talk, that’s impossible!

Impossible is a concept.  It cannot exist in you as an idea unless you believe something to be impossible.  While it may be impossibility in fact, it will not be the fact, but the thinking it is that will keep you from trying.

That’s the real point of the story about my son, David, at the swim meet.  Sure, there was something he thought was impossible.  But there was also something he believed he could get, and wanted bad enough to do what it takes to get it.  He knew it was not going to be good enough to just keep doing what he had been doing, because his average wasn’t good enough. Neither was his best.  So, not just to do the best he can, but to simply do what it takes.

And what it took was to make it a habit and a practice to every single day, work on incrementally improving his average to get well within reach of his best, and beat it.

I’m sure most of you remember hearing something Sir Winston Churchill once said:

“Sometimes it is not enough to do our best; sometimes we must do what is required.”

But do you know why he said it?  Because up ‘til then, the best they had done had not been good enough to stop the advancing Army of the Third Reich.

How many of you before this month is over, will say to someone almost out of habit:

“That’s okay, you did the best you could, and that’s all anyone can expect of you.”

Well, quit saying that!  It’s not true.

Look at it this way: If you’re alone in a rowboat that sinks in the middle of a lake, and you drown trying to swim to shore, no one will doubt that you tried hard, and with great empathy might believe you did the best you could.  But nobody, not one person that really cared about you will even for a minute think those efforts were good enough.

Earlier I told you a story about a boy who beat his best, but he didn’t win the swim meet.  He beat his best, but didn’t get first place.  So, he didn’t win.  Didn’t he?

Some years later while still in graduate school, David accepted a teaching assignment in Special Education.  In so many cases, he was teaching children that everybody, including the parents, had given up on.  He was told the children on his list were not likely to learn very much, and that as a group, little was to be expected of them.  It was as if he should just supervise their behavior so that they wouldn’t hurt themselves.

But David saw the challenge differently.  As he got to know the children, be began to believe in some of them.  And because he did when nobody ever had before, they started believing in him, too.  Since David was just starting out, and not yet even a certified teacher, he was given a provisional certificate.

With such credentials as that, added to a burning passion in his gut to want to do the right thing for those children, averages started to improve; someone was raising the bar.  It was noted, and his principal and peers named him as the: “Teacher of the Year”!

After hearing this, his youngest brother said:

“That’s pretty cool!  My brother got teacher of the year on a learner’s permit!”

Now all of a sudden I’m remembering back.  What kept ringing in my head were words like:

“Hey Dad, I beat my average, and I beat my best, and my goal is so close I can taste it!”

He remembered.  He learned.  It was his attitude.  It drove his actions.  His activity generated his results.  His results kept driving his attitude higher, and higher and higher!

Only those who believe they can, will bother to make a habit of incrementally beating their average. And it stands to reason, if they do, sooner or later they’ll beat their best.  You see, it raises the bar automatically every time you bump that average up.  And it’s always within your believable reach, never frozen in the fear of the unreachable.

I won’t take the time here to tell you about David’s two brothers.  But I’ll close this segment by saying I’m very proud that all three of my sons are the kind of men who’ve had some notable experiences with beating their average and even beating their best.   And by recognizing what is required to do it, they all have some clear understanding of what it takes to…

 Reach For Their Dreams.

art & graphic design by maysundays.com

© Talent Management, Inc.  All rights reserved.

I Finally Got To Meet Sam!

“The most interesting information comes from children, for they tell all they know and then stop.” – Mark Twain

Two of the grandchilluns have been spending  a few days here.  This is a happy house with chilluns in it.  Tonight after baths and stories read, and a few silly laughs, it was time for bed.  Having been instructed properly by their parents who are their legal guardians, the chilluns were invited to say their prayers.  Upon conclusion, their grandmother offered to add that they also ask God to bless mommy and daddy.  Thomas told us he had already done that, and God would remember.

The uncluttered brilliance that comes out of little children can be quite refreshing.  Sometimes, all that need be said is what they say, because it isn’t tainted.  Those of you over the age of five may not know what I’m talking about, but hooray for those that do.

Recently, My wife and I stopped to get a bite to eat at a “fast food” place, as did other travelers. A three year old boy named Sam with a family we’d never met, was asked where he wanted to sit. He came over to our table and with a smile, said:

“I’ll sit here.”

And, he did.  His family sat at the table next to us.  When his mother asked him what he wanted to eat, he said:

“Oh, I’ll just eat some of their stuff.”

Of course he could’ve had it all if he’d wanted it, but as it turned out, we just shared a few curly fries.  In a moment, his grandfather brought him some food of his own so he would have something to play with while the rest of us ate.

The boy was pleasant enough, and was quite into conversation for a three year old.  Most of his sentences were short, and he only asked a few questions.  He noticed we didn’t have children with us, and asked where they were.  It never occurred to him that we didn’t have any, and he was correct.  But our boys aren’t little anymore, and they’ve all been three years old at least ten times by now.  I can still remember when each of them were coming around to three for the first time, and that they were small in size like Sam, but also like him, big in personality.

If we asked Sam anything, his answers were short, and often just one word, like “yes” or “no”.  He told us he lived in Kentucky, and with coaching from his mother, he pin-pointed Lexington as his town.  He showed no surprise that we knew exactly where that was, because I’m sure at his age, it is the center of his entire universe.  He wasted no words unnecessarily  but was generous with smiles.  It is no surprise that we felt comfortable in his company.

Sam was polite, and refreshingly so for such a young man.  Come to think of it, for a man of any age, I reckon.  Politeness does break out now and then, but I’ve noticed no epidemic of it.

When we got ready to leave, I told his mother that it was a pleasure meeting Sam, and that he seemed like a fine boy.  Further I added that I liked the name, as my favorite author was also named “Sam”.  The mother looked up, and said:

 ”Me, too!”

Then, pointing at her son, she said:

  “We named him after my favorite author, Sam Clemens.  I’m a huge fan of Mark Twain, and I just love his stories!”  

 Looking down at young Sam, there was no doubt that he really had no idea what all was behind the legacy in his name, and I knew it would take a long time for him to get the full impact of it.   For a brief moment, I wondered if he would grow up to be happy about it, or just be bothered, and think it silly.  So much can happen in the life of a child.  I just hope he grows up to appreciate it.

I told Sam’s mother that I could understand why a person favors Mr. Clemens, and that I personally shared her enthusiasm.  Her face lit up with a huge smile, and I felt it appropriate to join in on that kind of behavior.  Folks often find meaner things to do than smile at each other.  Besides, her face was pretty enough to look at, so I didn’t mind.

We both agreed that our interest in those wonderful books began in childhood.  Silently, I wondered if today a lot of children were being deprived of that wealth, as reading literature may seem to be luxury only found in schools that can afford it in the curriculum.

Sam’s mother and grandparents seemed to appreciate that I thought naming a child after Samuel Langhorne Clemens was a wonderful idea.  I told them that I’d probably spent more time with Twain’s writing than any other published author, and had been privileged to perform on occasion as a tribute to that man of letters.  She thought that bit of information was quite a coincidence, but I assured her lots of other folks liked Mark Twain, too.  Running into people that do is not all that unusual.

But for me, it was more than a coincidence.  I figure it was about the best thing that had happened to me that day.  The truth is, he was drawn to my wife, Brenda, and that I was an acceptable piece of baggage, that’s all.  Brenda is drawn to little children and they to her.  Maybe they see an aura – I certainly do.

Even if he was attracted to my wife, which I took as a complement, he didn’t seem at all annoyed by me being there, which I appreciated.  Somehow, I felt grateful that after all this time,  I finally got to meet Sam.  And not just meet him, but have him walk right up out of the blue, and say he wanted to join us at our table.

The Spirit of the Season

A season is upon us prompted by celebrating the birth of among other things, the idea of “Peace on Earth, Good will Towards Men”.  It is a time of giving, when we are to think of others rather than ourselves.  For many, it is to celebrate the birth of one who gave everything, even his life for the benefit of all people, even those not yet born.  Regardless of how a person might choose to believe, it is uplifting to see folks wanting to see some goodness spread about.  And I think many do, including you.  Why else would you be reading this?

Yet the most powerful idea we teach the children during this time is to focus on what they want to receive, with little concern for what it might cost someone else who is expected to get it for them.  They will have to develop the generous attitude of charity later when they’ve matured, and have become unselfish, helpful, forgiving and benevolent souls, just like all of us adults are, of course.  You know that.

At a local shopping mall, extra stock clerks and cashiers have been hired in anticipation of the increased traffic, and security has been “beefed up” considerably.  Some people volunteering to collect for a charity are instructed on how to make frequent bank drops to minimize their exposure to being robbed.

The game of the season, especially for the very young, is amplified by the reward or punishment motive.  They’re told of an unblinking eye that watches them all year ’round, and knows if they have been “naughty or nice.”

Long before young minds figure out the lie of the generous magical elf myth, they have carved into stone the belief that they have regularly gotten away with lots of stuff all year long.  Either the all seeing eye blinked, or for some reason was being a bit lax at times.  I often wondered how Kris Kringle had missed some of my obvious blunders, but was always glad he did.  I have suspicions that such thoughts are not original on my part.

The doll or the bicycle appears without consideration of the rock thrown at the neighbor’s cat, or of the piece of candy that made its way out of the store without first visiting the cash register.  The hateful gesture made while Mother’s back was turned evidently went unnoticed, along with a series of thoughts unfit for open discussion.

Just imagine a “once upon a time” kind of place where a culture of men behaved properly towards each other without supervision. They had no need of policing each other.  I’m having trouble finding documentation of it in history books, but maybe some of you might remember it, or live in such a place even now, though I doubt it.  As close as it may have come to that were the aboriginal people of North and South America.  Conquering Europeans thought it odd that these “natives” were so uncivilized as to have never found a need for prison systems.  And with a religious fervency, the conquerers set about to revise this misconception in a most loving way with bullets and swords.

How about you, personally?  Do you think your behavior requires that you to be monitored by police or standing armies? Think about your answer carefully.  Many of you reading this right now consider yourself a moral person, and that the monitoring is for all the other folks who are not.  What if everybody felt that way?  What if it was true?

Well, it isn’t.  There are those who do not steal from each other because they believe security (the person from whom they’d take, the police, God, Santa Claus, Mama, etc.) is watching, and there are those who won’t because they believe it would not be the right thing to to.  Is it what you think you’ve gotten away with that bothers your conscience, is it only that a fear of getting caught would cause such a bother?  From what we see by example even in high places, getting caught seems to be the mother of remorse and apology.

If the goodness of your heart is dependent on your compliance to a rule that says you should not get caught doing otherwise, shall I trust you?  How about that person who is committed to want to do the right thing whether anybody else is looking or not?  Can we always depend on what people tell us motivates them, or is it wise to make an assessment of there actions?  If a man behaves honorably, I will trust him to be honorable.  If a man tells me he is honorable, I’ll watch him like a hawk.  All that being said, for most of my life, I’ve deserved a fair amount of watching.  Because of that and not because of anything you’ve done personally that I know of, I tend to keep an eye peeled.

I find it odd that once a year, Ebenezer Scrooge is seen as a man of misplaced values, while the rest of the time, he’s likely to be seen as a role model.  Even now, those employed by Mr. Scrooge know that the spirit of giving needs to be strongly reinforced in the minds of the customers, or else Bob Cratchit’s end of the year tally could cost him his job.  For Mr. Scrooge, it could be just a matter of how he keeps score.  But for Mr. Cratchit, it might be a matter of life and death.  If you remember, Tiny Tim was not covered by insurance.

 

A Generic Deity-Free Prayer?

“If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.” – Dan Quayle

(I dare you to read this entire thing without falling asleep.  I double dare you to read it aloud in a public place.  If pressed for time, best to leave it alone, as it might get you arrested in some places.)

Sometimes I think folks ain’t got a lick of sense.  You’d think modern people should’ve moved a bit beyond the superstitions of the Dark Ages, or at least a step or two past the invention of the stone ax.  There is a rare group of human beings that are good people of faith.  Their faith leads them to want to be helpful to others, to be kind,  understanding, and set worthy examples of behavior for the rest of us.  I’d like to think you are one of those.

Imagine the way it must have been sitting around some ancient campfire long before even the most rudimentary scientific methods were contrived.  One man looks into the sky and sees something he has not noticed before.  So he points and asks, just as you or I might do:

“What is that?”

A clever one in the group, feeling the call, answered saying:

“That is the god of flea infestations.  I know a magic chant that will make him leave you alone.   It only costs a dollar.”

Well, with the exception of your religion which I’m sure is the correct one, that’s pretty much how the rest of them got started.  More and more, people were easily tricked this way, and after a while, most of the visible stars and planets had been franchised.  Then the simple fee of a dollar was translated into a percentage of gross, so most of the franchise owners began to do quite well.

Over the last six thousand or so years of written history, man has catalogued and believed in perhaps a little less than four thousand supernatural beings, most of which were considered to be gods at one time or another.  From time to time, heated and often violent arguments would break out between franchisees.  Venus and Aphrodite were both the same planet, and the Greeks and Romans fought about it for centuries.  Both claimed she was the goddess of love, and they brutally killed each other to prove it.

We know various sects, religions, and denominations have been disagreeing with each other about their ideas of God throughout recorded history.  And, it is likely to have gone on way before that since different cultures developed a variety of methods for dealing with their own dead for thousands of years before anybody found it necessary to write anything down.

Archeologists have found evidence of pre-historic burials including flowers and personal items.  Besides a sense of loss and a show of respect, it strongly indicated belief systems of some kind were in place even though there were no words written at the time to verify it.  It’s hard to get around the idea of a strong indication that there must have been a belief in the continuance of the personality or spirit that might be eased into an afterlife.  Later on, the earliest forms of writing would give evidence it had likely been commonly believed for a long time.

With the advent of writing, which lead to taxation and the need of prison systems, we now have evidence that man has not always been as sophisticated as he is today with his concepts of the supernatural.  According to textbooks, and statues made in honor of deities throughout antiquity, it may shock you to know that many of them ran around completely nude all the time.  Some never had as much as a stitch on at any time, or thought about it.  The expression: “keep your shirt on” is a mortal one, and at no time has anyone hearing it thought it was being directed at the Deity.  No sane person would intentionally wish to aggravate a higher power that they believed could cause them to burst into flame or be turned into a toad, now would they?  Of course not!

Even when people were expected to wear at least a wide belt or a hat, these gods could run around naked as jaybirds without any condemnation whatsoever.  But for some reason, several of these blatantly unadorned guardians of irreproachable righteousness would go completely psychotic at the very sight of various and sundry mortal human body parts, including faces, hands, and ankles, not to mention belly buttons and other stuff, and particularly if they are parts belonging to females not still nursing their mothers.

As odd as this may seem, throughout ancient times and even today, this prejudicial practice has been particularly good news in the garment trade in some regions perhaps more than others.  Furthermore, even if the god might be naked, to come into a worship service often required mere humans to put on even more clothes than they might otherwise.  Go figure that!   Now there is the widely held assumption that dispensations for relaxing the rules are allowed at the beach or swimming pool, as long as there are no glass containers, horseplay, or running.

Everything imaginable including rot and decay has had some kind of supremacy monitoring activities as if by department and precinct.  Some were thought to be powerful beyond limit as long as you’d stand where they could see you.  Yet some of the others were noted to have less substantial dominions.  A spirit of mirth might be able to conjure a laugh, but had no rightful place to help with harvesting grain.

A few had control over the kinds of fruits that make wine, but were useless in a barroom fight resulting from excessive use of the wine, much less a war.  Still others had title to specific activities such as hunting or fishing, but couldn’t help you if you cut your hand on a sharp rock or stumped your toe.  Some were particularly burdened with fertility and rationed it with agonizing intensity until the inventions of automobiles and drive-in movies.

Other divinities got to play with lightning, fire, wind and rain, and hold court over the changing of seasons.  Some were beyond reproach, while others were capable of outright stupidity resulting in being chained and placed in time out.  All of them were thought capable of messing with mankind, and were often given credit for it in ways you would not believe if I had two months to explain it to you.

As time went on, and with the cost of building temples escalating like everything else, it seemed preferable to latch on to the ones that kept an open playbook.  More and more, societies wanted their deities to be able to run decathlon type events, and control the outcome of elections as well as other duties.  So the herd was thinned by ceremonial consolidations, but usually not without bloodshed among outspoken mortals resistant to change.

Mankind has always enjoyed killing each other as long as some supreme being was responsible for authorizing it.  Whenever things got dull, a holy man would always be available to receive some new rule authorizing homicide, especially if one of the chiefs or high priests didn’t like the intended recipient of this new honor.

For some reason, many cultures around the globe had gods that had it in for two kinds of women: those who were particularly credited with innocence, and those who might not be.  The political ramifications of such beliefs have throughout most of human history maintained women as mere property similar to cattle.  Chieftains, kings and high priests could own as many as they wanted, and could kill them or have them put to death for so much as a hangnail or any reason that might cause a chief to feel inconvenienced.

In time, most of the earlier fearful spirits that instructed virgins to be cast into active volcanoes have had their licenses revoked.  Today, most of those kinds of gods have been sentenced to a lifetime in the chronicles of mythology, and to linger there without bail.  The severity of this is intensified by the mere fact that immortality is problematic to a life sentence, especially when there is no hope of parole.

Some are of the opinion that since a few of these ancient deities were a bit weird, it’s likely that superstitious people may have made them up to explain phenomena like thunder, snow melting, flying squirrels, identical twins, albinos, hiccoughs, and various other diseases.  Over time, stories of them merged with the stories of others, and those who couldn’t get a good seat in proper mythology were relegated to the department of redundancy department.

Now, none of this is intended to throw disparity on the one true religion, that being the one that you believe in.  The aforehand is to simply point out that not all human beings are as smart as you, and their beliefs might come up short when compared to yours, that is all.  But this does not take away from the fact that many folks to this very day still believe all kinds of things.  Statistics suggest there is no consensus or majority.  No matter what a person believes, most of the rest of the human population thinks they are wrong.  While I often question statistics, I see evidence that this observation may be true.

In many places, such diversity would be illegal, but not in The United States.  The freedom to believe whatever you want to is protected by a contract called The Constitution as long as you don’t believe you’re entitled to speed in school and hospital zones, or park in front of a fire hydrant.

This freedom was not extended to the native Americans.  Since it was assumed all of their gods were underdeveloped, the natives had to be converted to a more civilized religion which required killing about ninety-five percent of them to ensure their salvation.  I’m sure some soldiers felt frustrated when ordered to murder small children and pregnant women, but since it was done to promote charity and forgiveness, and had been prayed about ceremoniously before going into battle, it was okay.  After all, they had to uphold their duty, and uphold the values of the God of mercy.  Besides, real-estate was involved.

Today in this country, membership in a religion is not required by law which seems to upset some who would want freedom of religion annulled, and all citizens made to come under their rule.  I know you find that hard to believe, but it’s true.  In the meantime, religion and government are expected to keep separate checking accounts, though neither seems to be any good about balancing them.  Governments and religious groups all seem to be constantly clamoring to solve revenue shortage issues, and no matter how much they pray about it, any hope of a solution always seems to evade them, as if it were some immutable law.

There is often a noticeable difference between what folks say they believe, and how they act.  Though it might be noticeable to me and you, most folks don’t seem to notice it at all.  It may come as a surprise to you, but all over the world and even in our own country, people have committed all kinds of atrocities against each other in the name of brotherly love, charity, honor, fairness, peace, forgiveness, unselfishness, respect, kindness, and dignity.  They’ve killed each other’s children over differences of how their mothers taught them to pray, and do not seem to be ashamed of it.  As a reward for such behavior, they expect to go to Heaven, but of course I will not ask you to pass judgement or render an opinion on that at this time.

This squabbling does go on, even today.  In some places, in the attempt to be civil and keep knives sheathed and guns holstered, compromises have taken place so that public ceremony will be open to all, and not offend anyone.  This is always expected to result from standing still while a member of the group steps forward to say something.  Whether what is said be intelligent or not doesn’t matter.  The presumption that a speech of some kind will anesthetize everyone’s brain has some precedent for those of you who might remember taking advanced algebra.

The squabblers have attempted to come up with a speech that will be acceptable to everyone regardless of what they believe.  Further, they believe this speech will also be acceptable to all deities without exception.  That it has never happened at any time in human history doesn’t seem to make the project seem the least bit problematic, and so they march on as if they do this sort of thing every day.

They will call this speech a prayer but it will not be a prayer; it will be a speech.  If it were a silent prayer, it might be sincere, but since it is to be given in public, it will be more like hair tonic: it won’t grow anything, but it tends to allow folks to feel better about themselves momentarily.  And towards this worthy end, the speech writers begin their noble task.

There are three kinds of speeches: a speech to persuade; a speech to inform, and a speech to entertain.

Deities who are without error in their willfulness cannot be persuaded to change their thinking about anything, nor would they need persuading.  To be able to change one’s mind under those circumstances implies it possible to improve upon perfection.  That would be like dropping a frog into a barrel of fine whiskey expecting to make the whiskey taste better, though it would surely improve the taste of the frog.

Those who are believed to be omnipotent and all knowing would have no need of being informed.  To think you could come up with a single thing they have not already thought of would be foolish and conceited.  If anything new needs adding, the all knowing should be able to come up with it without our help, I’m fairly sure of that.

That leaves the speech to entertain.  I challenge you to tell a joke to your neighbor who has heard it before, and expect him to laugh.  If he does, it is a kind deception intended not to humiliate you.  That you will have entertained your neighbor is not likely to be true.  So with that, you cannot pull a fast one over on the all knowing.  One believed to be all knowing should by definition be able to predict everything you are going to say even before you say it.  Have you ever heard a high priest or rabbi face the alter and say:

“Pick a card.”

No, I dare say you have not.  There would be no point in it.

Having used up all of the real categories for legitimate speeches, it only leaves the false speech–the speech to impress.  There is no such thing, because it doesn’t work.  Well, I say that, but it does work during election years, but only for those who’ve already made up their minds to be impressed in spite of anything that might make sense to you or me.

Since rhetoric usually fails to impress mere mortals of any high intelligence, I suspect it would be practically impossible to expect the trick to work on any of the world’s current deities, and certainly not on the one true God that you happen to believe in.  Besides, for anyone who says they believe in God to actually think they could produce a single piece of work that would be the least bit impressive to their concept of the cause of all creation, would be a kind of admission of being a mental pauper–in fact, bankrupt without so much as enough rational thought left over to step inside during a thunderstorm.

So that leaves us to come up with a new variety.  A speech not to persuade, inform, entertain, or impress, but one to simply…satisfy.  That you can satisfy everybody for very long is a bit of a stretch.  It would be a monumental task, and rare.  But evidently it should be easy enough, since humble public servants will look about expecting to find such a thing laying around with no price tag on it.  It would be similar to expecting to find a new no smoking policy that smokers will be happy about.

That coming up with a speech that is compliant without complying to anything in particular except that it be a speech of no substance whatsoever be a worthy project, is close to the kind of idiocy the general public has come to expect from those they elect to hold the sacred trust of public office.  It is consistant that coming up with such a speech that will have a benefit to it of any lasting value, will rank with the kind of brilliant thinking that gave us the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the use of Thalidomide to ease morning sickness.

Why is a public speech necessary at all?  If folks demand it have a part on the program, and their motives be sincere, why not allow a moment for “personal business” during which time each individual has the freedom and privacy of thought to sincerely pray whatever they wish to pray, to whomever they wish to pray it?  For that matter, some might wish to do some Yoga, Taekwondo, or just stretching exercises, and some might want to practice their multiplication tables or foot positions for their upcoming ballet recital.

Why not just declare a brief time of no eye contact for anyone who doesn’t want to look at anybody else.  You could pass out large paper bags the people could use to put over their heads to hide their faces.  Ask everyone to put cell phones and other audible distractions on mute, and no texting.  You could also ask folks to keep bodily contact at a minimun unless a few friendly folks standing close to each other would wish to hold hands?  That wouldn’t be so awful, would it?

You can’t call it a moment of silence for some orders require a little humming, chanting, clanging and rattling objects, and outright yelling intended to either wake their deity up from a nap, or otherwise at least get some attention.  Now I’m not all that big on making up rules, but it would seem sensible for anyone who’s deity is that hard of hearing be asked to take care of business outside before coming into the meeting.

Such racket as may be required to keep congregations awake will not be necessary at municipal meetings like you might expect during regular religious ceremonies.  Folks attending civic events are likely to be hopped up on adrenalin and wide-awake mad as a wet hen about something, or they wouldn’t be there in the first place.  The exception here would be elected officials.  They can sleep all they want since whatever might concern the individual citizen will be of no interest or importance to them.

So what might be the proper and civilized behavior of taking a moment of silence or pause for personal thought and reflection just won’t do for everybody.  I don’t doubt that you and I could do it, but the vast majority of folks will have issues with it.

If you really want a sincere honesty in keeping with how a lot of people really feel deep inside, it would be better for you to call for a moment of noise.  Folks would whip out kazoos, harmonicas, tambourines, small drums party horns, and ipods.  Those without forethought to bring an instrument might hit the panic button on their keyring; snap their fingers, bark and meow like dogs and cats, imitate bird calls, blow their noses, stomp their feet, or yodel.  Such a thing as that might be followed by a moment of laughter, which wouldn’t hurt most people to try once in a while.

Why have I said all this?  Are people really having problems about how to deal with their belief systems in mixed company?  Well, yes they are.

As a matter of fact, they are having this very problem right now in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina which as you know is an absolute haven for righteous people.  I am not making this up.  It has been brought to my attention that Myrtle Beach has approved a deity-free prayer to be offered at all their public meetings.

If you wish, you may read the newspaper article for yourself:

The Sun News of Myrtle Beach reports the prayer  is supposed to include people of all faiths.  They’ve previously used local clergy, but as a government, they cannot ceremoniously give preference, or call on any one specific deity, while ignoring the other deities that may be represented among the belief systems of the citizenry.  Some did not like the idea of adopting a standard invocation, especially some of the preachers who resent anybody telling them how to pray, including Jesus.  But folks also agreed they did not want unnecessary litigation with various sects and denominations suing each other.  That could run into money.

After reading the prayer, I found it falls short of perfection if it is to cover the entire spectrum of beliefs and faiths.  It may be fine for me and you since we are willing to go along with some concessions out of the spirit of cooperation, but some others are certain to take issue.

After checking with several other highly refined theologians, scholars, and taxi drivers (who have in fact heard everything), I think it might be especially unacceptable to the Universal Paranormal Universalists, The Cosmic People of the Light Poles, The Himalayan Missionary Chorus of Zen, The Unreformed Reformationists of the Babylonian Captivity, The Revived Newburg Pastafarians, The Blessed Women of Contrived Destiny, The Free-For-All Apocalyptic Deacons of Charitable Wrath, The Primitive Church of the Subterranean Genius, The Divine Apostles of the Shirley Temple, The Iambic Pentametered Sanctimonialists, The Rejuvenated Nectarine Revivalists, The Janitorial Holiness Saints of the Rectified Sanitary Communion, and of course The Evangelical Black Robe Dudeists.  So I decided to write one myself, and submit it now for your consideration.

Under considerable pressure and emotional strain, I have struggled day and night to come up with a one size fits all prayer that isn’t protected by trademark.  It had to be generalized, and work with all operating systems.  It must have no recognizable face.  The wheels cannot be designed to fit the tracks of any specifically unique railroad, but the “clickety clack” should resonate well with all who hear it, and assume some simple common track is sufficient for all destinations, which of course is not now, nor has it ever been true.  Additionally, it is to be served without salt, pepper, or gravy of any kind.

In other words, it won’t be a prayer at all.  It will be reduced to a kind of circus event.  So I’ve come up with just that–a prayer that is in no way a prayer.   Since it is not really a prayer, there is really no point in saying it except to know that the intended audience is not the Deity at all.  No, it is for the benefit of people gathered in need of hearing what they believe will be “the best we could do under the circumstances”.  So here we go:

“Lettuce Spray,

Our Heavenly to whom it may concern, we rattle our keys in our pockets, yea those who have keys, for which we are truly grateful, or reasonably so in case you had anything to do with it.  

Given our inability to know all things, it is our wish that if you do know all things, or even have a good overview of most things, please tell us why many of us were expected to wear a tie to this gathering.  Forgive those who did not wear a tie, unless you need to forgive those of us who did–either way, we’ll make no fuss about it.

Oh apparently high, and reasonably presumed to be powerful one, otherwise, why would we come to you begging and pandering, since I’m not allowed to be specific enough to know if I’m even facing in the right direction, much less anything else that you might otherwise expect from ceremony which this is not, under penalty of law. 

Thou great consensus, and moderated provider of this and that which we dare not point out specifically as others might disagree, we humbly admit that some of us are probably thinking thoughts about going to the beach later, and even about sex.  We ask that no note be taken of those who are now at this time looking around at their neighbors. 

But we realize there is a chance that, depending on your mood,  this information about our distractions will extremely upset you as history has made so plainly clear, so forgive us, fully assuming you have such authority in this jurisdiction.  You may disregard this request if your regular worshippers expect you to be playing a flute.

Even so,  if you cannot find it in your heart–some say loving –some say angry–some say jealous, personally I do not wish to pin you down as to whether it matters one way or the other how we might feel about it, spare us of plagues if you want to.  But if you don’t want to, we’ll understand, or at least act like we do.  

In as much as we raise or redirect our voices in the direction of your habitat, etherial or otherwise, forgive us our non-committal gaze into space as if we knoweth not from whence thou cometh.  Although I do have my own suspicions,  as do all of us gathered here, protocol restricts our verbal declarations for fear of conflicting geometry.  But I’m sure you know what we mean individually though we can’t say it out loud.  

Please allow us to seem as one mind in one group even though you know it isn’t quite the way things are.  After all, fair is fair, and you know all of us are required to do the very same thing during the choral readings and vespers we feel obligated to join in our own camp.   

We grovel and beg that thou help us to appear to overlook the things we would normally hate about our neighbors, for which we’ve all paid good money to be taught.  At least allow it to appear so during this time of invocation, we beseech thee. 

We humbly ask, inasmuch as many of us present today have no idea what humble means outside of our own individual smug opinions of it, that you make all fines, penalties and other purgatorial conditions fair and equal as some in our midst are on short rations and otherwise limited incomes.  

This is not to say we wish that those among us of means are to take the blunt of thunder, either.  We just ask you consider our deductibles in as fair a way as you’d see fit. 

On now, yet so it is not for brevity’s sake, but that several of our seniors might need to go to the bathroom, we ask that you give note to our contrition as we wrap this up.  

Dear, if that isn’t being too personal and forgive us if it is, Oh Ye who art the deep and most high awareness or maybe not, it is our sincere and fervent cry to know if thou doest speak English?  

If so, and to allow for the continuing and endless stream of more private supplications, please press one; if Spanish, press two, (additionally insert all languages represented by the group present, and with corresponding digits as may be required).  Amen.”

In a 1941 animated film produced by Walt Disney, Dumbo the Elephant could fly.  But he would never try until he believed.  For a long time, he believed in the magic feather which was just a trick played on his mind by a group of crows and a hapless mouse.  The feather never did have a bit of magic in it.  The magic was in the believing.

Eventually, Dumbo lost his grip on the feather, which was very frightening at first.  Up ’til now, he’d believed solely in the feather, even though there was no real power in it.  Now he had to believe in something else; something real that was a part of himself.  He did, and that’s what saved him.

By the way, for those of you who will remember, what Dumbo believed became obvious by the course of actions he took, and not by anything he said.  As a matter of fact, at no time in the story did he ever say a single word…out loud.