Intellectually Celibate

The title of this piece is a term I once heard used to describe former President George "Dubya" Bush.

Our 43rd President was known to point out that "even a C student could be President". There is a fine line between "nice" and "stupid" which he seemed to straddle with great skill.

We probably all know people who are not deep thinkers, but I doubt that any had such power combined with such a lack of awareness (remember "Mission Accomplished"?). Dubya apparently did not read newspapers or books, nor did he read the briefing materials prepared for him by White House staff (at least not with any regularity). To me, it is not a huge surprise that we ended up in wars without clear objectives or end points. Combine this with advocating tax cuts when we are already operating at a deficit to fund the two wars, and it is easy to  understand why things were such a mess when he left office.

Obviously, being President requires a unique skill and knowledge which not everyone has. Unfortunately, Dubya appears to have been one with neither of them. While Obama is clearly way more intelligent, he apparently lacks the skill set as well. While many people may want the job, not many appear to be good at it.

Considering  his lack of interest in reading, it's more than a bit surprising that Dubya would have a Presidential Library. Most Presidential Libraries don't contain books, but rather papers, videos, audio recordings, and mementos. In his case, though, calling it a Library is a bit of an affront to the English language.
On a positive note, I have to say that I approve of how he has chosen to retire and stay out of politics. He does not attend events or make public comments about political issues, so at least he does not make things worse. For that, all should be grateful.
For those of you who think Dubya was a great President, I respect your right to your opinion, but we will have to agree to disagree. I think we, and history can remember him as both nice and intellectually celibate, and let it go at that.

Always get married in the morning...

More relationship advice. This time from the late Mickey Rooney (married eight times) who advised: "Always get married in the morning. That way, if it doesn't work out, you haven't wasted a whole day."
I once read that over half of the marriages in the United States end in divorce, so I have to concede that Mickey is much more of an expert on these things than I am (I have only been married twice so far).
On Facebook, for those of you who want to list being in a relationship, one of the choices you can select is "It's complicated". Looking around and seeing the relationships that many people are in, it's a bit surprising this selection is not chosen more often. It isn't necessarily a negative; relationships can be complicated and also be hard work.
We have so many different types and degrees of relationships: acquaintances, friends, good friends, best friends, enemies, relatives, colleagues, bosses/subordinates, co-workers, customers, girlfriends/boyfriends, lovers, fiancées, spouses, and a host of others. Put "former" in front of the descriptor, and you have created a whole new set. Considering how relationships can also change, you can begin to see why that one choice on Facebook isn't all that bad.
I guess you could say that the dynamic nature of relationships (they start, end, morph into different levels or categories) is part of what makes life so interesting and challenging. Relationships also seem to be something we all want or need. Think of Tom Hank's character in Castaway who developed a relationship with a volleyball (who he named "Wilson"). If we don't have a relationship, it seems like we will figure out a way to create one.
Whether you choose a volleyball or a spouse, whatever meets your need is OK. Remember , though, if you choose to get married, pick a time before noon. It can't hurt.

Never go to bed with anyone crazier than you are

Who among us  hasn't  received advice at one time or another about relationships? The  title of  this piece was advice that was offered  to me  many years ago when I  was "between marriages". The  person who offered this advice was, I believe, speaking from experience, and was trying to be helpful and make sure I did not make the same mistake.
While a degree of emotional baggage is to be expected in any relationship, the point I think he was trying to make was that everyone needs to identify a point in a relationship beyond which they will not go. To quote Dirty Harry, "A man's got to know his limitations." We all have different tolerances, perceptions, and expectations, so that point may vary for many of us. My friend viewed himself as relatively stable (at least most of the time), so the boundary for him the boundary was based upon himself.
Some of us can be a bit fussy in setting expectations of others in a relationship, such as: college graduate, nice teeth, not fat, not ugly (whatever that means to you), intelligent in discussions, rich, respectful, nice car/house, kids or no kids, religious (or not), good cook, nice wardrobe, good job, and a host of others.
While these expectations may work for you, it might not be a bad idea to also incorporate my friends advice. It worked for him; it will probably work for you.

Because we're stupid

On the surface, a lot of ideas seem like good ideas. It's when you scrape beneath the surface and really think about it, many of them would be better off having never been contemplated. Some of these ideas are big, like the War in Iraq, setting fire to the Branch Davidian Compound, New Coke, the rollout of Obamacare, or Reality Television. Others may not be as memorable or influential on our lives, but we still see or experience their impact to some degree.
Years ago, one of my mentors summed it up succinctly when I asked about a project in the hospital where we worked that was turning out to be a bit of a disaster, wondering how we ended up where we were. His response was, "The short answer is always: Because we're stupid." I hate to say it, but it seemed to be the perfect explanation for so much going on around us.
I am, by nature, an analytical thinker who likes to try to think out processes from beginning to end and to examine issues from differing perspectives. I sometimes have found that, what I initially though might be a brilliant idea, really wasn't. While I am prepared to defend my position on an issue, I am not afraid to be convinced that my position is mistaken. I am also not afraid to NOT have an opinion about something, whether it is because I don't know enough about it or it simply is not important to me.
Regretfully, it seems that there are a lot of people out there who respond to a situation and come up with an idea without giving it much (or enough) thought. Processes or products are developed without thinking about the people who actually have to use them or do the work. While cost of something is important, sometimes that is the only consideration and the end result is unworkable. Often, you and I are the end users of something that never should have happened.
So, the next time you are in a situation where you are asking someone, "How could this have happened?", you will know the answer.

If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?

The title of this piece is a response given by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War to a member of Congress who had accused him of being dishonest. Where does the term "two-faced" come from? One possible origin is the Roman god Janus, illustrations of which showed an individual with two faces looking in opposite directions. Supposedly, statements made by one face were opposite from the other.
Unfortunately, in today's world, truth is endangered. We live in a world of outright lies, partial truths, and "failures to disclose" where someone could tell you something true but chooses to say nothing instead. Of the three, my preference is failure to disclose. In my job, I am sometimes privy to information that can be somewhat unpopular. I may be "simple folk", but I think lying is wrong, and it is always preferable to say "I am not free to discuss this" rather than tell a whopper. Some of my former bosses had no problem with lying, but it lead to a lack of trust and, often, the assumption that much of what you were being told was untrue. It's not the formula for a good working relationship. Amazingly, though, these individuals are able to survive quite well in the corporate structure. I must be doing things wrong, but I can at least look in a mirror and see only one face.
Years ago, I was advised by someone that, if I wanted to get ahead, I needed to basically be a phony. This occurred when I was sitting down with my boss for my annual evaluation. She was quite a chameleon; I was never able to figure out what her true personality was. It appeared to work quite well for her until, one day, she was fired and gone.
While there are many out there who would not hesitate to climb over a pile of bodies to get to the top, I have no such aspirations. I know I will never get to be Vice President of anything, and that's OK with me. Being moderately successful is enough. No one will ever accuse me of being two-faced, and what more could I ask?

If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.

The title of this piece is a quote from Clint Eastwood. While Clint may not be an eminent philosopher, what he says makes a lot of sense about the world if one thinks about it. "Guarantee" is a word that is not as widely used as it once was. Back in the day, products and services were guaranteed. Clothes would fit, shoes would hold up under heavy use, cars would run reliably, planes would arrive on time. Now, our vocabulary has evolved to use the term "warranty" which seems much less definite and more time-limited. Many items that you might buy don't even have a warranty.
One of my favorite businesses, which still uses the term Guarantee, is LL Bean. The founder, Leon Leonwood Bean, said to treat people as human beings, give them good products at a reasonable price, and they'll be back. The only fault I can find with the company is that, sometimes, an item is out of stock and back ordered. That being said, it you buy something from them, it is guaranteed to work or fit as expected. If not, they will fix it, replace it, or refund your money without question or hassle.
While businesses and organizations my strive to "do the right thing", there are varying degrees of success. The downfall for many is that, while you may have the best of intentions, you have to rely upon other people to help get the job done, and they may not share in your work ethic. Put yourself in a situation in which you are, for example, trying to get a project done but, in order to do so, you need information from someone else. No matter how motivated you might be, if the other person does not get what is needed to you in a timely manner, you don't succeed. If I am solely responsible for the outcome, I do whatever is needed to get the job done, hopefully correctly, and on time. When relying upon others, my desire is till there, but I am reluctant to promise the same results.
I was recently asked by an individual if I would guarantee something. I responded that, even though I would like to, I could not because I had to rely upon others for the end result. It's like making a promise on behalf of someone else; it's just not a good idea.
So, we live in a world that has evolved to limit our expectations, at least I most cases. People upon whom you rely to do something may call in sick, items you need may be delayed in delivery, plans may be made by people who don't have to actually do the work to make the project successful. Today, giving something your best effort is, in a lot of cases, the best that can be expected. Don't ask Clint, or me, for a guarantee.

Never hate your enemies; it affects your judgment

The title of this piece is a quote from Michael Corleone in the Godfather movie trilogy. "Hate" is a term that is deeply infused into our culture, but little thought about, especially in the context used by Don Michael.
Every day, we say things like "I hate to tell you this..." or "I hate to be late", but, do we truly hate either? To me, "hate" brings with it such a strong emotional reaction that needs to be dialed back in most situations. For example, I can think of a couple of people for whom I worked in the past who mistreated me through abuse of their power. I can say that I dislike them, have no respect for them, and think they are assholes, but I don't say I hate them because they are simply not worth the energy I would want to assign to something I hate. To me, hating something takes time and effort, and most things simply don't deserve the energy expenditure. I would also be concerned that, like Michael Corleone, I might over-react or do or say something I would later regret. I am much better off saying that I don't like something, or don't attach any importance to it (like the Real Housewives of New Jersey).
There is good behavior and bad behavior, in varying degrees of each, in all of us. Fortunately, most of us tend to lean toward good behavior, but the potential to stray is always there. What keeps us from behaving badly? I could say that it's illegal, my parents taught me better, I would be embarrassed at what others might think, that I would not want to deal with negative consequences, etc. While there is still plenty of bad behavior out there, it is not something I would deliberately do, and I would not want to allow my emotions (including anger) to allow me to be rude, vindictive, or abusive. I am fortunate that my self-control is above average and, when it wavers, there are generally people around me who can point this out to me and keep me from doing something foolish or illegal.
I am also fortunate in being able to look back upon people who may have treated me badly and to be able to think that they may be bullies and assholes, but I do not hate them; they aren't worth the effort.