This morning during my drive to the office (in Salt Lake City) I spoke at length with one of our Client Managers in New Jersey about the introduction and testing of a new product at one of his retail clients. It was a very hopeful, upbeat conversation - not gloom and doom as you might expect from a Product Manager and a Client Manager in the current economy.
Frank (the Client Manager) and I spoke of opportunities and possibilities, and of course, as all responsible product managers and client managers must, we spoke briefly of the possible downside and the risks.
My product is not recession proof, but honestly, does that really matter? We aren't really having a recession and since these things are more related to emotion than reason, we might not if Mr. Greenspan would go away and stop chattering. (Honestly, the man has used more new words in two months than he did the whole time he was at the Fed. Time for this old boy to go quietly away!)
Then we talked about what really matters. Since we last had a business reason to talk, Frank's wife brought twin boys into the world and their home. There hasn't been a lot of sleep around there, but that is changing and the spring like weather has finally arrived in New Jersey. He noted that being able to get the boys out into the fresh air for walks was helping them sleep.
Then I spoke of two of my beautiful daughters, one graduating from High School and going on to prepare to accomplish her dreams in college in the Fall, and the other marrying a fine young man in July. We parted on a very hopeful note.
And as I hung up (figuratively - I actually pushed the little blue flashing button on what one of my friends calls the new "man earring,") I thought, "It was never about the economy, Mr. Carville. It was always about hope - stupid!"
And it always is, whether it is religion, economies, work, vacations, or digging out earthquake rubble - we hope! And even this morning, with what my sister calls our "schizophrenic Utah weather" (it was a beautiful 70+ yesterday - looks like rain today) I find myself hopefully thinking of Spring, graduations and weddings, new product placement and economic recovery.
I even dare to hope that they will figure out the big things in Washington; things like immigration, and health care, and sustainable fuels. Well, maybe that is more a dream than a hope ...
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Brothers
Last week I had lunch with two men I much appreciate and admire. I met them both because of my fairly recent involvement with the Free and Accepted Masons of Utah. For the record, I am a member of Wasatch Lodge No 1 in Salt Lake City, Utah, having been raised a Master Mason in 2007. I am also a member of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, having received the 32 degree in mid-November 2007.
Lunch last week was an opportunity to introduce my friend Patrick, who is a recently initiated Entered Apprentice, to my friend John, who has a Masonic pedigree as long as my arm. Though John is younger than me, his Masonic experience and his willingness to answer the stupid questions of new guys has led me to refer to him as my "big brother," and while I have been very willing to answer Patrick's questions, I felt that he could benefit from some of John's insights. Lunch was very satisfying.
I spent the weekend reflecting on the nature of the young men coming in to Masonry these days. Freemasonry is experiencing something of a Renaissance these days. After WWII, returning vets came into the Fraternity in droves. There were more men involved in Masonry in the post WWII period than at any other time in US History.
Then along came my pretty useless generation with their rebellion against anything their parents held dear, and Masonic membership began to shrink as Masons died. In recent years, just as it appeared that Masonry would go the way of the Dodo, the interest of men in things fraternal has been rekindled to some degree. And along with some members of my generation (later in life), the rising generation has embraced the Fraternity too.
At our last Scottish Rite Business Meeting, a lecturer noted that we had men in the room from the age of 21 to 94. And so we did. And all of the younger Masons in the room were well known to me, being from my home Lodge of Wasatch. And Patrick, who is a little older and different than most of them, being in his late twenties and married, is very much like these new and young Masons. They are bright, and well-educated, and serious about life, and desirous of making a difference.
Many of these young Masons possess three or four college degrees. Many who were raised in 2007 went off, or are going off to Law School or Medical School. Some have political ambitions. Some are already in their professions and have great responsibility for young men. All of them are thinking men. And their conversation is intelligent and interesting.
As I watch these young men; Patrick, Kim Jr., Rob, Andrew, Jeff, Brian, and those of other Lodges too, I am struck by two things. The first is my own regret that I didn't become a member earlier in my life - mostly because I needed to be exposed to the culture of service to society. The second of these is that our Fraternity is in good hands in the near future, for these young men are the kind of men who came home from WWII: patriotic, thinking men who built things - and make things better.
I'm fortunate, humbled and honored to call them my brothers.
Lunch last week was an opportunity to introduce my friend Patrick, who is a recently initiated Entered Apprentice, to my friend John, who has a Masonic pedigree as long as my arm. Though John is younger than me, his Masonic experience and his willingness to answer the stupid questions of new guys has led me to refer to him as my "big brother," and while I have been very willing to answer Patrick's questions, I felt that he could benefit from some of John's insights. Lunch was very satisfying.
I spent the weekend reflecting on the nature of the young men coming in to Masonry these days. Freemasonry is experiencing something of a Renaissance these days. After WWII, returning vets came into the Fraternity in droves. There were more men involved in Masonry in the post WWII period than at any other time in US History.
Then along came my pretty useless generation with their rebellion against anything their parents held dear, and Masonic membership began to shrink as Masons died. In recent years, just as it appeared that Masonry would go the way of the Dodo, the interest of men in things fraternal has been rekindled to some degree. And along with some members of my generation (later in life), the rising generation has embraced the Fraternity too.
At our last Scottish Rite Business Meeting, a lecturer noted that we had men in the room from the age of 21 to 94. And so we did. And all of the younger Masons in the room were well known to me, being from my home Lodge of Wasatch. And Patrick, who is a little older and different than most of them, being in his late twenties and married, is very much like these new and young Masons. They are bright, and well-educated, and serious about life, and desirous of making a difference.
Many of these young Masons possess three or four college degrees. Many who were raised in 2007 went off, or are going off to Law School or Medical School. Some have political ambitions. Some are already in their professions and have great responsibility for young men. All of them are thinking men. And their conversation is intelligent and interesting.
As I watch these young men; Patrick, Kim Jr., Rob, Andrew, Jeff, Brian, and those of other Lodges too, I am struck by two things. The first is my own regret that I didn't become a member earlier in my life - mostly because I needed to be exposed to the culture of service to society. The second of these is that our Fraternity is in good hands in the near future, for these young men are the kind of men who came home from WWII: patriotic, thinking men who built things - and make things better.
I'm fortunate, humbled and honored to call them my brothers.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Nanny State - "Click it or Ticket"
I apprehensively take keyboard in hand to ask if the use of highly-trained peace officers to ensure seat belt use is the best option. I'm apprehensive because I know that one of my regular readers is a Deputy Sheriff Sergeant and another is the wife of a Deputy Sheriff officer in Salt Lake County.
So hear me out before you reply in all caps ...
This isn't about cops. It is about legislators and their values, and their need to impose those values on all the people they rule, er, I mean serve. (Freudian slip, I'm sure.) And more importantly, their lack of real break-through thinking.
To set the record straight, I wear my seat belt religiously. It is a well ingrained habit. You see, I grew up in the "Nanny State" with the highest level of sophistication and development ever. No, it was not Communist Russia, or Communist China, or even Socialist Europe - it was a US Military Base. I literally cut my teeth on socialized medicine.
And there were laws, rules and regulations stacked on rules and regulations. The most restrictive speed limits, and don't think of sitting on a motorcycle without a helmet, long pants and closed toe shoes. And seat belts will be worn, and often at the front gate as you entered this world apart, after dark, the "two-striper" on the gate would stop you and shine a light into the car to ascertain that each passenger was in a fastened belt prior to driving down that 25 mile an hour thoroughfare that was the equivalent of Main Street USA.
I know that millions of dollars are spent on injuries that could have been avoided "if only they would have used the seat belts that were standard equipment on the vehicle." And I'm always a bit uncomfortable at where the line between personal freedom ends and the protection of others begins.
So why am I concerned. Well, because I know for a fact that our biggest highway problems have more to do with drowsy and/or drunk drivers, and while the officers do a pretty good job arresting them, the courts do a very poor job prosecuting and punishing them - and they get back out there way too easily.
Our legislature, which can't get the drinking - driving thing right, decided to protect the rest of us with seat belts. And to further burden our overworked peace officers because they are the Nanny State - and that is what they do.
I'm betting there is a market-driven solution that would have been more effective - oh, and cost effective. (I can think of two all by myself and I only occasionally have an intelligent thought.) But a market-driven solution would require some imagination, and frankly, Nanny States have zero imagination. They invented the box out of which none of us can seem to think.
So hear me out before you reply in all caps ...
This isn't about cops. It is about legislators and their values, and their need to impose those values on all the people they rule, er, I mean serve. (Freudian slip, I'm sure.) And more importantly, their lack of real break-through thinking.
To set the record straight, I wear my seat belt religiously. It is a well ingrained habit. You see, I grew up in the "Nanny State" with the highest level of sophistication and development ever. No, it was not Communist Russia, or Communist China, or even Socialist Europe - it was a US Military Base. I literally cut my teeth on socialized medicine.
And there were laws, rules and regulations stacked on rules and regulations. The most restrictive speed limits, and don't think of sitting on a motorcycle without a helmet, long pants and closed toe shoes. And seat belts will be worn, and often at the front gate as you entered this world apart, after dark, the "two-striper" on the gate would stop you and shine a light into the car to ascertain that each passenger was in a fastened belt prior to driving down that 25 mile an hour thoroughfare that was the equivalent of Main Street USA.
I know that millions of dollars are spent on injuries that could have been avoided "if only they would have used the seat belts that were standard equipment on the vehicle." And I'm always a bit uncomfortable at where the line between personal freedom ends and the protection of others begins.
So why am I concerned. Well, because I know for a fact that our biggest highway problems have more to do with drowsy and/or drunk drivers, and while the officers do a pretty good job arresting them, the courts do a very poor job prosecuting and punishing them - and they get back out there way too easily.
Our legislature, which can't get the drinking - driving thing right, decided to protect the rest of us with seat belts. And to further burden our overworked peace officers because they are the Nanny State - and that is what they do.
I'm betting there is a market-driven solution that would have been more effective - oh, and cost effective. (I can think of two all by myself and I only occasionally have an intelligent thought.) But a market-driven solution would require some imagination, and frankly, Nanny States have zero imagination. They invented the box out of which none of us can seem to think.
Speaking of Reason ... Intelligent Design?
While working yesterday with a reporting analyst on the design of a query for a huge sub-set of data I need, my colleague told me about an experience with her teen-aged son. She recently attended a substance abuse class with him and the instructor taught them a little about that amazing human cortex I wrote about in my last entry. While this instructor noted that the reasoning function of the cortex is last to fully develop, he mentioned that independence is fully developed prior to the final development of reason.
Now this may seems to be a “duh” piece of information. Of course independence precedes reason. Reason is last! Still, it was an "AHA" moment for my analyst colleague - and for me too.
Our 17, 18 and 19-year old "children" can't wait to be out on their own. The desire for independence is fully functional by about 17-years, and their reason does not really catch up until they are, on average, roughly 19-years. Suddenly, while my colleague spoke, I had a deeper insight into what Bill Cosby calls the “brain-damaged kids.”
I know my youngest daughter, who graduates from High School in a little more than a week, thinks that I just can’t let go – but it is so much more than that. We’re not rich people. In fact, we make just enough to be comfortable and to disqualify our children for any financial aid at institutions of higher learning. We do have enough to help, but Dartmouth is just not in our reach. And neither are 4-years at an out of town university or college if we have to pay the room and board.
That means that my young student (with her almost developed reasoning center) would have to work harder and longer to cover the costs of life while she attends college. And there are some really fine local colleges and universities that would allow us, with our limited resources, to give her time to focus on her education while we fund tuition, books, and lab fees, and room and board (at home.) She can work part-time for the car payment, the gas, insurance, and the little extras (Can you say, “Jimmy Choo boots?”)
And it also means that even if my youngest reads this, she may miss the absolute logic of such a position – because independence is fully formed but her reason is still cooking. Now who says the Design was Intelligent?
Now this may seems to be a “duh” piece of information. Of course independence precedes reason. Reason is last! Still, it was an "AHA" moment for my analyst colleague - and for me too.
Our 17, 18 and 19-year old "children" can't wait to be out on their own. The desire for independence is fully functional by about 17-years, and their reason does not really catch up until they are, on average, roughly 19-years. Suddenly, while my colleague spoke, I had a deeper insight into what Bill Cosby calls the “brain-damaged kids.”
I know my youngest daughter, who graduates from High School in a little more than a week, thinks that I just can’t let go – but it is so much more than that. We’re not rich people. In fact, we make just enough to be comfortable and to disqualify our children for any financial aid at institutions of higher learning. We do have enough to help, but Dartmouth is just not in our reach. And neither are 4-years at an out of town university or college if we have to pay the room and board.
That means that my young student (with her almost developed reasoning center) would have to work harder and longer to cover the costs of life while she attends college. And there are some really fine local colleges and universities that would allow us, with our limited resources, to give her time to focus on her education while we fund tuition, books, and lab fees, and room and board (at home.) She can work part-time for the car payment, the gas, insurance, and the little extras (Can you say, “Jimmy Choo boots?”)
And it also means that even if my youngest reads this, she may miss the absolute logic of such a position – because independence is fully formed but her reason is still cooking. Now who says the Design was Intelligent?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Gorillas in (the Mists of) Texas
Every once in a while I say something intelligent. I know this only because someone intelligent says the same thing or something quite like it, after I do, in a respected forum.
In this case, a little more than a week ago I said the FLDS men in Texas (and Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada) were behaving just like a Band of Gorillas and not like evolved, reasoning, and civilized people. I went on (as I always do) to say that the FLDS Prophet was quite convincing in the role of dominant silverback and the other mature and favored males were obviously playing the role of lesser but still significant silverbacks.
And in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (May 21, 2008), Lionel Tiger, the Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers and the author of Men in Groups, The Decline of Males, Women in the Kibbutz, and The Imperial Animal (among other titles) said the same thing only better. I recommend the article to you. You can find it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132858677808907.html (Subscription required)
I was a young man when I came to believe that people are basically animals with a twist, and that twist is our amazing cortex. The cortex is what really separates us from the rest of the animal world, and along with such wonderful gifts as language and speech, we are also endowed with reason. And it is really this dual nature of man – both reasoning and an animal, which cause us to see such large discrepancies in human behavior.
While living in Great Britain, I learned that the word devolution is defined as “the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a state to government at national, regional, or local level.” (Wikipedia - Devolution) I always thought that it was too bad this word had already been defined, however, because it would be a natural for what I think happens when evolved humans return to their natural roots.
As a reasoning being, we can think outside our nature. As animals, we can return to that nature – if I had my way, I’d call this devolution - any time we give up on reason. And the FLDS compound is simply a community of humans acting like a Band of Gorillas. They have their alpha-males (the silverbacks.) And like a Band of Gorillas, the young men who are competitors for the marriageable women of the community are reported to be found guilty of some infraction and banished from the community (in Utah, these young men are referred to as “Lost Boys”), thus leaving these women available for marriage and childbearing with the silverbacks.
There is one thing, upon which Professor Tiger and I do not agree, however. He calls this FLDS community and others like it “deranged cults.” I think we ought to start calling them what they really are, that is a Band of Gorillas. They left reason behind and hide behind religion as they act the part of gorillas.
There is nothing new here. Just what I like to call "devolution."
In this case, a little more than a week ago I said the FLDS men in Texas (and Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada) were behaving just like a Band of Gorillas and not like evolved, reasoning, and civilized people. I went on (as I always do) to say that the FLDS Prophet was quite convincing in the role of dominant silverback and the other mature and favored males were obviously playing the role of lesser but still significant silverbacks.
And in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (May 21, 2008), Lionel Tiger, the Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers and the author of Men in Groups, The Decline of Males, Women in the Kibbutz, and The Imperial Animal (among other titles) said the same thing only better. I recommend the article to you. You can find it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132858677808907.html (Subscription required)
I was a young man when I came to believe that people are basically animals with a twist, and that twist is our amazing cortex. The cortex is what really separates us from the rest of the animal world, and along with such wonderful gifts as language and speech, we are also endowed with reason. And it is really this dual nature of man – both reasoning and an animal, which cause us to see such large discrepancies in human behavior.
While living in Great Britain, I learned that the word devolution is defined as “the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a state to government at national, regional, or local level.” (Wikipedia - Devolution) I always thought that it was too bad this word had already been defined, however, because it would be a natural for what I think happens when evolved humans return to their natural roots.
As a reasoning being, we can think outside our nature. As animals, we can return to that nature – if I had my way, I’d call this devolution - any time we give up on reason. And the FLDS compound is simply a community of humans acting like a Band of Gorillas. They have their alpha-males (the silverbacks.) And like a Band of Gorillas, the young men who are competitors for the marriageable women of the community are reported to be found guilty of some infraction and banished from the community (in Utah, these young men are referred to as “Lost Boys”), thus leaving these women available for marriage and childbearing with the silverbacks.
There is one thing, upon which Professor Tiger and I do not agree, however. He calls this FLDS community and others like it “deranged cults.” I think we ought to start calling them what they really are, that is a Band of Gorillas. They left reason behind and hide behind religion as they act the part of gorillas.
There is nothing new here. Just what I like to call "devolution."
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Swine? Swine Not?
Can I just say that I am not enjoying Jimmy Buffet's latest written offering? I keep reading, perhaps for the same reason I cannot turn my eyes away from a car wreck, hoping it will improve.
I've said many times, "Maybe I am not his targeted age group," but each time conclude that I'm not sure what age group would fit. This is an expansion of a manuscript someone else wrote (the illustrator) and maybe he just isn't connected enough to it to do it justice.
I'm not a big fan of the non-cartoon attribution of human intellect to animals, but that isn't it. It isn't compelling. Or weighty. It trivializes the pains and struggles of the human characters.
I wouldn't have picked it up and purchased it if it hadn't been for the Buffet name on the cover, and I expect not only to be entertained but also to feel something for the characters he develops. And that may be it - the characters are just there. They just don't seem to develop.
I doubt this will be my final word on the subject. I'm going to grit my teeth and complete it. Maybe it will all come together in the last half of the book and I will eat my words, perhaps even kill this post and write a glowing review that begins with, "It took a while to set up, but Swine Not? A Novel Pigs Tale is well worth the read!"
I wouldn't put any money on that though.
I've said many times, "Maybe I am not his targeted age group," but each time conclude that I'm not sure what age group would fit. This is an expansion of a manuscript someone else wrote (the illustrator) and maybe he just isn't connected enough to it to do it justice.
I'm not a big fan of the non-cartoon attribution of human intellect to animals, but that isn't it. It isn't compelling. Or weighty. It trivializes the pains and struggles of the human characters.
I wouldn't have picked it up and purchased it if it hadn't been for the Buffet name on the cover, and I expect not only to be entertained but also to feel something for the characters he develops. And that may be it - the characters are just there. They just don't seem to develop.
I doubt this will be my final word on the subject. I'm going to grit my teeth and complete it. Maybe it will all come together in the last half of the book and I will eat my words, perhaps even kill this post and write a glowing review that begins with, "It took a while to set up, but Swine Not? A Novel Pigs Tale is well worth the read!"
I wouldn't put any money on that though.
Monday, May 19, 2008
On What Constitutes "Good Men"
I’ve had the good fortune of having the same best friend since the middle of high school. This is despite now living in different states, having different religious backgrounds and practices, very different professions, and even falling out of touch for several years. Russ has been my closest male friend since 1972 and we regularly “correspond.” We also stay up on family events and try to see one another at least annually.
Most of the rest of my close male friends come (and go) with a particular professional experience, community organization, church congregation, or neighborhood. They are more like very close acquaintances. We work together, are neighborly, and may even golf together, but once our reason for meeting disappears, we are friendly when we see one another, but aren’t really “there” for one another – except at a funeral or wedding reception.
In recent years, I joined a fraternal organization and discovered many more close acquaintances and a couple of other men that I will probably remain close with wherever they may go or whatever they may do. The friendship seems to be mutually reciprocal. It has been very satisfying, for I have discovered as I have matured, that men need the company of good men in order to become better men.
I’ve known for a long time that boys need good men to model their behavior, and I suppose at some level I knew that young men who enter the military or go off to college can be led from traditional values by the wrong crowd. But it is also true that long after you have become the man you are, the company of good men can make a difference in your personal growth.
Russ continues to influence my life for good, as does Todd. And so do Robert and Kim (the new friends.) They do so not only because they would deem it important to be a close friend to a character like me, but also because they are “good men.”
After my experience at the Highland High Jr. Air Force ROTC Awards Assembly last week, I spent the whole weekend working in the yard, sitting in church, or visiting with my children and grandchildren and reflecting on what makes a “good man.”
We hear someone described as a “good man” at funerals, in recommendations for positions or honors, and sometimes just wistfully in a discussion. Sometimes it is a defense made by another for the actions of that man when he has been a complete dolt and we’re trying to say that the action was out of character, as in, “Yes, I know he was a complete dolt, but you know, deep down, he’s a good man.”
So what constitutes a “good man?” Hardworking? I’ve known lots of hardworking men who I didn’t think were good men. A donkey is hardworking, and we wouldn’t for a moment think of calling it a good man. Religious? There are very religious men who are unpleasant and uncaring. They save all their goodness for an unseen God and treat His creations like unworthy sinners. Dependable? Well, now we are just describing a paper diaper. Brilliant? Hardly. Handsome? Now that is just silly.
What is it then? First, I am quite sure what constitutes a good man is as variable as there are people describing them. Second, understanding this variable nature of the definition, there must be some characteristics which are recognized by a majority of people, because we see a lot of people nodding their heads in agreement when some men are so described.
I remember people saying of my own Grandfather, he’d give you “the shirt off his back.” I think that this trait, generosity, is a trait most would agree is a characteristic of a good man.
General classes of men that we consider good include firemen. They are willing to set themselves aside and run into a burning building for others – and for very little money. This selflessness would have to be a characteristic of good men. Boy Scout leaders are often said to be good men. So giving time, energy and even money to the development of youth would qualify as a characteristic of a good man.
Men who give of themselves to their employers and customers, their families, their neighbors, their friends, and their community can be good men, although I’m not sure how good they are if they only give of themselves to those they like. It isn’t the giving. It is connected to how freely they give what they have in time, talents, and resources. If they feel like they have to give, and give grumbling all the way then we probably wouldn’t think of them as good men. We might not even think they really gave.
If a man gives when he sees a need; quickly, voluntarily, cheerfully, unselfishly, without recrimination, then he is probably a good man. And frankly, my closest friends are constantly giving of themselves quickly, voluntarily, cheerfully, and unselfishly. They really are good men. And associating with them makes me better.
Most of the rest of my close male friends come (and go) with a particular professional experience, community organization, church congregation, or neighborhood. They are more like very close acquaintances. We work together, are neighborly, and may even golf together, but once our reason for meeting disappears, we are friendly when we see one another, but aren’t really “there” for one another – except at a funeral or wedding reception.
In recent years, I joined a fraternal organization and discovered many more close acquaintances and a couple of other men that I will probably remain close with wherever they may go or whatever they may do. The friendship seems to be mutually reciprocal. It has been very satisfying, for I have discovered as I have matured, that men need the company of good men in order to become better men.
I’ve known for a long time that boys need good men to model their behavior, and I suppose at some level I knew that young men who enter the military or go off to college can be led from traditional values by the wrong crowd. But it is also true that long after you have become the man you are, the company of good men can make a difference in your personal growth.
Russ continues to influence my life for good, as does Todd. And so do Robert and Kim (the new friends.) They do so not only because they would deem it important to be a close friend to a character like me, but also because they are “good men.”
After my experience at the Highland High Jr. Air Force ROTC Awards Assembly last week, I spent the whole weekend working in the yard, sitting in church, or visiting with my children and grandchildren and reflecting on what makes a “good man.”
We hear someone described as a “good man” at funerals, in recommendations for positions or honors, and sometimes just wistfully in a discussion. Sometimes it is a defense made by another for the actions of that man when he has been a complete dolt and we’re trying to say that the action was out of character, as in, “Yes, I know he was a complete dolt, but you know, deep down, he’s a good man.”
So what constitutes a “good man?” Hardworking? I’ve known lots of hardworking men who I didn’t think were good men. A donkey is hardworking, and we wouldn’t for a moment think of calling it a good man. Religious? There are very religious men who are unpleasant and uncaring. They save all their goodness for an unseen God and treat His creations like unworthy sinners. Dependable? Well, now we are just describing a paper diaper. Brilliant? Hardly. Handsome? Now that is just silly.
What is it then? First, I am quite sure what constitutes a good man is as variable as there are people describing them. Second, understanding this variable nature of the definition, there must be some characteristics which are recognized by a majority of people, because we see a lot of people nodding their heads in agreement when some men are so described.
I remember people saying of my own Grandfather, he’d give you “the shirt off his back.” I think that this trait, generosity, is a trait most would agree is a characteristic of a good man.
General classes of men that we consider good include firemen. They are willing to set themselves aside and run into a burning building for others – and for very little money. This selflessness would have to be a characteristic of good men. Boy Scout leaders are often said to be good men. So giving time, energy and even money to the development of youth would qualify as a characteristic of a good man.
Men who give of themselves to their employers and customers, their families, their neighbors, their friends, and their community can be good men, although I’m not sure how good they are if they only give of themselves to those they like. It isn’t the giving. It is connected to how freely they give what they have in time, talents, and resources. If they feel like they have to give, and give grumbling all the way then we probably wouldn’t think of them as good men. We might not even think they really gave.
If a man gives when he sees a need; quickly, voluntarily, cheerfully, unselfishly, without recrimination, then he is probably a good man. And frankly, my closest friends are constantly giving of themselves quickly, voluntarily, cheerfully, and unselfishly. They really are good men. And associating with them makes me better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)