This Above All, to Thine Own Self Be True...

Shakespeare had it right in the advice of Polonius to Laertes in Hamlet. This above all, to thine own self be true... Whatever your endeavor, don't try to do it the way someone else would. Do it your way, because you are unique and unrepeatable - we are each special in our own way. No one else has had your heredity plus your environment plus your experiences. You may be a bit self-conscious and afraid that you won't be as good as someone else, but if you copy the work or style of another person, you will be a poor imitation and not an original. When you do things your way, you will automatically have an approach and style that is your own. It may not be perfect, but you'll be able to learn from it and improve on your next try, because you'll know what it took to achieve the first try. Whenever you tackle a task, a project, or a way of life, you may make mistakes for which you may be blamed. If you have been copying the ways of someone else, you will be blamed for his or her mistakes. Be an original and true to your own essence and background. It is much better to be blamed for your own mistakes than to suffer for the failings of someone you emulate. You may start your career by being an apprentice, but at some point you have to step out on your own and do original work. We all have variations in our degree of originality, but an ounce of originality is worth a ton of copying.

Obama's Gay Marriage Announcement

Yesterday (May 9, 2012), President Obama stated in an interview with ABC Television that he thought gay couples with healthy long-term commitments should be allowed to get married. What may have been lost in the reporting of this comment is that he called it his personal viewpoint. What he said is not official policy of the United States, but only a personal view that undoubtedly will influence many other people to have either a more positive or more negative opinion of the President. This was a classic Damned if you do and damned if you don't moment. It did show a lot of courage, but it may turn out to have been foolhardy from the viewpoint of political success in the next election. So long as Obama didn't define his stance, it was open to interpretation by all shades of the political spectrum. By declaring his position, he enhanced his standing with half of the voting public, but alienated the other half. This would have been true even if he had declared himself as being on the other side of this thorny debate. Therefore, I have to believe that Obama's public support of gay marriage has to be a statement of his conscience rather than being a political ploy. He gains nothing from it and may very well lose a lot. Whether or not this President gets re-elected, he has shown that he will take a stance on issues that most other politicians would remain ambiguous about.

Enough! I Need a Change!

I haven't been posting regularly on this blog because I allowed myself to get involved in too many things at the same time. No matter how capable you think you are, you have to face up to not being a comic book superhero. We all have our limitations, and the key to success is to either avoid over-committing in the first place or to recognize the problem and develop a step-by-step plan for reducing your load to a manageable level. This also involves determining which of your commitments are to be eliminated or minimized.
Eliminate a commitment that is:

• Not satisfying to you, even if you accomplish it.
• Too demanding, because you could do several alternate things for less effort and/or time commitment and with a higher total reward.
• Not rewarding, in terms of either immediate compensation (may or may not be monetary) or in terms of long-term payoff through the opening-up of new opportunities.
• Goal-less. Some tasks are done, in juggling terms, for the sake of keeping the balls in the air. You don't want to keep running on the treadmill in order to stay in the same place.

What are the consequences of saying "No!" to a new or ongoing task? Sometimes you can stop doing something, and nobody will even notice. In other cases, you have to find and train somebody else to replace you, because the task must be done by someone. Occasionally, you can simply walk away, forcing someone who otherwise would never have volunteered, to step up, because the lack of a reliable person doing that job threatens the organization. You may be perceived as weak or unreliable for quitting your task, but if you can take that criticism, you may consider yourself a hero for forcing someone else to take responsibility and for giving yourself new found freedom to consider other directions and opportunities. The future starts right now. Re-assess your obligations and, if you feel overburdened, continue only those you deem worthwhile.

The Abuse of Power

Power can be defined as the ability to exert one's will over another. Power is addictive, and those who have it seek to maintain it or keep it for as long as possible, regardless of the personal or material cost. One of the problems of the possession of power throughout history has been the "might makes right" syndrome. People who have the power to control others believe that they are right because they have the power to control others. Hence the old adage: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anyone who thinks he or she is wielding power for the sake of good rather than evil needs to be willing to accept a check and balance system that allows others to alert the person in power of a deviation from the path toward societally approved goals. Is power assumed for the sake of efficiency justified? Sometimes, but only in pursuit of very limited and well-defined goals. The problem often lies in determining what goals are worthy of granting power to a leader, and whether that leader feels that the end justifies the means. One who assumes power should take a sunset pledge to agree in advance to yield that power when the approved limited goal has been achieved or when a designated date has been reached. The addiction of power causes a leader to feel unique and irreplaceable, a situation that causes other viable leaders to protest and rebel.

Chicago Blackhawks Decline Arbitration Award for Antti Niemi

The Stanley Cup winners, the Chicago Blackhawks, have demonstrated that common sense is trumped by financial considerations in today's sports world. Capital availability, budgets, salary caps and shareholder pressures are more important than trying to turn a once-in-fifty-years championship into a sports dynasty. This is obviously a very conservative approach to sports management. The Blackhawks are thankful that they won this year, but they are assuming that they are not likely to repeat, so they are being fiscally conservative and hoping for the best.

The salary cap restriction made them release or trade a bunch of players who were central to their phenomenal season, but given the fact that they had already conceded that they could stay under the salary cap with Niemi's arbitration award, their action baffles me. In playoff hockey, a reliable goalie is essential. The Blackhawks are disregarding the adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Not only that, but they are turning their backs on a young goalie with many years of future playing potential in favor of a good but older goalie who would be only a temporary solution.

The other Blackhawks news item that throws me is their statement that they lost money this year. They had bigger crowds than ever; they had TV revenues that they didn't have in the past; they had all of the souvenir sales and other benefits of a championship; and they lost money. Next year they will have higher salaries and a low probability of repeating as champions. Will they make more money than this year? I doubt it, but good luck to them.

Local News vs. World News

I have a relative who only watches and listens to local news. He isn't at all concerned with what happens on the larger world scene. I tend to closely monitor the national and international news while only briefly reviewing the local news. Who is correct? The answer is probably that we are both correct because we have different points of view. My relative is more concerned with his day-to-day costs, taxes, and laws that impact his lifestyle. I am more focused on long-term trends and national/international developments that will have impact on my personal life in the future. The fact that different people have varying viewpoints and priorities is a good thing. Because of this sort of situation, you can have negotiations and family plans where both parties are satisfied with the outcome. If we both wanted exactly the same thing, one would come out of a negotiation the winner and the other the loser. Progress is made when you can satisfy all parties without having winners and losers. To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, people and countries all act in their own enlightened self-interest. We will have coexistence, peace, and prosperity to the extent that those self-interests are not mutually exclusive.