All in a day's work

A portion of what I do for a living involves group facilitation.  Calling it "teaching" or even "training" would be misleading, as those words imply that I am actually imparting valuable academic or technical skills.  Rather, much of what I do in front of an audience has more to do with getting people to try and think about things a little differently.  The "things" could be about leadership challenges, performance management, organizational design, or similar topics.  It's a nice way to earn a living.

The above noted, today I had scheduled an hour and a half session on the subject of leading through change.  Some might call it "Change Management", but not I, as I don't think you actually "manage" change in as much as you plan for it, you certainly experience it, and you make decisions about how you will react to it.  Anyway, today's session was being co-facilitated with me by a senior business leader.  This is someone who is genuinely very good in front of a classroom, which actually makes the job both easier for me and, truth be told, more exciting (like most folks, when I work with someone who is talented, it always brings out my "A Game").  It's a great topic, a terrific group of folks was scheduled to attend and I had a great co-host.  What could go wrong?

Before I get around to answering my question, allow me a moment to talk about preparation.  For me, preparation (before facilitating) is important, but it's possible to be over prepared.  The way I look at it, I want to know the material I am covering, but I don't want to be locked into specific words or patterns.  I want the ability  to stick to a core message but also be able to ad-lib where it adds value.  I want to be as verbally nimble as is possible.  I want to have a sense of where the free range begins and where it should end.  The benefits to me are obvious:  it's simply more fun (and more challenging) for me know that I really will have to make split-second decisions about what I am saying...and how I react to my co-facilitator and to the audience...throughout the engagement.  The benefits to the audience are real as well:  I end up engaging in more of a dialogue than a monologue.  What may seem seamless and cohesive on my part really isn't seamlessly put together before hand...I simply make it work as I go along.

Back to the question:  so what could go wrong today?  Well part of the preparation I always do for these sorts of things involves getting to the room well before the session begins.  In my mind this is absolutely essential, and when I coach people who don't have a lot of training/facilitation experience I always recommend that they get to the facility well in advance to...

...check out the feeling of the room.  How does your voice sound?  Are you comfortable?

...make sure everything work.  This includes everything from markers to computers.
...make sure the room is set up properly.  Are tables/chairs properly located?

...run through your material a few times, mainly to make sure it flows well.

So it was that I arrived at my room an hour before the session today in order to get set up and hopefully run through my parts a time or two before the show.  Alas, it was not to be.  First, I had a technology issue related to my laptop and the jumbotron I was porting into in order to share a PowerPoint presentation.  Apparently I now lack certain drivers to make it all work.  Now I am very, very knowledgeable when it comes to our facility's A/V equipment, so I didn't expect going into the room that I would encounter a problem beyond my ability to resolve.  It was there though, in the guise of a black screen.  A call to our A/V support line and some time with a technician yielded the bad news:  My laptop was not going to work as planned.  The resolution?  Move down to the other end of the room where an older projector was located (one that "liked" my laptop).  Okay, so I moved my equipment, and my materials, and all the stuff I put out for the attendees to the other end of the room, and with 15 minutes to spare I was sure I could get at least one dry run completed.

Then I got the call.

The call was from my middle daughter, informing me that her Ford Focus was busy focusing on not going over 15 miles an hour and was now at the mechanic, awaiting a diagnostic.  I didn't have a good feeling about it.

Nevertheless, 10:30am came around and it was time to start the event.  Despite my inability to get in any prep time immediately beforehand, the session went off without a hitch and I think my co-facilitator and I did a reasonably good job of raising the level of discourse as it relates to leadership and change.  I'll eventually get the post session attendee survey results, but my immediate reaction afterwards was pretty positive.  

By the way, after the session was over with I spoke to my middle daughter and then the mechanic, who informed me that the Focus is fried worse that Courtney Love after a weekend bender. Oh, well...all in a day's work.

Got Hypocrisy NEPA? No Death Penalty for 16 Year Old Shooter

WNEP has reported that the alleged shooter of a Scranton cab driver will not receive the death penalty if convicted.  You can read the story HERE.

Even more instructional are some of the comments this story has received on-line.  Here are some samples -

"Well this story just proves are country is headed down the sh#ter. He should get the dealth penalty or if they can’t by law (which is a joke) just say he died while in custody from another prisoner. I feel sorry for the victim and his family. This YOUNG MAN IS A PUKE! But truly the sadest part is get ready to pay 80-100k a year in taxes just for this scum bucket to rot as he gets 3meals, roof over his head and still is unproductive since he was getting welfare. This country will never make another 100years if we don’t get back to our ROOTS like our forefathers would want! Well maybe when China takes us over I doubt they will give in to BS like this."


"Just need to kill him. Our state blows the criminals have more rights than us law abiding citizens."


"Fill in some potholes with his body parts"


I think you get the drift.

Now remember, this area is well known for its strong Roman Catholic faith.  Wait, now there's a thought:  what does the Roman Catholic Church say about the death penalty?  Why let's check it out.

As quoted from (now Saint) Pope John Paul II, addressing when the death penalty can be justly applied:

"in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Citation HERE.

In other words, outside of someone perhaps like Adolf Hitler, the death penalty can never be justly applied. Note that there is no caveat that says "unless they senselessly killed a nice person".

I often times wonder how many people adamantly oppose abortion but yet are fully supportive of the death penalty?  I wonder how many of the individuals who posted rabid comments, such as noted above, gladly proclaim themselves to be "Right to Life"?

Newsflash:  You can't be Catholic, "Right to Life" and supportive of the death penalty for this 16 year old.  Well you can, but let's call it out for what it is, namely HYPOCRISY.

As for me, well, I don't claim the mantle of being "Right to Life" or even a good, practicing Roman Catholic either for that matter.  I do, however, believe that both abortion and the death penalty are tragic things, and both should be legal, all bit it as rare as possible.

Penguins

While at the Mystic Aquarium on Sunday I happened upon the penguin exhibit.  These are, without a doubt, some of the most photogenic creatures on Earth.  The seem to pose for the camera.  Anyway, here are some pictures of penguins.

Lastly, this isn't a penguin, obviously, but I like the photo never the less.

Glad to be wrong (& other gay thoughts)

I am thoroughly, completely and utterly thrilled to be wrong regarding Governor Tom Corbett's potential appeal of marriage equality in Pennsylvania.  The Governor did surprise me in not pursing an appeal of the decision, but politics (and make no mistake about it...this was a political decision on the part of Tom Corbett) can be a complex business at times.  Regardless, I'm giving the Governor a symbolic ^5 for doing the right thing this time around.

While we are on the subject of marriage, I'm increasingly finding that the arguments against equality  boil down to three things:

1) The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong
2) Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman
3) The purpose of marriage is procreation, and two individuals of the same gender can't procreate

Let's parse these out.

The Bible & Marriage
I am not a biblical scholar, and I do know enough about the Bible to be dangerous.  So that noted, let me quote the Book of Leviticus, chapter 11, verse 10 (King James version of the Bible):

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"

What this means is that you can't eat shellfish.  No shrimp.  No crabs.  No lobsters.  If it lacks fins and scales, you can't eat it.  The Bible is very clear on this point.  Luckily the conjunction used is "and", not "or", so all those that want to eat catfish and still stay within Biblical guidelines are safe*.

Now some say "well, you have to view that chapter within the context of the times in that it probably wasn't actually safe to eat those things, therefore the Biblical prohibition made sense then...", which I completely understand and agree with.  My point though is the following:  If the Bible is wrong about lobster, shrimp and crabs, it can no longer be viewed as being completely infallible for other things as well.

Where does this leave us?  Well it means that if you are a Christian and you want to shrimp, lobsters or crabs, then you have to rely on a human interpretation of Leviticus in order for that act to not be considered an abomination.  Who gets to decide?  Who gets to reinterpret Leviticus?  I don't know.  Heck, I don't even like shellfish.  I do know this though:  if someone can over-ride the Bible and say that eating lobster is no longer an abomination, then I'm thinking similar abominations are subject to nullification (or at least qualification) as well.

Oh, and lest anyone think that I'm picking on the poor lobsters, the following other things are also prohibited in the Bible:

Mixing fiber types in clothing (Leviticus 19:19)
Bowl haircuts (Leviticus 19:27)
Tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)
Getting your fortune told & astrology (Leviticus 19:31)

Lastly, and this is my favorite, did you know that castrated males (regardless of whether the castration was voluntary or an accident) are not allowed into church?  Well let's consult Deuteronomy, Chapter 23, verse 1:

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Now I personally find that the King James version of the Bible has some funky language, so let's go with another translation for this verse, this time the New Living Translation:

"If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD"

Point (painfully) made.  Next.


Marriage Tradition
"Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman and it should stay that way" is how the line goes.  Now I could go down a long list of past traditions that have not survived the test of time, even religious traditions, but that would be like shooting fish in a barrel.  No, let's instead look at what the very word "tradition" means.  Here's a definition (from Merriam-Webster on-line):

Full Definition of TRADITION

1

a :  an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)

b :  a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

2

:  the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

3

:  cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

4

:  characteristic manner, method, or style tradition

>
It's almost surreal to think that any of the above should trump the basic happiness of others.  "Just because it has always been that way" just doesn't hold a lot of weight.

Marriage and Procreation
This is an easy one:  if you believe that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, then you end up invalidating the marriages of...

...two widows who marry and are past child-bearing years
...a couple where one or both individuals suffers from infertility
...any couple who makes the choice not to have children

I'll take this one step further:  the only people who I think should be able to claim that the purpose of marriage is procreation are the Duggars (and folks like then), as they are walking the talk.  No one else gets to make this claim.  That may sound flippant, but so be it in that it also has a ring of truth.  In a way I do admire the Duggar family, as hypocrisy doesn't seem to be something they practice, along with a few other things.  Note that I'm not sure if they eat shellfish though.

Lastly, and this is a true story, I was listening to the local militantly conservative Catholic radio station the other day and a commentator was claiming that these marriage equality decions, if not overturned, would result in the "end of our civilization".  Why?  Because in the words of the speaker, "procreation would stop".  Mind you this was an older adult male speaking, claimng that marriage equality would apparently turn us all gay, stopping the replenishment of our species.  I will leave that comment and line of reasoning to stand on its own.

(*) Catfish don't have scales.

Observations about a small Massachusetts town

From having been here a few times now...

There aren't many places to get a decent breakfast at 7:30 in the morning.

They take their pedestrians very seriously in that cars actually stop for you.  In Scranton one gets the impression that cars actually accelerate when you begin to cross the street.

At least one town (Webster) really cares about cats.  There is a place called "Cat Connection" whereby homeless kitties have a place to go.  Yes, as pathetic as it sounds, I've stopped there twice to make funny sounds at the cats in the window.  If I lived here I would be volunteering to help.

The economy doesn't seem to be all that great.

Things are older here, especially buildings.

They love donuts.  There is Dunkin Donuts, Dippin Donuts, and Honey (something or other) Donuts.  No word on whether there is a Timmy Horton's tucked in some corner somewhere.

Speaking of DD, you can't tip the counter staff here.  That was hard not to do.  The young folks that work at donut shops have a tough job (you try to remember all those silly drink types) and they don't get paid much.

Scranton suffers from grand old homes being turned into apartment buildings.  Webster suffers form just really old apartement buildings.  Some of these buildings were probably designed for two units, but not have something like six packed into the same space.

It just seems colder here.  Not sure why.

The Maple trees are big and grand.  There is something almost universally beautiful about the leaves on a Maple tree when, after first appearing, reach full size.  That says as much about rebirth as any religious ceremoney ever did.

Scranton has the remains of the coal industry, small New England towns have the remains of the textile industry.  Yes, long before that shirt of your was made in Bangladesh, it was probably made in some small American town like the one I am writing this from.  The old grand mills are everywhere here, with their enormous hulks sitting along river banks like beached and rotting whale carcuses.  

This place makes me what to read Thoreau.

There are empty cigarette boxes everywhere.  The smoking rate must be close to epic Chinese porportions in these parts.  At least in China lungs are accustomed to so much industrial pollution that a camel or two probably represents a breath of fresh(er) air.

I've always just said no

Yes, I've really always just said no.  To drugs that is.  And, for the post part over the past 15 years, alcohol as well.

Why?

I guess I should parse this out just a bit.

I have had opportunities to take "drugs" (quote marks to make a point, as there are, in reality, lots of different drugs out there, some legal and some not so much) of the illegal kind, but I can honestly say I have not tried anything.  Nope, nothing.  Not a single joint, hit, line or whatever the heck else unit of illegal drug use comes in these days.  It has simply never appealed to me.  Now granted I am admittedly wrapped tighter than most folks, but the odd thing is this:  I have never even seriously considered trying an illegal drug.  I think part of the dynamic is that I like being in control of my own life and of my own head.  The idea that I could ingest something that would change how my brain is considering the world around me sounds frightening in ways I can't describe.  It also simply sounds really, really, really stupid.  Yes, I said stupid.  Why on Earth would I ever want my conscience changed?  Any such change would not be real, it would instead be an illusion created by the interaction of chemicals in my head, a fantasy of the short-lived variety that is no more real than the monsters I was affraid of as a little kid.

Alcohol is a slightly different story for me, in that while I have always been very much against the use of illegal substances, there was a fairly long stretch when I would, in fact, drink booze.  Even then I never really liked the taste of alcohol, but rather I liked the ever so fleeting feeling I would get of aloofness that consumption provided.  That too though came with consequences, and as I got older it became clear that my body did not like the afterwards that comes with alcohol consumption.  Case in point:  vomiting into a hotel garbage can at 7:30 in the morning after having had hard liquor and wine the night before is about as far from glamorous as one can get.  Glamorous?  It stinks of being sadly pathetic.  I'll also note that my late father was a raging alcoholic all of his life, a fact that was always in the back of my head as I would be vomiting into that garbage can.  So it goes that I pretty much stopped drinking alcohol a long time ago, and outside of an occasional glass of wine, I don't touch the stuff.  This sometimes turns heads (as it did during a work dinner last week), but so be it:  I decide that sobriety is better for me than the alternative.

Looking back, I do regret those times when I was drinking.  Oh, and thanks to genetics or some other unknown factor, I could never have "a" drink (it was always...well up until recently...a plural number of drinks).  Anyway, there is nothing to be proud of when you are in a dorm shower stall, on your knees, throwing up what looks like some internal organ into a drain.  It didn't make me any friends, but rather it just made me look and feel like a weak minded putz.  To this very day I remember the sensations of both being drunk and being hung-over...neither are what I would call "fond memories".

What would I say to some young person who is wrestling with decisions about drug and alcohol use?  That would be the following:  Simply don't do it.  These things create a short lived fantasy that over the long term rots your mind, your body and your soul.  Alcohol and drugs don't add anything to your life that you are not already capable of adding without them.  They are, in fact, nothing but a net subtraction to your life.  They distort a reality that is truly wonderful enough without distortion.

In the final analysis I like the fact that at any given time I am facing the world with my eyes, ears and all of my other senses fully functioning and not incumbered by some chemical crap running through my veins.  I like my reality, warts and all, as it has one thing going for it that I never get from alcohol or drugs:  it is real. 

8 Thing I learned while reading election results, May 20 2014

In no order and mainly for my own amusement.

1. Never underestimate the power of the Scranton Times to help form public opinion.  NEPA is full of older folks who still read newspapers...and newspaper editorial pages.  I think the Times did more to sink the proposed change in Lackawanna County government than either of the majority commissioners ever did.
2. "Taco Cat" spelled backwards is "Taco Cat".  Seriously, I learned this while trolling for election results.
3. Well done political advertising is worth far more than what you pay for it.  Just ask Tom Wolf.
4. Chuck Volpe is something like 0 for 56 in the election business, directly or indirectly.  Some advice for Mr Volpe:  Plastics.
5. Luzerne County really stinks at reporting election results.  "Hayno or no?"
6. At this stage, I'm thinking there is a zero point zero chance that Tom Corbett will not appeal the striking of Pennsylvania's "defense of marriage" act by a Rick Santorum backed (and President Bush appointed) judge.  Given Tom Wolf's margin of victory and the number of people who would probably vote for Benito Mussolini over the sitting governor, he has a lot of base to suck-up to, and nothing makes the PA-bible belt happier than defending the population against imaginary un-biblical threats.    
7. My next (and new) State Representative will be Eileen Cipriani, who Ms Rivers apparently knows.  Good thing I voted for her then.
8. My former State Representative, Kevin Haggerty, lost in his re-election bid.  This is a loss for NEPA as a whole, as Kevin was truly insane, in the best sense of the word insane.  Insane as in truly speaking his mind.  Insane as in engaging with people he disagreed with.  Insane as in really challenging the status quo.  I hope he finds another way to serve.

Playboy and Metal

I was driving home from work yesterday and for some reason the following thought wandered into my head: I wonder whatever happened to Playboy and Metal? I suppose I owe you a bit of a flashback in order to make sense of that statement, so here we go...

(My college ID, circa 1982)

When I was starting my junior year of college at Penn State Harrisburg, I got my first taste of living on campus, specifically in a dorm. In my case, it was the third floor of Wrisberg Hall. On that fateful day in August of 1984 as my friend Tom was helping me move all my junk into my shared dorm room, I remember walking by the room that was apparently occupied by two individuals named "Playboy and Metal". I swear to one and all this was true: the sign on their dorm room door said "Playboy and Metal", not their actual names (which I never knew), but simply "Playboy and Metal".  From the looks of the room, these two were ready for the high life, with a big rug and lots of extra stuff. And then there was the physical sights of Playboy and Metal themselves.

Playboy, as I recall, was on the short side. A squat kind of guy. Maybe the kind that, had it been 60 years prior, would have made a decent coal miner. 1000 years prior, maybe a decent bridge troll. Oh, and there was the consummate 70's pornstache (well make that "pornstache wannabe").  Playboy seemed to have lots of Playboy branded stuff.

Metal was tall and skinny, clean shaven and ready, it seemed, to get into a fight at a moment's notice.  Think of him as being a kind of proto-Tommy Lee.

For the record I could very well have the descriptions of Playboy and Metal completely reversed.  I suppose it doesn't matter all that much anyway.

Also, and this is stretching my brain cells a bit, I recall that Playboy and Metal may...I repeat MAY...have had about 160 IQ points (in total, between the two of them).

I don't ever recall interacting with Playboy and Metal.  I think they were too busy with "chicks" most of the time, and I was too busy feeling insecure.  Besides, do I look like the kind that would actually hang out with someone named either Playboy or Metal?  If they were definition of 80's cool, then I was their opposite.

(My Chrysler Newport at Penn State Harrisburg, 1985)

Anyway, I don't know what ever happened to either Playboy or Metal.  I moved out of Wrisberg Hall at the end of my junior year and for my final year of college lived in an on-campus ranch house with a bunch of other guys who were far more like me than they were like Playboy or Metal.  The memories have somewhat faded since then.

I could, I suppose, imagine what Playboy and Metal are up to these days.

Playboy could very well be the manager of a south central Pennsylvania Turkey Hill, providing many opportunities for flirting with the ladies.  I suspect that the pornstache remains, although rest of the noggin hair has probably long since past.  Maybe he's married, maybe he's not.  Maybe all of that time chasing the fairer sex left him with many fond memories, and more than a few social diseases.  He probably picks up a couple of bottles of Playboy men's cologne, when it's on after-Christmas sale at Kmart.

Metal?  I don't know about Metal.  Maybe he ended up being the roadie for some 70's band that plays the nostalgia circuit.  Think REO Speedwagon or Journey.  The black hair has turned grey, all be it in a pony tail now.  He's the kind of a guy who actually can play a decent song or two on the guitar, but alas, only really gets to tune them while some 65 year old gets paid the big bucks to "keep on a-rock'n".

I wouldn't have admitted it back then, but I was probably a tad bit jealous of Playboy and Metal.  They had the confidence that comes with cool names (I was just "Steve") and they seemingly had the world, for a brief moment in time, by the gonads.  I had none of that, but maybe my game was far more long term theirs.  I've also learned over time that we are all equally dysfunctional, even when comparing Steve to Playboy and Metal.

I think I'd done reminiscing about about Playboy and Metal for now.  Maybe the urge will come again in another 30 years.  Maybe never.

Godzilla

My youngest daughter Rebecca went with me yesterday evening to watch the new Godzilla movie?  The verdict.  Well as someone who grew up watching the old Godzilla movies, I walked away from Sunday's showing mostly impressed.  A few hits and misses include:

Hit - The fact that Godzilla was (more or less) the "good guy".  That's how the old movies were, and it was nice to see that bit of homage being paid.

Miss - The human characters.  There was enough acting to be distracting from watching the monsters, but not enough to really get to know the characters.  I guess compromises had to be made. but if I had to choose, I'd say more monsters, less humans.

Hit - The effects.  Simply great...with some obvious nods to the old Japanese movies, but updated to modern mega-movie spectacle status.  Also, unlike the Transformer movies, you could actually keep track of the action sequences.

Miss - Not enough monster fighting.  The real monster battle occurred at the end, but prior to that there were teases of Godzilla fighting the flying monster.  I don't like being teased.

Hit - The final battle was more or less pretty cool.  How Godzilla dispatched the final monster was way, way cool.  Epic cool.


This was worth the money I spent for the two tickets.  I did see the 3D version of the film, but that's kind of a waste for me, as I don't really "see" 3D effects all that well.  No bother, as I think Rebecca enjoyed it.

Go see Godzilla if you, as a kid, used to watch the old movies on TV.  It's worth the trip back in time.

Pain in the...

...in my case that would be "foot".

I've had some discomfort in my left foot over the past few months, say since January or so.  Nothing that is debilitating, nothing that causes me to stay awake at night, just basically a pain in my foot.  The pain also comes and goes, is not even in intensity, isn't triggered by anything and isn't make better or worse by changing shoes.  So what could it be?

Well Monday was my twice yearly visit to the doctor's office, where I get a few things checked (think of it as being a Jiffy Lube kind of thing:  I go in and basically just get a 10 point service), so I decided to ask my intrepid doctor about my pain in the foot.  Well he asked me a few questions (New shoes?  Drop anything on it?) and pretty much decided that x-rays were in order.  Fortunately for me, the office my doctor is located in has an x-ray lab, so it was just a few steps down the hallway and before you know it I was laying on a stretcher with a bare foot on an x-ray plate.  20 minutes after that I was back in a treatment room, looking at my freakishly looking foot bones (which make me look like some kind of chimpanzee).

The good news?

That would be that:

1) Nothing is broken
2) I don't have some kind of abscess, tumor, general nastiness

The not-so-good news?

That would be that I apparently...or maybe, as I am not sure...have arthritis in my foot.  Seriously, I may have arthritis in my foot.  Now let the unanswerable questions begin:  Aren't I too young for this?  Why my foot?  Is this going to get worse?  What can I do about it?

Needless to say there aren't answers to all my questions.  What can I do about it?  Really not all that much actually, other than lose some weight (I need to do that anyway) and take over the counter pain medications.  That's pretty much it.

My mother actually suffered quite a bit from arthritis in her later years, and one of my younger brothers told me a few months ago that he was diagnosed with in in his neck.  Apparently there is something of a family history to it all.  This is what I've got to look forward to?

Actually I am pretty much okay with the whole thing.  Why?  Well truth be told, I have a pretty high tolerance for discomfort, and if I am going to have this, better in a foot than in, say, my hands.  It's also early enough that there really could be things I can do about it to alleviate the symptoms.  Lastly, and most importantly, I am generally healthy and I have a good life, and having a pain in the foot is not going to change that one iota.

Boldly stepping into the future...errr, with my right foot that is...