Someone asked me if I was the one writing the political messages on the sidewalks. No. I don’t see anything wrong with it. It washes off. My sidewalk antics are always shenanigans. If I were to ever write anything controversial, I would sign it. It’s part of the reason my Facebook posts and other accounts are public. You either enjoy a good combination of wacko and introspection, or you don’t. In this day, trying to sway someone’s political opinions is exactly like attempting to microwave your own head. With just about the same results.
There’s something in business I call the invisible ceiling. It lies between management layers. It’s part of the defect of many organizations. Upper management mandates their objectives. As those objectives trickle down, human beings are relied upon to make them happen. We’re reluctant enough to share negatives with our own partners. Lower managers do not communicate their objections, obstacles, or negatives to those above them. Even when it’s beneficial to the organization. Upper management becomes increasingly unaware of the issues at ground level. Their decisions become more divorced from reality. The invisible ceiling between levels in organizations leads to misbehavior and poor management. If human beings are involved, you can be darned certain that there will be both bad decisions and even worse responses to keep those consequences out of sight of those who decide whether people can continue working.
It’s a combination of both ego and paycheck.
How can organizations minimize this disconnect? By employing people with the knowledge and nerve to know that part of their job is to say things that their superiors might not want to hear. You also need relief valves so that the people performing the work have a connection to the upper management. The more flexible and spontaneous these relief valve communication channels are, the more likely that middle layers of management will stifle their tendency toward silence or controlling the information flow. It also identifies weaker managers much more quickly.
Everyone says that they want open and direct communication. Yet, if you look closely at not only relationships but business models, you’ll see that they are designed and operated on a daily basis with no direct communication driving it.
You have to have vocal people and encourage them. If it’s not part of the culture, it’s an open secret that you should bite your tongue. Open doors mean nothing if people are nervous to use them – and doubly so if the person in the chair isn’t listening.
I’ve watched this in action my entire life.
It’s so obvious that it’s a critical component of success.
“If you’re not listening to and talking to the janitor, you’re missing critical information to keep your business healthy.”
Businesses are complicated machines. While some positions are more replaceable, all of them have their necessity; otherwise, they wouldn’t exist. Pay attention to all the cogs and provide a means for voicing contrary opinions. You’re going to wish you listened to your spouse, and you’re going to wish you’d taken a minute to ask the person doing maintenance if there was anything that could be a problem.
Anonymous surveys cause raised eyebrows. One-on-one interaction brings revelation.
I’ve irritated some people in my life. Especially those who are arrogant or irritating about the culinary world we experience subjectively. Pineapple on pizza. Ketchup on steak. How meat should be cooked. Whether painted-on eyebrows look strange. I grew up listening to my Mom say, “You don’t know what’s good.” She could eat some things that the vultures would shriek and fly away from. My Dad forced me to eat some nasty stuff; I can laugh about it now. But a part of me laughs and rejoices because I now know he was among the worst to fail to appreciate all the kinds of foods in the world.
There is no right and wrong regarding what you eat or what you like. It doesn’t work that way. And, of course, everyone knows this. For some, the idea of eating fish eggs or oysters, aka snotshells, is as repulsive as watching a 6-year-old pick his nose and then salt and pepper it.
Whether you like your steak bleeding or burned to a crisp, it lies with each person to decide what they like. I watch people argue and criticize what other people eat. The ones criticizing tend to eat some of the most outlandish and nasty stuff on the planet. My brother Mike liked to dip. He’d mock people’s food choices relentlessly. He didn’t take it kindly when I pointed out that it looked like he had let a raccoon poop inside his lip.
If you want to put chocolate pudding on prime rib, fire away.
If you like fresh jalapeños on vanilla ice cream, pile them on there.
And if you like head cheese or liver and onions, I will gladly watch you smile and burp appreciatively as you consume it. Don’t get me started on raw celery, aka The Devil’s Anus.
But if I’m eating burned popcorn or a steak so well done that the fire department is about to come in and you make snide remarks… you’re going to find head cheese or pineapple pizza under your pillow later that night.
Everything about what we like and dislike is subjective.
There are no rules.
We can’t even agree that ties are a stupid anachronism that should be discarded. Or that shrimp are the cockroaches of the sea. But we can mock someone eating fried bologna as we gleefully munch on foie gras as if our choice is superior to theirs.
If you like to eat literal cockroaches, you’re in luck. In my world, I’m going to be fascinated by anything that I consider unusual. But I’m also going to bite my tongue because I embrace the difference in taste that we all experience.
I’m judging you if you judge others for what they put in their mouth. You better check your pillow if I hear you doing it.
It is the lowest form of mockery to mock or attempt to humiliate someone for what they eat or how they enjoy eating it. This is doubly true if you do so in front of other people while they are doing it. I don’t tell you that your pants make you look like one of the mentioned symptoms in a WebMD article; the least you can do is bite your tongue.
“Hunger does not need a cookbook.” – X
“In matters culinary, there is no greater arrogance than objecting to what someone chooses to eat or how they season it, sauce it, or flavor it. I’ve yet to meet anyone who isn’t an idiot with their food, and the feeling is undoubtedly reciprocal.” – X
I was never a big Beyoncé fan. It seemed to lack something and didn’t speak to me at all. But the first time I heard her new country song Texas Hold ‘Em, I loved it. It’s catchy as hell. Music is like food; it’s subjective. Often, it’s hard to pinpoint why I like a certain song. The term je ne sais quoi definitely applies. I knew that this was going to be one of those pivots by an artist that would cause a lot of ripples. Unlike Dolly Parton, who released a phenomenal rock album last year, Beyoncé is a more controversial figure. If Hardy is a country musician, then Beyoncé is too. Tom MacDonald is another artist who is breaking the definitions of mainstream. I’m a fan of fusion and the evolution of all types of genres. Beyoncé’s pivot to country music is pure genius. People can argue about whether they like the song because that’s based on taste. But you can’t make the argument that it’s not country music. At least not without having to take a deep look at the origins of a couple of different genres. It is fun to watch country music stations and fans wrestle with their objections to her throwing a banjo-influenced javelin right down the middle of country music.
PS Even Prince’s “Purple Rain” was originally written as a country-infused song that was to be sung with Stevie Nicks as a duet. X .
“What could we have done?” This is often the go-to response after a tragedy. About 3 weeks ago, an innocent person was killed during a high speed drug-related car chase here in Fayetteville. The driver of the car already had multiple charges but was free.
That’s not the worst part. The Northwest Arkansas drug task force knew about him more than 2 years ago. I had posed the hypothetical scenario of what might happen if they didn’t take appropriate action. And this is the answer. What’s worse is that there was another individual who had engaged in much more sinister behavior. The authorities had his activities handed to them on a silver platter and still didn’t take action. I’ve told a lot of people that this is why it’s hard to have faith that the right thing will be done when it needs to happen.
I’m a complete liberal when it comes to drugs. But I also have a keen radar and when it triggers, it pisses me off when I make the effort to intervene before something terrible happens. More often than not, nothing will be done. The other person is still out there. I hold my breath because I know that someone’s life will be ruined at some point. Much like the innocent person who was killed in the high-speed car chase. Or victimized on a personal level. I am 100% certain that it will happen, more so than I was before.
I will get off my soapbox now.
The person who was killed in the high -speed chase died for no reason. We can’t blame everything on resources or bureaucracy. In this case, people who knew failed to act.
Social media can be deceptive. Even convicted rapists can you use it as if everyone in the world doesn’t know their past. When you’re aware that people can remain at large in society after being found guilty of heinous behavior, it makes you cynical and paranoid. Most of us would be more comfortable being surrounded by people who’ve robbed banks. It’s not targeted and does not engage the primal fear of helplessness that personal crime does.
Eric Osborne’s blitheness on social media can’t be chalked up to obliviousness. By the point multiple people have accused you of criminal behavior, most people’s veneer of innocence dissipates. This is doubly true if you are convicted of such behavior, as is the case of our Canadian friend Eric Osborne. What creates frustration for his victims is that he’s engaging with the world, one which is largely unaware of his path of endangering women.
What’s different in the Canadian criminal system is that even victims can be subject to an injurious and nonsensical publication ban. This hinders a victim’s right to expression – a hindrance not placed upon the accused. People who have been subject to stalking, harassment, or physical harm can’t talk about the person who committed the acts. This endangers those who are exposed to the person accused of such crimes.
Eric Osborne uses his social media and internet presence to obfuscate how he has terrorized women. It’s no longer a question of opinion or he-said-she-said. Either he’s delusional and detached from the reality that he’s experienced in the criminal justice system, or he Is something else entirely. The woman who experienced him at his worst has several names for this kind of man. “Convicted” carries more weight than “accused.” That he pled guilty to charges relating to violence against women should be more than ample grounds for the Canadian justice system to act accordingly.
Southern Justice, unfortunately, isn’t an approved export.
The ongoing frustration is that he’s out of incarceration temporarily. His presence among us in free society presents of clear and present danger to those he has victimized. He’s out on a technical appeal, even though he pled guilty to similar charges against several other women. This type of insanity is part of the reason why victims become doubly victimized; first by their perpetrator and secondly by the system that allegedly protects them.
One of his very recent posts refers to people gossiping about him. I’m curious as to whether he counts the crown or the prosecution as guilty of gossip. Technically they did gossip when they arrested and then incarcerated him for crimes against women.
I will leave it to all of those curious to Google Eric Osborne and research it for themselves. He resides in Canada. It shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to find a trail of how he’s behaved and whose lives he ruined. Don’t forget to include marital and divorce records if you take a dive. Search for blogs and archives that might make mention of him.
People like him thrive in secrecy. Canada should bow its head in shame at forcing women to remain silent at any point in their experiences. And another prolonged bow for exposing its citizenry to someone who has clearly demonstrated that he’s not yet fit to be roaming the streets among civilized people. Eric is highly intelligent and adept at hiding in plain sight; this chameleon identity is what made him so successful when he chose to victimize women.
Each time a movie or song is redone, I tell myself not to read the comments. I can recite the permutations verbatim without needing to dive in.
Although it surprises people, I saw the original Road House movie at the theater in 1989. Although it was a contrived and ridiculously stupid movie, I loved it. Watching it was difficult at the time because there was a large man breathing very loudly and making running commentary during the initial part of the movie. I can see why women thought Patrick Swayze was good-looking. Or Sam Elliott. And I can see why a lot of men thought the action was riveting. Of course, it was stupid. Road House and all the movies like it aren’t shooting for an Oscar. I call all these movies “Kicking Ass in Kentucky.” But Road House was entertaining stupidity. Everyone in the theater knew that the bad guy was going to get his ass kicked.
We all need this kind of story from time to time. Escapism, over-the-top romance. The movies that tap into this need have to be simplistic and badly rendered, much like our lives. Top Gun was another dose of testosterone disguised as a movie. “Reacher” on Amazon is another example of a clichè that makes for great television. I haven’t watched an episode of it. I can, however, see that it resonates for the same reason that Road House did.
A spectacular method for dealing with remakes is not to watch them. But it seems that people are incapable of finger control; they must get on the internet and insist that nothing can top the original. I love generalizing. So I will go out on the clichéd limb of saying that most of these people are the same ones who slobber as they insist that there is no good music anymore.
Almost everything is an echo and permutation of what precedes it.
True inspiration and originality are rare commodities. Almost everything is built on the back of something else or someone else’s idea.
I just wish the commenters would get a dose of what creativity feels like and avoid the relentless onslaught of repetition as they all say the same thing.
Even though I’m older, I lean in the opposite direction. Bring on the remakes and the covers. Some of them are going to be good. And some? They eclipse the original. Yes, there is going to be a lot of content and nonsense that doesn’t appeal to us. And that is precisely what makes the world of entertainment so enjoyable.
There’s something for everyone, even if we’ve seen it all before.
