Category Archives: miscellaneous

Monday Night’s Last Call

If you’re reading this then you probably have some opinion on the last call of the Monday Night Football game between Seattle and Green Bay.

Here are some interesting tidbits I’ve been able to dig up from around the web:

  • The official who signaled the touchdown has three days training experience at a referee academy in Utah and has, until now, only refereed high school and junior college games.
  • The Packers were favored by four and a half points. As a result of the call they lost, had it gone the other way they would have won by five points. The estimated swing in betting revenues on that one call was $300 MILLION dollars.
  • The NFL’s statement defending the call has a six paragraph introduction and cites three different rules that come in to play.
  • And this provocative bit: The Lingerie Football League, yes there is such a thing, has issued a statement that some of the referees they have fired as being unfit to officiate their games are now officiating in the NFL as replacements.

Crazy eh? Outrageous! Something HAS to be done doesn’t it?

But why?

The National Football League is in the entertainment business and I can tell you that from the perspective of a vociferous Seattle Seahawks fan, my wife, there was nothing more entertaining than that last minute win. (I was pulling for Green Bay)

Doesn’t it make it more fun having go guess when your team will pull the whammy card and get an incredibly ridiculous call that changes the game? Ok, well what about if the opponent gets whammied?

Isn’t it entertaining to listen to the announcers fumble all over themselves to be incredulous, and professional, and confused all at the same time?

Isn’t it entertaining to wonder what is going on in those guys heads when they make such horrific calls?

No?

Ok, I know all about “the integrity of the game” and “player safety” and all that. I realize you could start to lose part of the fan base if the officiating becomes too farcical, not to mention the potential for corruption creeping in to officiating…if you get really bad calls every game it is easier to hide a corrupt official making them on purpose…but really it is about entertainment…and I’m still chuckling about the Monday night game two days later.

The bottom line is that the league, and in particular the commissioners office, are starting to look quite foolish no matter how you slice it. We have to place some blame on the owners too who have control over the purse strings.

But we’re the fans. In truth we hold the power.

What if, in every NFL stadium this coming Sunday, the seats were empty when the game started?  I’m not suggesting people kiss off the money they’ve spent on tickets, just that across the league people boycott the opening kickoff. Can you imagine the coverage?

  • Empty stadiums for the national anthem and probably most of the first series of plays.
  • HUGE crowds outside the stadium standing around waiting to to enter.
  • Fans filtering in throughout almost the entire first quarter.

My quick web research seems to indicate that NFL stadiums bring in about 1.2 million dollars in concession revenue per game. Divide that by four and you potentially impact a quarter of a million dollars per stadium. There are 13 Sunday games this week so you get close to three and a half million dollars in impacted concession revenues.

That ought to get someones attention don’t ya think?

Let’s see if we can get Mr. Hochuli and the rest of ’em back by flexing our power as consumers. Let’s boycott the opening kickoff!

What do you think? Would an opening kickoff boycott get the attention of the league? Perhaps more importantly…could it be pulled off?

 

 

 

Poor Customer Experience…at Disneyland?!?

Hello, my name is Curtis and I am a Disneyland fanatic.

Friends call me for advice on how to best experience the parks. They get a two page email back.

I live in Colorado and I have an annual pass.

It’s just that bad.

We were just in southern California for freshman orientation at Azusa Pacific University. After a tearful good bye with our oldest son we headed over to the park for some “amusement”.

I never thought I’d say this but I walked away significantly underwhelmed by our visit.

I can remember not too long ago when you could get in for under $50. The price for visiting one park for one day is now $87. Okay, I get the fact that costs rise so, it hurts but I’ll still play along. Of course if you want to visit BOTH Disneyland AND California Adventure on the same day that will set you back $125.

So you would think you’d see the service level rise to match the price increase wouldn’t you?

Nope.

We experienced no fewer than five ride outages in one day. Mind you that’s only counting the times we were in line for a ride and it went out. Who knows how many there were when we weren’t looking.

Queue management, something Disney is known for, was sorely lacking with lines spilling out into walkways more often than not on a day that was busy but no where close to the worst we’ve seen.

Worse yet cast members in those situations seemed continually put out by the trouble of having to manage the flow of people.

Three different times we were told that a clearly displayed offer of a discount didn’t apply to our situation because of some fine print that was not readily published.

I walked away feeling like Disneyland was telling me that I was fortunate just to be able to be in their presence so I should overlook the inconveniences.

Now, you could argue it was a hot day, large crowd, a couple of less than stellar cast members working queues, etc but those would all be excuses not reasons. There is no “reason” for poor service.

You might argue that I’ll go back so there is no real pressing need to fix any of these issues. You’d probably be right, I probably will go back. But then…I’ve never talked bad about Disneyland before and I am now.

How often do we allow circumstances to move from being excuses to being “reasons” for failed service? How often do we portray to customers that we just can’t care for EVERYBODY? How bad is one negative blog post about poor customer experience?

If hot temperatures, large crowds, and less than stellar cast members are becoming the norm I won’t need an annual pass any longer. I’ll just go one or two days in the off season to get my fix and keep my fond memories of great customer experience at Disneyland in tact.

When was the last time a company failed to meet your expectations as a customer?

Three Possible Reactions to “Those Moments”

For the last four years or so I have been a satisfied iPhone 3gs user. I skipped over the 4 series and have been patiently awaiting the arrival of the 5…supposedly only about a month away now.

This morning, after driving my daughter to school and negotiating a couple of emails on behalf of my son, I hurried off to the gym. I got in a pretty decent mile swim and headed to the hot tub for a bit of a warm down.

It was then that I discovered my iPhone had been in my pocket for the entire swim.

This was one of “those moments”.

You think a hundred thoughts all at once.: “I wonder if…”, “Maybe it will…”, “Perhaps I can…”, “Man, why did I…”, “If only they hadn’t…”, “I need to…”

In the end you have three options. You can rant, you can weep, or you can laugh. Of course the option you choose has a lot to do with the seriousness of the moment and the degree of loss but those are just influences.

This morning I chose to laugh.

At the moment my iPhone is sitting, sealed in a bag of rice, in hopes that I might be able to salvage something from it. I’m not quite sure how much is synched to the cloud…I’ll work on discovering that later this morning. I know I can’t go a full month without a phone though so my waiting for the 5 may turn out to have been in vain.

I hope that if you have one of “those moments” today you’ll be able to laugh at it too.

What happened the last time you had one of those moments?

Post Olympic Depression: 3 Lessons to be Learned

Do you feel that empty space today? That sense that something has gone missing?

It’s not that I watched every minute of the coverage. Shoot, I even missed some of the events I really wanted to see. But it was just good to know I could check in throughout the day, or even have the games running in the background.

And now the that Olympics are over many of us are feeling that post Olympic depression.

So what is it about the Olympics that captivate us to the point where we miss them when they’re gone?

  • Is it the guys like Oscar Pistorius, the South African who made it to the semi-finals of the 400M as a double amputee?
  • Or perhaps you like the story of Sherab Zam the Bhutanese archer, yes, Bhutan is a country, who was just happy to be competing as one of the two Olympians from her country?
  • Maybe you’re more a fan of the history makers like Phelps or Bolt.

I love it all. While I also have to confess I feel a similar sense of loss at the end of the World Cup every four years…it isn’t exactly the same. So what can we learn from our post Olympic depression? I’d like to share three lessons.

1. We like friendly competition.
There is a different spirit in Olympic competition, a sense from the athletes that this is one big friendly stage. Sure there are rivalries, even intense ones, but the sheer number of smiles, handshakes, and high fives that happen between medalists and non-medalists is, I think, unique to the Olympics.

There is a joy in this competition that goes beyond monetary value. Sure there are competitors there who are looking to gain recognition that turns into endorsements, some that even admit that, but those examples are overwhelmed by the number of athletes thrilled to be there representing their countries.

Even if we don’t always agree with the rules, there ARE rules and a world stage upon which they are, typically, equitably applied. Not just within the competitions themselves but rules regarding who can compete. There seems to be a sense of something bigger there.
Of course the antithesis of this is political campaigning…maybe that’s why we dislike election commercials so much?

2. We get a bigger world view
Now be honest how many of us even knew Bhutan was a country? How many of us knew that they were listed by the UN as the happiest nation on earth, so much so that the UK, France, and the US are studying them as a nation?

The Olympics give us a chance to look at the people of the world as people, not as political allies or enemies. We recognize effort and excellence beyond economic or socio-political borders. Do I still find myself lugging around an old bias, hoping the US beats the Russians? Sure I do. But if the Russians put in a good effort and beat us I’m cool with that too.

The window of the Olympics allows us to look at the world through a different lens, perhaps a more relevant one, certainly a friendlier one.

3. We like the emotion of it.
I’m convinced that part of the allure of the games is the emotion that goes into four years, if not a lifetime, of effort compressed into a few moments of intense competition. This isn’t one of 162 baseball games in a season or one of 16 football games. For many of these athletes it is their one shot. The ups the emotional ante HUGELY.

Most days we don’t tap into our world at that level of emotion. We’re just trying to keep our noses above water and keep things on an even keel. The Olympics become emotionally cathartic as we share in the feelings of agony or ecstasy with the athletes.

So what if our regular lives were more like that?

What is we looked to make an competitive situation a friendly competition? What if we made time to regularly broaden our world view? What if we allowed ourselves to feel emotion more deeply more regularly and still had to pick ourselves up off the track for the post event interview? What if our “goal” wasn’t just “winning” but was, instead, competing with honor, side by side with people of different backgrounds, in the spirit of friendship?

Maybe life would be a little more like the Olympics and we’d all be a little less depressed when the games themselves are over.

 

What was your favorite Olympic moment from London 2012?

Real Tolerance: Understanding vs. Conversion

A couple weeks ago I, while on a flight to Washington DC, found myself in conversation with a guy who makes documentaries for a living.

It started out as a chat about camera lenses and moved quickly into a discussion on his favorite topic, global warming. Something about the early bits of our talk must have put him at ease because he started to REALLY go off on the COMPLETE stupidity of conservatives. I told him I thought the trouble was that as a society we were becoming so polarized that it was becoming less and less possible to have rational dialogue.

He nodded in agreement then shared with stunned amazement the example of a friend of his from college, someone he had sheared life with, been in a band with, gotten drunk with who had become a university professor, adopted a conservative perspective and, in his words, become an idiot. When he finally cycled back to global warming I took a risk.

“You know”, I said, “I actually come from more of a conservative perspective myself. I don’t disagree with your evidence of ice caps melting or temperatures rising but what is missing for me is proof of causality. If it really the humans fault then we should see some correlation between temperature change and population growth coupled with industrialization. I just haven’t seen that piece.”

He launched…

Him: “Well, do you believe in science?”
Me: “Yeah, I was a science major in college. I believe in the scientific method and the repeatability of results, sure.”
Him: “No, I mean to you believe in evolution?”
Me: “No, I’m more of a creation guy.”
Him: “Pfft, so you think the earth was created in just seven days?!?”
Me: “Not necessarily, Genesis says, ‘there was morning and there was evening, the first day’, in Kansas that is 24 hours. In northern Alaska that is a year. I’m open to the idea that the Genesis days could be time periods and any length.”

I must have passed some sort of entrance exam at that point because he began to share his views on global warming in an animated but not antagonistic manner. When we got to the key point on human causality, after careful previous argument, decently justified statistics, and seemingly rational assessment of potential results, he said, “It has to be humans, there is no other answer.”

Really? That’s all you got? It HAS to be?

Of course I didn’t say that out loud. We finished the conversation amicably, even swapped contact information and went our separate ways as long flight seatmates seemingly always do.

So what just happened there, in my opinion, was a small example of a contrast of goals.

My goal in the conversation was understanding. I wanted to both clarify my position, (not all conservatives are stupid and we need to be able to dialogue), and understand his, (conservatives are stupid particularly when it comes to global warming). His goal in the conversation was conversion. He wanted to prove to an idiot conservative that they were wrong and he was right. In doing so he stereotyped me, made assumptions, and he ascribed motive. All included in the no-no list I posted last week.

As a result of that conversation a couple of truths about tolerance became newly clear to me:

1. True tolerance is about wide goals, not narrow goals.
As I said last week tolerance begins from a point of disagreement. Thus the widest goal under the heading of tolerance is understanding. But too often the conversation narrows to conversion, then narrows still further to debate when conversion seems to be failing. This is where the hate speech starts to come in to play.

2. True tolerance is about compromise, not all or nothing.
Too often cries for “tolerance” are really just masks for pushing forward a particular agenda. You can tell this by the narrowness of goals and the speed with which the conversation turns to claims of hatred. There will ALWAYS be points of disagreement. You can choose to focus the conversation there, narrow goal, or work to find points of compromised agreement, wide goal.

The recent hoopla between the LGBT community and chicken eating conservative Christians has highlighted the fact that these two camps hold COMPLETELY different view of life, the world, and everything. There are obviously, without doubt, narrowly focused sub groups on either side of the debate, but even in THIS instance there are points of tolerant compromise that can be found. We just need to be willing to find points of agreed upon compromise through tolerant dialogue.

What is it like when you find yourself in a truly tolerant dialogue?

 

 

 

Five Guidelines for Having Tolerant Conversations

A number of years ago I had a set of Mormon missionaries show up at my door. As an evangelical Christian pastor I probably wasn’t going to be the easiest conversation that they had in the neighborhood.

I told the guys that we could have a conversation but that we needed to agree to a couple of caveats first.

1. We needed to agree we were both seeking to serve God as best we could.
2. We needed to agree that we were not both right.
3. We needed to agree that we were going to focus on the first agreement rather than the second.

You see if we focused on the second agreement then the conversation would center on trying to prove each other wrong, a debate. But if we focused on the first agreement then we’d be focusing on trying to reach a mutual understanding of what it meant to serve God.

We engaged in an ongoing conversation over about three months. In the end we parted as friends each with a deeper understanding of the others position but neither of us having “budged”.

That experience helped me learn a couple things about what it means to have a “tolerance” conversation. I’d like to share five guidelines for having conversations between folks of disparate points of view.

1. You have to understand that tolerance means disagreement.

You don’t “tolerate” things, people, or positions with which you agree. That means if you’re going to enter into conversations that are categorized as being “tolerant” they will be with people that hold a position that is opposed to yours. That being said you have to determine if your goal in the conversation is to “convert” someone to your point of view, or to help each other reach a deeper level of understanding.

2. You have to hold stereotypes at bay.

It’s easy to label someone based on stereotypes. Imagine a conversation between someone who has been labeled as a “conservative christian” and someone described as a “liberal democrat”. Each of those descriptions carry with them enough baggage to incur more charges than a transatlantic airline ticket.

If you try to have a conversation through the lenses of stereotypes you wind up ascribing meaning to words that may not be intended. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to completely ignore or erase stereotypes. Recognizing that they’re there and may be at play is important in creating an atmosphere of understanding. Holding off stereotypes is critical.

3. You have to avoid “always” and “never”

Absolutes are not only grandiose but they very rarely accurately apply. It’s easy to say to someone  “You people always…” or “You just never…” That type of statement not only creates a blanket label but it also invokes stereotypes. The truth is that you never know if someone “always” or “never” because you aren’t always around them, so let the absolutes go.

4. You cannot ascribe motive

This one is huge and is, perhaps, the biggest challenge. It is easy to accuse someone of “hating”, which is an internal motive, because you interpret their external actions through your own set of experiences.

By way of example: if I make the statement that I am not sure where I stand on the issue of same sex marriage, I know conservative Christians who would react by saying that I am backsliding and abandoning biblical truth. At the same time there would be those in the LGBT community who would quickly label me as one of those Christian haters. In either case they’d be wrong specifically because they’d be ascribing motive to my words.

Unfortunately the issue is far more complex than whether or not to allow two people to be defined as a married couple but if you jump straight to ascribing motive to my words then there is no opportunity to engage in the kind of deeper dialogue that fosters understanding.

5. You have to decide what will be and acceptable outcome to the conversation

This is where we come full circle. Remember that the starting point was disagreement, hence the need for tolerance. If the only acceptable outcome for the conversation is converting someone to your point of view then the risk is high for the conversation to break down at some point. If instead the goal is to reach deeper mutual understanding then the chances for good conversation are greatly increased.

We hold the right to freedom of speech as a core right for people everywhere. Given that people will express their opinions, and given that those opinions are becoming increasingly polarized these days, you can either choose to have good conversations with fewer people accompanied by more arguments, or learn to converse with the folks that require you to be “tolerant”. Which will you choose?

What are some examples of good “tolerant” conversation you’ve had?

Chick-fil-A and the Silliness of “Tolerance”

If you have your finger on the pulse on social news lately you’re no doubt aware the those mean and nasty homophobic people at Chick-fil-A have been at it again.

It seems that President Dan Cathy was being interviewed on a radio show, probably sitting in his backyard in shirt sleeves just shooting the breeze. While discussing fatherhood Cathy commented that he supported the Biblical view of marriage being between a man and a woman and further stated, “I think we are inviting God’s judgement on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes marriage’.”

No surprises there. The Cathy’s are well known and outspoken about having founded and continuing to run their company on Christian principles. You’d think it would be more of a surprise if Dan had said anything different.

Apparently though the “tolerance minded” mayors of both Boston and Chicago have taken it upon themselves to be quite intolerant of Dan’s position.

It seems now that in Chicago at least the claim by the city government is that Chick-fil-A’s values are “not reflective of their (our) city” and both cities are telling Chick-fil-A that at a minimum they don’t want them doing business there and at a maximum they will actively try to block them from expanding there.

And here’s the silly part…they’ll block them because they claim Chick-fil-A is intolerant!!! I should note that “silly” was not my first choice for word or phrase there but I wanted the post to stay away from profanity so I chose to go with it.

I wonder if the mayors of Chicago and Boston are also ready to condemn and kick out the Catholic church from within their city limits. Will they stop the Salvation Army from ringing bells at Christmas too? Will the Chicago city government go after Moody Bible Institute as well and give them the boot? All of these organizations share a similar perspective on marriage.

Truth is they probably won’t because, after all, their stance is not consistent, like Chick-fil-A’s is, it is political.

I love the fact that the ACLU has come out in defense of Chick-fil-A on this one. While they don’t in any way agree with Cathy’s position they do defend his right to have an opinion, and to openly speak it, without fear of being prejudiced against. Interesting twist there eh? Good on ’em though for being consistent!

According to Webster’s:
TOLERANCE: Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others.

So let’s be clear. Dan Cathy did NOT disrespect the beliefs or practices of the LGBT community. He simply commented that he didn’t think it was wise to disagree with God regarding marriage.

On the other hand Dan’s beliefs and practices have ABSOLUTELY been disrespected. and there are really only two responses that anyone who wants to defend that kind of attitude can make:

“Yeah, well I don’t care he’s bad.”
or
“Those beliefs aren’t worth respecting.

Both quite intolerant statements.

So what can we learn from Dan’s faux pas?

1. The “Tolerance” movement has ceased being about tolerance and its adherents have started more openly arguing that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a bigot. Which is quite bigoted really.

2. The person with the biggest microphone usually wins so be careful what you say in public. For those keeping score at home conservatives in general have smaller microphones these days.

3. The Christian perspective, while once mainstream in this country, is no longer even remotely fashionable and is leaning towards becoming quite unfashionable. That means Cristian folks don’t enjoy the same freedom of receptivity they once did. Get used to it and adjust.

Kudos to Dan for staying consistent. Kudos the the ACLU…never thought I’d say that…for doing likewise. Silly laughter in the direction of the mayors of Chicago and Boston while they publicly display their cranial rectal impaction.

Just to be clear I am not now, nor have I ever been a Chick-fil-A employee. (Although several attempts have been made.) I have, however, worked pretty extensively with CfA people and have found them to be excellent folks across the board. Believe me when I say they are not prejudiced, they’ll sell chicken to anyone!

All of this leads me to this question:
In today’s increasingly polarized political climate is true tolerance even possible?

The Olympics and The Silliness of Judged Sports

Spoiler alert: If you’ve not yet watched the coverage of women’s gymnastics from the Olympics you may not want to continue.

If you HAVE seen the coverage, or at least the results, then you already know that reigning world champion Jordan Wieber failed to qualify for the all-around individual championship. Although her score was fourth best amongst all competitors she was third best on the US team and ran afoul of a rule that says that only the top two from any country can advance to the individual competition.

REALLY?!?

So, you’re telling me that it isn’t about pitting the top gymnasts in the world against each other, it’s about putting on some sort of global ratings show?
Some sort of  “let’s be fair to those countries whose athletes made it here but aren’t as good” or “wouldn’t want one country to dominate” kind of thing?

I really don’t have a problem with it if Wieber gets beat in the semis on the track or in the pool, measured on a objective scale where the tape or the clock doesn’t lie. But to miss out by less that .3 because some judge decided, even subconsciously, that “as world champion I expect more from her” is kind of sad.

Yeah, yeah, they all know the rules going in but that doesn’t make the rules intelligent. Especially the whole, lets be fair to everyone, thing. I’m starting to wonder if the same folks who created the BCS weren’t somehow connected to this approach to gymnastics.

That’s why I am in favor of eliminating all judged sports from the Olympics. Granted we’d lose a good source of humor fodder by not being able to refer to the scores from the Russian judge but I’m willing to sacrifice.

Or…if you’re really in love with gymnastics…and figure skating…then let’s use some advanced technology. It would be simple matter to include small sensors in costumes and uniforms that would allow a digitized assessment of an athletes movement. In fact you could eliminate name and country this way allowing “judges” to assess without prejudice.

Eliminating one of the worlds best from competing because some shriveled bint decided to tick off a tenth of a point based on the position of her toes is ridiculous. It moves sports into the realm of beauty pageant. I think that’s plain silly.

What are your thoughts on judged sports in the Olympics?

If You’ve Got Nothing, Just Admit It.

I just spent and entirely fruitless half hour searching the internet for a picture.

We’ve been in Las Vegas with my daughter this past weekend at a national dance convention. She’s had a great season and had some nice kudos along the way.

I was trying to find a picture of her on the internet since all of MY stuff is on my home computer. A search on her name brought back a couple, and by this I mean maybe three, decent results but it also brought back, among other extraneous things, a link to a web site on the Chinese Tarot written almost entirely IN Chinese except for where it translates Chinese into Latin.

Now, I get it when it brings backs a picture with some random “Fletcher” in it but the Chinese Tarot? Really?

In an attempt to bring back multiple results the search algorithm must have chosen something that I’m sure makes technical sense but in the real world provides no practical value. And THAT made me wonder…

How often do we do that? How often do we try to provide SOMETHING when it would be best to admit we’ve got nothing?

Businesses do it all the time if they believe they have a solution that comes somewhere close to answering a potential customer problem.

Politicians do it all the time by restating a question to move it from something they don’t want to answer into something for which they have prepared answer.

Maybe I’m just worn out by several days in a town that seems to be built on the empty promise that you’re life can be perfect if you just have the right amount of money. And if you don’t have the right amount of money then by investing the right amount in gambling you’ll increase your odds of getting the right amount of money to make your life perfect…at least while you’re here.

Maybe I’m just feeling that the world needs a little more Simon Cowell like honesty in it…perhaps without the sarcastic edge…but he essentially tells people they can’t sing, they should save their time and effort and choose something else.

Maybe I’m worn out by the angst coming from all these parents at this dance convention some of whom are seeing their kid as the next star on “So You Think You Can Dance” when really they should just be encouraging the kid that it is good they’re trying hard and getting exercise.

Somewhere along the way being directly honest, “I’ve got nothing for you” or “This isn’t your thing”, seems to have gotten a bad rap and has been replaced by “No really, if that’s what you want let me see what I can find that is at least two steps removed and holds out a modicum of hope without being dishonest.”

And that’s how you wind up with Chinese Tarot.

Perhaps you’re feeling this post is a reflection of that. That I should have admitted I had nothing for a Monday morning and saved you the time and trouble of having read it. Fair enough…I’ll take that.  🙂 But I’ll still finish with a question:

Where do you wish you could get a little more of the direct kind of honesty that, in the end, saves time?

And Now a Word from Our Founding Fathers

I generally try to stay away from political topics as a rule but I thought I might have some fun with the Fourth of July. Please take this as tongue in cheek and have a GREAT fourth!

James Madison, our fourth President and “Father of the Constitution”, might have had a little something to say about the whole notion of affordable health care… Of course he was a rich Virginia aristocrat so he could afford it.

Not to be outdone Thomas Jefferson, our third President and slightly more radical thinker…who was known to cavort with the French from time to time…probably would have made a more all encompassing observation. Love how their expressions seem to fit the quote…

Ol’ Ben Franklin would probably have let that whole hot issue go but he certainly couldn’t ignore the spectacle of the Occupy Movement could he?

Or was he talking about Tea Parties? At least perhaps those not in Boston?

George Washington, our first President, may have taken the high ground on the political conversation and chosen instead to provide his two cents on the spiritual state of the union.

What do you think of his choice in rouge? I’d say he’s more of a winter really..

John Adams, our second President, would have followed suit with George I suppose. No need to rock the boat too early on.

Of course we might never agree on what “moral and religious” means so we’d have to enlist the aid of one last patriot…

Samuel Adams, who was NOT President but who made quite a name for himself in beer would probably have chosen to make comment on a much more comical period in our recent political history…assuming of course he had read Bill’s quote:

“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement”
-Bill Clinton

Ahhh…don’t you just love politics?

Enjoy the day, don’t take politics too seriously, speak up for what you believe in but not at the expense of the other person in the conversation, and  celebrate this great country in which we get to live.

To my friends in other countries, feel free to have a chuckle at our expense. We probably deserve it!