So the last will be first, and the first will be last.

“While I greatly respect the Catholic Church and its leaders, like many Rhode Islanders, the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic,” Rep. Patrick Kennedy (a son of the late Ted Kennedy) wrote in a letter to Tobin, agreeing to a sitdown. “I embrace my faith which acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.”

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your Communion with the Church,” Tobin (Catholic Bishop of RI) wrote.  The bishop has barred Kennedy from receiving communion in RI. 

Analysis:  There is perhaps an interesting question regarding the reference of an “imperfect humanity.”   Is Kennedy referring to those people who accidently get pregnant or to the men having ecclesialastical positions in the Catholic Church?  Kennedy could be saying that differing from the men who run the Church on particular societal issues ought not put one’s salvation at risk.  If so, then Tobin’s claim that imperfect humanity does not apply to him involves a conflict of interest.  Moreover, the fact that he and Kennedy had gotten into a public spat means that Tobin’s act to barr Kennedy from receiving communion also involves a conflict of interest.   Tobin’s first mistake was in violating his pastoral role by getting into a brawl with Kennedy.  Any subsequent “pronouncements” are tainted by Tobin’s self-interest as a party to a brawl of sorts, and thus illegitimate.    Given human nature, none of us can properly vaunt himself or herself above others in terms of that nature.  The best we can do is to try to help each other.   I don’t see that happening in this case.  Instead, I see the antithesis of what Jesus evinced and stood for.   To try to say that “loving thy enemy” means barring him demonstates the extent to which Christianity can be bent to fit one’s interests in the guise of something else.  More than anything, transparency is needed in how Christianity is abused.  That it can happen by those presumably closest to it may be why Jesus points to the outsider and the stranger as having greater faith than those we would expect.  Christianity needs to be applied to Christianity.   “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” (Matt 20:16).   There is also Matt 23.  “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. … And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”   The extent of mental gymnastics that has been involved in finessing that line is truly amazing. 

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34091312/ns/us_news-faith/

No Foam or Froth

Is that foam or froth that is typically on the top of a latte or mocha?  That was the question discussed by two baristas of a local coffee shop this morning.  More than a week ago, I had ordered a latte without froth only to find heaps of it.  I spoke with the store’s manager, who assured me that a barista should know how to use a spoon to keep the froth from going into the mug and that he would make certain that his employees knew.    Yet this morning, even though the two employees discussed between themselves how foam differs from froth, one of the two baristas handed me a latte with mounds of froth.  I took the mug and used a spoon to scoop the froth out, then returned to the barista to ask for more milk as the mug was only two-thirds full.  “Oh, is that what you mean by froth?” she asked.  “Yes,” I deadpanned–understating my disgust.  The astonishing thing to me was that that barista had just minutes earlier rendered an authoritative distinction between foam and froth to her colleague.  In case you are interested, foam is a light covering whereas froth is more substantial (and less “airy”). 

Aside from the managerial ineptitude that this example evinces, I am interested in the nature of the mentality that holds itself out as an expert even as it flunks the test.  Did the barista make any effort to keep whatever she thought was froth from my drink?  Presumably she had been listening, as she discussed the matter of “foam vs. froth” with the other employee.   A few orders after mine, the barista making the drinks announced “a skinny latte with a hint of vanilla.”  How is it that the nuance of a hint of vanilla is noted while a request for no froth (not even a hint) is effectively ignored?   All thumbs, perhaps.

What sort of mentality bites out more than it can chew, of course without realizing it, and then makes an excuse that is presumed valid (when in fact it is not)?  To label it supidity is too vague.   To label it disingenuous is too obvious.  It is in fact a grabby sort, presumptuous in what it seeks to claim, or grab. 

Why does weakness refuse to admit its nature and confront itself?  Is it really convinced that its excuses are valid?  excuses for what exactly?  Does it know it is artful, as in “Oh, is that what you mean by…?”   Such weakness is like a germ interlarding itself in polite society–presenting itself as among the erudite.  Instead, the interloper would be better suited, and happier, working on a farm to feed (other) herd animals.

Adding Insult to Injury: Thwarting Ecumenical Dialogue With a Straight Face

“Speaking at the conference on Thursday, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s point man for relations with the Anglicans, said ecumenism was strong but he alluded to problems. He acknowledged in a recent interview with the Vatican newspaper that Archbishop Williams had called him “in the middle of the night” after finding out at the last minute about the new Anglican rite. In the future, Cardinal Kasper said, such delicate issues “should be undertaken in the greatest possible transparency, tactfulness and mutual esteem in order not to entail meaningless tensions with our ecumenical partners.”

My reaction:  So Rowan Williams calls Walter Kasper at night after hearing that the Vatican intends to make it easier for Anglicans to convert and Walter is complaining about the call, as if that is the cause of the tension?   I raise this point because it illustrates a modern brain sickness of sorts.  The malady goes as follows: I insult you but I ignore the insult and treat your reaction as the problem.  The true culprit?  The principal sin, we are told, is pride.  What is particularly sordid is when the prince wears the aureole of self-righteousness as he points his fingers down.  How distant is Paul’s admonition not to make things harder on your brother.  That is to say, stop fighting, boys; it is quite unbecoming, particularly given the vocation you seek to claim for yourselves.  Having it both ways is not at all respectable. 

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/world/europe/20anglicans.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=catholic%20church&st=cse

The Pathologies of Lying and Enabling the Liar: The Palin Factor and Ourselves

In her recent book-selling public appearances on television, Sarah Palin has insisted that she did not quit the Alaskan governorship; rather, she was “reloading.”   Her father apparently said this to her so she wouldn’t think of herself as a quitter.   Unfortunately for Mrs. Palin, words are not as elastic as she might like.  Plain and simply, to resign a job is to quit.   To misappropriate language from another domain–in this case, that of hunting–does not nullify the definition of “to quit.”  Let’s have a look at the definition.  According to dictionary.com, to quit is “to give up or resign; let go; relinquish,” as in “She quit her job.”   The dictionary really uses that sentence!  There is nothing about reloading one’s shotgun.  

Two things concern me here.  First, I don’t understand why people think that a blatant lie will work.  It is noon and I walk inside a building where you are standing.  You ask me if I saw someone outside.  “No, I didn’t. It was dark out.”  How could I possibly think the lie could work?  I’m concerned about the extent of mental gymnastics that I would have to do without realizing it.    That is to say, I’m mystified by the phenomenon of the pathological liar. Going on with this example of my lie about it being dark outside at noon,  you might just look at me with a stunned look.  Do you say, “oh, well never mind” or “It is noon, so it can’t possibly be dark outside”?  If you say the former, are you thinking that the lie is inconsequential or are you just ignoring it?  If you decide to contradict me, why don’t you add: “I can’t believe you would tell such an obvious lie.  You must think I’m an idiot, and I have to say I have real doubts now about your character–and frankly, your mental health.”   All too often, we enable rather than confront the liar.    Perhaps when we enable rather than confront, we are actually enabling a mental illness–perhaps a personality disorder.  So I am as concerned by the enabling as I am by the liar’s mental state. 

What concerns me in the present case is that people might effectively enable Palin’s lapse by unthinkingly accepting her “account.”  Sadly, merely being broadcast on television brings with it a certain legitimacy and credibility that gives force to even a misappropriation or outright lie.   Typically, interviewers let such lapses go, accepting the same statement made to their follow-ups as effectively answering any qualms.  The illusion is thus presented to the viewer, who takes the convenient fabrication for the truth.  Sadly, Mrs. Palin will probably be able to “stage-manage” her “coming out on the public stage” (which itself is made possible by her having quit her government office) to perpetuate any illusions that serve her interests.  That people are incredulous enough to buy into this retail marketing concerns me much more than whether one person is lying.   I am essentially making a critique of democracy, suggesting along with Plato and Montesquieu that popular election works best on a small scale.  In building empires, we ignore this point to our own peril–our own presumption that we can’t be wrong is the underlying problem.  If you want to take a look at this presumption in action, just look at Sarah Palin.   We can stand up to lies and call a spade a spade, but it takes sight and guts.  Moreover, it takes being willing to accept that there are perhaps more troubled minds in this world than we would care to admit.  It is far easier to look at them as normal, healthy people–far less threatening.  Consider how scary it would have been to the American people in 1970 to hear a psychologist who had seen and diagnosed Richard Nixon openly discuss the man’s mental pathology.   We might be equally surprised to learn of Sarah Palin’s actual modus operendi.  We natually assume that people are mentally healthy, so we pass over indications to the contrary unless someone is running nude through traffic and shouting that the world is going to end in 2012.   In other words, we naturally “normalize.”  I suspect we would be very surprised at what we would hear were a professional to see and diagnose Sarah Palin and give us the results.  I am not a psychologist, so I would be over-reaching to venture an opinion.  I can only say that there seem to be indications that maybe we shouldn’t ignore.  If we do look the other way (especially concerning someone who might be in position of power–remember Hitler and Stalin?), then perhaps we should get ourselves checked out too, for enabling is an element of co-dependency.

Find me on twitter

A friend of mine convinced me that adding a twitter account (deligentia)  in reference to this blog might not be a bad idea.  I would say my friend had an insight!

Corporate Fakeness as Sickness

Scripted “conversations” for employees.   Some customers as “members,” and the others “not.”   A larger cup of coffee being an “upgrade.”   It occurs to me that a construction worker would be apt to laugh in the face of a corporation’s store employee using any of these misappropriations as if they were natural and fitting.  That the rest of us don’t laugh and the employees are not even likely to be aware of their own fakeness tells me that modern society has to some extent adopted the corporate perspective, even if tacitly.  That is to say, many of us have been mindwashed. 

For behind the subterfuge of over-reaching fakeness is not only weakness, but sickness.  Consider, for example the statement made by the head of finance at Morgan Stanley in September, 2008 when he was looking at Wachovia’s bad debt: “That’s a shit-sandwich even I can’t get my big mouth around.”  (Sorkin, Too Big to Fail, p. 450).   That’s just sick.  Add to this the myriad of military bloodsport references routinely made in stark corporate offices by suits whose actual sport is golf, and the nature of the corporate illness is clear: undealt-with aggression–unrequited anger really–in a malignant narcissistic personality.  The linguistic signs and the over-reaching are palpable. 

Ordinarily, I would predict that feckless fakeness  born of such sickness is bound to be exposed or collapse one day. However, this is not necessarily in the cards if enough people take the practices and underlying pathology as normal.  It is like the wife who has been married to the alcoholic for decades.  Can she be expected to recognize the obvious?  Sadly, the fakeness of corporate consumer relations may become the de facto archetype for ordinary human interaction extrinsic to the corporate context.  Adopting the corporate manner of fakeness can be a means of passive aggression–telling the other person that you really don’t like him or her and are therefore using expressly fake expressions and mannerisms.  Fake kindness can be more insulting than genuine complaints.  Of course, were corporate-retail-speak to become the parlance of our society, the insult would be lost on the other person because we would all take it as natural, or normal.  Perhaps then being genuine would be viewed as strange, or even as an outright assault.  

What particularly concerns me now is the extent to which people enable the corporate misappropriations and fake emotions in stores and customer relations centers.  Perhaps we are that stupid.  Maybe we need an upgrade in our state of awareness, and in our guts.  In the end, weakness is all too comfortable with fakeness.  If a malady is sufficiently ubiquitous, it can be easier to take it for normal and adapt to it.  For those few free spirits out there who want to overcome the sickness, I can recommend keeping a marked eye on one’s own conduct for fakeness and manipulation, while not being afraid to call an employee on his or her behavior.  Once I said to a Barnes & Noble employee, “No, I’m not a member. I’m a customer.”  The employee just looked at me.  Of course, to sickness, health can only be viewed as sick.  Confirming my hypothesis that the employees buying into the misappropriations even as they should know better are weak, the employee just stared at me–probably too scared to say “You know, you’re right.  It is inappropriate. I’ll talk to my manager about it. Thanks.”  Such a reply would be far different–freer–than “We apologize for any inconvenience.”  Of course, the subterfuge can be seen as such because of the lack of any accompanying “money where your mouth is.”  If a business is not willing to put its money with its apology, the latter should mean nothing.  It is so easy–so convenient–for one who loves money to simply make a verbal statement that does not involve paying out any money.  Yet we are such suckers in being mollified by the easy remark.  No one says, for example, “this is a business, so unfortunately there must be a financial component to your apology for it to be accepted.”   Well, I’ve said it.  Incredibly, what I have heard in resply is a not-so-tacit blowing off of my statement. “I apologize for any inconvenience”–as if this does it.   It is in the nature of weakness–of sickness really–to disagree by ignoring, which of course adds injury to insult.  Fortunately, I have put my money where my mouth is and walked in such instances.  I wonder if we as a society realize how close we are to risking our freedom from the corporate sickness.

Starbucks: Totally Scripted

Awhile back, I went to a Starbucks on a weekend morning.  While waiting for my drink, I asked the barista if I could look at one of the New York Times in the rack near the bar.  He said I could do so.   I returned about a week later, again looking at the newspaper as a waited.   Before I knew it, an employee sent by the assistant manager was standing over me, asking me how I would like to pay for the paper.  His question was of course not genuine.  Moreover, he was in actuality standing in for the assistant manager who evidently felt it was either below him or too frightful to confront me himself.   I told the employee what had transpired the week before.  He essentially ignored my statement (or simply wanted to convey that he didn’t believe me) by repeating his question.  So I repeated my statement, and he his.   Unfortunately, I had already paid for the drink.  But this could not get in the way of principle, so I left the store immediately and have not returned. 

Today I read an article about Starbuck’s strong-arm tactics being used to sell a new product.  Apparently, executives are telling the baristas through the store managers to actually have the customer hold the new product while the salesperson (barista) asks whether the customer would like to add the product to his or her order.   ”We were just told to place a Via 12-pack in the customer’s hand while asking if they would ‘like to add some Via to their order,’ ” blogged one barista. “I have seen more annoyed customers than enthusiastic ones from all these strong-arm sales tactics.”  This should be a no-brainer.  It shows that executives have lost sight of the basic nature of a customer (as well as their own customers).  Nonetheless, Clifford Burrows, president of Starbucks Coffee U.S., has seen the criticism of the sales tactics and says: “I’ve read it, but the general spirit is one of enthusiasm about Via. Some will find it easier to sell than others, some stores will be more successful than others.”  Is he window-dressing or is he simply that out of touch?  And what is this about “stories”?   How is that relevant or at all fitting?  Also, does it even make sense for a story to be “successful”?  Imagine someone asking you whether a story you have told a friend was successful.  Odd.  Very odd.  

Unfortunely, the fakeness is limited to the top at Starbucks.  Managers instructed baristas about how to strike up conversations about the new product with their customers.  So when you are having a seemingly spontaneous or “real” conversation with a Starbucks employee, you might keep in mind that your interlogator is actually scripted.  The conversation only seems to be real; the employee is actually trying to manipulate you and is essentially lying, or acting.  Only you are not, so you are the dupe–only you don’t know this because you are buying not only the coffee, but the “conversation” as a real-time exchange. 

In short, the customer is to be presumed a liar (and past oral statements made by employees can be dismissed by other employees).  Furthermore, the customer is to be subject to rude sales-pressure even though he or she has already agreed to make a purchase.  Lastly, the customer is to be manipulated into supposing that any “spontaneous” conversations with employees are genuine rather than scripted.   In essence, Starbucks is a name for a group of fake, manipulative, and rude people.  They are placing themselves above people,  in effect.  In actuality, they are weaker.   I don’t know about you, but I don’t take such malignant self-centeredness with my coffee.  Sugar is far less emetic. 

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33890453/ns/business-local_business/

Goldman Sachs: God’s Gold

A year after the financial crisis of 2008, Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, has found himself vilified for his firm’s quick return to risky trading in spite of its new bank holding company status. Populist resentment is especially pitted against the hefty bonuses from the trades, as well as the benefits the bank had obtained from the decisions of its alums in the U.S. Government—such as the dollar-for-dollar payout from the government to AIG’s counterparties, including Goldman Sachs, through AIG.   In an interview with the London Times, the highest-paid CEO, at least in the financial sector, dismisses such talk and defends his money-making machine and its compensation.  In addition to being the engine of economic recovery, according to Blankfein, Goldman Sachs provides a social function in making capital available to companies so they can expand. Moreover, he added, “I’m doing God’s work.”[i]  Such a claim is a far cry indeed from Thomas Jefferson’s warning that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.[ii]  Perhaps God intends to undo our liberties? 

Besides these rather obvious problems with Blankfein’s religious claim is his presumption to know what God’s work is, and, furthermore, that he is doing it.   Even though a feckless corporate governance can enable a CEO to essentially be his or her own boss, and thus evaluate his own performance, it is a tall order for a human being to be able to evaluate his performance of God’s work.   To be sure, it is possible that God is an intelligent being bestowing favor on his golden steward for doing His work.  I would be an utter hypocrite were I to claim omniscience on this matter, but then I would not vaunt myself in asserting that I am doing God’s work in writing this piece.  Even if I believe strongly that my venture is salubrius in divine terms, I realize that I cannot know this.  At the very least, there would be a conflict of interest for me to judge my writing as doing God’s work.   Interestingly, Lloyd Blankfein may be involved in three conflicts of interest: 1) that of having excessive power over the board whose principal task it is to oversee him, 2) having communicated with GS alums in high posts in the U.S. Government (e.g., Hank Paulson) and perhaps having them enact policies in GS’s interest, and 3) judging himself as doing God’s work.   It may well be that institutional and personal conflicts of interests can become so ubiquitous that they are rendered invisible–replaced by a tacit presumptuousness.

---

[i] John Arlidge, I’m doing ‘God’s work. Meet Mr. Goldman Sachs, The Sunday Times, 11/9/09.

[ii] Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, Monticello, May 28, 1816, in Paul L. Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892-99),  XI, 533.

Empty Your Cup

Three students from North America visit Japan to learn from a Zen master.  When the students arrive at the temple, the religious sage meets them at the gate and invites them to sit with him near the garden of stones.   “Let me pour you some tea,” he offers.  Impatient to learn from him, the students try to get right down to business.  “Thank you,” one confides, “but we came all this way and we have a schedule that we have to maintain.”   Not surprised in the least, the old man gingerly hands each student a small cup.  The students acquiesce and hold out their small cups as the master reaches for the kettle of hot tea.  The old man begins to pour the steaming tea in one of the cups, only he does not cease when the liquid reaches the top.   With hot tea on her hands, one of the students cries out, “Stop pouring!  You are burning my hands.”  The Zen master calmly puts down the kettle and replies, “Like this cup, you are too full to take in any more.  Empty your cups and I will teach you.”

Societal Illusions: The Vaunted CEO

One of the perks of corporate office is the presumption of stature and legitimacy.  In other words, we typically bring all sorts of assumptions along when we see or read about a CEO.  I want to suggest that we are basically wrong–that the reality of the man behind the curtain is far different than what is portrayed. 

For example, on the Sept. 13-14, 2008 weekend before the Monday when Lehman Brothers declared bankrupcy and Bank of America agreed to purchase Merrill Lynch, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and NY Fed Chair Tim Geithner summoned the CEO’s of the major Wall Street banks (except Lehman) to the NY Fed building.  Paulson and Geithner told the assembled executives that they need to figure out how to save Lehman because if that firm were to go under, the financial market itself would stand a good chance of collapsing.   The CEO’s were slow to view the market itself as their responsibility, in spite of the fact that their own self-interest depended on a viable marketplace in finance.  On the Friday night and Saturday, they tried to figure out how their firms could profit from picking over Lehman’s remaining assets.  On the Saturday morning, they resorted to doing impressions of Paulson and Geithner and betting on a computer game on one of their blackberries.   Finally on Sunday, Barclays offered to buy the financially viable part of Lehman and proposed a consortium funded by the other banks in the meeting to support Lehman’s debt.   Even though Barclays should perhaps have agreed to join the consortium, the other banks were on the brink of agreeing to contribute at least a billion each to the consortium–essentially propping up the mistakes of one of their rivals while letting another rival (Barclays) to walk away with the “good” Lehman.  The British government ended up refusing to allow Barclays to buy even the “good” Lehman, making the CEO’s look good in comparison. 

I have to give the CEO’s credit for agreeing to the consortium.  I would not have expected it.  However, their antics during the first half of the weekend evince a childish behavior that is quite unbecoming for men making millions a year.    The financial system hung in the balance and the CEO’s of the banks too big to fail were literally behaving like teenagers until Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan exercised some statesmanship (similar to JP himself in 1907), stepping up to the plate and asking the other execs whether their banks would contribute a billion each too. 

Even so, in reading about the behavior on the Friday night and Saturday, I have to conclude that what we are led to believe concerning the CEO’s is far too convenient for them and utterly inaccurate.   If I am right, we are subject to an illusion and we don’t even know it.  Meanwhile, people are profiting from it who ought not.   Yet they need not worry.  We will continue voting for the same old candidates. We won’t insist on real accountability in corporate governance.   Recently, Andrew Sorkin of the NYT and author of Too Big to Fail, which is my source here (see pp. 330ff), said that he (and we) didn’t know much about what was going on “because they didn’t want us to know” (Tavis Smiley Show, PBS, 11/9/09).  That is, it is no accident, kein zufall, that we will likely remain asleep.   Perhaps this is for the best, for were we to wake up, the bad smell might be too emetic for us herd animals to bear.   Bad smell! Go back to sleep!  It is as though we are hard-wired to sleep, and the pill-poppers are only too happy to oblige.