Category: Opinion

I was surprised that the part of my post about negotiation on Tuesday that drew the greatest number of comments was “It’s a really scummy thing when people do this to you, and it’s just as scummy if you do it to them” in relation to dirty tricks pulled by car dealers (and my advocating that you shouldn’t try to pull dirty tricks back on them).  It was especially surprising, as I’d put a teaser in the post that I expected to get SOMEONE to ask for details about:  “There are ethical ways that you can get a fair deal from a car dealership which are far more likely to work.”  Commenters seemed to be more interested in pulling a dirty trick on a car dealer than on getting a better deal!

Rather than turning the comment section into a back and forth where people repeatedly assert what they feel is “right”, in this post I’m hoping to outline the reasons why I made that statement, and the limitations of the other perspectives offered. I’ll be using this definition of values, morals and ethics in this post.

In “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” Robert Pirsig makes the assertion that ethical codes are used to judge and attack OTHER people, and aren’t used to guide the behaviours of the group itself (as it’s a codification of things all members of the group already understand).  Whether it’s hippies (calling other people “squares”) or Victorians the code’s purpose is to attack.  Hopefully I’ll avoid doing that here.

I find the golden rule (“Do onto others as you would have them do onto you“) to be a fairly good guiding principle that fits well with my values.  I’m a fairly empathic person, and can usually see things from other people’s perspective, such that if I treat someone badly it really makes ME feel like crap.

I’ve jokingly suggested to friends a modification to this rule: “Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.  And assume other people follow the same rule.”  What this twist lets us do is assume that how people treat us is how they WANT to be treated, and allows us to take revenge as long as it’s poetic justice:  we wrong them in the same way they wrong us, but with the deliberate misunderstanding that they desire for this to happen.

A number of comments seemed to base their perspective on similar ideas.  “Car dealers try to pull dirty tricks on customers, so its OK for us to do the same thing to them.”  I think this is the wrong way to approach the situation for a number of reasons.

1. This is how feuds start.  You retaliate against them, car dealers (and their salesmen) justify their actions as saying “see, the customers are doing the same thing to us!” and they start using even dirtier, more unethical approaches.  Eventually the entire marketplace becomes so disreputable that it collapses.  As has been written about before, I think this change is happening for real estate agents, and I suspect car dealerships will increasingly adopt a “no haggle” policy (as Saturn has done) as the Internet allows sale prices to become increasingly easy to determine.
2. This can bleed over into other negotiations you enter where the other person *IS* behaving honourably.  Once you’ve seen that you can use the dirty trick to get a good deal, the temptation will be there to use it more often.  As my friend got used to doing it in real estate deals, and eventually attacked me with the same trick.  “Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will…“
3. It harms YOU when you behave badly.  There’s a group of Internet videos which are of people torturing Tickle Me Elmos (such as dowsing him in gasoline and burning him while he dances and sings).  This doesn’t hurt the doll in any way (it’s not alive), however it DOES harm the torturer.  “The point isn’t whether it’s an issue for the creature. It’s what does it do to us.”  Serial killers usually get started torturing animals, in situations like this I think the toy is clearly a proxy for an animal or something that COULD experience pain.  Whether torturing animals contributes to eventual criminal behaviour or is an early sign of underlying issues is a debatable point, but I think it’s fair to say bad behaviour often leads to more bad behaviour.

jesse made the comment “So what is negotiation but extracting more money from the naive?” which I HOPE implies a misunderstanding on one of our parts.  My view of negotiation is it’s a “dialogue to resolve disputes“.  We’re negotiating with our partner when we argue about who should wash the dishes or change the baby’s diaper, and we’re negotiating with a car dealer when we disagree about the price.  To view negotiation as a method for preying on the “naive” and making their (probably already pretty bad) lives worse to benefit ourselves is a remarkably callous approach to life.  This attitude could result from someone who has been forced into a job that requires them to prey on unsophisticated buyers (and they adopt this attitude so they can live with themselves).  In such a case I think they should immediately quit and find a new way to earn a living as their current profession is causing them significant harm.  If they’ve come to this belief on their own, sadly I think they’re defective as human beings, and I can just about guarantee that there will be unhappiness that results from this in their future.

My favourite Jerry Seinfeld joke is:

“According to most studies, people’s number one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. Death is number two. Does that sound right? This means to the average person, if you go to a funeral, you’re better off in the casket than doing the eulogy.”

Like most people, I always *HATED* having to speak in public.  I come by it honestly:  my mother tells a story where she had to give a class presentation in high school and she was so nervous she went to her family doctor and tried to get tranquilizers.

In large part BECAUSE so many people are uncomfortable speaking to a group, it can be a valuable skill in just about any occupation (it’s rare and therefore valued).  My father was middle management at a factory and, within the union and within management, people who could stand in front of a group and yack for a few minutes would often be promoted far beyond their intelligence or ability should have allowed.  A neighbour of ours was always willing to get up in front of a group to give an impromptu speech and despite being lazy he moved up the ranks at the post office (he went from being a letter carrier to travelling around doing training at various regional offices).

If you’re looking for a skill to develop that could help you with your career advancement, without knowing anything more about your situation I’d bet that public speaking would be a good choice (it’d be hard to go wrong with writing or sales either).

I’m not a gifted orator (by any means), but I’ve gone from being petrified at the idea of speaking to a small group to being able to give technical talks to over 100 people.

Step 1:  Realize most people feel the same way you do

I think the first step in developing public speaking skills is to realize that almost everyone is very nervous speaking in public.  It’s not something that you either have or you don’t, it’s a skill that most people who give talks have developed over time.

I’ve given up on learning a second language or a musical instrument.  I’ve tried (and failed) repeatedly at both and I just don’t have the aptitude (or enough interest / dedication).  Conversely I’ve known a large number of people who have dramatically improved in their speaking skills while I’ve known them, despite initial reservations.  I’ve never known anyone who kept working at speaking in public and DIDN’T improve.

Step 2:  Find a place to practice

Unfortunately this is a hands on skill.  You can’t master it by reading about it.  Talk in public every chance you get.  Create chances to speak in public by signing up for drama (if you’re still in school) or auditioning for a play.  If there’s a group in your area, join Toastmasters or the Dale Carnegie public speaking course.

By nature I’m a raging introvert.  In high school I realized that being shy and unwilling to talk to groups would severely hold me back in life, so I acted in the school play one year (2 whole lines baby!) and started a school newspaper (and assembled and managed the staff).  After a year of doing both of these I was more than willing to throw myself in front of a group and say something.

Step 3:  Get feedback

I’m a big believer that to improve at any skill you need feedback (or the ability to accurately evaluate your own performance).  Toastmasters and the Dale Carnegie course both have this feedback built in (and a good director of a play may give some useful feedback).

Step 4:  Accept the nervousness

Realize that for many people (such as myself) speaking in public will always be a fairly nerve-wracking experience.  When I’m presenting to a graduate course (about a dozen people) I get butterflies and have to go to the bathroom every 15 minutes beforehand.  I have been complimented repeatedly on my presentations, so in spite of nervousness, it’s possible to do a good job.  I get SOME satisfaction from giving a decent presentation or talk, but the nervousness doesn’t disappear.  I think it’s good for us to push ourselves outside our comfort zone at times, so this doesn’t prevent me from accepting opportunities to talk in front of a group.

Step 5:  Continually improve

There are always ways to improve at anything you do.  If you’re the best in the world at something, you can still keep getting better at it.  Sometimes you’ll be satisfied to just use the skills you’ve developed (it takes time and effort to improve), but for the things that are really important to you, it’s possible to keep getting better.  The way to do this is to be reflective about your performance, consider ideas for improvement from others or generate ideas for improvement yourself and TEST them.

Are you comfortable speaking in public?  How did you develop this skill if you are?  What is holding you back (besides fear, you chicken 😉 ) if you aren’t?

Almost two years ago Promod Sharma at Riscario Insider wrote a post, partially in response to something I had written, about “Who can you trust?“.  Promod suggests referrals as a way to trust someone you start doing business with, and in the comments I mused about following the reasoning of people you first encounter, and the more you agree with them, the more you can trust them in the future and the more times you catch them making questionable assertions the less you can trust them in the future:

I’d say another good way to find who to trust (referrals is a great option) is to follow their line of thinking (don’t just turn off your brain) and increase your trust as you agree with more of what they say. John T. Reed’s thinking is very well founded and he provides extensive supporting evidence. I don’t *have* to trust him, I can follow his reasoning.

Some Christian’s who don’t like evolution will talk about Darwin recanting on his deathbed and converting to Christianity. The assumption here is “don’t trust what this guy wrote, he took it back later in his life”. The thing is, we don’t *have* to trust Darwin, his reasoning stands on its own. Even if he said “I was just kidding about that whole Origin of the Species joke” we don’t need to trust the man to believe the information (whereas a cornerstone of faith is that you have to trust the messenger since no evidence is offered).

Once you’ve agreed enough with what someone has to say when they talk about things you understand, you can start believing them (trusting them) when they tell you their conclusions about things you *don’t* understand (although the best case scenario would be to get them to explain these things to you such that you agree with them because you understand the issue and no longer have to take their conclusion on “trust”).

A while back I responded to a classified ad by a woman who was looking for a real estate guru in Kitchener-Waterloo.  I warned her that her post had a good chance of attracting people who were trying to take advantage of her and to be careful (and pointed her to some of my real estate posts).  I recommended she read as much as she could for free on-line (and in books) before she started paying people to help her.  She asked me specifically what I thought about Robert Allen, who she had read and thought was good, and I directed her to John T. Reed’s pages about him.  After she looked at them she responded with:

I read Reed’s blog before.. but to tell you the truth.. I didn’t like his tactics.. he is no different then Allen.. kind of the same idea, lot’s of: I will show you.. I will teach you.. I will explain.. but just buy this particular book that cost $xxx, if you want to know this then it will cost you $xxx.. again.. He is putting someone else’s face down and trying to stay on top by claiming that he got “the Secret” and “The knowledge”.. so pay the price and read it

I found her response somewhat perplexing. To equate Allen and Reed seemed like saying Albert Einstein is the same as Ben Stein since they’re both Jewish intellectuals (and their names end in stein) or Macauly Caulkin is the same as Lucy Liu because they’re both actors.  Where do you begin to differentiate two people who are *SO* different?

Some might say that citing Reed shows that I’ve accepted him as my guru, which is no different than people in the Whitney, Trump or Kiyosaki camps.  I think the primary difference is that Reed first of all acknowledges the bias in a number of articles (not in this one however).  Additionally there is a massive difference in price.  Reed’s books range from $30-$50 with no possibility for seminars or follow up, other than books on different topics.  This stands in stark contract to $5K / weekend “courses” (which include pitches for more expensive follow-up courses since you’ve proven you’re not very bright and you have too much money).  Finally, the gurus he debunks say “X is true.”, and provide nothing to back it up.  Many of Reed’s opinions on various gurus result from his investigating their claims (and finding them to be bogus).  Reed does an excellent job of concisely proving providing his line of reasoning.  You may not agree with it entirely, but it’s all laid out for you to decide what part you agree or disagree with (which is useful as I mentioned in my comment on Pramod’s post).  I’m pretty opposed to a draft, but John T. Reed’s article arguing in favour of it was one of the most convincing arguments from the other side I’ve ever read.

We’ve had a similar experience with our real estate articles.  An agent levelled the accusation that we wrote attacks on real estate agents in order to get readers to visit our site and make money from advertisers, so we have just as much of a bias as we’re accusing agents of having (and people shouldn’t take our posts seriously).  The strange perspective there is the expectation that somehow pointing out the bias in how real estate agents get paid leads to more readers.  Maybe we’d have gotten more readers if we’d written a manifesto detailing why people need to trust their real estate agents more.  Or maybe we’d have gotten more readers if we’d written about why Cheddar cheese is the best cheese on the planet.  We’re often surprised which of our posts get the most attention, it’s certainly not something we’re deliberate about (“let’s write about topic XYZ to get lots of readers / advertisers / cash!!!”).  Our goal is to write entertaining, informative articles.  If we write something that’s untrue, our readers and commenters catch it, so we have a bias toward providing correct information.  We could be accused of writing inflammatory posts to get attention, but I’m confident they’re fairly accurate even if they are controversial (and given some of our recent posts such as “TFSA Institution Transfer Strategies” or “Mr. Cheap Asks: What Kind of Dog Should I Get My Dad?” I think controversial might even be a stretch).

How you trust someone you urgently need something from (like a doctor during a medical emergency or a lawyer during a legal emergency) is a tougher issue.  Ideally you’ll have someone you’ll have build a basis of trust with before the emergency, but if you don’t referrals might be your best course of action.

How do you decide who to trust in the short-term or the long-term?

I went out for lunch with a couple of fellow grad students recently and our conversation reminded me of a topic I’ve been meaning to post on.  One of the students has been ranting for months about a change in policy with how TA work is handled which may affect the immigration process for international students.

At our meal she got ranting again and started talking darkly about how she was convinced student leaders were getting kickbacks for allowing the policy to be changed and that they were terrible people to be screwing her over to put money in their pockets.  I told her a saying I’d thought was very true when I first heard it:  “Never blame on malice what can be explained by incompetence.”

In life we’re often going to have obstacles, and sometimes those obstacles will be put in our way by another person.  SOMETIMES they might be trying to make our lives harder, but I truly believe that it’s usually just that they aren’t thinking about us at all.  The obstacle is simply a side-effect of them living their lives and dealing with their own stuff.  If they could accomplish their goals without interfering with us, I’m sure they’d be happy to.  They either aren’t aware of the impact on us, or can’t be bothered to do the extra-work needed to make our lives easier (which doesn’t seem COMPLETELY unreasonable to me).  Often people who are just plain bad at their jobs will be viewed as a nightmare inflicting chaos on an organization.  Probably the person would love to be doing a good job, but they aren’t capable of it.  They aren’t causing problems to be mean-spirited, they just don’t know any better!

Our other friend tried as well to get her off the topic, but to no avail.  She remains convinced that someone is deliberately and maliciously benefiting at her expense.  Because of an accounting change, she’s spent a lot of time frothing at the mouth and going on about it far more than her friends are interested in hearing.  Its got to the point that she’s sounding a bit paranoid.

I think most of us have been down the same road.  A policy is made in our workplace or where we live that makes our lives a lot more difficult (maybe a lieu time policy is changed or a memo is issued forbidding something we’ve been doing).  We feel like it’s a personal attack, but perhaps its just the organization trying to run things and not even thinking about us.

When I first started at Waterloo there was a professor whom I was convinced was out to get me.  When we were walking down the hall, she’d tilt her head up (literally sticking her nose in the air) and turn away from me.  I was shocked and couldn’t for the life of me figure out what I’d done that had offended her so much (and talked to my office-mates ad-nauseum trying to figure it out).  Eventually I was talking to a couple other guys in the department and mentioned how she treated me.  They nonchalantly replied that she did the same thing to them, and pretty well to anyone else who couldn’t immediately help her career.

The behaviour I’d taken as nasty and personal was just her poor social skills.  I’m not any friendlier with her, but at least I’m not racking my brain trying to figure out what I ever did to her or why she “has it in for me” (she doesn’t).  I interpreted her attitude as an attack on me when it wasn’t.

If you haven’t already entered, definitely check out the Four Pillar’s Great Canadian Book Giveaway.  It’s possible to get two entries, so if any of the books look interesting, get your name in!  Contest runs until Saturday, Feb 7 at 8:00pm EST.

My father generally doesn’t like change in his life.  We joke that if something ever happened to my mother he’d look around for a woman just like her and stay single if he couldn’t find her (ideally he should have married a woman with an identical twin so he’d have a backup). He doesn’t travel at all, because he likes his daily routine to stay as constant as possible.  Growing up, he had a series of dogs, and each of them was named “Buddy” (as soon as one dog died, it was replaced with another and given the same name).

Shortly after he retired we got him a dog, and at first he was really angry (he said at one point that the dog ruined his retirement), but before long they were best buddies and the dog went everywhere with him.  For months after the dog passed away people he’d never talked to before would come up and ask him where his dog was (people had got used to seeing them together).  He said a few times over the years that if anything ever happened to the dog he’d want another, as she added so much enjoyment to his life.  My father has had difficulty making change happen and still doesn’t have a dog in his life (it’s been years now).  After talking to the rest of the family, I’ve decided to get him a new dog in the spring and was hoping some of our readership is knowledgeable about dogs and can give me some advice.

His previous dog was an English Springer Spaniel which was pretty close to ideal for our family.  A dog trainer I was talking to made the point that when you get a new dog, you don’t want it to be the same breed as the last one (so that you won’t view it as a clone of the previous dog and will realize it’s a new dog with its own personality).  This made a lot of sense to me, so I’m now trying to find a breed similar to the English Springer Spaniel, but different.

Things we liked about the breed:

• Friendly breed that’s good with strangers (we don’t need a guard dog), if it was barking a lot that’d be a problem.
• Very sensitive – this is an important characteristic which was explained to me as how much the dog will “read” its owner.  Dogs that are more sensitive can tell when the owner is upset, whereas less sensitive dogs need to be disciplined more blatantly.  My dad definitely needs a dog that can read him when he’s getting upset (and stop doing whatever its doing), as my dad isn’t the best at formal discipline.
• Reasonably athletic – my dad took the dog for at least one long walk every day and would often take the dog cross-country skiing with him.
• It probably doesn’t make much of a difference, but we’ll get a female (I’ve read in some breeds the males and females can have different behaviours).

Things we were indifferent to:

• English Springer Spaniels are apparently “one master” dogs and tend to bond with one person.  My mom would like a dog that was more of a “multiple owner” dog, but I think my dad likes the one-on-one dogs.
• Especially in their old ages, English Spring Spaniels tend to want their own way with things (and can get grumpy).  My parents were fairly accommodating with their old dog (although this used to irritate me a bit).
• Our previous dog was supposedly “pure bred” without papers.  We like the breed just in terms of knowing what the dog’s general characteristics should be, but we couldn’t care less about the pedigree beyond that.

Things we didn’t like:

• My dad has found the house a lot easier to clean without dog hair everywhere.  A breed that shed less than English Springer Spaniels would be good.

If anyone can suggest breeds that have the important characteristics for us, I’d really appreciate it!  I’ve had suggestions to look into a Brittany and a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever.  I’ve also considered getting a English Springer Spaniel with different coloration (the previous dog had liver colouring, but I’m not sure if getting one with black colouring would be enough of a difference to prevent comparisons).

I suspect the suggestion will be made to rescue a dog from the pound.  I’m certainly sympathetic to why that would be a good idea (there are dogs that certainly need a home).  Ultimately, my view is that dogs are a pack animal and abandonment is VERY traumatic for them.  My parents aren’t well equipped to rehabilitate an animal recovering from this trauma (and I suspect the process of adjusting to each other would prevent bonding:  my parents would probably take the view that it’s a “bad dog”).

Given the criteria outlined above, do you have any suggestions on breeds I should consider or general advice about the process of getting a new pet?

This post will upset some readers. I won’t insist that readers promise not to be offended or anything like that, but if you’re not in the mood to read something that may get you worked up, you might want to skip today’s post. If you’re angry and don’t have the time to write a well thought out comment, feel free to cut and paste one of the following (these work equally well for other posts that make you angry on this, or other, blogs):

• “U R stuppid & cheep MrCheap!!@!”
• “Well, I guess I can unsubscribe from this trash in my RSS, thanks!”
• “Nice try, but you’re too [naive / unenlightened / white / uneducated / overeducated / male / affluent / impoverished / rural / urban / straight / unworldly / Canadian] (pick all that apply) to understand the complexity of this issue.”
• “You, sir, are a heartless brute!”
  

I’ve had a long, strange history with beggars. In my home town, most homeless were outpatients from the mental hospital, and were as likely to scream something strange at you as to ask for change. My undergrad was in a slightly larger community and you’d occasionally run into beggars asking for change around town. When working down in San Francisco during the dot com boom, I lived on the north side of the Tenderloin and I’d walk across Market St. every day on the way to work (both areas are thick with beggars).

The strangest part is that something about me antagonizes beggars. Most of my friends have noticed that if we’re walking down the street together and we run into a belligerent beggar, without fail he makes a bee-line straight at me. I’ve actually been attacked by beggars 3 times (twice in SF and once in Toronto), so I’m cautious around people who are pan handling.

Historically, and in developing countries, the implied message when someone begs from you is “I’m desperately poor, if you don’t give me some cash for the bare necessities of life there’s a good chance I’ll suffer permanent harm.” I have no problem with this style of begging (although they aren’t likely to get cash from me), and as long as the beggar doesn’t harass or threaten me after I say no or ignore them I’m happy to have a live-and-let-live attitude towards them.

Some people who visit Canada from developing countries have expressed shock to me at the pan handlers they see around Toronto. They can’t figure out why people who are able to walk and have no obvious disabilities would be asking for money. I understand the perspective that a large number of people asking for money on the street have mental health or addiction issues, but once they start crossing the line to harassing and threatening other people it becomes unacceptable to me.

Rather than the traditional mode of begging, many beggars in a Western context take the stance “I’m going to make you uncomfortable and put you in a situation where you’ll pay money to get out of it”. This could be a beggar raising his voice and making a scene (with the expectation you give him some cash to quiet him down), getting uncomfortably close to people or their vehicles (perhaps with a squeegee) and only giving them space when paid for it, or intimidating people who can’t easily escape (I often see mothers with small children being shook down by aggressive pan handlers).

One of my friends has run into a beggar repeatedly who hangs out near the subway station she uses. He’s followed her a few times, and its gotten to the point where she gets pretty freaked out whenever she sees him. I don’t understand why it’s acceptable for him to set up camp at a public transit station and terrorize people.

At this point I feel that rather than begging what’s actually going on is a softer form of mugging. I’m definitely of the opinion that many criminals in the justice system have mental problems, but there are still unacceptable acts that society condemns regardless of the underlying health of the individual. If a shoplifter suffers from a compulsion, or a wife beats her husband because of anger issues, it doesn’t excuse the theft or the assault (although it may moderate the punishment). Similarly, I can’t understand why we tolerate the sort of behaviours that have become so common from beggars.

There are occassionally even larger escalations of violence. I am certainly aware that violence between beggars is more common than violence between them and society at large (and that the violence can go both ways). To me these news reports seem to be extreme examples of standard behaviour, rather than bizarre or isolated incidents.

I have in the past offered food to beggars, but often they’ll take offence at this, and start screaming at me (with the hope that I’ll give them cash to quiet them down I suspect). They’ll indignantly shout “I didn’t ask you for food!” I have no hard feelings at all towards homeless people who don’t beg (if they don’t beg they aren’t beggars). There’s one man who lives around Berkeley that a friend told me about who would tell people off if they tried to give him anything (he’d spend his time going through the trash). Apparently he even gets angry if he thinks people have put things in the trash for him to find. I’m not sure what his world view is, but I respect that he’s living his life in harmony with his values and not causing trouble for other people.

At one point I was debating about doing a PhD in anthropology and focusing on homeless/beggar populations. When I investigated, the consensus among people I talked to was that current academic work on homelessness was done from a sociology / political perspective. There wasn’t much work that viewed homeless societies as distinct societies and approached them from a viewpoint of understand their norms and values, rather than viewing them as a problem to be solved.

One of the few things I like about living in Waterloo instead of Toronto is that I haven’t run into any beggars here (although with RIM’s share price there might be a few in the near future). I understand that people who fight to have beggars left alone by police feel that they’re defending a vulnerable segment of society, but sadly I wonder how many of these champions are living their lives in the suburbs, driving their SUVs and seldom encountering the population that might not be as down-trodden as they believe.

Do you give money to beggars? Do you feel that it helps them? If you accept that throwing money at beggars at a societal level has never solved the problem (and typically draws more beggars to the area where services are being offered) what do you feel would be the best approach to let people live in an urban environment without being molested? Since police crackdowns are typically met with anger and protests, is the only option for people who don’t want to be victimized to move to smaller towns or the suburbs?

Some time ago, while writing a reassurance post about the stock market melt-down, Mike pointed out that for most people our career is our biggest asset.   I think Mike made a good point: given the choice between the loss of an investment portfolio or the loss of a career, the career is more valuable.  However, I was visiting my Grandmother in the hospital for the holidays and felt that health is even higher on the priority scale.

It’s a cliché, but you really can’t put a price on your health.  When we were in the sun-room singing carols, I looked around and saw people struggling to move, talk and even breath.  I’m sure any of them would happily be unemployed and in debt if it meant having their youth and health back.

Recently Seth MacFarlane, the creator of “Family Guy” and other shows, got a contract worth $100,000,000 from Fox.  He made the comment that he traded Fox his 20’s for a hundred-million dollars.  He figures they got a good deal, since money is a renewable resource but time isn’t.

When I was a young guy, the tech company I was working at thought I should move all the heavy things in the office in addition to software development.  After throwing out my back for 4 days, I realized what a joy it is to have pain free movement.  Some times if I’m down about money or career issues, I think back to being in pain whether I moved, sat or lay down and am a little less dejected about whatever I’m going through at the moment.

John Reed has commented that real estate and health are the only two areas he can think of where the most expensive advice is the worst.  There are people trying to capitalize on our desire for health, and are willing to sell us snake oil.  Even proper medical research seems to be constantly flip-flopping on some key issues (I’ve lost track of whether I should or shouldn’t eat eggs – now I just eat them because they’re delicious and figure the health consequences will work themselves out).

Random events in life will play a role in your health (even if you take care of yourself, you might get hit by a car), so I’ve embraced the chance element and hope for continued health (and try to appreciate it each day that I have it).

To all our readers in good health, I’m glad you’ve already got the best possible gift for the holidays.  For those who are struggling, I hope the new year brings you improved health and comfort!

I was in Niagara Falls recently, and saw a big sign in a store window that proclaimed “Christian Owner”.  I’ve written on the topic before, but I found it unbelievable that someone would even CONSIDER putting up such a sign.

The most charitable interpretation of this sign would be that it somehow relates to the store’s purpose and serves to warn customers before they enter.  If I ran a store selling holy symbols, it might be worth letting customers know which religious denomination they’re for, before they come in (if someone is looking for a new crucifix and I only sell Stars of David, I’m not going to be able to help them).  This store was a general gift store, so while they may have had angels on some of their goods, they sold other non-religious items, so I really didn’t think this was the purpose.

Less charitably, and probably more accurately, their purpose may have been to tell Christians “Hey, I’m the same as you.  You should shop at my store instead of patronizing some atheist or Muslim!”.

The least charitable, and hopefully inaccurate, interpretation is that the owner is warning others away.  They’re posting the sign to say they only want to conduct business with Christians, and if you’re not one, they don’t want you in their store.

Penn and Teller have a proposal for world peace.  They suggest all barriers to trade be removed, and that as many different groups and people are encouraged to do business together as possible.  Their belief, and I think they’re on to something, is that if people are making money together, they’re going to do what they can to get along.  I read a quote from an Indian businessman who said that he’s too busy making money to want to fight with Pakistan.

When people start segregating and only doing business with people who believe the same things they do, we’re on a path for some real trouble.  The way to reconcile differing opinions is discussion and at a political / legal level through democracy.  Economic warfare where we don’t do business with people who don’t believe what we do is one step up from physical violence and can be just as harmful (talk to a small business owner who has gone bankrupt – he probably would have prefered a punch in the nose to losing his savings and livelihood).

Some people may say “well, I’d never boycott a business because of someone’s race or religion, I’m a good guy”.  I think what they’re doing is just as ugly if they do it to try and force their political beliefs on a person or company.  If you’re pro-life and you boycott a local cafe owner you know is pro-choice (or vice-versa) it’s just as bad.  The abortion debate has NOTHING to do with lattes.

In case it isn’t clear from the post, I would have found it just as offensive if there had been a sign in the window saying “Hindu Owner” or “Atheist Owner”.