Union of the State

Very cleverly, last night Obama called on Republicans and Democrats to start getting along. Moreoever, he told them to stop selfishly trying to advanced their careers, and start legislating FOR the people who elected them. He told the Democrats to stop being pansies (finally), and he told the Republicans to take some responsibility for legislating instead of blindly saying no to everything. Nobel words, and I hope he keeps his promise to constantly and publicly engage the Republican party to bring more cohesion across the aisle.

To paraphrase the President, there are some issues we just won't agree on, but we can agree on some basic things that all people deserve, like better access to doctors, a more stable economy, access to more jobs, and yes, equal rights for people who are willing to die for America. I can shoot a rifle as well or better than the other armsmen in the lanes next to me at Blue Ridge Arsenal, I go to the gym more than most of them, and I can run faster than most of them. Yet, I'm not allowed to save their ass from international threats while maintaining honesty with my peers. It's asinine (thanks a lot Clinton).

Obama made some good, direct suggestions for Congress. One of my favorites was getting rid of the capital gains tax for small businesses. Like DADT, it's about time. He also suggested some republican-like energy options (coal and offshore oil drilling). This was smart smart smart. If you want to bring cooperation across the aisle, then it has to come from both sides.

I would have liked him to speak more to the American people and say something like, "Dear Americans, your elected officials owe it to you to spend their time legislating and not campaigning. Call, email, write to them to tell them to start spending more time on the Hill and less time on Meet the Press."

The Senator from Wal Mart

By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns.

There is no way that my voice will or can be as powerful as the voice of a corporation when it comes to political support during elections. Why is a corporation being treated like an individual? The special interest money is going to start pouring in and elections will truly be different from now on. This is sad and wrong.

Balance Of Power, Remember That?

I truly believe that Government is most responsible when multiple parties share power. When the White House, Senate and House or Representatives are all controlled by the same machine, what we have is a majority forcing their will on a minority. That is counter to the ideology of our system of Government, but moreover it's dangerous. Look what happened in California when a majority forced its will on a minority...

The fact that the Dems no longer have a super majority is a good thing. It means that they must work on legislation that appeals to everyone, not just an elite group of liberals.

A Quick Thought About Online Dating

I've never been a fan of online dating. It seems artificial and impersonal to me. Even so, I had a thought this weekend while talking about dating websites with a friend. Many of us spend most of our daylight hours online. Therefore, doesn't meeting someone there sort of make sense?

It's like, if you spend a lot of time on the tennis court, you'll probably meet someone on the tennis court.

Maybe online dating says less about how we meet people and date, and more about how (or where) we spend most of our time.

Dream A Little

Note - when I first started contemplating this post, I swear it had nothing to do with King's "I have a Dream Speech," but in hindsight that seems to apply as well, and is timely on MLK weekend.

Do you know someone with a Type A personality? Someone who goes by the numbers, makes decisions based on logic, evidence, facts, quantifiable data? Sure...we all know someone like this, or are that person ourselves. Type A's are not dreamers. They get stuff done, line ducks up, plan and react methodically. At different times in my life, I have vacillated between the two types. Playing the violin, though you might think is a dreamer's avocation, takes a very methodical discipline. There's nothing dreamy about sitting in a room for 3 hours playing the same 13 notes over and over and over again. Burying my head in books for 3.5 years getting a BA in English is where my type B really came out. It was a fun degree!

I don't mean to get too off topic, though. I want to talk about the necessity of dreaming. An example:

At work, we're going through a growth/change period of taking a look more closely at numbers, metrics, quantifiable goals, and the like. It's something that my company hasn't done to this degree before, and I have to admit there is a lot of comfort in knowing what the exact target is for a particular week, quarter, year, or individual. Spreadsheeting a job, or your life for that matter, makes it more accessible, tangible, and therefore controllable. Life is easier when you can define it.

On the flip side of things, I keep remembering how my company was created. My boss had an idea for something that didn't exist yet. He took out way too much personal debt, asked family and friends to believe in him and loan him money, and he created something that didn't really take off for a while. It eventually became an INC 500 company and now enjoys a good reputation within the software world. After 10 years of being in business, it is only now that we are implementing the Type A stuff. It wasn't spreadsheets, hard targets and data that got Capterra where it is today...it was essentially a bit of dreaming.

Now that the dream has proven itself more than fleeting, enter Type A. It's a good, worthy dream, so let's turn into work horses and make this dream a little more tangible. Some call this type of activity "growing up," or "being more serious." I would put forth that the true grown up stuff is recognizing the necessity of both the dream and the implementation. Recognizing that they each have their own time and role, neither of which less or more important than the other's.

A lot could be written here, but for brevity I'll just end with a thought. Even when you want to stick to the comfort of data and facts, don't forget to dream a bit - something good usually comes out of it.

Obama's Bank Fee - what are your thoughts?

Obama is proposing a bank fee that is based on the size of a banks' balance sheet. Essentially, the more risk a bank takes on, the higher the "fee" will be.

First of all, it's a tax. Call a spade a spade. Secondly, it's misdirected. The administration seems to be saying that this fee is supposed to encourage banks not to shell out huge bonuses (many of which are given after the bank took taxpayer money). Punishing a bank for its leverage doesn't really address the problem of huge bonuses. Why not punish a bank for making bonuses after taking tarp money? Wouldn't that actually solve the problem President Obama trying to resolve?

In my mind the worst aspect of this fee is that it can be applied to banks who never took a dime of taxpayer money. This robin hooding is unfair. Banks who are successful, and don't rely on government bailouts, are being punished.

What are your thoughts?

The Bible is Not a F%#$ing Weapon

Televangelist Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."

Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

Just like that, Mr. Robertson permits the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people because of a pact they apparently made with the devil. C'mon...this isn't a Disney movie Mr. Robertson. Your "pact" amounts to no more than them being born in a different location and of a different skin tone than you. Mr. Robertson, did the Archbishop of Haiti who perished in the earthquake also have a pact with the devil? Did the unborn and newly born children of Haiti also have a pact with the devil? Did the humanitarian workers, the average law abiding Hatians, even the petty thieves in Haiti, have a pact with the devil? No.

The idea that being Christian makes you an authority on Godliness is preposterous and completely out of line with the teaching of Jesus Christ. If I sound angry here it's because I am, and you should be too dear readers. Mr. Robertson, and millions of people like him, use God and the Bible to justify bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, white supremacist views. They use the bible to permit and excuse the annihilation of millions of people due to natural disasters (and I would argue unnatural deaths as well). These people are using your God to achieve hatred. Mr. Robertson and those like him are to Christianity what the Jihadists are to the religion of Islam - dangerous, hate-flled extremes.

If Mr. Robertson, or anyone else including you, wants to actually act like a Christian or a decent human being, then send money, thoughts, prayers, food, whatever you have, to Haiti. Any decent human being should be saying "how can I help?" not "they deserved it." Here's one way you can help:

To assist relief efforts: text "HAITI" to "90999" and $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross, charged to your cell phone bill. Or text "Yele" to 501501 and $5 will be donated to Wyclef Jean Charity. Seriously, it's a couple of dollars...you can afford it. They can't afford not to have it.

2009 mashup

I know it's two weeks late, but for anyone who hasn't seen it!

no title for this one

I watched a movie tonight called Conspiracy. It's a recreation of the Wannsee Conference of 1942 during which Hitler's "Final Solution" was agreed upon by SS and other Nazi leaders. There are many striking aspects to this film, and one which resonated with me was the lack of humanity and emotion in much of the dialogue about the Jewish people that were to be terminated. The Nazi leaders, probably out of fear for their own lives, had stuffed all emotion deep inside themselves, hiding it away, and were treating Jewish people like parts on an assembly line, or simple objects that had to be dealt with. There's no denying this is a horrible way to go about life - yet, I think to some extent we all still do it.

Please know, it is not my intention to trivialize the Holocaust here, but rather to pull some tangible lesson from an event that was so gross in concept and scale that comprehending it as a whole defies words.

There is a danger in pushing your human feelings so deep inside so that you cannot experience them. On a large and hard to imagine scale, as is horribly depicted in Conspiracy, you can forget that everyone on this earth is a human being, and that they have as much right to breath the air as you do. On a smaller and more identifiable scale, ignoring your emotions is dangerous because it makes you capable of treating other people in your life as if they have no humanity themselves. When you smother your own ability to feel, you also smother your ability to empathize. The result is that you disregard people as objects, doing and saying things to them without the ability to understand or care how it will affect them.

We've all done this, knowingly or not. And some of us continue, knowingly or not. Don't sit quietly and ignore a voice that is trying to bubble up from inside of you. Don't push away a thought, a conversation, or a person because you don't want to deal with a particular feeling. If you get too good at doing this, you'll end up hurting a lot more people than you're able to realize.

"Hi, I'm Joe. What do you do?"

If you live in DC, you know how it goes...you meet someone for the first time, and the second question out of their mouth is "what do you do?"

Lately, I've been frustrated by this question. I actually love my job and love talking about to people about it (check out www.Capterra.com). However, when this question precedes nearly everything else in the conversation, it can seem like an interview question. I know I'm not alone in thinking that "what do you do?" can roughly be rephrased as, "can your job help me in some way?" or "is what you do cool enough for my attention?"

There are those who are genuinely interested in how you chose to spend a third of your day, but more often than not I sense that "what do you do" is more about who is asking than who is answering. I recently spent a week in Chicago, meeting a bunch of new people at several parties. Only twice (I counted) was I asked about my job. It was extremely refreshing to make new friends and not discuss or care about what we do for work.

Even when you have a job you love, there are many other ways to define yourself. This philosophy goes back to my post a few days ago about doing things that make you smile outside of a paycheck. Surely there's a lot more to you and your friends than what they do, so try ignoring that question next time you meet someone - I bet you'll have a much more interesting conversation.

What Makes You Smile?

Before you had a job, before you worried about paying rent or building your resume or meeting a deadline, what did you do for fun? Did you play baseball? Video games? An instrument?

I ran cross country and played the violin. I try to do both of those things still, but don't always have time unfortunately. I find that when I'm not able to do both of those things with some regularity, I feel a little less happy. Part of that is probably the endorphins from running, but I think more of it is the freedom in being able to do something for myself - not for a paycheck, or for gaining experience, or any any other number of reasons we do things that aren't our first choice - but just for me.

Even when we do work, and have bills, and responsibilities we don't necessarily want, we still have the ability to do something for ourselves everyday. Turning off your morning alarm on your birthday, watching tv for a few extra minutes, eating food you like even if it's not in your diet. Be selfish, do something that is going to make you smile.

Gun Control

It's not an easy topic to talk about, as we all have different relationships with guns. I grew up shooting paper targets at indoor ranges, and I've enjoyed picking it up again. I live in a city where my best friend has been held up in his own condo building. In this city, semi-automatic guns are legal and there are a lot of angry people here - that's a dangerous combination. As much as I want the government to leave everyone alone, I'm also scared that mean people have access to guns.

So which one wins out - fear or free rights?

Keep Learning

I went to the Museum of Science and Industry today in Chitown and forgot how great it is to actually learn! It's a great museum if you get the chance to go (free on Tuesdays), but really any museum you pass by deserves entry. Someone (usually a lot of people) thought that whatever is in the museum was worth investing a lot of time and money...so it probably was - don't miss out on continuing to learn!

Saying Yes

A close friend and great guy inspired me to write about "saying yes" and how empowering that can be. The word "no" comes so easily to us all...in first and second dates, in continuing new relationships, in the act of compromising (or not), in accepting responsibility at work, in opening yourself up to a new friend, and letting someone step in front of you in line at the supermarket - this list could go on.

Did you see that Jim Carey movie "Yes Man?" In it, Jim Carey was unable to say no to anything, and had a wild series of adventures, and a much more interesting life than anyone you or I probably know. I encourage you to start saying "yes" to more in your life. It's so easy to hide behind the word "no" but when yo do that you miss out on a new friend, a new memory, a good story to tell down the road, and who knows...even a new career or life partner.

Many of us can feel tied down by work, or family commitments, or social constraints, but saying "yes" is very freeing, and you should empower yourself to let go of your strings and start saying yes to things that would normally give you pause. I think that "saying yes" will be a recurring theme this year for me, so I hope it will be for you too.

Defining Marriage

I don't want to talk about gay marriage rights here. Instead, I want to talk about how to define any marriage or relationship in the context of commitment, respect, support, patience, and other ingredients.

Some questions to start with: is a spell of verbal abuse any more tolerable than a cheating spouse? Is a sexless relationship any more tolerable than a relationship void of respect or love? Is an open relationship any more or less acceptable than secret infidelity?

I use two words in these questions very purposefully; tolerable and acceptable. Relationships, notably long-lasting marriages, are an exercise in tolerating things you prefer not to for the sake of commitment. Relationships are also defined by both participants and outsiders determining what is and is not acceptable - this is usually where people (myself included) tend to judge other relationships. Some people call these rules, some call them morals, and some call them mandates from God. These rules, if you will, are different for everyone.

For some, years of drug abuse is tolerable, while a regretful act of infidelity is not. For others, the sharing of finances and spending is more strictly regulated than promiscuity. Still, others have seemingly conventional rules yet have lost any feelings of love between the individuals.

In my limited relationship experience, my own idea of what is acceptable and tolerable leans heavily to the conventional side. But I know that what is right for me has two characteristics: it is only applicable to me and my life, and it may change over the course of my life. I haven't been with anyone for more than a couple years, so I don't know how more or less tolerable I'll be with someone after 20 years of marriage. I also know that my definition of a relationship is my own, and that hopefully helps me to be less judgmental of other relationships.

It seems strange to be writing about relationships considering I'm single...but having had a good bit of time pass since my last committed relationship allows me to look back at the big picture of things. Whatever your philosophy is, you need to define your unique relationship with your partner clearly. You also have to trust that he or she will honor that. This relationship defining moment isn't unique to the altar at your wedding, or your first DTR talk...people change throughout their whole lives, so relationships also change throughout their lives.

I must say thank you to two good friends and a bottle of 1800 for opening up this conversation over lunch earlier today. I'm sure it's a conversation that will continue...

Huffpost Rallying Cry for Banking Local May Leave us Crying

This week, Arianna Huffington started a rallying cry for Americans to move their money out of big banks (JP Morgan/Chase, Citibank, BofA, and Wells Fargo) and into local banks. The reason for this is to reward local banks for being responsible by not taking tax payer money and not shelling out big bonuses despite failing balance sheets, and punish big banks for being irresponsible in doing the opposite.

Initial reports indicate that some Americans are listening to the media maven. Some, like me, will move money for better interest rates and better customer service (thank you USAA). Others, will do it simply because Arianna says it's a good idea.

The notion of rushing the national banks is very very scary. What would happen if JP Morgan lost 50% of its deposits? Lending would basically stop, they wouldn't be able to invest anymore, and wouldn't have the ability to continue to pay back the loans that taxpayers have given through stimulus funding. It's important to remember that the big banks are all paying back their loans on time with interest. Arianna seems intent on ruining the big banks, but surely her economics professors from Cambridge would be worrisome of such a dramatic rush on the banks that hold most of Americans' wealth and investments.

If we as a society have a problem with banks shelling out large bonuses (and we should have a problem with this!), then let's address that problem. Instead of taking our money away from national banks, let's take our votes away from the regulators who are not enforcing a seemingly fair ethical code on the entities they are funding. Does anyone truly think our economy can survive right now without these large financial institutions? Their infrastructure, their relationships with other lenders, loan servicers, and international banks allows them to do things that local banks simply can't. A large bank can afford to write down a mortgage to allow a homeowner to stay in their home...many local banks cannot afford something like this.

Another problem with the local bank rallying cry is that we don't have any evidence that local banks are more responsible or ethical than big banks. In fact, considering that local banks have less scrutiny by regulators as well as media, who's to say that they don't actually get away with more questionable activity when it comes to spending their customers' cash on bonuses or shaky investments? Story after story comes out of local banks closing because they gave out reckless loans. Is my money any safer at my local corner bank? There is no data to suggest that.

As an individual, you decided to put your money in XYZ bank. Before you decide to up and take it all out because HuffPost says so, how about looking at the finances of your banking institution. Are they paying back their tarp loan? Have you actually called or written to the bank and asked them to stop paying out big bonuses with your taxpayer-financed loan? This might be a good first step in getting the big banks to play a friendlier game. Is the alternative smaller bank going to treat you better and be more responsible with your money? Is there any net gain for you in switching? I'm not saying that moving local is the wrong decision for everyone, but it's a personal decision...not one to be made by a media giant.