#violence #religion #Christianity #Christians #TeachingsOfJesus
Christianity teaches us to love thy neighbor as thyself.
But there are many people who say they are Christians who support, even encourage, violence against others.
Perhaps they believe that violence, for the right cause, is just, even ordained by God.
Certainly, history teaches us about wars fought over religion. We saw Protestants and Catholics fight in Northern Irelands a few decades ago. Many relics of that fighting remain in Northern Ireland today. Even though the fight was not over religion per se, most of those who were loyal to the British crown were Protestant, and most of those who wanted Ireland united as a separate republic were Catholic.
Today, the majority of people in Northern Ireland are Catholic, according to tour guides. Peace prevails there today, but few believe the country will remain peaceful forever. The fear of more “troubles,” as they call them, is prevalent.
In the U.S., some Christians feel they are “under attack,” from those who are not like them.
They believe they have to fight, with whatever weapons necessary, to regain “their” country.
The U.S. has always been a melting pot of religions, nationalities, races etc. So, what the Christians who feel under attack want is power – and they want to subjugate all others to their way of life.
People are entitled to believe what they believe, live however they want, as long as they don’t harm others, or interfere in others’ lives. But, some actually want to interfere in the lives of others, whom they see as not believing what they believe.
There is also the adage “live and let live.”
That means you pay no attention to lifestyles that don’t conform to yours, as long as practitioners of those lifestyles don’t bother you.
An effort to keep children away from those their parents hate can be futile, if the child grows to deviate from his or parents’ beliefs.
You can’t stop others from being themselves using force. It will not be a long-term solution, if you are inclined to feel that way. Today, the internet and social media provide many ways for like-minded people to gather, communicate and socialize.
The children WILL grow to find a way to be who they are, regardless of parental restrictions.
Sometimes, the more a parent interferes in his or her child’s life, the more distant those children become from their parents.
If you are a Christian who feels under attack, ask yourself whether Jesus would behave the way you do. Many things you may oppose were not around in Jesus’ time, or, at least, they were not done openly.
Regardless, Jesus never espoused hatred in any form. His teachings would tell us, or should tell us, to embrace differences among us and live in peace.
Many who want the Ten Commandments posted in every public school classroom would do well to abide by all those commandments.
Peter
Author Archives: pbilodeau01
SHOOT FIRST; ASK NO QUESTIONS
#guns #SchoolShootings #GunOwnership #ResponsibleGunOwnership
Shoot first, ask questions later, the old Western adage says.
Today, it might be revised to say: shoot first, ask no questions.
After the latest school shooting at Apalachee High School in Barrow County, Ga., there are numerous “thoughts and prayers” being offered to the affected families.
But, the question will come down to whether anyone in power will make attempts to stop further gun violence.
The gun lobby has a certain group of legislators, governors and other officials in their pockets. These officials are assigned to prevent any gun restrictions from being enacted, no matter what.
Do we really care more about guns than children and teachers?
As context, no one in any position of power is urging repeal of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
There is nothing wrong with owning a gun for recreation, or even self protection in certain areas.
But, gun ownership is a massive responsibility. Owners have to keep their weapons and ammunition away from people who might misuse them. The question will be asked in Barrow County: How did a 14-year-old boy get a gun past his schoolhouse door?
By all accounts, the response after the shooting was outstanding. School officers confronted the boy with the gun, and he surrendered peacefully. And, the boy’s father was arrested, charged with allowing him to have the gun. His mother had alerted school officials well ahead of the shooting to keep an eye on her son. Another question to be asked: did school officials heed the mother’s warning?
Controlling guns is no easy task. They are as easy to buy as a tool in a hardware store. In many places, no one has to know who you are to sell you a gun. And, some residents of those places like it that way.
As the number of guns in civilian hands proliferates, the more likely it becomes that more of those guns will end up in the wrong hands.
Most gun owners don’t deliberately give or loan their guns to those who would do harm. But, often, the owners don’t know who would, or would not, do harm, or who would do harm eventually.
Some gun owners are careless, leaving their weapons accessible for anyone in their household, or who visits their household, to take.
Very rarely does a loaded gun in a nightstand offer protection. But, those guns are easily accessible, particularly to curious children.
Others carry guns as naturally as they carry a wallet. They’ll show up at an airport with guns in their pockets, and forget they was there.
In summary, gun violence is an epidemic in the U.S., unlike most anywhere else in the world.
Innocent children and adults are getting shot while conducting normal life. Children in school have to have active shooter drills.
Suggested solutions are many, but few rise to the level of absolute solution. But, the way we buy, sell, resell or otherwise get guns into people’s hands would have to change to minimize the threat of such violence. Almost nothing would eliminate the threat completely.
We may need to restrict some weapons that offer no useful civilian purpose. They are designed to shoot a lot of people quickly, We need to know, as a society, who has these weapons, and, perhaps, stop more of them from being sold.
The 2nd Amendment allows for gun ownership. We have to refine it to try to ensure only responsible gun and ammunition ownership. We need to somehow keep weapons out of the hands of children, or adults who would do harm.
Gun owners need to step up as individuals, if they want to preserve their right as it stands. If they don’t, someday someone who opposes easily available guns – and who wants to stop innocent people from being shot — will step up. And, the gun enthusiasts will not be happy.
We have a clarion call here. Who will heed it?
Peter
CLEAN YOUR HOUSE FOR $19? CHECK IT OUT
#HouseCleaning #housekeepers #CleaningServices #CleaningYourHouse
Imagine getting your house cleaned for $19.
That’s the pitch Homeaglow offers in its TV ad.
What the ad doesn’t tell you is the $19 price – which sounds too good to be true – is only for the FIRST cleaning. To get your house cleaned regularly, there is an array of other prices offered on its Web site. And, there are a limited number of $19 cleanings in certain areas, and some areas may have none available.
The lesson here is that if something sounds too good to be true, check it out.
The big part of advertising’s job is to get potential clients or customers to find out more.
The $19 price is a good lure. Perhaps Homeaglow figures that it’s a great hook to get people to check out its Web site.
If you Google Homeaglow, you may find an array of reviews for the service.
House cleaning services can be tricky. If you are particular, as many are, about how your house is cleaned, you may want the same person doing it every time.
Companies like Homeaglow may send a different cleaner every time. They may do different things. You may want to specify to your house cleaner what you want done, and how you want it done.
If you have the same person, or the same two people, clean your house every time, you can build up enough trust with them that you can leave your house while it is being cleaned. If you have different people every time, you may not feel comfortable leaving them alone in your house.
Some people are so particular about house cleaning that they HAVE to do it themselves.
Or, it may not be in the budget for some to pay for house cleaning.
But, if you are in the market for someone to clean your house, get references and check them out.
Make sure that what they are charging fits the going market price, and you are comfortable paying it.
Companies like Homeaglow may seem cheaper than private cleaning services, perhaps because they can get multiple houses on the same street. But, if you want to know who is cleaning your house, and you want the same person every time, a private cleaner may be better.
If you are using a cleaner for the first time, and you have left them in your house unsupervised, check around after the cleaner has left to make sure he or she did what he or she said he or she was going to do, and to make sure nothing is out of place.
When deciding whether to have someone else clean your house, determine how particular you are and whether that person, company or anyone can live up to your standards.
Also, presuming you can afford the service, determine how much your time is worth. Could you be doing something more valuable to you than spending time cleaning? Could you be working, and earning money, for example?
Balancing work, leisure and household chores can be a challenge. Remember, if you can afford to do it, your time doing other things can be worth more to you than doing some of the necessary chores of life yourself.
Peter
Imagine getting your house cleaned for $19.
That’s the pitch Homeaglow offers in its TV ad.
What the ad doesn’t tell you is the $19 price – which sounds too good to be true – is only for the FIRST cleaning. To get your house cleaned regularly, there is an array of other prices offered on its Web site. And, there are a limited number of $19 cleanings in certain areas, and some areas may have none available.
The lesson here is that if something sounds too good to be true, check it out.
The big part of advertising’s job is to get potential clients or customers to find out more.
The $19 price is a good lure. Perhaps Homeaglow figures that it’s a great hook to get people to check out its Web site.
If you Google Homeaglow, you may find an array of reviews for the service.
House cleaning services can be tricky. If you are particular, as many are, about how your house is cleaned, you may want the same person doing it every time.
Companies like Homeaglow may send a different cleaner every time. They may do different things. You may want to specify to your house cleaner what you want done, and how you want it done.
If you have the same person, or the same two people, clean your house every time, you can build up enough trust with them that you can leave your house while it is being cleaned. If you have different people every time, you may not feel comfortable leaving them alone in your house.
Some people are so particular about house cleaning that they HAVE to do it themselves.
Or, it may not be in the budget for some to pay for house cleaning.
But, if you are in the market for someone to clean your house, get references and check them out.
Make sure that what they are charging fits the going market price, and you are comfortable paying it.
Companies like Homeaglow may seem cheaper than private cleaning services, perhaps because they can get multiple houses on the same street. But, if you want to know who is cleaning your house, and you want the same person every time, a private cleaner may be better.
If you are using a cleaner for the first time, and you have left them in your house unsupervised, check around after the cleaner has left to make sure he or she did what he or she said he or she was going to do, and to make sure nothing is out of place.
When deciding whether to have someone else clean your house, determine how particular you are and whether that person, company or anyone can live up to your standards.
Also, presuming you can afford the service, determine how much your time is worth. Could you be doing something more valuable to you than spending time cleaning? Could you be working, and earning money, for example?
Balancing work, leisure and household chores can be a challenge. Remember, if you can afford to do it, your time doing other things can be worth more to you than doing some of the necessary chores of life yourself.
Peter
NOISY EMPTY CANS
#EmptyCans #conversations #talk #interactions
“Empty cans make the most noise.”
So says the mother of Monica Pearson, retired WSB-TV news anchor in Atlanta, who now works for the station’s sister publication, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
She quoted her mother several times in a column published April 7, 2024, in the newspaper.
The reference raises the image of empty cans tied to the rear bumper of a car carrying newlyweds, signifying they are just married. They are supposed to be noisy in celebration.
But Pearson was discussing how people with character react in certain situations.
Do those who talk the most have the least to say? Or, do those who talk the most have little worthwhile to say? Or, do those who talk the most know least about what they are talking?
It’s a lot to think about.
If you talk about someone, are you saying things you would not say to their faces?
If you talk to someone, are you telling them the truth to the best of your knowledge? If you don’t know the actual truth, do you keep it to yourself until you are certain it is true?
Sometimes, we hear or read things from sources that are not reliable. We think they are reliable, but we later find out they are not. If what you later find out is false hurts someone, do you apologize?
Then, we sometimes say things we wish were true, but are not.
Most of us don’t set out to lie. But, then again, some people do.
Most of us don’t talk for the sake of hearing our own voices. Then, again, some people do.
Talking about something can take time away of doing the things talked about. Hence, we have the adage “all talk and no action.”
The lesson from the empty cans is if you are going to say something, make it constructive or helpful. Don’t say to others what you would not say to the person about whom you are talking.
There are situations when it’s best to say nothing at all. In those cases, if you are in conversation, find a different subject, something less harmful, to discuss.
In today’s world, one should stay away from certain topics when talking to people that you either don’t know well, or know that such topics may lead to an unwanted argument.
Even among friends and family, not every subject should be on the table.
We all desire openness in conversation. Openness can be valuable to a person who is, say, trying to work through a problem and needs advice.
Openness is always better than deceit, but there are times when conversational parameters are in order.
So, speak with clarity, not obfuscation. Choose your words carefully, but don’t choose a lot of words that say nothing.
Be a helpful, full can to all with whom you interact.
Peter
“Empty cans make the most noise.”
So says the mother of Monica Pearson, retired WSB-TV news anchor in Atlanta, who now works for the station’s sister publication, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
She quoted her mother several times in a column published April 7, 2024, in the newspaper.
The reference raises the image of empty cans tied to the rear bumper of a car carrying newlyweds, signifying they are just married. They are supposed to be noisy in celebration.
But Pearson was discussing how people with character react in certain situations.
Do those who talk the most have the least to say? Or, do those who talk the most have little worthwhile to say? Or, do those who talk the most know least about what they are talking?
It’s a lot to think about.
If you talk about someone, are you saying things you would not say to their faces?
If you talk to someone, are you telling them the truth to the best of your knowledge? If you don’t know the actual truth, do you keep it to yourself until you are certain it is true?
Sometimes, we hear or read things from sources that are not reliable. We think they are reliable, but we later find out they are not. If what you later find out is false hurts someone, do you apologize?
Then, we sometimes say things we wish were true, but are not.
Most of us don’t set out to lie. But, then again, some people do.
Most of us don’t talk for the sake of hearing our own voices. Then, again, some people do.
Talking about something can take time away of doing the things talked about. Hence, we have the adage “all talk and no action.”
The lesson from the empty cans is if you are going to say something, make it constructive or helpful. Don’t say to others what you would not say to the person about whom you are talking.
There are situations when it’s best to say nothing at all. In those cases, if you are in conversation, find a different subject, something less harmful, to discuss.
In today’s world, one should stay away from certain topics when talking to people that you either don’t know well, or know that such topics may lead to an unwanted argument.
Even among friends and family, not every subject should be on the table.
We all desire openness in conversation. Openness can be valuable to a person who is, say, trying to work through a problem and needs advice.
Openness is always better than deceit, but there are times when conversational parameters are in order.
So, speak with clarity, not obfuscation. Choose your words carefully, but don’t choose a lot of words that say nothing.
Be a helpful, full can to all with whom you interact.
Peter
CONSUMERS HELPING TO LOWER INFLATION
#inflation #prices #shopping #rent #gasoline #groceries
If something costs too much, don’t buy it.
That can’t be said for everything, since we all need housing (rents), fuel for cars (gasoline), medication and food (groceries).
But, according to Christopher Rugaber, business and economics reporter for the Associated Press, companies are starting to lower their prices because people just aren’t buying their products in the volume they would like, at the prices they want to charge.
Apparently, it’s working. Last week, inflation dropped below 3 percent for the first time since 2021.
Rugaber’s article on the subject was published August 13, 2024, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Before Rugaber’s article, McDonald’s reportedly started lowering their prices on some of its most popular items because there were too few diners at many of their restaurants. It showed in their earnings report.
It’s good also to remember that government has little leverage in bringing down prices. It can do what it can for things it can regulate, such as bringing down the cost of insulin to $35 for senior citizens. One big lever they have is allowing Medicare to negotiate prices. This has helped bring down the government’s cost for 10 popular drugs.
But, what really helps bring down prices is the lack of buyers.
It’s simple economics. Set a price, see whether the market will bear it and adjust as the market adjusts.
For businesses, particularly small businesses whose product is not an absolute necessity, it’s a much tougher decision. Usually, these businesses know what prices the market will bear for their finished product. But, can they produce that product at a cost that not only covers what it costs them to make it, but also puts a little profit in their pockets?
It’s a struggle for some of these businesses, many of whom are facing labor shortages. When workers are few, they will demand higher wages. Can these businesses keep their workers happy, pay for ingredients that produce high quality products, pay for their workspace AND make a profit?
The bigger corporations have more pricing flexibility. If they, like McDonalds, see less traffic in their retail spaces because of prices, they usually can adjust to that more easily.
Sometimes that doesn’t work well for some of those who work for them, since labor is one of the places that corporations adjust.
In all, reports say that, given the labor shortage, most workers have seen their pay rise. A lot of the things we buy are priced higher to pay workers more. In most cases, workers’ raises are more than the price increases they are paying for necessities.
As Rugaber’s article implies, consumers are working hard at changing what markets will bear – whether they realize it or not.
So, here are some handy rules for buying: If it is something you need to survive, try to use less of it. (Don’t drive around in a 4X4 pickup truck if you don’t need to haul anything). If it’s something you want badly, but don’t absolutely need, look for bargains. It may not pay to drive five or six miles to save two cents on a gallon of gas, but it might make great sense to shop around if you’re in the market for, say, a big-screen TV.
Another rule: don’t long for the days of the pandemic when prices on just about everything were lower because people weren’t going anywhere. The disease was too much of a cost just to have lower prices. (By the way, the air was also cleaner during the pandemic, but that’s a story for another day).
Inflation ultimately adjusts when fewer people buy. So, work hard at your job, make as much as you can and try to spend carefully. Also, try to pay yourself first by saving a little of that paycheck for your future.
Peter
If something costs too much, don’t buy it.
That can’t be said for everything, since we all need housing (rents), fuel for cars (gasoline), medication and food (groceries).
But, according to Christopher Rugaber, business and economics reporter for the Associated Press, companies are starting to lower their prices because people just aren’t buying their products in the volume they would like, at the prices they want to charge.
Apparently, it’s working. Last week, inflation dropped below 3 percent for the first time since 2021.
Rugaber’s article on the subject was published August 13, 2024, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Before Rugaber’s article, McDonald’s reportedly started lowering their prices on some of its most popular items because there were too few diners at many of their restaurants. It showed in their earnings report.
It’s good also to remember that government has little leverage in bringing down prices. It can do what it can for things it can regulate, such as bringing down the cost of insulin to $35 for senior citizens. One big lever they have is allowing Medicare to negotiate prices. This has helped bring down the government’s cost for 10 popular drugs.
But, what really helps bring down prices is the lack of buyers.
It’s simple economics. Set a price, see whether the market will bear it and adjust as the market adjusts.
For businesses, particularly small businesses whose product is not an absolute necessity, it’s a much tougher decision. Usually, these businesses know what prices the market will bear for their finished product. But, can they produce that product at a cost that not only covers what it costs them to make it, but also puts a little profit in their pockets?
It’s a struggle for some of these businesses, many of whom are facing labor shortages. When workers are few, they will demand higher wages. Can these businesses keep their workers happy, pay for ingredients that produce high quality products, pay for their workspace AND make a profit?
The bigger corporations have more pricing flexibility. If they, like McDonalds, see less traffic in their retail spaces because of prices, they usually can adjust to that more easily.
Sometimes that doesn’t work well for some of those who work for them, since labor is one of the places that corporations adjust.
In all, reports say that, given the labor shortage, most workers have seen their pay rise. A lot of the things we buy are priced higher to pay workers more. In most cases, workers’ raises are more than the price increases they are paying for necessities.
As Rugaber’s article implies, consumers are working hard at changing what markets will bear – whether they realize it or not.
So, here are some handy rules for buying: If it is something you need to survive, try to use less of it. (Don’t drive around in a 4X4 pickup truck if you don’t need to haul anything). If it’s something you want badly, but don’t absolutely need, look for bargains. It may not pay to drive five or six miles to save two cents on a gallon of gas, but it might make great sense to shop around if you’re in the market for, say, a big-screen TV.
Another rule: don’t long for the days of the pandemic when prices on just about everything were lower because people weren’t going anywhere. The disease was too much of a cost just to have lower prices. (By the way, the air was also cleaner during the pandemic, but that’s a story for another day).
Inflation ultimately adjusts when fewer people buy. So, work hard at your job, make as much as you can and try to spend carefully. Also, try to pay yourself first by saving a little of that paycheck for your future.
Peter
WINNING ISN’T FOR EVERYONE; OR, IS IT?
#winning #winners #athletes #achievers #WinningAttitudes #GoodPeople
“Winning isn’t for everyone,” says a Nike ad.
Various iterations of that ad campaign asks questions like, “Are you a good person?” The ad campaign was recently featured on the just finished Olympic Games TV coverage.
The implications are that “winners,” largely referring to athletes who win medals, are focused only on winning and believe they can beat anyone.
Therefore, a winning attitude involves a bit of cockiness as well as hard work, a lot of practice etc.
However, even the best of athletes don’t win EVERY time they compete. How they react when they don’t win says a lot about them.
Most accept defeat graciously, congratulate those who win etc. These actions actually make them good people. A few look for things, other than their own performance, to blame for their loss. The conditions weren’t good, someone cheated etc.
For the non-athletes among us, winning may be defined differently.
In such cases, being a good person may make you a winner. Humbly giving of oneself, whether or not he or she gets something in return, can make that person a winner.
Those focused more on helping others win are winners themselves.
Someone may become a winner in the corporate world or other business. That person’s true victory may come in how he or she uses what his or her winnings have wrought.
Are you using the money you’ve made or the success you have achieved ONLY to enrich yourself?
Or, are you taking care of yourself, then giving the rest back to your community?
In another ad, the message is that no one wins by himself or herself. There is usually a team of people – family, friends, coaches, sponsors, teammates etc. – so involved in one’s journey that he or she probably could not have won without them.
So, even individual competitions can be “team” sports.
An adage in business is that one may be in business for himself, or herself, but one is almost never in business by himself or herself.
Those who help others succeed often reap winnings, even if they don’t set out to get them.
Bette Midler famously sings, “You are the wind beneath my wings.” Those who fit that category are often the real winners, even when others get all the accolades and glory,
So, winning may not be for everyone, as the ad says, but everybody can be a winner.
Everyone can strive to be the best he or she can be, in whatever he or she chooses to do.
It’s also worth remembering that for some, no matter how badly they may want to be an athlete, opera singer etc., a certain amount of God-given talent is required. If you don’t have it, desire and determination alone won’t make it happen.
But, everyone can find something he or she can achieve, put the desire, determination and hard work into it and get it.
What is that for you? Only you can decide.
Peter
“Winning isn’t for everyone,” says a Nike ad.
Various iterations of that ad campaign asks questions like, “Are you a good person?” The ad campaign was recently featured on the just finished Olympic Games TV coverage.
The implications are that “winners,” largely referring to athletes who win medals, are focused only on winning and believe they can beat anyone.
Therefore, a winning attitude involves a bit of cockiness as well as hard work, a lot of practice etc.
However, even the best of athletes don’t win EVERY time they compete. How they react when they don’t win says a lot about them.
Most accept defeat graciously, congratulate those who win etc. These actions actually make them good people. A few look for things, other than their own performance, to blame for their loss. The conditions weren’t good, someone cheated etc.
For the non-athletes among us, winning may be defined differently.
In such cases, being a good person may make you a winner. Humbly giving of oneself, whether or not he or she gets something in return, can make that person a winner.
Those focused more on helping others win are winners themselves.
Someone may become a winner in the corporate world or other business. That person’s true victory may come in how he or she uses what his or her winnings have wrought.
Are you using the money you’ve made or the success you have achieved ONLY to enrich yourself?
Or, are you taking care of yourself, then giving the rest back to your community?
In another ad, the message is that no one wins by himself or herself. There is usually a team of people – family, friends, coaches, sponsors, teammates etc. – so involved in one’s journey that he or she probably could not have won without them.
So, even individual competitions can be “team” sports.
An adage in business is that one may be in business for himself, or herself, but one is almost never in business by himself or herself.
Those who help others succeed often reap winnings, even if they don’t set out to get them.
Bette Midler famously sings, “You are the wind beneath my wings.” Those who fit that category are often the real winners, even when others get all the accolades and glory,
So, winning may not be for everyone, as the ad says, but everybody can be a winner.
Everyone can strive to be the best he or she can be, in whatever he or she chooses to do.
It’s also worth remembering that for some, no matter how badly they may want to be an athlete, opera singer etc., a certain amount of God-given talent is required. If you don’t have it, desire and determination alone won’t make it happen.
But, everyone can find something he or she can achieve, put the desire, determination and hard work into it and get it.
What is that for you? Only you can decide.
Peter
SHOULD SCHOOL BE MORE FUN?
#FunAtSchool #fun #learning #work #reading
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
GIVE WITHOUT EXPECTING RECIPROCATION
#gifts #giving #receiving #reciprocation #leaders
France gave the U.S. The Statue of Liberty.
In an Etsy ad, Americans are perplexed that they now have to give France a return gift.
They decide to give France a cheese board, because of the French love of cheese.
A cheeseboard does not compare to the Statue of Liberty, but the ad indicates the French were thrilled with the reciprocation.
The ad raises an interesting point: do you feel the need to reciprocate when given a gift? Or, do you give gifts expecting some reciprocation?
If you expect reciprocation, do you see yourself as a giving person?
First, good leaders give. They don’t expect to get anything back, but they usually do, in one form or another.
Others are simply transactional. They are the proverbial reciprocal back-scratchers. They would not dream of scratching anyone’s back if their backs were not scratched in return.
Most of us, though, understand that it is better to give than receive. We give because it’s the right thing to do. We expect nothing in return, though we may get something – even if it is just personal satisfaction – back for what we give.
There is joy in giving. If you are in business, you want your customers to feel that you have given them much more than they paid for.
You can do that without it costing you. You can do that by just being pleasant to deal with, showing empathy to your customers’ needs or making them feel good about the transaction they are undertaking.
You can also do that by helping them use your product or service to maximum effect.
For example, if you sell tools in a hardware store, you can show them how they might build or repair whatever they need the tool(s) for.
For some, it takes effort to be nice or cordial. For others, it comes naturally. You don’t necessarily have to be everyone’s best friend, but you can make everyone feel that you are.
That way, they will want to patronize your business again and again.
You may want them to feel you are giving them a gift without expecting something in return, yet, their return is to keep patronizing you.
Good leaders, and good businesspeople, give and get. They never take. The act of taking means that those being taken lose, while the taker wins.
The act of giving means the giver expects nothing in return. The receiver wins. The giver wins, too, in some way.
So, if you give a gift, expect the receiver not to have to immediately reciprocate. Undoubtedly, he or she will reciprocate in due time, in some fashion.
Giving a gift does not have to be a transaction, though it can often turn into one.
Peter
France gave the U.S. The Statue of Liberty.
In an Etsy ad, Americans are perplexed that they now have to give France a return gift.
They decide to give France a cheese board, because of the French love of cheese.
A cheeseboard does not compare to the Statue of Liberty, but the ad indicates the French were thrilled with the reciprocation.
The ad raises an interesting point: do you feel the need to reciprocate when given a gift? Or, do you give gifts expecting some reciprocation?
If you expect reciprocation, do you see yourself as a giving person?
First, good leaders give. They don’t expect to get anything back, but they usually do, in one form or another.
Others are simply transactional. They are the proverbial reciprocal back-scratchers. They would not dream of scratching anyone’s back if their backs were not scratched in return.
Most of us, though, understand that it is better to give than receive. We give because it’s the right thing to do. We expect nothing in return, though we may get something – even if it is just personal satisfaction – back for what we give.
There is joy in giving. If you are in business, you want your customers to feel that you have given them much more than they paid for.
You can do that without it costing you. You can do that by just being pleasant to deal with, showing empathy to your customers’ needs or making them feel good about the transaction they are undertaking.
You can also do that by helping them use your product or service to maximum effect.
For example, if you sell tools in a hardware store, you can show them how they might build or repair whatever they need the tool(s) for.
For some, it takes effort to be nice or cordial. For others, it comes naturally. You don’t necessarily have to be everyone’s best friend, but you can make everyone feel that you are.
That way, they will want to patronize your business again and again.
You may want them to feel you are giving them a gift without expecting something in return, yet, their return is to keep patronizing you.
Good leaders, and good businesspeople, give and get. They never take. The act of taking means that those being taken lose, while the taker wins.
The act of giving means the giver expects nothing in return. The receiver wins. The giver wins, too, in some way.
So, if you give a gift, expect the receiver not to have to immediately reciprocate. Undoubtedly, he or she will reciprocate in due time, in some fashion.
Giving a gift does not have to be a transaction, though it can often turn into one.
Peter
THE WORLD — AND WORK — ARE CHANGING
#jobs #ClimbingLadders #ClimbingCareerLadders #WorkLifeBalance
Most of us grew up thinking we had to have a career.
Start at the bottom, work our way up through the ranks and advance financially along the way.
Author Bruce Feiler, in his book, “The Search: Finding Meaningful Work in a Post-Career World,” turns the notion of a career on its head.
While some people set goals and stick with them, many others revise their passions, change direction and rethink priorities in the middle of “careers,” Feiler says.
People who are the happiest, Feiler says, are those that don’t climb. Instead, they dig, to look for their true selves.
Feiler is right in one sense. Not everyone has to, or wants to, climb career ladders.
And, people often change direction during their working lives, as he points out.
Some of these changes involve personal preference. For example, a person is hired for Job X, but observes someone doing Job Y and decides he or she would like to try that. The person may try Job Y until he or she observes someone doing Job Z, so they try that etc.
However, most changes in jobs, careers and work situations are foisted upon workers.
These changes are happening more frequently as technology and other advances reform workplaces.
These reforms are not always for the better, as far as workers are concerned.
There seems to be a constant desire among employers to want to replace people with machines. After all, machines don’t need benefits, vacations etc. And, they don’t complain.
You can already see more changes coming: driverless vehicles, artificial intelligence etc.
Perhaps at one or more of your academic graduations you heard someone tell you to follow your passion.
You later find that passion doesn’t always make you a living. Being good or knowledgeable at something is marvelous, as long as you realize that it may not help you pay bills.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each worker to find the good thing(s) about a job, and focus on that (them). As one focuses on the good, always be thinking that all good things will come to an end.
Perhaps what makes a job good, or, at least, tolerable, could disappear suddenly. In fact, the job itself could go away.
Feiler is correct in saying that climbing, or trying to climb, a career ladder doesn’t work for everyone. Sometimes, a ceiling – justified or not – gets in the way. Sometimes, what’s at the top may not turn out to be worth the climb, and one doesn’t find that out until he or she reaches it. And, of course, the higher one climbs, the harder they can fall.
The point here is that lives are made not by happenstance, but by decisions and effort. Wise decisions may not always involve career advancement. It’s OK to decide not to climb. Regardless, whatever path you choose, give it all you have for as long as you are able, or for as long as you are allowed.
Remember, too, that your life outside of work can be more important than the job. Don’t let a job deprive you of that part of your life.
In other words, as Feiler says, it might be better to dig rather than climb. It might be better to be a chipmunk than a squirrel.
Peter
Most of us grew up thinking we had to have a career.
Start at the bottom, work our way up through the ranks and advance financially along the way.
Author Bruce Feiler, in his book, “The Search: Finding Meaningful Work in a Post-Career World,” turns the notion of a career on its head.
While some people set goals and stick with them, many others revise their passions, change direction and rethink priorities in the middle of “careers,” Feiler says.
People who are the happiest, Feiler says, are those that don’t climb. Instead, they dig, to look for their true selves.
Feiler is right in one sense. Not everyone has to, or wants to, climb career ladders.
And, people often change direction during their working lives, as he points out.
Some of these changes involve personal preference. For example, a person is hired for Job X, but observes someone doing Job Y and decides he or she would like to try that. The person may try Job Y until he or she observes someone doing Job Z, so they try that etc.
However, most changes in jobs, careers and work situations are foisted upon workers.
These changes are happening more frequently as technology and other advances reform workplaces.
These reforms are not always for the better, as far as workers are concerned.
There seems to be a constant desire among employers to want to replace people with machines. After all, machines don’t need benefits, vacations etc. And, they don’t complain.
You can already see more changes coming: driverless vehicles, artificial intelligence etc.
Perhaps at one or more of your academic graduations you heard someone tell you to follow your passion.
You later find that passion doesn’t always make you a living. Being good or knowledgeable at something is marvelous, as long as you realize that it may not help you pay bills.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each worker to find the good thing(s) about a job, and focus on that (them). As one focuses on the good, always be thinking that all good things will come to an end.
Perhaps what makes a job good, or, at least, tolerable, could disappear suddenly. In fact, the job itself could go away.
Feiler is correct in saying that climbing, or trying to climb, a career ladder doesn’t work for everyone. Sometimes, a ceiling – justified or not – gets in the way. Sometimes, what’s at the top may not turn out to be worth the climb, and one doesn’t find that out until he or she reaches it. And, of course, the higher one climbs, the harder they can fall.
The point here is that lives are made not by happenstance, but by decisions and effort. Wise decisions may not always involve career advancement. It’s OK to decide not to climb. Regardless, whatever path you choose, give it all you have for as long as you are able, or for as long as you are allowed.
Remember, too, that your life outside of work can be more important than the job. Don’t let a job deprive you of that part of your life.
In other words, as Feiler says, it might be better to dig rather than climb. It might be better to be a chipmunk than a squirrel.
Peter
MULTIGENERATIONAL WORKERS OFFER CHALLENGES TO MANAGERS
#MultigenerationalWorkers #employers #employees #jobs
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter