Human Nature

There have been many changes in the past 5,000 years in regards to technology, transportation, governments and socio-economic systems.  There is one constant that hasn't budged - human nature.  The same basic emotions that drove us then, drive us now.  Let's take a look...........

Cicero was a famous philosopher and politician that lived in Rome at the time of Caesar.  These were very turbulent times as Caesar was trying to become dictator of the Roman Republic.  The following quote is by Cicero in 55 B.C., or 2,063 years ago:

"The budget should be balanced, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt."

Hmmmmm......... Sound familiar?  Budget deficits, excessive national debt, out-of-touch and arrogant public officials and excessive assistance to foreign countries.  Cicero also felt that a country should not wage war unless for revenge or to defend ones self.  He didn't mention anything about weapons of mass destruction.

Soooooo, either Rome was ahead of its time or we are behind the times.  Or maybe, just maybe, human nature hasn't changed in 5,000 years - or at least in the last 2,063. 

How to successfully avoid Sweetest Day

The fall is a busy time for many Midwestern men.  It's the heart of football season and major league baseball gains suspense as the playoffs deepen.  Eternal hope is high for hockey and basketball fans as their seasons begin and beef jerky sales are on the rise as hunting season opens.

With this, the widows of sporting men bond together in search of the traditional pre-Halloween Christmas sales that already dominate retailers.  With boxes and bags clutched under their arms, they look back at the conquered terrain known as the "mall" and, with the pride of Caesar, proclaim - "Veni, Vidi, Visa" - translated as - I came, I saw, I went shopping!

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of romance in the fall.  Then again, I'm not sure if there are a lot of romantic Midwestern men.  The two busiest months for births in the Midwest are September and November.  As we quickly dial back nine months from each, we end up with most conception occurring in December and February - the holidays and St. Valentine's Day.  Come on guys!  Can we only be prompted for romance by the food and spirits served around the holidays and the presence of a nationally recognized day to celebrate the one you love? Are those really the only times we can be romantic?

It's no surprise that 87 years ago, a dozen candy makers in Cleveland, Ohio saw an opportunity.  While sales traditionally peaked in December and February, the rest of the year lagged.  The summer heat would keep candy sales down and springtime was too soon after Valentine's Day.  So on October 8, 1921, Sweetest Day was born.  Why? Because these 12 Cleveland confectioners knew that when it comes to romance, men are as spontaneous as a full moon coming every 29.531 days.  If she's not sighin', we're not buyin'.  As I add 9 months to mid-October, I now view my late July birthday with great suspicion.

I am now pleading with the men of the midwest.  Please open the calendar in your Blackberry, Treo, PalmPilot or Outlook.  Pick a random day in each month and label it R.A.R. (Random Act of Romance) and set an alarm for 2 days ahead of it to remind you.  Feel free to write in the notes section of each day - send card, make dinner, buy flowers, etc. It should take less than 10 minutes to complete. I believe you'll be happy with the results and the maternity wards can more evenly staff their departments throughout the year.  We must also embrace this practice before Lowe's and Home Depot conspire with Hallmark for "Honey Do" Day.  Then we'll be committed to spending the second Saturday of every May completing projects around the house that we've so cleverly been avoiding.

Godspeed and Good Luck!

Any room for a liberal conservative?

It's an election year which means lines in the sand are drawn between colleagues, peers, relatives, friends and foes.  The questions invariably come up -- "Are you a Democrat or Republican?  Are you a liberal or conservative?  You gotta pick one, so which is it?"  Once you answer, you're immediately lumped in with ALL of the stereotypical ideologies of each party.  And that's the problem.  If I look at a list of 10 popular subjects with the liberal stance on one side and the conservative on the other - I may circle 5 of each, or 3 and 7 or 6 and 4.  To me, all are critical concerns (economic policy, health care, social security, etc.).  So who's MY party if my opinions are split?  Are you allowed to be pro-choice and want to "drill, baby drill?"  Can you be pro-life and a staunch environmentalist?  Will your political party accept you if you don't agree with 10 of 10?  Is there no room for independent thought on topics of such great diversity?

George Washington was able to run unopposed twice without a firm two-party system in place. As his second term was ending, lines were being drawn as a two-party system was beginning to evolve.  Washington, an educated and insightful man, gave his concerns on this subject in his farewell speech in Sept of 1796:

"....It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration.  It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection....."

I'm not sure if I've ever heard a more prophetic statement in my life (btw, I had to look up the word "foment" too). His opinion was based on two-party systems in Europe and the dynamics that evolved.  I hear people say, "I've never seen an election get this bad."  My response has been, "That's funny, I hear people say that every presidential election year."  Does it mean its getting worse or do we just have short memories?  Well folks, we have short memories.  It's been this bad ever since the election of 1796 - the first time we had two candidates run against each other. In fact, it's probably more civilized, but no less combative.

The question becomes, "Is a two-party (or multi-party) system a good thing?  Is it necessary?"  I believe it is a necessary evil for the betterment of our country.  We have 300 million people in this country with just as many thoughts and opinions.  With that, there's a constant tug-of-war from our elected officials on what are the right decisions. Let me give you an example of how multiple opinions can create the right result. Sir Francis Galton was the first to develop statistical theories on "standard deviation" and "regression to the mean." In 1906, Galton visited a livestock fair and stumbled upon an intriguing contest. An ox was on display and the villagers were invited to guess the animal's weight after it was slaughtered and dressed. Nearly 800 gave it a go and, not surprisingly, not one hit the exact mark of 1,198 pounds. Astonishingly, however, the average of those 800 guesses (which were all over the place) came very close at 1,197 pounds.

There were a lot of different opinions that varied greatly, but averaged out to be right where it needed to be.  And that's the beauty of the two-party system.  Within this, there can be a focus of the top issues with varied opinions combined with the balance of power through the 3 branches of government that result in the average of all the opinions.  Where things can go terribly wrong is when we don't have an opinion on something - like complicated highly leveraged mortgage-back securities.  Well guess what..............we have an opinion on that now, don't we?  And the average of those opinions has been enacted.

So does it really matter that there's no party for a liberal conservative like myself? I guess not.  I'll vote for my guy and trust that, over time, the average of the opinions will continue to move us forward - or as the old saying goes - "It all comes out in the wash."