While they failed to clarify the race for presidency, the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries taught us a lot.
Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa over Mitt Romney shows that it is more important to connect with people than it is to be organized. Romney, the man with all the business experience, set up a highly sophisticated operation in Iowa. He was the clear leader before Jan. 3, based on the money he spent to put a professional campaign team in place in the state. Huckabee ran a much more modest operation. He didn't have nearly the money nor the organization. And he won. Whether you like Huckabee's message or not, it resonated with Iowans, and that is all that mattered when the results were tallied after the caucuses.
John McCain's victory on the Republican side in New Hampshire shows that we shouldn't pay any attention to the so-called experts. You might remember my post of April 19 last year where I reported on a presentation I heard by James Carville in which he predicted John McCain would drop out of the race before the Iowa caucuses. Carville, a political expert if ever there was one, clearly got it wrong. Not only was McCain still in the race, but he actually finished on top in one of the early states.
And third, Hillary Clinton's victory on the Democrat side in New Hampshire shows that we shouldn't pay any attention to polls. Going into the Jan. 8 primary, all the polls had Barack Obama winning handily. There was even talk about Hillary getting out of the race after her dismal showing in Iowa. But she won convincingly in New Hampshire, exposing the various polls as utterly worthless.
These lessons have application in the business arena. While it is important to have good systems in place, as Romney had in Iowa, it is far more important to have a product which resonates with potential customers. If your market is excited about your product, they will put up with minor delivery inefficiencies, but if they don't like your product, the best distribution system in the world won't do you any good.
Also in business, there are a million consultants who want you to pay them to tell you what to do. They position themselves as experts who know more than you do. Maybe some of them do, but most of them don't. If you are running a business or a department, you probably know more about what to do than anyone. People in business have to figure out who to listen to, and what expertise to pay for. But ultimately they have to make the important decisions themselves. A sure way to tank your business is to rely too heavily on the experts.
And finally, a lot of businesses spend big money on customer satisfaction surveys. I think these kinds of surveys are fine, but people in business should refrain from over-relying on them. Clinton proved that surveys provide only marginally-reliable information. Let's face it: a lot of people lie on surveys. People wrestle with all kinds of influences with they respond to pollsters or survey-takers. A lot of people simply tell the pollster what they think they want to hear to get it over with. Honest communication about anything takes a lot of time; a survey is rarely the best way to get an honest story.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Lindbergh and aviation made the world smaller
Flying to Florida and back last week got me to thinking about the best book I read in 2007, which was a biography of Charles Lindbergh. Born in 1902, Lindbergh was 25 when he flew nonstop to Paris from New York in May of 1927. A. Scott Berg in his 1998 book, "Lindbergh," offers a very detailed account of the aviator's 72-year life. I also really enjoy the insight the author provides into 20th century America. A lot changed between the time of that trans-atlantic flight and Lindbergh's death in 1974.
The book gives you a sense of a country growing up. Far-away places became accessible in the course of those decades. In the beginning of the century, it seemed inpossible that things going on in Europe and Asia could have much to do with the United States, but World War II changed all that. Aviation made the world smaller and suddenly we were living in a global community, enjoying the world's blessings but also entangled in its problems.
In the early 20th century, aviation was a curiosity. It took a daredevil to fly in an airplane, let alone pilot one. But aviation quickly developed, initially proving particulary useful for mail delivery. Those mail routes paved the way for passanger service. Lindbergh did a lot of work to scout out the best routes and make recommendations about landing systems and airport design.
Aviation was a tremendous development in the history of humanity, but Lindbrergh ultimately lamented the progress. He said that during his lifetime the world changed from when "men flew airplanes to when airplanes flew men." Lindbergh was clearly a controlling personality and he wanted to control the machinery, he didn't enjoy being controlled by the machine. It's a tough trade-off for an adventurer but it was a necessary trade-off for bringing aviation to the masses.
The book offers a detailed account of the abduction and murder of the Lindbergh's first baby. We also get the story of Lindbergh's political thinking during the late 1930s and early 1940s. He desparately opposed U.S. intervention into the "war in Europe." Lindbergh made a lot of speeches urging the country to stay out of the war, a position similar to the one his father, a congressmen from Minnesota, took during the first world war.
Charles Lindbergh traveled to Germany several times during those pre-war years and people began to call him a Nazi. The book paints those allegations as being unfair. After the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh completely changed his sentiments regarding U.S. involvement in the war.
One of the most interesting parts of the book was the description of his relationship with his wife, Anne Morrow, the daughter of the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico who became a U.S. senator. They met shortly after Lindbergh's historic flight to Paris. She was stary-eyed and worshipped him. They married quickly and initially she traveled with Charles all over the world. As the children came, she traveled less, although Charles continued to travel frequently. He was gone for long stretches. As time passed, Anne wanted to make her own name. She was a writer who wanted to be recognized for her own skill rather than simply for being the wife of the aviator. The tension is well-described by Berg.
One of the things that is a little difficult to comprehend for a 21st century American, is the world-wide celebrity status Lindbergh gained completing that 33-hour flight to Paris. It was a celebrity status that lasted the rest of his life. Others who completed longer, more dangerous flights never knew such fame. There was something about Lindbergh that the whole world latched onto.
We have it so good in 21st century America. It is easy to forget it wasn't always like this. It wasn't always easy to get to Florida and back from Minnesota. Most Minnesotans throughout history never had a chance to fly to India. A book like Berg's "Lindbergh" helps a reader maintain some measure of perspective. And the natural result of that perspective for me is a certain measure of gratitude.
The book gives you a sense of a country growing up. Far-away places became accessible in the course of those decades. In the beginning of the century, it seemed inpossible that things going on in Europe and Asia could have much to do with the United States, but World War II changed all that. Aviation made the world smaller and suddenly we were living in a global community, enjoying the world's blessings but also entangled in its problems.
In the early 20th century, aviation was a curiosity. It took a daredevil to fly in an airplane, let alone pilot one. But aviation quickly developed, initially proving particulary useful for mail delivery. Those mail routes paved the way for passanger service. Lindbergh did a lot of work to scout out the best routes and make recommendations about landing systems and airport design.
Aviation was a tremendous development in the history of humanity, but Lindbrergh ultimately lamented the progress. He said that during his lifetime the world changed from when "men flew airplanes to when airplanes flew men." Lindbergh was clearly a controlling personality and he wanted to control the machinery, he didn't enjoy being controlled by the machine. It's a tough trade-off for an adventurer but it was a necessary trade-off for bringing aviation to the masses.
The book offers a detailed account of the abduction and murder of the Lindbergh's first baby. We also get the story of Lindbergh's political thinking during the late 1930s and early 1940s. He desparately opposed U.S. intervention into the "war in Europe." Lindbergh made a lot of speeches urging the country to stay out of the war, a position similar to the one his father, a congressmen from Minnesota, took during the first world war.
Charles Lindbergh traveled to Germany several times during those pre-war years and people began to call him a Nazi. The book paints those allegations as being unfair. After the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh completely changed his sentiments regarding U.S. involvement in the war.
One of the most interesting parts of the book was the description of his relationship with his wife, Anne Morrow, the daughter of the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico who became a U.S. senator. They met shortly after Lindbergh's historic flight to Paris. She was stary-eyed and worshipped him. They married quickly and initially she traveled with Charles all over the world. As the children came, she traveled less, although Charles continued to travel frequently. He was gone for long stretches. As time passed, Anne wanted to make her own name. She was a writer who wanted to be recognized for her own skill rather than simply for being the wife of the aviator. The tension is well-described by Berg.
One of the things that is a little difficult to comprehend for a 21st century American, is the world-wide celebrity status Lindbergh gained completing that 33-hour flight to Paris. It was a celebrity status that lasted the rest of his life. Others who completed longer, more dangerous flights never knew such fame. There was something about Lindbergh that the whole world latched onto.
We have it so good in 21st century America. It is easy to forget it wasn't always like this. It wasn't always easy to get to Florida and back from Minnesota. Most Minnesotans throughout history never had a chance to fly to India. A book like Berg's "Lindbergh" helps a reader maintain some measure of perspective. And the natural result of that perspective for me is a certain measure of gratitude.
Friday, January 04, 2008
New Year's Day at Disney World
My family traveled to Disney World in Orlando for the New Year’s break, along with about a million other families from around the world. As we walked the streets of the Magic Kingdom on New Year’s Day, it seemed like everyone was here. I wondered: Why do they all come here?
Maybe it’s the weak dollar. The Euro and other foreign currencies are at historic highs against the American dollar, making it a very opportune time for foreigners to visit the United States. I heard many other languages being spoken by visitors around me.
But I suspect the reason throngs of people flock to Disney World is not so logical. A Disney vacation is clearly an emotional buy. If you thought about it too much, you wouldn’t do it. It’s too expensive, too hectic, and too crowded. When it comes to non-essentials, like winter vacations, people almost always buy with their heart, not their head. Walt Disney figured this out a long time ago.
The Disney experience appeals to the heart. It pushes the emotional hot buttons. We visited four theme parks in four days: Epcot, Disney’s Hollywood Studios, the Magic Kingdom and Disney’s Animal Kingdom Park. We experienced only a fraction of what each venue has to offer, but what we saw was tremendous – from the thrill show at the Hollywood Studios, to the musical version of Finding Nemo at the Animal Kingdom, to the Buzz Lightyear ride in TomorrowLand at the Magic Kingdom. All the buildings and infrastructure looked new and authentic, whether we were in recreated villages from around the world (Epcot), or recreated scenes of classic Americana from a century ago (Magic Kingdom).
The entertainment in the parks is magnificent. The stage shows featuring the various Disney characters are very well done, with music, dancing, amazing costumes, and even fireworks. I liked the stage version of The Little Mermaid we saw at Hollywood Studios, and I liked the behind-the-scenes look they gave us at the soundstage featuring The Chronicles of Narnia.
I am intrigued by Walt Disney who created all this – not bad for a story teller. Sure, he was a businessman and movie maker, but his core ability is telling stories. And people have been attracted to his stories for decades. Often he does not even tell his own stories, but stories written by others. But he chooses good stories and tells them in a compelling fashion.
Essentially, the stories typically involve someone looking for happiness. In those stories, happiness is usually equated with finding the love of your life. Some good-versus-evil conflict often adds depth to the story. In the Disney version of the Hans Christian Andersen story, the Little Mermaid, for example, Ariel puts her soul on the line and gives up her voice for a three-day shot at the love of her life. I think the story is relevant today in a culture that regularly encourages young women to trade a valuable, un-retrievable personal asset for a chance at love.
There is something about the whole Disney experience, however, that has always rubbed me the wrong way. I used to think it was the commercialism, and gross over-exposure of the brand. But watching Mickey, Minnie and others dance on the stage in front of the Cinderella Castle at the Magic Kingdom made me realize it is something else. The theme of the 20-minute song-and-dance was “believe in yourself.” At one point, Mickey says:
“All things are possible if you just believe in yourself.” Well, I think I have heard that before, only Mickey changed the last word. All things are possible if you believe in God. Believing in yourself is important, but useless if you don’t believe in God first. The God part of the message is never communicated. That is a sorry omission.
I liked the Disney parks, and my family will probably return at some point. People of any age can have a great time there. Disney tells a great story, whether that’s in the form of a movie, stage play or some kind of roller coaster ride. But it would be a mistake to look to Disney for theology. If you keep in mind that the theme parks are all fantasy, you won’t be misguided.
Maybe it’s the weak dollar. The Euro and other foreign currencies are at historic highs against the American dollar, making it a very opportune time for foreigners to visit the United States. I heard many other languages being spoken by visitors around me.
But I suspect the reason throngs of people flock to Disney World is not so logical. A Disney vacation is clearly an emotional buy. If you thought about it too much, you wouldn’t do it. It’s too expensive, too hectic, and too crowded. When it comes to non-essentials, like winter vacations, people almost always buy with their heart, not their head. Walt Disney figured this out a long time ago.
The Disney experience appeals to the heart. It pushes the emotional hot buttons. We visited four theme parks in four days: Epcot, Disney’s Hollywood Studios, the Magic Kingdom and Disney’s Animal Kingdom Park. We experienced only a fraction of what each venue has to offer, but what we saw was tremendous – from the thrill show at the Hollywood Studios, to the musical version of Finding Nemo at the Animal Kingdom, to the Buzz Lightyear ride in TomorrowLand at the Magic Kingdom. All the buildings and infrastructure looked new and authentic, whether we were in recreated villages from around the world (Epcot), or recreated scenes of classic Americana from a century ago (Magic Kingdom).
The entertainment in the parks is magnificent. The stage shows featuring the various Disney characters are very well done, with music, dancing, amazing costumes, and even fireworks. I liked the stage version of The Little Mermaid we saw at Hollywood Studios, and I liked the behind-the-scenes look they gave us at the soundstage featuring The Chronicles of Narnia.
I am intrigued by Walt Disney who created all this – not bad for a story teller. Sure, he was a businessman and movie maker, but his core ability is telling stories. And people have been attracted to his stories for decades. Often he does not even tell his own stories, but stories written by others. But he chooses good stories and tells them in a compelling fashion.
Essentially, the stories typically involve someone looking for happiness. In those stories, happiness is usually equated with finding the love of your life. Some good-versus-evil conflict often adds depth to the story. In the Disney version of the Hans Christian Andersen story, the Little Mermaid, for example, Ariel puts her soul on the line and gives up her voice for a three-day shot at the love of her life. I think the story is relevant today in a culture that regularly encourages young women to trade a valuable, un-retrievable personal asset for a chance at love.
There is something about the whole Disney experience, however, that has always rubbed me the wrong way. I used to think it was the commercialism, and gross over-exposure of the brand. But watching Mickey, Minnie and others dance on the stage in front of the Cinderella Castle at the Magic Kingdom made me realize it is something else. The theme of the 20-minute song-and-dance was “believe in yourself.” At one point, Mickey says:
“All things are possible if you just believe in yourself.” Well, I think I have heard that before, only Mickey changed the last word. All things are possible if you believe in God. Believing in yourself is important, but useless if you don’t believe in God first. The God part of the message is never communicated. That is a sorry omission.
I liked the Disney parks, and my family will probably return at some point. People of any age can have a great time there. Disney tells a great story, whether that’s in the form of a movie, stage play or some kind of roller coaster ride. But it would be a mistake to look to Disney for theology. If you keep in mind that the theme parks are all fantasy, you won’t be misguided.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Inspiration in North Dakota
I would not have expected to find inspiration in the Grand Forks, North Dakota, but I did.
I was there the day after Christmas on business. It was my first trip to the cold, wind-swept outpost on the Red River. Previously, the only thing I knew about this town was what I gleaned from the news 10 years ago when the community was ravaged by floodwaters. Today, Grand Forks doesn’t look anything like those dismal images from the news footage.
It was April of 1997 and the Red River overflowed its banks by ten miles in both directions, swamping Grand Forks and its neighbor in Minnesota, East Grand Forks. Seventy percent of the people in Grand Forks had to be evacuated – 100 percent of the population in East Grand Forks had to leave. Water was standing 7 feet deep in downtown Grand Forks. As the water crested, a fire broke out in downtown, burning 11 buildings.
Pat Owens was the mayor at the time. She had been a secretary to three mayors before she decided to run for the job herself the previous November. She won with 75 percent of the vote. She is a 4-foot-11 dynamo who had to handle a far bigger job than she ever bargained for.
Owens and many other city leaders, including Randy Newman who I was meeting with on Dec. 26, worked for years to restore the community. Newman is president of Alerus Financial, which was called First National Bank back then. Newman kept the bank open, temporarily transferring operations to a Fargo office. He decided to keep the business in Grand Forks, even though the bank lost three buildings in downtown. Leaders from other communities wooed him, but he was not willing to abandon a heritage in the community that reached back more than a century.
Many of the businesses did leave, and so did a lot of the people. I am told there was a 20 percent turnover in the population. Many businesses, however, came to town, like Cabela’s, the big hunting and fishing store. Money from the federal government and insurance companies poured in and the people rebuilt. Today, downtown features many reconstructed and brand new buildings, including a beautiful six-story state office building. Hundreds of homes were repaired. Most of the homes located closest to the river were leveled. Tracts of land far from the river, today feature brand new homes where many of those displaced residents settled.
Within the last year, construction of a new dike has been completed. The huge wall combines a natural earthen barrier with decorative cement wall. In some places, panels can be removed from the wall in order to improve the view of the river when the water is at safe levels.
The other very challenging factor for Grand Forks during the 1990s, was the downsizing of the Air Force Base. The base, which at one time housed 15,000 people, today hosts about 2,000 people. Thirteen thousand people represent nearly a quarter of the town’s population, which today stands at around 50,000. The University of North Dakota, however, brings a lot of stability to the community. Gopher fans at the University of Minnesota are well aware of the school’s effort to elevate its football program to Division I, while the two have long been formidable Division I hockey foes.
To an outsider, Grand Forks looks like a success story. I feel bad for Owens, who lost her bid for re-election in 2000. Newman said she and other city leaders had to make “50 years worth of decisions in less than a year.” I am sure there were two sides or more to ever decision made; I can only imagine the level of emotional debate surrounding most of them. Perhaps it is more than even the best politician could manage.
Nonetheless, I applaud the people of Grand Forks. It is not easy to rebuild. It would be much easier to simply go someplace else. Just ask all those people who left New Orleans after Katrina. Earlier this week, I saw a pretty nice community, and I am inspired by what I know it must have taken to make it so.
I was there the day after Christmas on business. It was my first trip to the cold, wind-swept outpost on the Red River. Previously, the only thing I knew about this town was what I gleaned from the news 10 years ago when the community was ravaged by floodwaters. Today, Grand Forks doesn’t look anything like those dismal images from the news footage.
It was April of 1997 and the Red River overflowed its banks by ten miles in both directions, swamping Grand Forks and its neighbor in Minnesota, East Grand Forks. Seventy percent of the people in Grand Forks had to be evacuated – 100 percent of the population in East Grand Forks had to leave. Water was standing 7 feet deep in downtown Grand Forks. As the water crested, a fire broke out in downtown, burning 11 buildings.
Pat Owens was the mayor at the time. She had been a secretary to three mayors before she decided to run for the job herself the previous November. She won with 75 percent of the vote. She is a 4-foot-11 dynamo who had to handle a far bigger job than she ever bargained for.
Owens and many other city leaders, including Randy Newman who I was meeting with on Dec. 26, worked for years to restore the community. Newman is president of Alerus Financial, which was called First National Bank back then. Newman kept the bank open, temporarily transferring operations to a Fargo office. He decided to keep the business in Grand Forks, even though the bank lost three buildings in downtown. Leaders from other communities wooed him, but he was not willing to abandon a heritage in the community that reached back more than a century.
Many of the businesses did leave, and so did a lot of the people. I am told there was a 20 percent turnover in the population. Many businesses, however, came to town, like Cabela’s, the big hunting and fishing store. Money from the federal government and insurance companies poured in and the people rebuilt. Today, downtown features many reconstructed and brand new buildings, including a beautiful six-story state office building. Hundreds of homes were repaired. Most of the homes located closest to the river were leveled. Tracts of land far from the river, today feature brand new homes where many of those displaced residents settled.
Within the last year, construction of a new dike has been completed. The huge wall combines a natural earthen barrier with decorative cement wall. In some places, panels can be removed from the wall in order to improve the view of the river when the water is at safe levels.
The other very challenging factor for Grand Forks during the 1990s, was the downsizing of the Air Force Base. The base, which at one time housed 15,000 people, today hosts about 2,000 people. Thirteen thousand people represent nearly a quarter of the town’s population, which today stands at around 50,000. The University of North Dakota, however, brings a lot of stability to the community. Gopher fans at the University of Minnesota are well aware of the school’s effort to elevate its football program to Division I, while the two have long been formidable Division I hockey foes.
To an outsider, Grand Forks looks like a success story. I feel bad for Owens, who lost her bid for re-election in 2000. Newman said she and other city leaders had to make “50 years worth of decisions in less than a year.” I am sure there were two sides or more to ever decision made; I can only imagine the level of emotional debate surrounding most of them. Perhaps it is more than even the best politician could manage.
Nonetheless, I applaud the people of Grand Forks. It is not easy to rebuild. It would be much easier to simply go someplace else. Just ask all those people who left New Orleans after Katrina. Earlier this week, I saw a pretty nice community, and I am inspired by what I know it must have taken to make it so.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Christmas is real, to this day!
Christmas is meaningful to Christians everywhere, but I think the feast is particularly meaningful to Catholics.
Christmas celebrates the Incarnation. God loved us so much that He sent His Son to us. The Incarnation puts flesh on the truth. People knew God before the Nativity but with the Nativity, God gave us tangible truth. God knows how humans work; He knows how much easier it is for us to believe if we can see and touch and hear something. So He gave us His Son, for all the world to see and hear; for some to even touch.
For Catholics, however, the miracle of the Incarnation continues to this day; it does not end with the Ascension. Just like the followers of Jesus could ask Him for answers, we can turn to a living, breathing person for truth. Apostolic succession keeps the Incarnation alive so that believers can always get clear teaching on faith and morals. We do not believe that the Pope is Jesus or His equal, but through the chair of Peter, we believe that God continues to make the unambiguous truth easily accessible.
This is the way God has worked since the time of Exodus. Moses spoke with authority because he was in direct conversation with God. That’s why the Israelites went to him to answer their questions (Exodus 18:15). When Moses subsequently delegated God’s authority to others, the Israelites respected those subsequent spokesmen. This same authority remained valid all the way up to the time of Christ. At Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus reminds His disciples to do what the Pharisees say because they hold the authority of the seat of Moses. When Jesus gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom at Matthew 16, He is transferring authority from the seat of Moses to the seat of Peter. We continue to benefit from that authority to this day through the Papacy.
So you can see that for Catholics the “enfleshment” of the truth is something that remains real, even 2000-some years after the birth of Christ.
Merry Christmas!
Christmas celebrates the Incarnation. God loved us so much that He sent His Son to us. The Incarnation puts flesh on the truth. People knew God before the Nativity but with the Nativity, God gave us tangible truth. God knows how humans work; He knows how much easier it is for us to believe if we can see and touch and hear something. So He gave us His Son, for all the world to see and hear; for some to even touch.
For Catholics, however, the miracle of the Incarnation continues to this day; it does not end with the Ascension. Just like the followers of Jesus could ask Him for answers, we can turn to a living, breathing person for truth. Apostolic succession keeps the Incarnation alive so that believers can always get clear teaching on faith and morals. We do not believe that the Pope is Jesus or His equal, but through the chair of Peter, we believe that God continues to make the unambiguous truth easily accessible.
This is the way God has worked since the time of Exodus. Moses spoke with authority because he was in direct conversation with God. That’s why the Israelites went to him to answer their questions (Exodus 18:15). When Moses subsequently delegated God’s authority to others, the Israelites respected those subsequent spokesmen. This same authority remained valid all the way up to the time of Christ. At Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus reminds His disciples to do what the Pharisees say because they hold the authority of the seat of Moses. When Jesus gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom at Matthew 16, He is transferring authority from the seat of Moses to the seat of Peter. We continue to benefit from that authority to this day through the Papacy.
So you can see that for Catholics the “enfleshment” of the truth is something that remains real, even 2000-some years after the birth of Christ.
Merry Christmas!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Christmas lessons
I’ve learned a few things since I heard my first Christmas song this season on November 15th, courtesy of the Twin Cities’ “official Christmas music radio station.”
The first thing I learned is that we have an “official Christmas music radio station.”
The second thing I learned is how to give a woman a Christmas gift. A friend explained it to me: “First, ask her what she wants; then, buy it for her.”
The third thing I learned is there is nothing worth buying at Southdale. I wondered through that soulless mall three times looking for something to buy my loved ones and found nothing. This year, I ended up buying most of my presents at neighborhood stores.
The fourth thing I learned is that it is foolish to wait until December 22 to shop. Every year, I tell myself I am going to complete all my Christmas shopping by Halloween, but inevitably, I find myself shopping for last minute gifts at the Super America station at 5:30 on Christmas Eve. Next year will be different.
In 2008, I am taking a new approach to Christmas shopping. I will not wait until the season to being my shopping. Throughout the year, if I see something that might make a good gift for a friend or family member, I am going to buy it and save it for Christmas. I suspect that throughout the course of the year I will see things that people might really like. If I buy when I see those things -- even if it is May -- I won’t be forced into the defensive buying spree that typically results in me giving people things they don’t want.
The fifth thing I learned is Mindy Smith sings some really nice Christmas music. I bought her “My Holiday” CD purely on spec and it turned out to be one of my best moves. Her music is my music. Go to Amazon, buy the CD and listen for yourself.
The sixth thing I learned is that not everyone in my neighborhood has the Christmas spirit. It snowed a couple weeks ago. I was out there at 5:30 in the morning to get the sidewalk cleared. But later in the day, my kids played in the snow and pushed a lot of it back onto the sidewalk. Two days later I got a notice from the City of Minneapolis telling me that if I didn’t get my sidewalk cleared within 48 hours, I would be fined $102. Someone from the neighborhood had complained. It made me mad that someone would choose to threaten me with a fine instead of just talk to me about my sidewalk; I shoveled again, nonetheless. A few days later, we had another foot of snow.
The seventh thing I learned is that it doesn’t take many sugar cookies, peanut brittle bars and fudge to put on weight. Like other highly-developed mammals, I like to put on an extra layer of fat going into the winter, but this year the Christmas goodies have given me a corpulent look beyond my comfort zone. I’ll be going back to Weight Watchers, but not until after the holidays and at least one more box of Frangos.
The eighth thing I learned is that people like to get their Christmas cards before Christmas. We send out cards every year, but often we don’t get the job done until around New Year’s Day. When a friend got our family card around Dec. 20 this year, she thanked me. “Nice to get it before Christmas,” she said.
There is always something to learn. I try to keep my eyes and ears open to pick up new lessons. The timeless lesson -- that is, the meaning of Christmas -- however, is one you can pick up by keeping your heart open. Or at least, that’s what’s worked best for me.
The first thing I learned is that we have an “official Christmas music radio station.”
The second thing I learned is how to give a woman a Christmas gift. A friend explained it to me: “First, ask her what she wants; then, buy it for her.”
The third thing I learned is there is nothing worth buying at Southdale. I wondered through that soulless mall three times looking for something to buy my loved ones and found nothing. This year, I ended up buying most of my presents at neighborhood stores.
The fourth thing I learned is that it is foolish to wait until December 22 to shop. Every year, I tell myself I am going to complete all my Christmas shopping by Halloween, but inevitably, I find myself shopping for last minute gifts at the Super America station at 5:30 on Christmas Eve. Next year will be different.
In 2008, I am taking a new approach to Christmas shopping. I will not wait until the season to being my shopping. Throughout the year, if I see something that might make a good gift for a friend or family member, I am going to buy it and save it for Christmas. I suspect that throughout the course of the year I will see things that people might really like. If I buy when I see those things -- even if it is May -- I won’t be forced into the defensive buying spree that typically results in me giving people things they don’t want.
The fifth thing I learned is Mindy Smith sings some really nice Christmas music. I bought her “My Holiday” CD purely on spec and it turned out to be one of my best moves. Her music is my music. Go to Amazon, buy the CD and listen for yourself.
The sixth thing I learned is that not everyone in my neighborhood has the Christmas spirit. It snowed a couple weeks ago. I was out there at 5:30 in the morning to get the sidewalk cleared. But later in the day, my kids played in the snow and pushed a lot of it back onto the sidewalk. Two days later I got a notice from the City of Minneapolis telling me that if I didn’t get my sidewalk cleared within 48 hours, I would be fined $102. Someone from the neighborhood had complained. It made me mad that someone would choose to threaten me with a fine instead of just talk to me about my sidewalk; I shoveled again, nonetheless. A few days later, we had another foot of snow.
The seventh thing I learned is that it doesn’t take many sugar cookies, peanut brittle bars and fudge to put on weight. Like other highly-developed mammals, I like to put on an extra layer of fat going into the winter, but this year the Christmas goodies have given me a corpulent look beyond my comfort zone. I’ll be going back to Weight Watchers, but not until after the holidays and at least one more box of Frangos.
The eighth thing I learned is that people like to get their Christmas cards before Christmas. We send out cards every year, but often we don’t get the job done until around New Year’s Day. When a friend got our family card around Dec. 20 this year, she thanked me. “Nice to get it before Christmas,” she said.
There is always something to learn. I try to keep my eyes and ears open to pick up new lessons. The timeless lesson -- that is, the meaning of Christmas -- however, is one you can pick up by keeping your heart open. Or at least, that’s what’s worked best for me.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Support for new blood in Minnesota's Third District
One of the people who traveled to India with me was Minnesota State Representative Erik Paulsen, a Republican representing District 42B, which is in the southwest metro community of Eden Prairie. We visited several times during the week-long trip, but my best conversation with him occurred on the hour-long flight between New Delhi and Bangalore, where we sat next to each other.
Serving in the State Legislature since 1994, Paulsen is focused on efforts designed to improve Minnesota’s business climate and educational environment. Part of his reason for traveling to India was to scout out partnership opportunities for the numerous high-tech companies in Eden Prairie. He sees the potential Asian partnerships offer Minnesotans and Americans. In the legislature, he authored legislation to make Mandarin Chinese language education available in Minnesota high schools; in the last legislative session, he secured funding for the Minnesota India Center at the University of Minnesota.
Paulsen was the House majority leader for four years, and has a penchant for bipartisanship. He even joked that he got more legislation passed in 2007 being in the minority party than he did when he was in the majority. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life lists Paulsen as one of the state’s 82 (out of 201) legislators who had a 100 percent pro-life voting record in 2007.
When U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) announced he was retiring at the end of the current term, Paulsen announced his candidacy for the 3rd Congressional seat. I live in the 5th District so I won’t get to vote for him, but I am supporting Paulsen. I like politics and I have always wanted to support someone who actually reflects my thinking. There were as many as nine Republicans expressing interest in the seat, but Paulsen quickly got the others to line up behind his campaign.
Open seat elections are special. With members of congress typically holding onto their seats for years, if not decades, open seats don’t come up that often. The Third District is particularly interesting because Ramstad is a pro-choice Republican, and the western suburbs, which make up the Third District, are gradually turning out more Democrat voters. Many of the national pundits are calling the Minnesota Third a toss-up. The Democrats feel an opportunity here and the speculation is several millions of dollars will be spent on a contentious race. That would be a marked contrast from the past several years in which Ramstad ran essentially unopposed and regularly won easily.
Now there is some talk that Ramstad is not going to resign. Reports in various publications and across the blogosphere have Ramstad holding onto his seat. Apparently Republicans figure 2008 is going to be a tough enough year as it is; if they can convince Ramstad to stay put, that is one less seat they will have to worry about losing.
I think this is a disaster. Ramstad announced he is retiring and he should stand by that announcement. Paulson has already put a lot of work into the campaign and it would really be unfair to his supporters for Ramstad to now say: “just kidding, I’m staying.”
What the Republicans really need is new blood, not the same old thing that Ramstad represents. The party is under-estimating Paulsen. He is clearly a candidate who can win. Keep in mind that the money the Democrats pour into running against him is money they won’t have to pour into other races, such as the Minnesota Sixth District where the incumbent is Michele Bachmann. If Ramstad runs in the Third, the Democrats will have more money to aim at that contest, where they believe they might be able to unseat one of the country’s most conservative representatives.
No matter who runs, Republicans are not going to win back control of Congress in 2008. My point is, Republicans need fresh blood and Paulsen is one of the best examples of that. I am going to continue to support him. I cannot get excited about more of the same, which is what Ramstad represents. He announced he is resigning and he should stand by that announcement.
Serving in the State Legislature since 1994, Paulsen is focused on efforts designed to improve Minnesota’s business climate and educational environment. Part of his reason for traveling to India was to scout out partnership opportunities for the numerous high-tech companies in Eden Prairie. He sees the potential Asian partnerships offer Minnesotans and Americans. In the legislature, he authored legislation to make Mandarin Chinese language education available in Minnesota high schools; in the last legislative session, he secured funding for the Minnesota India Center at the University of Minnesota.
Paulsen was the House majority leader for four years, and has a penchant for bipartisanship. He even joked that he got more legislation passed in 2007 being in the minority party than he did when he was in the majority. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life lists Paulsen as one of the state’s 82 (out of 201) legislators who had a 100 percent pro-life voting record in 2007.
When U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) announced he was retiring at the end of the current term, Paulsen announced his candidacy for the 3rd Congressional seat. I live in the 5th District so I won’t get to vote for him, but I am supporting Paulsen. I like politics and I have always wanted to support someone who actually reflects my thinking. There were as many as nine Republicans expressing interest in the seat, but Paulsen quickly got the others to line up behind his campaign.
Open seat elections are special. With members of congress typically holding onto their seats for years, if not decades, open seats don’t come up that often. The Third District is particularly interesting because Ramstad is a pro-choice Republican, and the western suburbs, which make up the Third District, are gradually turning out more Democrat voters. Many of the national pundits are calling the Minnesota Third a toss-up. The Democrats feel an opportunity here and the speculation is several millions of dollars will be spent on a contentious race. That would be a marked contrast from the past several years in which Ramstad ran essentially unopposed and regularly won easily.
Now there is some talk that Ramstad is not going to resign. Reports in various publications and across the blogosphere have Ramstad holding onto his seat. Apparently Republicans figure 2008 is going to be a tough enough year as it is; if they can convince Ramstad to stay put, that is one less seat they will have to worry about losing.
I think this is a disaster. Ramstad announced he is retiring and he should stand by that announcement. Paulson has already put a lot of work into the campaign and it would really be unfair to his supporters for Ramstad to now say: “just kidding, I’m staying.”
What the Republicans really need is new blood, not the same old thing that Ramstad represents. The party is under-estimating Paulsen. He is clearly a candidate who can win. Keep in mind that the money the Democrats pour into running against him is money they won’t have to pour into other races, such as the Minnesota Sixth District where the incumbent is Michele Bachmann. If Ramstad runs in the Third, the Democrats will have more money to aim at that contest, where they believe they might be able to unseat one of the country’s most conservative representatives.
No matter who runs, Republicans are not going to win back control of Congress in 2008. My point is, Republicans need fresh blood and Paulsen is one of the best examples of that. I am going to continue to support him. I cannot get excited about more of the same, which is what Ramstad represents. He announced he is resigning and he should stand by that announcement.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
School play gets the ‘Mystery’ right
The school that my children attend, Holy Family Academy in St. Louis Park, put on a very powerful Christmas program on Thursday night.
The program, which involved all the school’s 200-plus students, was called “Mystery of the Manger; It’s the Gospel Truth!” It was presented in the beautiful auditorium at Hopkins High School.
I am filled with joy about this program because it so convincingly articulated the meaning of Christmas. This was not a light-hearted, feel-good holiday program. This was a compelling story of doubt, evangelization, conversion, repentance and joy – the whole human struggle summarized on a proscenium stage in a lively, 40-minute production.
The story centered around an investigative reporter, Jane Bond, who visits a convent to “get the facts” about Christmas. Skepticism pervades her questions for Sister Mary Catherine and her colleagues Sister Therese and Sister Bernice. Her brief conversation with Father Michael doesn’t seem to sway her disbelief. But something moves her to watch the convent’s depiction of the Nativity, presented on Christmas Eve. The play is so moving, she comes to see the meaning of the Incarnation. She responds by writing a story for her newspaper, the Morning Star, proclaiming the Truth of the Christmas story.
There is a brief scene which gives the “Mystery of the Manger” particular weight. After viewing the Nativity play, Jane experiences conversion and then goes to confession. The light focuses our attention on the Nativity play-within-the-play where Mary and Joseph knelt around the Christ child in the manger. But off to the side of the center-stage action, Father Michael hears Jane Bond’s confession, which she makes on her knees. It was an understated but powerful touch that brought meaning to the rest of the story.
So often we want what’s easy. We want Christ, but really we only want the Nativity, not the crucifixion. Everyone wants the Resurrection without the cross. Everyone wants forgiveness without repentance. Of course, however, they are inseparable, and this Christmas program did not miss that point. It is the first Christmas play I have ever seen in my whole life that has gotten the whole story right.
The sixth, seventh and eighth graders who acted all the different parts were incredible. The talent among this group of kids is astounding. I am very proud of my own kids who were in the show, but really I applaud all the kids who had any part in it. And, I applaud the teachers and parents who found the script, adapted it for this presentation, and worked with the kids over months to produce such a memorable performance.
The program, which involved all the school’s 200-plus students, was called “Mystery of the Manger; It’s the Gospel Truth!” It was presented in the beautiful auditorium at Hopkins High School.
I am filled with joy about this program because it so convincingly articulated the meaning of Christmas. This was not a light-hearted, feel-good holiday program. This was a compelling story of doubt, evangelization, conversion, repentance and joy – the whole human struggle summarized on a proscenium stage in a lively, 40-minute production.
The story centered around an investigative reporter, Jane Bond, who visits a convent to “get the facts” about Christmas. Skepticism pervades her questions for Sister Mary Catherine and her colleagues Sister Therese and Sister Bernice. Her brief conversation with Father Michael doesn’t seem to sway her disbelief. But something moves her to watch the convent’s depiction of the Nativity, presented on Christmas Eve. The play is so moving, she comes to see the meaning of the Incarnation. She responds by writing a story for her newspaper, the Morning Star, proclaiming the Truth of the Christmas story.
There is a brief scene which gives the “Mystery of the Manger” particular weight. After viewing the Nativity play, Jane experiences conversion and then goes to confession. The light focuses our attention on the Nativity play-within-the-play where Mary and Joseph knelt around the Christ child in the manger. But off to the side of the center-stage action, Father Michael hears Jane Bond’s confession, which she makes on her knees. It was an understated but powerful touch that brought meaning to the rest of the story.
So often we want what’s easy. We want Christ, but really we only want the Nativity, not the crucifixion. Everyone wants the Resurrection without the cross. Everyone wants forgiveness without repentance. Of course, however, they are inseparable, and this Christmas program did not miss that point. It is the first Christmas play I have ever seen in my whole life that has gotten the whole story right.
The sixth, seventh and eighth graders who acted all the different parts were incredible. The talent among this group of kids is astounding. I am very proud of my own kids who were in the show, but really I applaud all the kids who had any part in it. And, I applaud the teachers and parents who found the script, adapted it for this presentation, and worked with the kids over months to produce such a memorable performance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)