For whatever reason, people often comment on my so called intelligence or the way that they are experiencing it. When people comment on this or any other element of my personality, I always ask them why they’ve said what they’ve said. I ask to understand and their logic and the connections that they’re making to conclude as they have. As I reflected on such an experience just now, I had this thought:

Intelligence and strength carry positive connotations. In reality though, they may also be used for evil, at one extreme; or not optimally for good. Intelligence and strength may even not be used at all when they otherwise should be, leading a loss of opportunities and benefit for one’s self and others. That makes these things truly agnostic – as they are only tools for the potential of good, not inherently so.  Besides building, tools may be used, maybe even designed, to destroy things. We should therefore be neither uncomfortable nor especially pleased when others suggest that we are in possession of said tools even if they don’t view them as tools, but as the very ends (the good and goods) themselves. We understand the true nature of tools, and can be balanced in thinking about them and applying them for appropriate use. 

Separately, I met Dave Chappelle last night. Given that I may never get around to blogging about that, I’ll simply say that he is one of coolest friendliest celebrities I’ve observed. We spoke briefly, and later in the night on his way out he went out of his way to say bye and give me a handshake. Very positive energy. He is in possession of his tools and in control of their application. 

Voices on shrill when it comes to kneeling. Voices fall off when it comes to falling. 

Some blindfolded by, shaded, and just cloaked in their flag. 
Some keep falling down under the weight of their skin. 

They’re just cloaked in black flags, 

The black weight of their skin. 
Hands held higher than shrill,

Showing the white side,

Two white flags waving,

Hands held higher than shrill; 

Until they’re dragged down by the weight, 

Man down, 

How many men..

By the weight of their skin. 

Follow the link below – these remind me of my childhood. Great reads for those who haven’t. 

As an aside, I’m discovering that my references to The Sneetches are often met with blank stares. Please also read this Dr Suess Classic on inclusion and diversity. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/roalddahlday-15-genius-pieces-of-life-advice-from-his-books/

I’m sitting in a Starbucks within (but not a part of, I’m constantly reminded) a Barnes & Noble. I’m about to start reading a book I’ve bought called “What Money Can’t Buy”.

Since I’m in the cafe, I figured I’d buy a hot drink. The young lady serving as my cashier says with a big bright smile, “Whatever you buy today, you should get a vente!” I laughed a little (it was probably just a smile, but it felt like a laugh to me.. though it might have been an actual laugh), and I said that I’d just take a tall. I didn’t really want a drink in the first place, and I definitely didn’t want that much of anything. As my credit card is being approved I ask her to tell me about the competition that she says inspired her “vente drive”. She explained that if she sold thirty vente drinks.. she’d get a free drink. 

THIRTY! 

I estimate that it would take approximately $180 worth of drinks for her to qualify for one drink!

ONE!

I was and am dismayed. I asked her why they don’t just get free drinks as employees and she said that it’s because they’re not a part of the B&N, which is completely illogical. She said it so simply, matter of factly, and with such innocence that I can only imagine that she’s only repeating without thinking what she’s previously been told. 

I’ll suppress the number cruncher and manager in me and forgo much thought about contribution margins, profit margins, cost of goods sold, employee retention, and goodwill. I can’t as easily cast off the thought of using low level poorly paid cashiers to upsell sugary drinks with some minuscule carrot, that cost pennies, awardable only at the end of her shift. Ironically, as I type this I’m also looking at the dangling carrot on the front of this book..

I asked her what she wanted to drink. After checking to see if I was “sure” and a couple “seriouslys”, she told me what she wanted. I bought her a drink, and of course, it was a vente. That’s the only humor available in this entire depressing episode, and available only to me. She was so happy I heard her telling her colleague about it who seemed as incredulous as disappointed for himself. 

Sometimes I hate people. And then sometimes I love them. But mostly I just feel sorry for us all. 

I miss track and field. I miss running. I miss the relays especially. I miss my cleats (Nike zoom rival). I miss the pacing and measuring the tape. I miss the goat skin drums. I miss the batons. Heavy in my recollection, light in my hands..

I had a thought spurred by something I just read – a black actor suggested that he’d want to sit down with Rudy Guilliani to discuss his most recent racist outburst: “black parents should teach their children to be respectful to the police”. Lessons on how to model respect in the home probably shouldn’t come from a guy who is a known philanderer and humiliated his ex-wife by going to public events with his mistress. 

That notwithstanding, and not addressing the blanket nature of his statement, I will say simply this: I would sit with someone who is naive and spend a time trying to help them develop a greater understanding of an issue; whereas, I would NEVER sit with someone like Guilliani. I wouldn’t shake his hand for $100,000. He is ignorant, but not naive. What could he possibly not understand at this stage and at his age? His ignorance is willful. He is not naive. 

The statement on face, is not at all unreasonable, but in context and with the presumptive implications at play, it is nothing short of ridiculous. To be naive is to be ignorant of facts, which feels fairly agnostic; to be ignorant in a willful way is to be ignorant on a deeply personal and philosophical level and speaks, more to character in my opinion. 

For eight years I sat on the board of an Organ Procurement Organization. I encourage organ donation, and this might make it easier if you haven’t already made the decision.
Apple to let Health app users sign up as organ donorshttp://money.cnn.com/2016/07/05/technology/apple-organ-donor/index.html

I stumbled on this today in midtown east after brunch..

This piece is probably eight feet tall..   
    
  

If someone you knew had a device capable of killing a hundred thousand people in a minute, would you be comfortable appealing to their sense of justice, morality, or respect for others to safeguard yourself; or would you prefer that that person simply not have access to that device? What would you be willing to do to deny them access? What if they could kill 50 in same amount of time? 

I agree that people kill people. But if we know that, why give them access to powerful devices that can kill loads at once? There are actions and sanctions limiting access to nuclear materials and weapons. We don’t trust our safekeeping to the consciences of unknown entities, so why do we allow the nuclear option in civilian armament to persist?

This isn’t about watch lists, and foreigners, and mental health. You can hate whomever you want and be as crazy as you want to be, but without teeth who can you bite? Without guns who can you shoot? Let’s work on your hate and track your movements after we work on your access to rows of reloadable sharp teeth. 

And by the way, don’t worry about that amendment.. it’s called an amendment because at one time people wrote something that was deemed to no longer be perfectly applicable or appropriate for the status quo. Yes. It’s an amendment. It wasn’t the first and it wasn’t the last. It can change. We can change. 

Things can change.