Now why aren’t all of the debates handled in this manner?

The message here is obvious, right? If you’re Catholic, then you should probably vote for the candidate that will support religious freedom as defined by not forcing religious institutions to provide contraception to their employees. Like it or not, I agree with that stance. I think if you’re a registered, recognized religious organization (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan, whatever!), then you are protected by the Constitution’s guaranty of religious freedom. Further, I think if the government tells you that you have to do anything that is fundamentally against your teachings, then the government is wrong.

I have no interest in going into details on the other issues noted in the video such as the job creation, the economy, the definition of marriage (my take on this particular issue is totally out of view with the mainstream anyway since I don’t think the government should be saying anyone is “married”), and so on. However, I do think the overall message of the video is one that religious folks should consider during this election cycle and all election cycles: do you vote according to what is popular or do you seriously consider the issues and vote according to your faith?

Most folks would assume that voting your faith means that you’re going to vote Republican. Well, that’s not entirely accurate. In some parts of this country, the education reform movement is bolstered and supported by the Democratic Party and thus if you vote your Christian faith (or whatever faith you are) you may be persuaded to vote Democrat. Further, if you are of a new age Christian faith where your interpretation of the Bible redefines marriage and the structure of civil society, then you’re probably also voting Democrat.

The point here is two fold. First, I like that the video encourages religious people to consider what their faith teaches them about the issues of the day. Second, don’t be so quick to assume that integrating a faith-based perspective into politics automatically means a vote for the Republicans or the Democrats.

Give it some thought. If you believe in something greater than yourself that is of a religious nature, then maybe this is the year that you want to let your faith be your guide.

Here’s the short version of the story. On Tuesday, one of my clients submitted a request to draw down money from their loan. On Wednesday, I alerted the leader of the part of my company that handles draw downs that a big request was coming. On Thursday, I submitted the draw down request. On Friday, I receive a phone call from the secretary who processes the draw downs and one of my company’s Vice Presidents. The secretary is both frantic at the large dollar amount of the request and upset that she did not receive a head’s up about the request.

My response on the phone was that our company has a process to draw down large dollar amounts so we should be following that process. I added that I happened to be following the process as proscribed in our policy manual down to the last letter. I also said that I reported that this request was coming on Wednesday so I couldn’t comment on why the report did not get to the secretary since my report was given to her superior.

Apparently, I did something wrong in that exchange. Go back and re-read those two, short paragraphs. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Yesterday, I come into the office and within an hour my supervisor comes into my office and closes the door because she wants to talk about this draw down request. She reiterates the secretary’s concerns and I state to my supervisor that not only did I follow the procedures down to the very last letter, but that I went out of my way to alert the other department that a large request was coming. She agrees completely. However, because someone in the other department (the other department consists of the secretary, her supervisor, and one other person) complained, my supervisor needed to speak with me about what happened. So, again, I told the my supervisor what the problem was as I saw it and that the real issue seems to be that the other department – aside from having too much time on their hands – doesn’t know the procedures. My supervisor reluctantly tends to agree and suggests that the entire “situation” be left alone to die.

Frankly, I didn’t think that there was a “situation” to begin with. Why didn’t I think there was a situation? That’s an easy one to answer – because I have a job that requires my brain to focus and function on other issues! The fact that there are people employed by my company who have time enough in their day to make a mountain out of nothing (it’s not even a molehill – it’s NOTHING) is astounding!

The unprofessional act that I see in this entire debacle is that the wrong person was “spoken to” for five minutes behind a closed door. Clearly, the secretary not only didn’t do her job, but she acted out in a frantic, childish manner when she didn’t understand something (which speaks to her education level and level of professionalism). Here’s a lesson to everyone out there – in this situation, you do NOT sit down with the person who is bringing in millions of dollars for the company and happens to be carrying at least half of the organization’s salary load. No. In fact, the person that you sit down with is the secretary and ask her why she had a breakdown in communication and couldn’t call the person submitting the draw down (me) directly and in a non-frantic manner to ask two simple questions.

Further, when the person submitting the request (me) went out of his way to alert the other department that a large request was coming, you thank that person for their diligence in making sure the process works smoothly.

And a final note on the unprofessional parts of this situation – neither the Vice President who listened to the secretary’s complaints or my supervisor took the time to read through the organization’s policy manual to determine who was right and who was wrong (or, in this case, who was overreacting). Why did they not do this very simple review? That’s easy. This organization and its people always take the path of least resistance. In other words, they know that they can either “speak to” me or with the uneducated and overly emotional secretary to resolve this situation. They know that talking to me will end in one result and talking to her will end in an outward bitterness from her toward her associates and an increase in her already unprofessional attitude. By the way, my response to my supervisor after the brief five minute discussion was, “Look, I really don’t have time for this. I appreciate that they have a lot of time on their hands in the other department, but I have work to do so if the shit is going to roll downhill and land on me, then so be it. Let’s get back to work already.”

Which person do you think they’re going to “talk to” about this? Obviously they’re going to talk to me about it. Why incite an already unprofessional person to be even worse?

And that’s the larger issue that this situation uncovers. My company always takes the path of least resistance. They never, as the Greek philosopher Pythagoras suggested, “Choose always the way that seems best, however rough it may be. Custom will soon render it easy and agreeable.” The problem is that always taking the easy way out allows for an unprofessional person (or persons) to dig their heels in and really take a hold of an organization to the point of destroying it.

That bothers me sometimes – that my organization will be destroyed because of uneducated, underperforming employees. Very scary…

In the mean time, check out New Jersey Carpet Cleaning for the best carpet cleaning in the Garden State!

Does that make any sense?

Yet another reason why you can’t trust a damn thing you read or hear from the media these days. I had a different view of the debate altogether.

First, I think that each candidate won, but in different areas. For example, Palin was much more likable while Biden was much more of a diplomat. Palin was more down to earth while Biden was more or less the typical Washington insider. Yet Biden appeared to know more on the issues while Palin appeared to only look at the big picture stance on them. What the biased media cannot understand is how each of these stances is a win for the respective candidates.

Palin needed to appear informed on the issues in order to rally the Republican base. She did that. Biden needed to stay away from him common gaffes to energize the Obama campaign. Mission accomplished. That’s not to say that everything Senator Biden put out there was fact, because it certainly wasn’t, but he did manage to stay away from sticking his foot in his mouth.

All in all, I thought the debate was oddly reserved and yet pleasantly collegial. There were no severe barbs thrown between the two candidates as each was carefully treading historic ground. A bit too bland for my liking. Hey, did you know that nearly 70 million people watched the debate the other night? Amazing. Now the stage is set for McCain vs. Obama 2 on Tuesday night. McCain won the first debate and he needs to hit a homerun in order to move the polls in his direction.

Yet at this point with Obama up in all of the polls one has to wonder whether or not it even matters how well Senator McCain performs in the final two debates. He can knock it out of the park both nights and the media will still crown Obama the winner and the popular support will still go in his direction. Is this race still a winnable one for McCain?

I haven’t had Baja Fresh in a few weeks and I needed a quick fix for dinner on Thursday night before I had to jump on a conference call. Seemed like an easy decision – I’d get my standard: nachos and a nacho burrito (no jalapenos). Well, the joke was on me because as soon as I was done eating this stuff, I immediately felt sick. In fact, I had to watch the tail end of the Vice Presidential debate while laying in bed because I felt so nauseous. I wound up passing out around 10:30pm – as soon as the debate ended – and I jumped out of bed at 12:30am for the first of six, long trips to my bathroom to dispel the Baja Fresh from my body.

At about 4:30am, I wound up passing out until 7:30am, when I woke up to go to a conference for work. Talk about the walking dead – I was a mess! I was pale, dizzy, and completely disoriented for most of the morning. In fact, I left the conference early so I could go home and take a nap. I woke up around 8:30pm and one of my roommates offered me some Gatorade, which helped to replenish my fluids (and electrolytes!). I only ate three, small dinner rolls on Friday and some Excedrin, if you count that as sustenance.

I felt a little bit better yesterday as the fever subsided and the nauseous feeling went away. I also ate more solid foods including a bagel with egg, rice and bean soup, and chicken noodle soup (picked up by my other roommate). I also ate a cup of fruit, which was really good.

Today I feel much better, though my body is still sore from the vomiting. At least my head isn’t spinning any more and I’m not constantly running into the bathroom! I’ll probably pop in a few more Excedrin Back and Body aspirin so I can get over some of this body pain. Also, I finished a big bottle of Gatorade yesterday so I might have to go out and get another one.

The morals of the story are 1) I’m never going back to Baja Fresh again and 2) there’s something creepy about cheap, Americanized Mexican food. The last time I had Taco Bell was about four years ago and the reason I stopped eating it was because I had a bad reaction to it one night. Granted, I don’t eat fast food any more and I haven’t had stuff like McDonald’s or Burger King in seven or more years now so I don’t have a proper frame of reference. I do know, however, that when I eat food that I make in my kitchen or that I watch prepared for me in a deli – I’m fine. Yet another reason to leave the crap food behind and move on to whole foods.