Say What You Mean, Then Mean It

I am a person known for strong opinions, but somehow that did not come through recently, so I found myself in a teachable moment.
Last week, I gave a speech at Siemens Toastmasters titled "The Good Book." My goal was to ask the audience to consider that the Bible should be discussed more openly than it is.
The speech was well-received. It began with a humorous story about a little boy who read a Bible passage that suited his purpose of chastising his parents. I made my case that the Bible should be more a part of our common dialogue than it is currently. I even taught in our schools as an historical document and as a source of great literature. (For people who who know me, that assertion can be a bit shocking. More on that later.)
I offered phrases from the Bible that are so much a part of our language that people often think they came from Shakespeare. For example, did you know that the expression "nothing but skin and bones" came from the Bible. It appears in the book of Job. In fact the same passage contains the phrase "the skin of my teeth" -- hardly an expression that one associates with sacred writings.
When my evaluator, Alex, offered a critique of my speech, he was stuck on one portion of it in the beginning , in which I said:

Now I’m sure that members who have heard my speeches over the years are surprised to hear me say this. I have argued passionately against forcing a public expression of belief in a single supreme being. Also, as a religious person myself, I find homogenized “one-size-fits-all” versions of prayer to be offensive.

But today, I am not endorsing the Bible as the “word of God.” I would never offend those of you outside the Judeo-Christian beliefs by insisting that it is. Instead, I believe that the stories and words of the Bible can be studied as part of a fully rounded, liberal education. Even the Supreme Court judges who ruled in 1963 against mandatory prayer stated that their decision did not ban the study of the Bible or of religion when it was presented objectively.

Alex didn't know how to react to this phrasing, nor did he know how to express his problem with it. It was an intuitive reaction that he struggle with during the meeting and immediately afterward in a conversation with me. He felt that I was making an apology for my topic, even though I was committed to it. Finally, he wrote me an email that expounded on his feelings:

"I didn't know if you were offering an apology for Pat, the speaker, or an apology for the Bible.

Perhaps 'apology' is not the right term. It's not like you were saying 'I'm going to apologize to anyone who is offended by my topic or the Bible.' Maybe I was taken aback (ever so slightly) by your need to establish your credentials as someone who is fair and balanced on this topic. In which case, the point I would make is that any good communicator, as you are, should state your thesis and let the rest of the speech be your proof. Let your message be your credentials."

I understand Alex, and I believe he is right. Yes, I was trying to be fair to all the people in the room, sensitive to their wide variety of beliefs. Regular readers of this blog know that I am committed to proper word choice so that it not be a barrier to the intended communication. But in my five to seven minutes (standard length for most Toastmaster speeches), I devoted too much time to this set up. Worse, I let my explanation blunt the impact of my speech ever so slightly.

This manifests itself in different ways in Toastmasters, most notably in evaluations. Many, perhaps most, evaluators just can't bring themselves to say, "You know, you really didn't fulfill the objectives of this speech." Or, "The speech is supposed to go no more than seven minutes, and when you went 10 minutes, you robbed us of valuable time from the meeting."

So my point is when you need to say something, SAY IT! No, this is not contradictory to my other positions. This is not a license to be sloppy in your word choices so that your meaning is not clear, nor is it a suggestion to use culturally insensitive language as we all-too-often hear among so-called commentators or even Presidents who say that someone acted "stupidly." No, I am saying is that we should all make our meanings clear in the boundaries of the time we have.

Thanks, Alex. I'll try to do better next time.

Preparing for Bad Times Now and In the Future

Maria Panaritis, a business writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, has written a moving column about how the current economic downturn has disproportionately affected members of Generations X and Y . Titled "The Crash's Hidden Losers," Ms. Panaritis's column makes many troubling points. She talks about how people in the post-Boomer age groups may miss out on the middle-class life that their parents enjoyed. This is because as they have entered the job market after college, their employment options have either greatly diminished or all but disappeared, nipped in the bud as it were.
Worse, there is likely to be no safety net for these folks. Pensions went the way of the vinyl LP long ago. There have been 401k's for a few decades, but many companies have eliminated the match. And forget about Social Security. That may run out before the last Boomers are done with it. (See Allen Sloan's article on fixing Social Security in the latest edition of Fortune magazine for a sobering reality check.)
I agree with Ms. Panaritis's insights, and I am sympathetic to the plight of the younger workers. I have only one observation: Why is this news? Why did we presume that the economy could only grow for every succeeding generation? Many economists have made the observation that "trees don't grow to the sky." Yet we came to believe that our economy was limitless. And that is probably what’s disturbing to people today. It is not so much that times are tough, but that times are different from what we have known.
GE president Jeff Immelt recently said, "This economic crisis doesn't represent a cycle. It represents a reset —an emotional, social, economic reset." Our collective dismay stems partly from our limited perspective as post-World War II Americans. When you have lived in a certain standard of living and that standard is all you know, it begins to look normal to you.
Let’s look at the economic history of the United States. Income per capita was essentially flat until the Industrial Revolution, when people left their farms and their crafts to work for others. Economic growth was slow as measured by the value of our goods and services — GDP. Growth of two to three percent a year was normal…and good.
Then came the end of World War II. There was pent-up demand for houses and automobiles. And as we satisfied those needs, our growth rate grew to four and five percent. And our national wealth shot up, starting around 1950 until recently. Prosperity began to look like a birthright.
Other specific social and economic realities have contributed to the downturn. Technology has improved productivity. That means we need fewer workers. Therefore, the job creation rate for American workers has fallen. So the wages for the average American worker has been falling since 2001. We should not expect to see higher wages in the foreseeable future.
Based on this evidence, and based on the "Prognostication" chapter of my book, "The Six P's of Change," I took steps to deal with an economic downturn. My most significant move was to live below my means, particularly during a prosperous five-year stretch. While I managed to enjoy the money somewhat by upgrading our cars and taking a couple of trips to Italy (Hey, life is short!), I poured the extra money into our mortgage. Now my monthly obligations are significantly reduced, because we don't have payments for our house or our cars.
There is still a long road ahead. I don't mean to be discouraging; I simply believe that forewarned is forearmed. Mountains of debt must be reduced. Consumers — you and I — will need to save more before we spend so much again. As we sort through the changes in the politics, the technology and the market forces that will shape our future, I encourage everyone to prepare for a period of austerity. Many Americans are already doing this. Since the credit crunch, the average U.S. household savings rate has jumped from 0.7 percent to 4 percent of income. That is a promising trend.
It is easy to deny our situations; clearly, Miss Panaritis has not. But denial is nothing new. I remember vividly a conversation that I had with a friend in the early 1990s when I said that Social Security was in trouble, that the beneficiaries were beginning to outpace the contributors, that life expectancy is much older today than it was when the program was created. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
My friend reacted with angry, non sequiter bromides. "Well, I can see that you don't care about older people." "I don't hear you suggest that we cut defense programs."
There is a reason that many programs are sacrosanct and beyond consideration. Now we are past the point when decisions must be made.
While we can't always control the machinations of government, we can certainly control our own destinies to some extend. I believe that, armed with information and an informed attitude, you can also be well equipped to recalibrate your expectations for this economy.
In the meantime, let's do what we can for the next generations. Let's hire them when we can, give them as many opportunities as we are able, and be willing to sacrifice some of our own largess so that there is something on the table for them. We owe it to them, if for no other reason that it is the most ethical thing we can do.

Learning Your Place from "The Great Buck Howard"

I rented a nifty little movie over the weekend titled, "The Great Buck Howard." It stars John Malkovich as the eponymous mentalist who brags about his 61 appearances on Johnny Carson's show. Clearly modeled after The Amazing Kreskin, though missing the original's kindness and grace, Buck is truly talented but is limited to second- and third-rate venues. His act is woefully out of style in this age of special effects and explosions and therefore unappealing to a modern audience. In fact, Buck, as masterfully portrayed by Malkovich, is himself out of style. He wears polyester clothes of clashing colors, uses tired catch phrases, and injects pointless sentimentality into his act. Without giving too much away, I can tell you that Buck experiences sudden good fortune that unexpectedly thrusts him into the big time -- in fact, a bigger time than he has ever known. But how will Buck react to this turn?
"The Great Buck Howard" offers not only a neat little character study, but a lesson in the importance of staying current. Buck clings to the familiar like a life preserver, but he doesn't realize that it is an anchor instead. His life on the road has so insulated him that he misses advancements in the fashion, the popular culture, even his own beloved show business. (Doesn't Buck watch TV on the road?) He rejects advice from his aides de camp, missing opportunities to gain insight. When he finally hits the big time (and it is not a return to the limelight), he learns much about himself.
I recommend this little jewel on many different levels. Certainly as a cineaste, I appreciate Sean McGinly's writing and direction. But as an advocate of change, I also see a lesson in it that is told with charm, wit and wisdom.

Reasoned Political Analysis

Dear Readers:
As I am wont to say, I don't like to write about politics, as I am more committed to communications than ideology. However, I direct to an article by Ted Van Dyk, a career Democrat and assistant to Hubert Humphrey. He writes that Barack Obama should "reset" his Presidency. I don't include include it here for the political stance, but because in all the partisan bloviation and vitriol that's out there, this is a very even-handed piece of writing. Regardless of our politics, I wish there were more analyses like this out there.

Sen. Coburn, you and your ilk have some 'splainin' to do!

I couldn't believe it when I heard it during Sonia Sotomayor's hearings yesterday. And even though I know I heard it, I still can't believe it.
Sonia Sotomayor was responding to an abstract question about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She was talking hypothetically, and good-naturedly, to Sen Tom Coburn (Republican of Oklahoma) about getting a gun to shoot him in self-defense. He said to her that if she did that, "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do."
Let me repeat that.
A white, male U.S. Senator said to a judge who is about to become the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court, "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do."
Class, let us review the sins that have been haunting the Republican Party of late as they entered these hearings. I will read from the latest polls:
The Grand Old Party is viewed as being out of touch.
As being insular.
As being a country club.
A group that, when faced with economic problems, turns to tax cuts for rich people and hardly ever proposes solutions for the common citizen.
And remember, these are the voters talking, not me. In my line of work, I deal with images and impressions, not politics.
So in light of all these perceptions, a Republican senator evokes the 1950s stereotype of an Hispanic character that has long been disavowed.
Look, what he said isn't the crime of the century. It was merely THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE HEARD A POLITICIAN SAY IN A LONG TIME!
However, this is only part of the problem of this show. When you add it to the entire hearing, many of the Republican Senators have done their image no favors. First, let's all agree that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark was thoughtless and controversial, and it deserved examination. And let's also agree that if a White Man had said it, his career would be over. (Perception is a powerful but often unfair animal. It is still quite incredible to me that George Allen lost his Virginia Senate seat and possibly a shot at the Presidency with his "Macaca" comment.) But guys, do you know when to quit? You made your point days ago. I'm a white male too, and even I'm tired of hearing this. How do you think Hispanic voters are feeling, hearing this line of questioning over and over?
Let's also consider the condescension that Judge Sotomayor has faced. There are too many to list, but today contained a particularly egregious example. Sotomayor was asked why she wanted to be on the Supreme Court by Senator Al Franken. (Once again, a fact I'm trying to get used to, and the funniest, most incongruant combination of title and name since "Congressman Sonny Bono.")
Sotomayor made a point about her commitment to the job with a story: Her mother asked her if she would have to take a pay cut if she got the job, and Sotomayor had to admit that, yes, it was a huge cut, apparently about 75 percent.
Nice story. Shows how the job and her service to the country is more important to her than money, right? So how does the tin-eared Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Georgia) respond? He points out that the salary of $250,000+ is four times that of the average U.S. household and says quite acidly, "If you can't live on it, you probably shouldn't take the job."
Way to go. Now is the time for all big dopes to come to the aid of the party.
All that we heard in the media for days leading up to the hearings was how risky they would be for the Republicans, as the party have been losing the Hispanic vote, a bloc the party cornered for years after the leadership of Ronald Reagan. The strategy was clearly spelled out. Instead, quite a few of these guys decided to behave counter-intuitively.
Sen Lindsay Graham of South Carolina was a model for his party, and perhaps all citizens, in his decorum. He clearly had issues with Sotomayor, but he was able to express them in a courtly and respectful manner, calling to mind a level of discourse that we once had in this country until we Rush-ed in another direction. And as a former Judge Advocate General (JAG, like the TV show), he was well-qualified to question Sotomayor on legal issues.
For those of us in the public eye and ear, we should remember that tone and context are so important in our communication. Even the most seemingly innocent comment can come across in a way never imagined. But this is not news. There is no excuse for much of the attitude that was displayed over the last few days, given all that was at stake.
I heard something else today. Did you hear it? It was the sound of Coburn, Sessions and others shooting themselves in their feet and many others.

Why the Economy is Interesting (and should be presented that way!)

Tomorrow I am scheduled to speak at my Siemens Toastmasters club. According to this, and I'm supposed to open with a light-hearted or amusing story. Then the rest can be about whatever I want. I am going to write about the economy and the austerity that we are facing in the near future.
In preparing this speech. I was reminded about how little we really teach about the economy. We should really pay more attention, as it affects so many matters, some as large as the numbers of jobs available, others as seemingly minute as where a toll road will be placed (or whether it should be built at all). But many of us are reduced to calling it "the dismal science," or resorting to Shaw's overused quote about how if all the economists in the world were place end-to-end.... You know the rest.
I'm not an economist, though I studied economics as part of my MBA. I tried to make it more interesting to the laypeople who will hear this speech by giving them background, such as:

• Growth in the economy of two to three percent each year was normal until the end of WWII, and then our economy took off because of post-war demand. Also, our foreign competitors were bombed out of existence. Once we got back to two to three percent growth before the actual recession of 2008, it seemed like bad times for us. But actually, that is quote normal. However when all you know is an "up" market, then skyrocketing growth looks normal to you.


• Productivity has improved to the point that we need fewer workers. Therefore, the job creation rate for American workers has fallen. As a result of fewer jobs and many bodies to do them, the wages for the average American worker has been falling since 2001. We should not expect to see higher wages in the foreseeable future. (I remember reading years ago that we possibly face a permanent underclass that cannot find work. Are we there now?)


• The prices of everyday items that we take for granted are bound to rise once we pull out of this recession. The demand for food, raw materials, fuel and water will increasingly outstrip available supplies. T. Boone Pickens, the famous oilman, is trying to buy up water rights in some areas, because he sees it as "the next oil."

Still, there is promising news on the horizon. Since the credit crunch started in late 2008, the average U.S. household savings rate has jumped from 0.7 percent to 4 percent of income. Many Americans have already relearned the value and satisfaction of saving, which is a promising trend.

Is this all learnable? I believe so. Many economists I was reading predicted this credit crunch for years before it happened. As a result, I stopped investing in my 401k's inflated stock prices and paid off my mortgage instead. The benefit has been that I have more disposable income during a rough patch in the economy. And I admit again, as I did earlier, I'm no economist.

My point is that our popular media are failing us in informing us of the economy. Our business media, where I got my information, are doing fine. Still, I don't think most people turn to those media. We need more than a crazy man on basic cable television ranting and making largely inaccurate predictions (you know I'm talking to you, Jim!). We should be demanding more.

.

.

The King is Dead; Long Live Real News!

Be still my beating heart. I turned on my TV today and there was news that did NOT include the late. great Michael Jackson. I am hearing about the efforts of U.S. Congressman Patrick Murphy -- an Iraq war officer and veteran -- to keep gay soldiers in the military. I am hearing about Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. Yes, there is hyperbole there from her Democratic supporters. (Is there a hook we can use just for Sen. Chuck Schumer? Jeez, what a windbag!)
There is also some puffery from the Republicans (Sen. Cronyn from Texas and Chuck Grassley who is "concerned" about her empathy). Lindsay Graham was actually statesmanlike, giving the President his due and allowing that Chief Executive has a right to pick his own justices. (Call me naive, but I think he was sincere.)
Days ago, I complained of a "Gresham's Law" of news, in which Mr. Jackson's untimely death supplanted coverage of other events. Cap and trade, anyone? Did we vote on that? Oh yes, we did,. while cameras were inside the empty Neverland farmhouse.
Did we suffer any losses of soldiers in the last couple of weeks? Yes, although you would never know it.
I am the first to say that I have been a Michael Jackson fan for 40 years, and I think he was a musical visionary. But what passed for "news" in our recent dark days is shameful. We should all be writing to our networks and some print outlets and taking them to task for this.
Not that it would do any good, unfortunately. But maybe it will make us feel better.
Now rest in peace, Michael Jackson.
Please.

Jack Welch Predicts a Brave New Workforce from this Recession

Jack & Suzy Welch wrote a timely commentary in the latest issue of BusinessWeek. They predict that plenty of people will work for themselves as a result of the recession, and the main reason is a lack of trust in employers -- that is, ALL employers, both present and future ones. "Plenty of talent no longer wants to work for 'the man,'" they say in their commentary. "Wooing them will require candor, innovation and the excitement of a start-up."
Having worked for seven years for GE under Mr. Welch's leadership, I can tell you that the man is sincere. He insisted on honesty. For example, he was against social promotions of long-time employees, saying that it was unfair not only to the organization but to the employees themselves. I was also the point person in several business throughout the company that were facing seismic changes, usually resulting in layoffs. It was tough to bring this news to my audiences, such as the media, the community and the employees. We would often communicate the state of the business for months in advance, preparing them for change. It was tough on everyone, but no one could say they were surprised.
My employers since then were the exact opposite in their practices. They pumped up the businesses' standings, even in the face of conflicting financial reports. Leaders would communicate when the results were good, but disappear when there was a downturn. Yo, you don't have to be Peter Drucker to figure that one out! Employees learned quickly that this meant that the business was in trouble.
I always advocated open communication to the business leaders. I argued that the employees would value knowing the condition of the company and the plan to deal with that condition so that they could rally behind it. The usual response was that honesty would cause their best employees to leave, because those were the people who had the most options. I countered that the employees had a right to know the condition of the company so they could plan accordingly. But, I repeated, if they heard the company's plan, they would rally behind it.
No employer of mine other than GE ever accepted this philosophy.
I also never worked again for a company that was as successful as GE.
I agree with the Welches that there will be payback for this from the best and the brightest. These smartest of the employees have learned that most organizations cannot be trusted. Besides, the job is a 20th Century invention that may have run its course. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most people worked for themselves on farms or at crafts. But when factories expanded, they needed people to work in them. Good wages attracted many people away from the crafts and farms they knew.
Now that covenant has changed, and we seem to be returning to the natural order of employment, opting for work that fills our hearts in addition to our wallets. People used to say, "I can't quit my job to go out on my own. I need the security." Well, how is that security thing working for you now, Bucky?
I write about this in my book, "The Six P's of Change." My very first principle, the first "P," is the Perception that change, some change, is going to happen to each one of us. For so many, that change has come to our jobs.
For those of you who still have employees, it is not too late to practice this philosophy. Be open with your people, and empower them in the process. Build your employees' loyalty to you by showing loyalty to their interests. Don't just take it from me. Take it from two masters of business.

"Public Enemies" Draws Route from Gangsters to Kardashians

I saw "Public Enemies" last night, drawn to it by its prinicpals: the brilliant Johnny Depp, the ravishing Marion Cotillard of "La Vie en Rose" fame, and director Michael Mann, whose handsome handiwork I have admired from his earlier days in the TV ("The Longest Mile," the seminal cop show, "Miami Vice"). While my opinion of the film itself is best left in another commentary (HINT: I found it more stylish than substantive), I found myself interested in an issue that was as timely in the 1933 time frame of the film as it is today: media personalities.Depp plays gangster John Dillinger, who enthralled the nation during The Great Depression (yes, a depression greater than the current one) with his daring bank robberies. You would think that ordinary folks down on their luck would not care about someone making a living through dishonest means, but there must have been a Robin Hoodian element to it all. The film shows ordinary folks lining the streets to get a glimpse of him, and I can attest through my own research that this really happened.

This was not the first time for unlikely public adulation. George Burns wrote in "All My Best Friends," his memoir about vaudeville:

"Not only didn't you have to be good or bad to be a headliner (on the vaudeville stage), you didn't even have to be a performer. The vaudeville stage was the only place people could, 'live and in person,' the same celebrities they were reading about in the newspapers. Famous criminal, particularly women who were involved in 'crimes of passion.' appeared in vaudeville after being acquited or after being released from prison.... After Charles Lindbergh became the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic, he turned down a $100,000 offer to play a West Coast theater for one week."

Note the phrase ''the same celebrities they were reading about in the newspapers." Now look at the fascination for people like the Ozzy Osbourne family, the Kardashians, and the necrophiliac coverage of the late, great Michael Jackson. If we look at the early history of television, the performers who were most popular and successful were those who came from vaudeville, such as Milton Berle, Ed Wynn and Jack Benny. While television has often been called "the electronic fireplace," is it possible that it is really vaudeville-in-a-box?

Furthermore, is our desire for celebrity news and worship in our genes, a natural function that can be traced back to the Greek and Roman stages? ("And here for your listening pleasure, folks, is Nero. He will entertain you with his fiddling while Rome burns.")

Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on ourselves. What do you think?

.

GLARE OF THE SPOTLIGHT, Part 3 - The Gosselin Effect

Psychologists have various laws and effects that purport to explain our behaviors. One is the Hawthorne effect , where when workers improve while they’re being observed. The theory goes that the very act of observation affects the behavior being studied. The name derives from worker research on industrial psychology, which was conducted at the Western Electric Company Hawthorne plant near Chicago. The “Pygmalion effect” says that if teachers have higher expectations of some children and show that expectation, the improvement of those children was roughly twice that of the other children in the same class. And there is the straightforward “Principle of Cause and Effect,” which says that nothing happens for no reason. There is always a distinct origin for that effect.

I’d like to promote Pat Rocchi’s Gosselin Effect:

The presence of a motion picture camera lens will
magnify the subject’s flaws to the point of destruction.

Exhibit one, counselor, is a recent cause célèbre (dethroned, of course, by Governor Marc Sanford and Michael Jackson): the disintegrated marriage of the now-infamous Jon and Kate Gosselin, parents to eight unfortunate children and stars of Jon & Kate Plus 8. For you readers who have been in a cave in recent weeks, Mr. and (nee) Mrs. Gosselin, the parents of twins and sextuplets, traded their home life for a so-called reality series on The Learning Channel. This exchange provided them with a new home, free trips, and free merchandise. However, the bill came due in the most recently season, and the cost was their marriage.

Jon was accused of having an affair. Kate was accused of shrewish behavior that seemed to merit infidelity. Jon says he never wanted to be a TV star. Kate luxuriates in her fame, which came complete with a million dollar home, a tummy tuck and, apparently, at least one friendly bodyguard.
As Hank Stuever of the Washington Post so aptly put it, “(T)his is not a documentary in any true sense, nor is it reality. In searching for a word that describes Jon & Kate Plus 8, the subtlest forms of the word abuse spring to mind, which, alas, is why the show is so alluring.”

Didn’t we learn this nearly 40 years ago with “An American Family,” the PBS documentary of the Loud family? The Louds (an appropriate name, it turned out) comprise Dad Bill and Mom Pat, their eventually uncloseted son Lance, sons Kevin and Grant, and daughters Delilah and Michelle. They were filmed relentlessly for a quotidian total of 300 hours. In that time, Lance came out famously, and the other children showed their unhappiness more subtly, less flamboyantly. In a spooky bit of foreshadowing, Bill and Pat’s marriage came apart before our very eyes.

A cliché says, “the camera doesn’t lie.” That’s not really true, for cameras shed light only on the subjects on which they are focused. But it is fair to say that cameras are good at uncovering truths. Just look at the Gosselins’ twin daughters, Madelyn and Cara, both 8 years old. You don’t need to look very hard to see their resentment not only of giving up their own childhoods for the sake of this program, but also to serve as built-in babysitters for the sextuplets. The camera also shows Jon’s urge to end this intrusion.

If you don’t believe in the power of the camera to see, try looking back at your own family movies or photos. Distanced by time, you may finally catch the disaffected gawk of that one family member who was not really interested in being there. Perhaps you’ll see the gauzy gaze of that funny uncle who, it turns out, was hiding a substance abuse problem. Or maybe much of that smiling was de rigueur and not genuine.

Perhaps it is time to ignore shows that bring people into our homes whom we would not normally invite. Are they really worth our time? What are our motives for watching them? Are they really illuminating in any higher sense of the word? Are we really interested in the mumbling, stumbling former rock star? Or are we laughing at them?

Perhaps we should turn off the cameras in our own lives, too. It is very possible that we are not capturing reality in our own lives as well. Why not look through our eyes rather than our lenses and just interact with our family and friends one on one? You may be surprised at what you learn. Pleasantly so.