In a global economy we need business persons who are ready to accept diversity. This is increasing true as modern communications have brought the world into reach with but a few keystrokes. Most of our larger corporations have already come to terms with this fact. Sadly, the small businesses are lagging behind.
In few sectors is this lag more evident than in multilevel marketing ("MLM" for short). For those who may not know what I mean, examples include such notables as Tupperware, Amway/Quixtar, MaryKay, Shaklee, and a host of others that rely on a system of recruiting others into the program to expand the business.
There is nothing particularly wrong with the MLM business model. It is time honored and tested. Contrary to many misconceptions, when these businesses follow the accepted guidelines, they are entirely legal and legitimate.
However, as the individuals working in these programs seek to expand their businesses, they naturally tend to seek out people like themselves as recruits. Their commonality gives them more of an influence which makes their recruiting easier. This tends to build entire business networks of people without a lot of diversity or inclusivity.
Many who have joined one MLM program or another have found themselves at various meetings where speakers wandered off the topic of the business and onto the subject of religion or politics (not related to business). One business leader after another would espouse this or that religious or political view point. It would eventually seem clear that this MLM business is more welcoming of people of a particular political or religious persuasion than they are embracing of diversity.
This has the effect of making those who do not hold the same political viewpoints or religious persuasions feel uncomfortable. This only increases the likelihood those people with divergent viewpoints will drop out. The attrition rate in MLM's is quite high anyway, so the cause and effect relationship between perceived intolerance and membership cancellations may not be obvious. But, it does exist.
As MLM businesses have moved to the internet, they cast a wider net than in times past. People are no longer just recruiting from within their own circle of contacts. However, many of the hard core MLM'ers have not adjusted. They still get up in their meetings and speak like they are at a political rally or leading their church's prayer meeting.
Very slowly, MLM businesses are moving toward inclusion. I want to be a fly on the wall when the day comes that someone gets up to share his business experience and offers words of praise to Vishnu or expresses gratitude for the loving support of his same gender life partner. It may serve as a wake up call to treat an inclusive MLM business as a business instead of a forum for something else.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 24, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Black Friday
Here in the United States we observe the fourth Thursday in November as a day of thanksgiving. Many countries around the world have days they set aside to give thanks for the harvest and so forth. Their observances come at other times in keeping with their own seasons.
Something that is uniquely American is this thing called, "Black Friday." When I first heard the term, I thought it was referring to some sort of stock market crash. However, it seems American culture has embraced the term as a designation for the day after Thanksgiving. It marks the start of the Christmas shopping season.
Now, why everyone would want to converge on the stores and shopping malls on this one day is a complete mystery to me. I hate crowds. I hate the madness. But, some people seem to thrive on it.
Since so many families reunite to celebrate Thanksgiving, I suppose it gives them a chance to go shopping together in a way they don't get any other time of year. Of course, I only shop out of necessity. So that sort of family togetherness holds no appeal for me. I would rather sit around and play cards and chat about life and the world.
I would think that after expending so much effort into preparing the Thanksgiving feast, people would want to take a break from all that work and just rest. Instead, stores compete against each other to see who can open their doors earliest to give way to the onslaught of Christmas shoppers. Perhaps they would rather keep their usual hours, but they're afraid of losing to the competition.
This year, even my elderly father was getting into the act. He had his eye on a 32 inch TV set which he hoped would be easier to read than the 27 inch set he has now. The store he was planning to visit opened up at midnight. I plan to call him later to see how he made out.
Because of the crowds, chaos and madness, "Black Friday" may indeed be a suitable designation. You won't catch me near a mall on this day if I can avoid it. I'll do my shopping on the internet.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 23, 2007
Previous post
Something that is uniquely American is this thing called, "Black Friday." When I first heard the term, I thought it was referring to some sort of stock market crash. However, it seems American culture has embraced the term as a designation for the day after Thanksgiving. It marks the start of the Christmas shopping season.
Now, why everyone would want to converge on the stores and shopping malls on this one day is a complete mystery to me. I hate crowds. I hate the madness. But, some people seem to thrive on it.
Since so many families reunite to celebrate Thanksgiving, I suppose it gives them a chance to go shopping together in a way they don't get any other time of year. Of course, I only shop out of necessity. So that sort of family togetherness holds no appeal for me. I would rather sit around and play cards and chat about life and the world.
I would think that after expending so much effort into preparing the Thanksgiving feast, people would want to take a break from all that work and just rest. Instead, stores compete against each other to see who can open their doors earliest to give way to the onslaught of Christmas shoppers. Perhaps they would rather keep their usual hours, but they're afraid of losing to the competition.
This year, even my elderly father was getting into the act. He had his eye on a 32 inch TV set which he hoped would be easier to read than the 27 inch set he has now. The store he was planning to visit opened up at midnight. I plan to call him later to see how he made out.
Because of the crowds, chaos and madness, "Black Friday" may indeed be a suitable designation. You won't catch me near a mall on this day if I can avoid it. I'll do my shopping on the internet.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 23, 2007
Previous post
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Talking Heads
As I write this, it is Sunday afternoon. Sunday morning always brings with it the usual line up of talk shows with their commentators and guests. I remember the first President Bush referring to these people as "the talking heads." I don't know if he coined that nickname or if it was someone else, but it has stuck.
When I first heard that phrase, "talking heads," I immediately understood what he was referring to. These television shows have several people who will discuss current happenings in government and politics. They tend to have more of an intellectual bent than you will find on the regular network news shows at the dinner hour.
However, there is something about the tone, the vocal inflection, people use when they say, "talking heads," that gives you the idea they don't have as high opinion of these commentators as the commentators seem to have of themselves. I find that amusing.
The whole terminology, "talking heads," amuses me as well. Of course these people are talking from their heads. What other part of their anatomy might they use? Don't answer that.
That these shows were relegated to Sunday morning probably says more about our society at large than it says about the people on them. Personally, I would prefer these shows were televised on Saturday. Many Sunday church goers either have to record the programs for later viewing or miss them altogether.
I actually enjoy listening to most of these discussions. Even the people I disagree with are enjoyable to listen to when they have a well thought out, well articulated presentation. The sort of meaningful exchange that occurs under the conditions of these particular shows would never happen in an atmosphere more akin to that of Jerry Springer. Of course, the people who actually watch Jerry Springer are likely to be bored with the talking heads because there just isn't enough action to entertain them.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 18, 2007
Previous post
When I first heard that phrase, "talking heads," I immediately understood what he was referring to. These television shows have several people who will discuss current happenings in government and politics. They tend to have more of an intellectual bent than you will find on the regular network news shows at the dinner hour.
However, there is something about the tone, the vocal inflection, people use when they say, "talking heads," that gives you the idea they don't have as high opinion of these commentators as the commentators seem to have of themselves. I find that amusing.
The whole terminology, "talking heads," amuses me as well. Of course these people are talking from their heads. What other part of their anatomy might they use? Don't answer that.
That these shows were relegated to Sunday morning probably says more about our society at large than it says about the people on them. Personally, I would prefer these shows were televised on Saturday. Many Sunday church goers either have to record the programs for later viewing or miss them altogether.
I actually enjoy listening to most of these discussions. Even the people I disagree with are enjoyable to listen to when they have a well thought out, well articulated presentation. The sort of meaningful exchange that occurs under the conditions of these particular shows would never happen in an atmosphere more akin to that of Jerry Springer. Of course, the people who actually watch Jerry Springer are likely to be bored with the talking heads because there just isn't enough action to entertain them.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 18, 2007
Previous post
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Should a Mormon be President?
Should being a Mormon affect someone's suitability and electability for the office of President of the United States? I think not. But, even though it shouldn't, I strongly suspect it does affect how a number of people view the candidate.
Mitt Romney has made no secret about his LDS affiliation, but he is well aware that many Americans, myself included, regard Mormonism as a cult. Romney knows that he wins no points for his religious beliefs among evangelicals. He doesn't let that stop him from acknowledging his convictions. That is to his credit. However, since his Mormonism is so well known, any other public position on his part would brand him as ingenuine and deceitful. Mitt Romney is taking the only stand that could get him any respect by laying everything out in the open.
Frankly, I believe Romney's religious beliefs should not be an issue in and of themselves. The only bearing they might have on a candidate's qualification is in how they influence that person's political positions. To be sure, religious beliefs do affect a person's politics.
For example, if a person's religious beliefs persuade that person that capital punishment is morally wrong, then one would expect that person would be politically opposed to capital punishment. On the other hand, if a person's religious beliefs are that God has prescribed death for those who commit murder, then one would expect that person would be politically in favor of capital punishment. Religious teaching does influence a person's moral values.
We expect our moral values to influence our politics. But the relationship between religion and politics needs to remain indirect. The separation of church and state is a very important one.
Now, it bears noting that some of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints regarding social issues are things that I support. However, their teachings on some other issues are things that I do not support. As Mitt Romney has translated those teachings into political policy, he has adopted some positions I cannot support. I will not be voting for him. But my reasons for not voting for him are based on his political policies and not his religious beliefs.
It would not matter to me whether Romney were Mormon, Baptist, Deist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, or whatever. It is because of Romney's political stands that I would not be voting for him. If Romney had more of my political views, regardless of what his church teaches, then I could consider supporting him.
Ironically, many of those most inclined to oppose Mitt Romney because of his alliance with the LDS church are most in harmony with Mitt Romney's politics. It is surprising that they have not figured that out. They are letting themselves be swayed by something that should not even be a factor.
None of Romney's opponents are visibly attempting to exploit this weakness. That is to their credit. However, it would brand them as being religiously intolerant if they took any other position. They are wisely keeping the focus on political issues and not peripheral matters.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 11, 2007
Mitt Romney has made no secret about his LDS affiliation, but he is well aware that many Americans, myself included, regard Mormonism as a cult. Romney knows that he wins no points for his religious beliefs among evangelicals. He doesn't let that stop him from acknowledging his convictions. That is to his credit. However, since his Mormonism is so well known, any other public position on his part would brand him as ingenuine and deceitful. Mitt Romney is taking the only stand that could get him any respect by laying everything out in the open.
Frankly, I believe Romney's religious beliefs should not be an issue in and of themselves. The only bearing they might have on a candidate's qualification is in how they influence that person's political positions. To be sure, religious beliefs do affect a person's politics.
For example, if a person's religious beliefs persuade that person that capital punishment is morally wrong, then one would expect that person would be politically opposed to capital punishment. On the other hand, if a person's religious beliefs are that God has prescribed death for those who commit murder, then one would expect that person would be politically in favor of capital punishment. Religious teaching does influence a person's moral values.
We expect our moral values to influence our politics. But the relationship between religion and politics needs to remain indirect. The separation of church and state is a very important one.
Now, it bears noting that some of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints regarding social issues are things that I support. However, their teachings on some other issues are things that I do not support. As Mitt Romney has translated those teachings into political policy, he has adopted some positions I cannot support. I will not be voting for him. But my reasons for not voting for him are based on his political policies and not his religious beliefs.
It would not matter to me whether Romney were Mormon, Baptist, Deist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, or whatever. It is because of Romney's political stands that I would not be voting for him. If Romney had more of my political views, regardless of what his church teaches, then I could consider supporting him.
Ironically, many of those most inclined to oppose Mitt Romney because of his alliance with the LDS church are most in harmony with Mitt Romney's politics. It is surprising that they have not figured that out. They are letting themselves be swayed by something that should not even be a factor.
None of Romney's opponents are visibly attempting to exploit this weakness. That is to their credit. However, it would brand them as being religiously intolerant if they took any other position. They are wisely keeping the focus on political issues and not peripheral matters.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 11, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
UFO's and Why I Say They Do Exist
Every now and then, someone will ask me if I believe in UFO's. I have to laugh at the question. My answer is, "Of course I believe in UFO's!" Sometimes that person will look at me in amazement because I answer with such conviction.
However, when you really look at the question I was asked, my response is more understandable. A UFO is simply an unidentified flying object. There is nothing inherent in that definition that suggests the object is of extraterrestrial origin. Any object that appears to be traveling through the air which you cannot identify is an unidentified flying object. It remains a UFO until such time as you do identify it.
There are many objects in my world that I do not recognize. To be sure, most of these are on the ground. But some of these may be in the air. Now, someone may be tempted to report that a plastic bag that was caught by the wind and carried high in the air was "mistaken for a UFO." But actually, there was no mistake. Until the object was recognized as a plastic bag, it was unidentified. It flew through the air on the currents and not on its own power, but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it flew above the earth. So, until the plastic bag was identified as a plastic bag, it really was a UFO.
Those who claim not to believe in UFO's are actually saying everything that has been sighted flying in the sky has been identified. I don't believe that is what they mean, but it is what they are saying. Saying something can be identified is not the same as saying something has been identified.
So, when you consider a correct understanding of what "UFO" actually means, you may grasp why it is I question the intelligence of those who say they do not believe in UFO's.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 7, 2007
However, when you really look at the question I was asked, my response is more understandable. A UFO is simply an unidentified flying object. There is nothing inherent in that definition that suggests the object is of extraterrestrial origin. Any object that appears to be traveling through the air which you cannot identify is an unidentified flying object. It remains a UFO until such time as you do identify it.
There are many objects in my world that I do not recognize. To be sure, most of these are on the ground. But some of these may be in the air. Now, someone may be tempted to report that a plastic bag that was caught by the wind and carried high in the air was "mistaken for a UFO." But actually, there was no mistake. Until the object was recognized as a plastic bag, it was unidentified. It flew through the air on the currents and not on its own power, but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it flew above the earth. So, until the plastic bag was identified as a plastic bag, it really was a UFO.
Those who claim not to believe in UFO's are actually saying everything that has been sighted flying in the sky has been identified. I don't believe that is what they mean, but it is what they are saying. Saying something can be identified is not the same as saying something has been identified.
So, when you consider a correct understanding of what "UFO" actually means, you may grasp why it is I question the intelligence of those who say they do not believe in UFO's.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 7, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Legal Drivers Licenses for illegal Aliens
There is a lot of talk about the question of whether or not illegal aliens in the United States should be issued legal drivers licenses. There are a number of issues that enter into this discussion. Some of these are practical. Many are ideological. As I see it, the issues are these:
1) We want all drivers to have valid licenses to drive. We don't want anyone driving who does not have a license.
2) Drivers licenses are a way of identifying people. They help us track who is in the country and in what state.
3) A license to drive is a privilege and not a right.
4) We want to discourage illegal immigration while providing incentives for those who follow the rules.
5) Allowing illegal aliens to get valid drivers licenses may be construed as condoning their illegal residence.
6) If illegal aliens are unable to get valid drivers licenses, they will probably still continue to drive. They may even drive with fake drivers licenses.
It seems to me that the drivers license for illegals issue comes down to a matter of ideals versus pragmatism. I think we can generally agree on the ideals involved. Some will decide the practical issues carry greater weight.
Denying drivers licenses to those who are not legal residents will not stop illegal immigration. It does increase the demand for the criminal market in fake drivers licenses. It is similar to the way Prohibition made the illegal liquor trade so profitable.
I happen to be a proponent of more legal immigration into this country of talented people under the age of thirty. If we add enough of them to our workforce, it will help us stave off the impending Social Security crisis. However, I am opposed to illegal immigration and want it stopped.
Nevertheless, on the issue of drivers licenses, I feel the pragmatic matters outweigh the idealistic concerns. The benefits of allowing even illegal residents to obtain valid drivers licenses are greater than the detriments of making the lives of illegals easier. I have only recently come to this conclusion. A good argument could persuade me to change my mind. But for now, that is where I come down.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 6, 2007
1) We want all drivers to have valid licenses to drive. We don't want anyone driving who does not have a license.
2) Drivers licenses are a way of identifying people. They help us track who is in the country and in what state.
3) A license to drive is a privilege and not a right.
4) We want to discourage illegal immigration while providing incentives for those who follow the rules.
5) Allowing illegal aliens to get valid drivers licenses may be construed as condoning their illegal residence.
6) If illegal aliens are unable to get valid drivers licenses, they will probably still continue to drive. They may even drive with fake drivers licenses.
It seems to me that the drivers license for illegals issue comes down to a matter of ideals versus pragmatism. I think we can generally agree on the ideals involved. Some will decide the practical issues carry greater weight.
Denying drivers licenses to those who are not legal residents will not stop illegal immigration. It does increase the demand for the criminal market in fake drivers licenses. It is similar to the way Prohibition made the illegal liquor trade so profitable.
I happen to be a proponent of more legal immigration into this country of talented people under the age of thirty. If we add enough of them to our workforce, it will help us stave off the impending Social Security crisis. However, I am opposed to illegal immigration and want it stopped.
Nevertheless, on the issue of drivers licenses, I feel the pragmatic matters outweigh the idealistic concerns. The benefits of allowing even illegal residents to obtain valid drivers licenses are greater than the detriments of making the lives of illegals easier. I have only recently come to this conclusion. A good argument could persuade me to change my mind. But for now, that is where I come down.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 6, 2007
Saturday, November 3, 2007
A Constructive Response to Adversity
As I write this blog entry, I am watching NASA TV on the internet. The astronauts are working on a repair for the solar array of the International Space Station. At the mission outset this particular spacewalk was not planned. The problem with the damaged solar array required this. But much was gained in terms of knowledge and space engineering experience as a result.
It often seems that much is gained as a result of having to overcome some sort of adversity. This past week, it was my pleasure to meet and enjoy the company of Aaron M. Blake, a man who experienced the adversity of feeling invisible to women upon finding himself single again. His book, co-authored with Christopher Cokley, was a product of that negative circumstance. The book bears the title, "Why Can't You See Me? Good Men Do Exist."
I talked with Aaron about his journey and the process of writing this book. He spent considerable time researching his topic. Then he enforced upon himself the daily discipline of transforming the vision into reality. If it had not been for the adverse situation in which Aaron Blake found himself, he would not have been motivated to this particular task.
When we respond positively to adversity, good things can come. I appreciate Aaron's response. It should encourage us all to take life's lemons and make lemonade.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 3, 2007
It often seems that much is gained as a result of having to overcome some sort of adversity. This past week, it was my pleasure to meet and enjoy the company of Aaron M. Blake, a man who experienced the adversity of feeling invisible to women upon finding himself single again. His book, co-authored with Christopher Cokley, was a product of that negative circumstance. The book bears the title, "Why Can't You See Me? Good Men Do Exist."
I talked with Aaron about his journey and the process of writing this book. He spent considerable time researching his topic. Then he enforced upon himself the daily discipline of transforming the vision into reality. If it had not been for the adverse situation in which Aaron Blake found himself, he would not have been motivated to this particular task.
When we respond positively to adversity, good things can come. I appreciate Aaron's response. It should encourage us all to take life's lemons and make lemonade.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)