True power and influence

A very interesting correlation. I am sitting in my favorite coffee shop enjoying their wonderful house roast and studying power and influence among leaders.

I have decided no one has more power and influence over people and situations then unruly children. There seems to be a large misconception among my friends, they believe I dislike children. This is not at all accurate. Ask Rexy, I adore her children and they love me. The difference between Rexy's darlings and the average Utah child? Rexy has rules. She disciplines her children.

I was about an hour into my study, highlighting with a new fever (I love studying leadership, hence I am getting a PhD in Organizational Leadership) when a group of about 7 adults and four children entered the coffee shop. The parents sat at the table behind me and for awhile so did the children. I think the parents mistakenly gave the children coffee and not one of the many child-drinks offered.

Before I knew it the coffee shop was being taken over by these monsters who ran around, yelled at each other, ran in and out and in and out, and became overall nuisances. A young woman who was also here with her computer doing some studying left to her car to continue work in silence. Normally I would not continue to subject myself to this behavior, but I was comfortable and knee deep in John P Kotter. I am not in the mood to take on 7 adults so I waited, patiently, for the parents to realize my over-the-shoulder looks were in their direction.

They did not. After about an hour of this behavior they finally left. A few minutes later one of the employees came up to me and ask if I minded if she used the vacuum. Vacuum?? That is sweet music compared to what I just heard. She mentioned that it was annoying and that they had five people call and complain. Wow. And "But people should understand when you go out in public there will be children". I almost smacked her emo-dyed hair.

I expect that there will always be children, actually I hope there always will be. Civilization can not continue if our species does not continue to reproduce. What I do not expect, nor do I normally tolerate, are kids who are out-of-control. I am saying kids. The youngest one was close to 12. I am not talking babies who don't understand or (for a former friend who took things out of context) children with disabilities. There is no excuse for a parent to use a coffee shop, or any public place (except for those intended) as a running playground for their children.

It isn't hard to keep your kids well behaved. I imagine (because I don't hav children) that all it takes are some boundaries and consequences. Not much unlike the different theories on power and leadership.

And to clarify... I don't like kids parents who don't use power and influence over their kids.

Actual Words of Wisdom

Because nothing I say could have as much meaning...

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair." - MLK

Chaffetz This

It's been a day or two since I have taken the time to rant about one of Utah's fine politicians. Normally I save this ranting time for the likes of Chris Butters. Instead I will turn my attention to a junior Congressman from my fine state, Jason Chaffetz. Until recently this douchebag, I mean Congressman, was really only known for sleeping on a cot and leg-wrestling with a certain talk show host.

He has decided to make news in another way. He has sponsored H.R.2027 to establish limitations on the use of whole-body imaging technology for aircraft passenger screening, and for other purposes. This has become his pet project. Why? Well to protect our personal freedoms of course.

I find this bill ironic in a number of ways but before I really touch on the irony of this lets talk about my issues with this bill.

Here is the summary of the bill:

1 Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2009 - Directs the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) (TSA) to ensure that whole-body imaging technology is used for the screening of passengers only in accordance with this Act.

2 Prohibits the use of whole-body imaging technology as the sole or primary method of screening aircraft passengers. Allows its use only if another method of screening, such as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing a passenger from boarding an aircraft.

3 Requires that passengers: (1) be provided information on the operation of such technology and specified related matters, including privacy policies and the right to request a pat-down search; and (2) be offered such a pat-down search in lieu of such screening.

4 Prohibits the storage, transfer, sharing, or copying in any form of an image of a passenger generated by whole-body imaging technology after a boarding determination is made.

5 Imposes criminal penalties upon any U.S. officer or employee who knowingly stores, transfers, shares, or copies whole-body screening images.

Chaffetz basic argument is that the use of full-body scanners is an invasion of personal privacy as we are guaranteed by the Constitution. You will receive no argument from me on part of this. While the Constitution does not specifically or expressly grant citizens a blanket right to privacy, the Bill of Rights makes certain protections. In this case Chaffetz is likely referring to the 4th Amendment, which protects the privacy of a person from unreasonable searches.

Unreasonable searches. What is unreasonable? Is it unreasonable for the TSA to require people to walk through a scanner that detects whether someone is concealing a weapon or something that could be used as a weapon? If your answer is yes then please explain to me how it is unreasonable. The 4th Amendment is not a blanket protection from any search of person. It states, very explicitly, from unreasonable searches. There are those that will say well I am a law abiding citizen so it is unreasonable to assume that I would conceal a weapon. Okay, so how is the TSA to know this? Would you rather that they start profiling? How do you suggest that the TSA determines who is a threat? How do you suggest that security screening is done in a way that is reasonable to your assumed personal privacy?

My second point on this discussion is in regards to choices. We all make choices in life. I don't care for the restrictions the LDS church has placed on the Main Street Plaza so I choose not to use it. Walking through this Plaza, which it private land, is not my right. It is owned by the church and thus they are able to institute whatever rules they see fit. As I don't agree with these rules, I don't walk there.

Flying is not a right. It is a privilege. You make the choice to fly understanding that there are certain rules that have to be followed. You have to present your ID to prove you are the person on the ticket. Is that an invasion of privacy? To demand to see your government issued ID? You can not take check certain items, is that an invasion on your right to privacy to allow your bags to be screened?

The point is, we all know that there are certain security measures that are in place in airports and if you choose to fly you have to abide by those, whether they are TSA (government) or Airline (private) rules. If you don't like it there are multiple options for you. You make the choice to fly it is not forced upon you.

I am not one who easily gives up what I feel are my rights. I firmly believe in the preservation of our individual rights granted by the constitution. I have stated in a number of discussions with my sister (who works in law enforcement) that if you give an inch don't be surprised when they take a mile. Unfortunately, this doesn't fit that scenario. When personal choice becomes involved the line between rights and privileges is less blurry.

I've had this conversation with a few friend who disagree with me. They are adament that it is an invasion of privacy yet when I ask them who it is an unreasonable search they don't seem to have an answer that merits continuation of the debate. I am wondering if someone could present this to me. I am often found of debate. :)

Marvin Gay ain't got nothing on these teens

I consider myself a sexually open person. If it involves two consenting adults, more power to you, who am I to judge? I also have pretty substancial opinions on the lack of education and open discussion relating to sex, especially in this state. All of that being said... what the HELL is going on with today's youth?

Here I sit in a coffee shop, attempting to read a book about leadership and I can't help but overhear the conversation going on amoung a group of teenagers.

Teen 1: Dude, did you hear what happened with John at the party?
All Teens: NO, what?
Teen 1: Well he was having sex with Suzy, but it only lasted like ten seconds so Suzy went downstairs and got another girl so she could get off.
All Teens: WHOA Dude, HAWT!
Teen 1: Then, Mike comes up and has sex with Angie in the same room with Suzy and the other girl getting off.
All Teens: Wow, awesome

Me.... VOMIT.

Now do I have issues with any of these acts (girl on girl, boy on girl, boy on girl with girl on girl), no. What I take issue with is the following statement.

Teen 2: Did you get the homework done for Chemistry. Dude, one more year and we are done with highschool.

Ick. This is where my problem is.

I was lucky. My first sexual experience was while in a very serious and committed relationship. I was able to experience sex for the first time with someone I trusted and loved. I am well aware that this isn't always the typical experience. I wish it were different. While I do believe sex is a biological need, it is always much better when you are in love. People can argue with me and that is fine, I'd argue they've never experience sex while in love.

Highschool kids have sex. I know this. I understand this. I don't necessarily agree with this. While I am open to people having sex, I am not open to someone under the age of 18 having sex with a boy, then a girl, then another boy or girl. This isn't healthy behavior for a teenager. We all mature at different rates but is anyone at the age of 16 or 17 mature enough for kinky sex?

Was this going on when I was in high school? Probably not. What is the difference now from then? It's not like I am ancient. Hell, I am not even 30 yet. What happened to our youth that promiscuity is the new cool? Or maybe the difference is I was surround with a great group of friends who had morals. Or that I was in a great relationship with a boy who didn't pressure me to have sex let along swing from the fan sex.

Weird. Or maybe I am just prude.