How To Complain Effectively

Most frequently, when a customer contacts a supplier to complain about a product or service, the focus is upon how the failure of the item impacted on the consumer.  Often, that focus becomes more intensified when the client feels that the company is not paying sufficient attention to the matter. 

There are two main factors at play here: The company’s (more likely, the company representative’s) initial reaction is defensiveness.  “The integrity of my product (or service) is being challenged.” It is a personal affront.  The customer’s initial action is anger and aggressiveness.  “You sold me garbage.  I won’t be abused by you.”  Neither stance is fully correct or very effective.  And so, the conflict often escalates.

However, there are tried-and-true techniques for mitigating disputes and exploring satisfactory solutions. They revolve around understanding each other, before initiating contact or insisting on immediate, arbitrary resolution.

The first thing that a consumer  should be aware of is that the business must be in the business of customer service, if it intends to survive.  Therefore, it is as motivated to find a solution that is satisfactory to it as you are to find one satisfactory to you.  At the outset, it may not seem like these two objectives are similar, compatible or even capable of being based on common ground.  But, almost always, they are.

Initial contact should follow the same path, whether it be by email, telephone, or letter.  Begin by knowing both your rights and obligations.  Begin by ascertaining, for certain, if the problem is the company’s, the product’s, your own, or a combination of the three.  Be balanced and objective in your assessment, even if the issue is personal and subjective.  And, vitally, be open and receptive to proposals and suggestions.

The vast majority of complaints can be resolved with the first contact.  Some require one or two follow-ups, while others can be drawn out, complex and protracted.  Determine, before you begin, how much time, cost and effort you are willing to expend to reach a settlement.  Then, stick with the plan!  The sequence is the same, regardless of the duration.

Let us use a sample case, to illustrate the techniques at work.

George has issues with his cell phone provider.  First, his phone has given him problems since he signed the three-year contract last year. Second, he has been charged, infrequently, for long distance charges, even though the calls were made to exempt numbers.  In the past, the phone company has reversed the charges.  Third, he has an issue with “dead zone” coverage.  That matter has not been resolved.  Today, he finds that, when he crossed the border last month, he shut off his phone, and when he returned, as soon as he re-entered the country, he switched his phone on, parked, retrieved his messages and made two local calls.  He was charged a very high roaming fee, even though he was already back in his own coverage zone.  It was the last straw, and he is furious.

But wait.  Each problem may be unique.

The first issue, with the phone itself.  Twice he has returned to the retailer, who patiently showed him how to use the various features. Both times, the problems were not that of the phone, but of his inexperience.  But he blames the phone for being too complex. 

Solution: Accept that he needs to devote more time to learning the phone operation, or that he needs to trade in his phone for one that more properly meets his needs and capabilities.  Don’t lay the complaint at the feet of his carrier!

Second problem – incorrect billing.   He researches consumer complaints, and finds that this is a common problem, but common to all four carriers in his region.  He may want to write a complaint to the Consumer’s Bureau, or other government watchdog that oversees telecommunications and telephone providers.  If there are several other valid issues, it may also form the basis for future efforts to cancel the contract, or seek compensation. 

But he has four issues, and to try to resolve them all at once will cloud discussions and hinder mutual understanding.  He needs to focus on one, at most two complaints in each contact.  If two are related, this lends itself well to strengthening the complaint process.  In this  example, his third issue and fourth may be intertwined, since dead zones and overlapping coverage may be tower or broadcast strength matters.  He should focus this complaint on the last two.  Anyway, larger companies, such as wireless carriers of telephone service, tend to catalogue complaints and reference them by client number, so he will already be on file with prior matters.

Now, he has decided to work on the last two matters, systematically.  He opts to begin with a telephone call, since the carrier does not display an email address prominently on its website (a common practice, to avoid being inundated with nuisance emails), and snail mail would take too long.  How to begin?

The website has a page that shows where its cell phone towers are. So does the federal watchdog.  Across the border, he also sees where the towers are located.  This search has taken less than fifteen minutes, but George has learned invaluable facts.  The towers near where his “dead zones” occurred are spaced far apart, there are several large factories nearby, and the nearest tower is across a small lake.  Near the second tower is a large power substation.  He doesn’t know, for sure, if the factories and power station interfere with the signals, but he has heard anecdotes about that.  He does know that many radio-type signals are seriously degraded when they pass over water.  He will use that information judiciously.  He also sees that the towers across the border are closer than the ones on his side.  That means that they could override his local signal strength.  He is less angry now, knowing that there are possible explanations.

George calls customer service.  The automated answering service frustrates him immeasurably, but he doesn’t let that displeasure cloud his focus.

The representative answers.  George needs to be aware that the contact person not only is not the owner(s), but is likely not even in a position of authority.  She is an employee, and any attack on her would be unfsir.  She is getting paid to do a difficult job, and she is limited in how she can respond.  Be fair and polite to her, regardless of the outcome.  Also establish that you understand her position, and want to work with her to find a solution.  This approach is more likely to win her to your side, and secure her cooperation. 

Don’t pontificate, use big words or talk down to the employee.  She deserves the same respect that you do.

She examines your file, and explains that there have only been “a few” complaints about dead zones.  You feel irritated, because you know that very few people who experience these problems follow up with a complaint.  She also says that you must have been still in the other country when you made the calls.  Your first urge is to blast her.  But refrain.  Instead, indicate that you understand that she may not fully be aware of the infrastructure, and ask her if there is someone to whom you can speak – a supervisor or techie – that can deal with this.  You have reached the limit of problem solving with her.  Note that many companies authorize their CS people to reverse nominal charges, just to avoid delays in the queue (e.g. bank charges).  She is not so authorized, and you move to the supervisor.

 Here, you deal on a more technical level.  Supervisors always are given greater authority.  While she may not be empowered to cancel your contract and refund your money, she will be enabled to provide recompense, investigate matters further, and so on. 

Begin by pointing out that the previous employee tried, but had not been given enough power to deal with the complaint.  Again, this is not the CEO or major shareholder with whom you are dealing, so recognize limitations.

Ask, first, what the proper email and snail mail address would be to provide a written, formal complaint. You may even ask who would be the next point of contact if the two of you do not come to a satisfactory agreement.  While this will “set her teeth on edge,” she also will see that you do not intend to let the matter go unresolved.  She will be more motivated to keep the simmering complaint from reaching her superiors.  Again, don’t be aggressive, and don’t insult.  All that will occur if you do is that the CS person will become defensive.  Maybe point out to her how tedious the complaint process sis, and empathize with her about how that must make things more stressful for her.

Now, explain the tower locations, the research you have done, and the history of other complaints (including other providers) made to the watchdog.  Point out that you are experiencing these problems repeatedly, and that they are contrary to the good service that you had been expecting from such a reputable firm.  Indicate that you find formal complaints to be time-consuming, and also suggest whatever reasonable solution you had considered prior.

Let us assume that the matter is more complex: you have had so many calls dropped that you have lost a client of your own, or something has occurred that has incurred significant harm or damage to you.  The harm is directly attributable to the problem.  It is unlikely that this second-level employee with be able to resolve your complaint.  Now, you must act more formally, and take it “to a higher court.”

Of course, you have solid documentation regarding all of the issues, don’t you?  It is always imperative that you write down or have proof of your position, in each matter.

 You are going to use a more aggressive tone in your first letter or email.  Itemize your sequence of complaints to date.  Indicate some of the loss you have incurred.  Now, offer the first solution: compare your complaint to others that have been resolved (either through court, the watchdog, or privately).

Next, provide a synopsis of your legal rights, as you understand them.  Discuss how you understand that the company needs to be profit-oriented and that it most likely wants to provide good quality of service, but that they are allowing your complaint to boil into something that is blown out of proportion.  Then point out that, possibly to them, this is a small matter, but to you, the costs and inconvenience have much more of an impact on you. You need to show them that you are willing to see their point, but that they need to see yours, too.

As in the contact with the supervisor, you need to establish reasonableness, but firmness.  Here, you want them to know that there are steps you can take, short of a lawsuit or “going public.”  Make sure that they are aware that you have further documentation, and the support of at least a few other people with identical complaints.  The last thing (although you have not overtly threatened it) that the company wants to see is even a discussion of a class-action suit!

One corporate client for whom I worked owned a shopping mall with a common-area sidewalk.  At least once each year, someone would threaten to sue because he or she had slipped on the ice (even though there was almost never any ice on the sidewalk!).  Rather than go to court, the insurance company would agree to a $200 or $300 settlement, knowing that they were in the right but that legal fees to combat the case would cost ten or twenty times as much is small claims court.  It was easier to avoid the conflict.

Similarly, the telephone carrier knows where that  cut-off line is.  Is it easier to provide a phone with a better antenna or would it be easier to boost the signal on the tower?  Obviously, the phone costs can be recouped, and the bill adjusted.   

Maybe your preferred solution is, indeed, a better phone, or a cash rebate.  Be aware of the reasonableness of your suggested solutions.  Maybe a cash card that can be applied to future calls.  Your lost calls cost $40?  Ask for  a $50 rebate, but be willing to settle for $25.  After all, some problems are inherent in any technology.  You are more concerned about being able to resolve the matter that will obviously reoccur?  Ask for a dedicated contact person that you can call when it happens, but be prepared for a compromise: the carrier will flag your account so that the initial, low-level employee can solve the matter instantly.

If you suggest reasonable solutions first, even if they are not fully acceptable, you are more likely to get reasonable compromise in return.  In other words, use various techniques to leverage a favourable response from the company.  Don’t; get personal, but do have a plan.  Show bona fide loss, but don’t exaggerate.  Be prepared to be tenacious.  But, be prepared to be fair.

Why You Shouldn't Follow Recipes -- In Life Or In Cooking

For the first time in more than four years, my wife and I enjoyed a loaf of homemade bread that was made precisely as the recipe directed.  It is not that we have not had homemade bread in that long.  Heck, we make bread two or three times a week!  It is just that we have not followed a recipe in that long.

Janice often asks me if I could make this dish or that meal again, and I flatly tell her “No.”  Again, I am not being obstructionist, or contrary.  Since I never follow recipes, and spend my meal preparation time “imagining” the spices and complements that I should add to an otherwise straightforward meal, I can never recall precisely what I put in to each construction. Following recipes is almost a stressful task for me.

We – all of us – live our lives within defined boundaries, as is expected of us.  There are rules, social niceties, protocols and not-so-nuanced recommendations as to how we should live. Break them.

Rules, regulations and laws are essential to good, peaceful society.  But rules should be nothing more than common sense.  We don’t steal, we don’t commit murder, we respect each other.  We do not need the Bible’s ten commandments, the Qu’ran, the Torah or any holy books to let us know that we need to respect the rights of others, the physical wellbeing of others and the emotional security of others.  Beyond that, we ought to demand the freedom to be ourselves, and to push our own boundaries. 

There are vociferous, often venomous debates ongoing at all times, regarding what we perceive as freedoms.  We have the right to carry loaded guns anywhere we want.  But what does that do to the emotional wellbeing of those around us?  Everyone has the right to religious freedom, apparently only so long as it does not disagree with our chosen religion.  We need to be free of government intervention, except when we need a new road built, snow cleared, hurricane relief or protection from criminals.  People have the right to affordable education and health care, but only defined by our standards, and not theirs.  Who is right in these great debates? No one.  And everyone. 

We need to be able to choose our path, without intervention or coercion, so long as we do not infringe upon other’s abilities to choose.

And this returns me to my cooking recipes, or lack thereof.

Fifty years ago, unless I was a chef,  I would have been ostracized for admitting that I like cooking.  I also like the symphony and classical music.  Forty years ago, I would have been beaten severely for admitting that, since it must have meant that I was gay.  I think that I have a duty to help those in need when I can, and that government (me and you), too, has a responsibility to care for those who cannot take care of themselves.  Thirty years ago, during the emergence of the yuppie era, I would have been shouted down for being a radical liberal or socialist. I live a very minimal lifestyle, as it is defined by physical possessions.  Twenty years ago, my sanity would have been questioned, for eschewing the great American dream.  A while ago, I gave up my addiction to cable television and technological gadgets, except for essentials (for me) like a computer. Just over a decade ago,  I would have been a heretic, threatening to destroy the foundations of the modern world.  Yet, I think that everyone should be allowed to choose to cook, enjoy their own musical preferences, give or not give to others, own huge gas-guzzling vehicles, or text till their fingers bleed.  So long as it does not harm others.  Live your life the best way you know, not the best way that others know for you!

Cook your life using your own ingredients, and tantalize your own emotional, physical and emotional taste buds.

Since I learned that what others think does not matter, or, at worst, is a reflection of their own biases, life has been a constant meal made with no recipe.  I built and moved to a yurt; a decision jointly embraced by my spouse and myself.  I have started a housing project for low income earners, and found a dozen like-minded people to work with me.  We recently got lost in Ocho Rios, being led into the bowels of the old town by a local, not knowing if we would be able to find our way out safely.  I recently fell off a roof, because I wasn’t taking proper safety precautions, and learned that I am still, at sixty-one, young enough to bounce! At Christmas, I received my customary, and treasured gifts from my grandchildren: rocks.  It is an old tradition that I started with my kids, hearkening back to Charlie Brown’s Hallowe’en special and the practice of giving coal or potatoes to bad children in England.  This month, all of my family will have our annual barbeque, in February, in Manitoba, Canada, where the normal temperature is minus 25-30 for that period.  It is our way of thumbing our noses at winter and tweaking the New Year by telling it that we will not conform.  We have been doing this since 1988. We don’t care what others think.  We are embracing life.

The reason I don’t use recipes is because my tastes are not the same as yours, and yours are not the same as your neighbours, and so on.  Recipes are guidelines.  They are little building blocks.  Just because you have square building blocks does not mean that you can not build a round house with them! Start your innovative life by recognizing that there are good recipes for good reasons: because a lot of people like them.  Then add or subtract from your recipe for life the things that you do not like and the things that you love. 

And, occasionally, go back and conform to a proven set of rules, a conventional recipe.  Being normal occasionally can be an enlightening experience, too.  Do not fear normal.  Just don’t force yourself to adhere to it, if you want to personalize and get the most out of your life.

Now, can I interest you in my favourite recipe?

Are More Gun Laws Needed, Or Do We Need More Accountability?

Once again, Americans are confronted with the dilemma of relinquishing their claim to gun ownership and acting responsibly when it comes to firearms control.  The battle of gun rights versus gun control always appears to be framed as a win/lose confrontation and almost invariably causes proponents for either position to become entrenched in their beliefs.  This unfortunate reality is that there is no need to turn the debate into one of absolutes. 

Most countries have enacted laws and regulations to control the use of guns, and many to limit ownership of guns.  Advocates of less regulation of firearms may cite statistics that show that violent crime still exists in countries like Canada and England, where gun laws are more restrictive than in the USA.  However, while violence is prevalent in every country, death by gunfire is less common in those countries that place limitations on the use and sale of guns.  While the American right to bear arms has its origins in the British Bill of Rights from the 1600s, England gradually ahs restricted that right.  Canada has vascillated between greater freedom to won guns and greater restrictions.

In Great Britain, police still do not carry guns as a routine practice, yet law enforcement works remarkably well. One of the reasons may be that every criminal knows that he will not face the risk of being shot while committing a crime.  Certainly, the victim of a crime may wish he had the ability to defend himself, but his life is in less jeopardy, since the criminal does not begin in a life-and-death defensive position.  In the USA, the need to defend property often is justification for deadly force.  It is neither wrong or right in comparison to Canada and the UK.  It simply is a different perspective.  Property is paramount in the USA, while safety and civil calm seems to be paramount in some other jurisdictions.

However, the current vociferous debate on gun control is a misplaced argument.  It is true that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  But it is also true that people without guns are far less likely to be able to kill than those with guns, so guns become enablers in the hands of the wrong people.  A problem arises in defining who the wrong people may be, and the right to bear arms is not qualified in a rider that defines restrictions.  This is where reasonableness enters the picture.

A second issue in this debate involves authority.  While the federal Congress contemplates gun control laws, it is relatively powerless to require each state to enforce any regulations that Congress passes, since the authority remains with individual states.  Thus, cooperative effort will be required to not only devise appropriate laws, but to get all states to act upon them.  This will be an onerous task.

The prevailing opinion, both of the NRA and the anti-gun lobbyists, appears to be that it would be reasonable to restrict access to guns by those with a serious, relevant mental disability or incapacity.  That is the basis, for example, in Canada’s screening process for gun acquisition permits.  But, as shown in several gun violence incidents in recent years, keeping the hands out of a mentally unstable person is an onerous task.  Just because there is a mental problem does not mean that the perpetrator of violence is incapable of creative actions to acquire a gun, legally or otherwise.

The only choice that remains, then, is to make owners more accountable for their firearms, while not restricting the right to own.  Ownership also can be extrapolated to gun manufacturing, which is not protected by the Second Amendment.

First, let us look at gun manufacturing.  Currently, no citizen has the right to own nuclear weapons, yet are they not arms?  Laws that protect against threats to the public reasonably disallow us to manufacture or own such weapons of mass destruction.  Those companies that manufacture armaments are tightly regulated.  However, the USA has chosen not to limit, for the most part, the type of guns that can be constructed and sold to the public.  If firearms manufacturers were barred from selling specific types of guns to the public (and only to law enforcement), then part of the concern over assault weapons would be eliminated. (However, since millions of assault rifles currently are legally owned by citizens, this tactic would have minimal effect). Congress could, however, be proactive by restricting the sale of new lines of weaponry that have similar effect, and by limiting the types of ammunition used. So, restricting gun manufacture will have limited impact.

The second, and most viable option for effective gun control would be to work with the individual states to enact “responsibility” laws regarding the handling of weaponry.  Under the “public peace” concept of common law, the federal government would have more jurisdiction, particularly where interstate travel that violates the legislation is involved.

Instead of limiting gun ownership more severely, make each owner individually responsible for his or her guns.  The concept of individual rights is an integral component of the American psyche, and the logical extension of rights is obligations.

One way of doing this would be to require that no gun be transported loaded (without special permit, not special reason), and that every gun, concealed or otherwise, be protected by an effective trigger-locking mechanism that enables only the owner to access the lock.  Ideally, a fingerprint activated lock, or a unique, restricted keying system should be required.  In the case, for instance, of the Newtown killings, the son would not have been able to use his mother’s guns readily if they had been protected in this manner. Those owners that violate the proposed laws should be subject to automatic incarceration (not unlike many states’ drinking-and-driving laws) for a period of time, with very strenuous jail time as the ultimate penalty.

Laws governing how we handle and store guns do not interfere with our right to bear arms, and offer a reasonable compromise on access and availability.  They still provide us with the ability to protect ourselves from crime, but also protect us from our own knee-jerk reactions that may cost us injury or death at the hands of someone committing a crime against us.  Other, less lethal options like pepper spray and immobilizers already provide us with the ability to create the delay between intent and action on the part of a criminal, and allow us the ability to respond with gun use, if necessary.  A fingerprint-activated lock, for instance, would be able to open with a second or two when needed by the owner, but would be unavailable to other users indefinitely.

It is time, not for compromise, but for reasonableness that echews dogma and arbitrary positions on gun ownership.  Making owners responsible and accountable is reasonable and doable.  Few should cry out against such actions, and perhaps we can start on the journey to reducing unnecessary violence and death at the hands of irresponsible and incapacitated violent actors.

I Want To Be The Last Male Dinosaur

Today’s man wears designer suits, visits the massage parlour to relieve muscle aches and softens his delicate skin with an array of exquisite products. Yesterday’s man had leather skin on his neck, brawled, belched, and wore his workday blues every day.  Today’s man cries at tender movie scenes, attends his support group and cooks gourmet meals for his children.  Yesterday’s man knew nothing of healthy and boring diets, drank beer with his buddies after work every day and punched his friend on the shoulder to show he was there for him.  Yesterday’s man is a dinosaur, almost as extinct as the woolly mammoth.  I want to be the last male dinosaur.

When I awake before dawn, I want to hear the scratch of callouses on the wood floor when I walk in bare feet. I want to count the nicks and cuts on my hands and arms after a long day of labour (just so I will know that I have worked hard), and feel the ache in my back, without having to tell a masseuse about it.

This dinosaur wants to enjoy the wrinkles that age brings, without worrying which colour of manscara hides my age. As the last dinosaur, I will shave every other week, even if I feel like I don’t need it.

I want to put my tools to good use: to use my pliers to pull my own rotted tooth (or at least the one that is most rotted), to trim my toenails with side cutters, to use my tool chest as a footstool and my engine stand as a coffee table. To be sure that I get the most out of those tools, I need to fix my own car and my own house, instead of calling a specialist tradesman.

For fun, and to develop my own unique talents, I want to learn to burp the national anthem (using popcorn farts is baby work!). Every evening, I will watch Country Fried Home Videos and wish I had thought of doing that.  On nights when the CFHV show is not airing, I will watch, for the fortieth or fiftieth time, the Blue Collar Comedy Tour DVD.  I promise to laugh at every joke that Larry the Cable Guy tells.

Aging is for sissies.  Even though my brittle bones break easily now, I need to feel the hurt of a hockey body check, the pain of a torn knee in a football game. While waiting at the batter’s plate for the agonizingly slow arc of a softball pitch I long for the sting of a hardball smacking into my bare hands.

The old ways are the best. A real man feels the bite of a cold winter day, in an ice-fishing shack, while wearing his old work coveralls instead of a $600 snowsuit. 

The old clothes are the best, too.  Every five years, I need to remind myself to take my one suit out of the closet, just to reassure myself that it is still in style and still fits, sort of.

But even where it doesn’t fit, an old-style man knows that bigger is better, particularly when it applies to bellies, houses, trucks and tools. Loud is the only volume for voices, truck mufflers and parties. More is macho and “green” is the same as pink for real men.

A real man – a dinosaur man – does have feelings, though.  As the last male dinosaur, I feel that God wanted us to be Christian, and it is my duty to set anyone straight who thinks, wrongly, or who thinks that any other religion is acceptable.  I understand that the only definition of “gay’ is to be donned in that type of Christmas apparel, or to be happy.

I feel that it is unkind to talk with someone about her feelings, since that will only make her feel those feelings more.  A dinosaur should never talk about his or his partner’s feelings.

If a dinosaur man should never discuss his feelings (unless he feels that politicians are asses or feels that his football team is the best in the world), then he should, most certainly, never use Twitter to tell everyone that “OMG, I just did (this, or did that). Because everyone really shouldn’t care!  And, if Twitter is taboo, then Face Book is, too.  Unless it is used to show hilarious and embarrassing photos of friends. 

Although I want to be the last male dinosaur, modern living has forced me to make some concessions.  I still want to do another Dukes of Hazard car jump (but, this time, not in my Prius). I still can pull a fish out of the lake (so long as I do not have to bait the hook or kill a worm to do it).  Today, though, I put it back in the water, because it has the right to live. This autumn, I want to go deer hunting with my old best friend from my teenage years, but I will bring a camera instead of a gun. That way, I will not have to look into the brown, pained eyes of the dying buck as it kicks its last kick. To celebrate my spectacular shooting, I intend to eat a huge steak, but I hope that I never actually have to kill the steer that provided a slab of its flesh for me to gnaw on.

I do want to be the last male dinosaur, but I want to be a more modern fossil.  I want to improve me, and to teach my children and my grandchildren that a real dinosaur can be contemporary.

I will always stand up to the bully that is harassing someone weaker than he, and teach him the lesson that a real man doesn’t abuse someone else.

I love to see my sons hold the door open for a woman, not because she can’t do it herself, but because he wants to show consideration and deference to her. 

It is important to show my grandkids that we old dinosaurs were wrong when they looked after our greed, at the expense of others’ need.

I will learn from my son that any decent man always considers others’ feelings to be important, not his own.

Even though this modern dinosaur is an atheist, I want you to know that I believe that God may or may not exist, but who am I to judge those who believe differently than I do?

As the last dinosaur, I am surprised to learn that “gay” really is a great word for homosexual behaviour, if that really is what makes that person happy.  I also am amazed to I know that I accept that he or she is just as good a person or friend, whether he is gay or straight.

It brings a warm feeling to my heart to know that all of my children will help someone in need, even when it is inconvenient for them.  It is astonishing to know that this small dinosaur brain can absorb these new concepts.

In accepting that new concepts are not bad concepts, I will use Twitter to learn about a wonderful new idea or way of doing things, and to share my thoughts with others, who may enlighten me further. Then, I will sign on to my FaceBook account to communicate by hearing, not talking. 

Enlightened thinking allows this male fossil to understand my partner’s feelings better, and to get in touch with my own, so that I can be a better person.

I feel, for example, that responsible, considerate consumption is every man’s duty.

I am learning that we should treat everyone with the respect they deserve, and appreciate even the little things that this world offers – the pleasant and the unpleasant, too. 

And it brings me to tears to see prejudice, injustice, unfairness and inconsideration in any form, against any person.

I am, truly, the last male dinosaur.  Just colour me purple and call me Barney.

I Would Never Fight For My Country

I would never fight for my country.  There is no speck of soil, no fabric of flag and no bogus border that is worth shedding blood, taking a life, maiming another human. Such treasonous beliefs speak, for many, of a coward.

You are free to call me such.  I am now older, having seen the bulk of my years pass by, in a country where I can boast of freedoms and rights, privileges and advantages not afforded the majority of this earth.  Yet, I reiterate: I would not fight for my country now, nor would I have done so in my youth.    

Worldwide wars have been fought to claim turf, expand territory and assert proclaimed rights to new boundaries.  Millions have died in defence of a flag, in promotion of a religious cause, to spread a political ideology.  Man has fought and killed neighbours and friends, in the name of supporting another friend, or to pre-empt an anticipated attack or invasion.  Lies have been told, to woo the masses to follow the thrust of attack, to support the cause.  Merely desecrating a flag, insulting a leader or religious icon or denigrating a belief have been justifications for death and legitimized murder.

Yet, I have fought.  One on one, one on many.  I have fought thousands of times, sometimes for sport, sometimes to assist a friend, sometimes in the line of work.  So why would I refuse to fight for my country?

Warfare, in years long ago, was honourable.  There were no incidents of “friendly fire.”  There was always a righteous reason to do battle, made more righteous through victory.  There was no question that there was a moral side, and an immoral one. Gore and hideous wounds and slow painful deaths were remote, removed from our sensibilities.  We knew that communism was wrong, that oppressive colonizers (or rebellious colonies) should be thrust aside (or repressed), that dictators should be punished, that borders should be defended.  No media coverage tainted the purity of our battles.

Modern warfare meets none of the criteria for honour and dignity.  Our own forces commit immoral acts against prisoners of war and, more horrifically, against innocent women and children.  The moral high ground is capitulated, when mercenary aims become apparent.  The bright light of the camera illuminates atrocities initiated by our own allies.  Billions of dollars are redirected from humanitarian needs to fight war.  Politicians engage us in unjust undertakings, feeding us false information to garner our support, operate based on their own biases, and seek ways to line their pockets through unwarranted wars.

Yet, we judge the rest of the world, and find it flawed, according to our standards.  Our response? To force our will upon others, less illuminated than we are.

Public poll upon public poll reveal that we – the vast majority of us citizens – don’t agree with our government’s policies and practices.  Our civilization is corrupted by narcissistic greed, class disparity and corruption.  Those of us north of the 49^th parallel look to the USA, and cannot fathom that, a mere forty-five years ago, blacks were considered less than human.  Yet, in our own nation, the residential school fiasco and Indian forced assimilation practices created our own unique world of racist values. Poverty is the hallmark of the disenfranchised – disenfranchised because of policies that denied opportunity for equality to millions.

The world looks to the west as the epitome of opportunity, yet hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are victimized by crime each year; millions in the USA. Murder is commonplace, and cities crumble as the American dream of home ownership is throttled.  We decry our wasted tax dollar, and demand more services than ever before.  We struggle to climb the socio-economic ladder, trodding on those less fortunate as we climb.

So why would I fight for my country?  I repeat: I would not.

Yet, I am fiercely proud of the society in which I live.  It is not a world of artificial borders and synthetic governments, however.  It is a world of people of every belief, each granted the right to hold those beliefs, in a country where the right to one’s opinion is engrained.  It is a venue where we see our flaws, and struggle, each day, to become better.  It is an environment where we are not only encouraged to be better, but are provided with the opportunity to learn and grow, and contribute to the growth of this planet.  It is a society where the individual matters, but each individual has a duty to care for those around him – the less fortunate and the blessed.  It is a culture that says that we can resent differences, abhor values that we view as unworthy, speak emphatically against ways of life and styles or mannerisms that we reject. Yet, it is a civilization in which we, in our hearts, would not trade away or relinquish the rights of others to look and be different, would not want our cultural diversity diluted, would not allow any of our neighbours to be deprived of choice and freedom, would not want a country where each of us was less than equivalent (yet not precisely equal) to every other citizen.

No, our country is not great.  Our country is not worth fighting for.  It is the people within those artificially immutable boundaries for whom I would fight.  I would fight for their right to choice, for their right to freedom.  I would lay down my life to fight for the right to embrace the world of differences that is our great nation.  No, I would not fight for my country, nor for the flag.  But I would breathe my last breath to defend my friends and neighbours, and their right to not be me, to not think like me, to not agree with me.

My country is not defined by a shoreline, or latitude and longitude.  It is defined by the wonderful collage of Canadians, from every corner of the world.  And it is this country of which I am proud, and would gladly defend.

Judge Judged For Inappropriate Comments About Sexual Assault Victim

It is more than politically incorrect to suggest or imply that the way a woman dresses contributes to the risk of sexual assault.  Yet, if a person walks into a ghetto flashing a wad of cash, we do not hesitate to state that he should not have done so, and should have known that he was at increased risk of being attacked.

In the city near where I live, we hear, almost weekly, of people being accosted and robbed of their alcohol when they leave a beer vendor in a rough neighbourhood late at night.  We shake our heads and say, “what was he thinking?”

On the other side of the coin, when a person climbs the social ladder because of good looks or powerful personality, we may resent it, but we understand how he achieved that success.  The person who studies hard, goes to university and receives accolades for his hard work deserves the prestige and power that comes with his personal efforts.

It has been a long time since I was young enough to frequent the nightclubs, and, because of my age, I undoubtedly will be branded as a dinosaur for my opinions in this article.  However true the “antique” label may be, the opinions should not be disregarded, simply because of the ease with which age is stereotyped as a cause of archaic thinking.  In fact, many of you already probably are assuming that I am not only old, but male, and a rigid, conservative thinker.  You would make these assumptions incorrectly.

Recently, a “dinosaur” on the bench of a Manitoba court heard a case involving a sexual assault on a young woman.  The woman, along with her companion, had, according to reports, made it known that they were out to party.  She was, according to the media, wearing a tank top, short skirt, and, apparently, looking every bit the part of a person looking for an evening of fun.

The judge, Justice Robert Dewar,  in convicting and sentencing the person who ultimately assaulted her, made the comment that, by her dress and appearance, she had left the impression that “sex was in the air.”  The uproar that resulted was predictable.  This older man was branded as insensitive, and worse.  He was accused of being insensitive to rape victims.  Victims’ rights groups demanded his resignation.

A few months earlier, a Toronto police officer was subjected to vitriol and condemnation for suggesting that women could reduce risk by dressing less like tarts.

There is no excuse for predatory behaviour by anyone.  Sexual assault deserves sentencing that equals manslaughter, since it leaves permanent scars on the victim, and takes away a part of that person’s life, in many cases.  However, the idea that the way a person dresses and behaves should not be mentioned as a contributor to the risk of being attacked is not only myopic, it is damaging to the safety of potential victims, who,  indeed, could reduce, however minutely, the risk of attack.

Was Judge Dewar wrong in what he said?  I don’t  believe that the essence of his comments was wrong.  We do, indeed, need to be accountable for our actions: both the victim and criminal.  However, we have become so politically correct in Canada that we risk being ostracized if we dare to imply that sexual assault victims should exercise the same caution that the rest of us are asked to do.  I feel badly for the victim.  I believe that the perpetrator should be incarcerated.  I think that the judge chose his words poorly.  But I think that we all need to be more accountable for our actions.

Lastly, as to your probable preconceived notion as to who I am, I am, indeed, an older male.  However, my history is one of fighting for the rights and protection of those people around me who are vulnerable.  And, the impetus for this article came from my wife, Janice, who was the first to state that the young girls who dress provocatively should have had more sense, and taken precautions.

Hold the Phone! Is It Always Unethical To Break The Law?

Does being ethical require obedience and adherence to the law?  Does being moral mean that you never infringe on the rights and safety of others? Does compliance with the law make you an honest person? And if any or all of these questions are to be answered in the affirmative, does that mean that each of us should never break the law, for fear of being immoral, dishonest or unethical?

It is estimated that ten percent of the population never will knowingly break the law, 10% will often attempt to circumnavigate those same rules, and the remaining 80% will, under the right circumstances, bend or deviate from the law. Three decades ago, a survey in Ontario, Canada found that nearly 82% of citizens would cheat on their taxes, if it were risk-free, and 38% admitted that they had already done so. That is an enormous amount of deviance!

But does compliance with the rules make one honest?  One individual that I know pushes the envelope regarding the interpretation of the law routinely, justifying his mistreatment of others and his habit of maximizing his personal gain at the expense of others by saying, “If the government thought it was wrong, they would create a law against it.”  Yet, he knows that his actions cause others to suffer.

One foreign student at the University of Manitoba approached another student and asked her to write his ethics paper for him.  It is difficult to refrain from laughing at this too-obvious paradox!  Yet, in his culture, the political regime tacitly encourages such subterfuge, by intruding so aggressively into one’s life that, in order to maintain a semblance of personal power, people look for creative ways to hide their behaviours from the government.  In his view, the act of cheating on an ethics course merely was a way to express power.  He did not see it as a moral issue.

Then there is the question of whether there are circumstances where to not break the rules is immoral or unethical.

Last week, my wife needed to be rushed to emergency care at a nearby hospital.  Her condition, as I viewed it, was desperate, as she tenuously clung to consciousness, her breathing was shallow, she was perspiring profusely, was pale, and had numbness down her entire right side.  As I sped along the back roads, exceeding the speed limit, I called 911 on my cell phone.  I continued to use the cell phone even after I had intercepted the ambulance.  I needed to notify her immediate family.

Using a cell phone while driving is against the law in our jurisdiction.  So is speeding.  I potentially placed others at risk with my aggressive driving, even if I was inside the letter of the law.  Yet, if I had not reacted with such speed, my wife may well have died.  If she had succumbed, and I had not given the family an opportunity to learn of and react to her emergency, I would have caused them undue suffering.

I determined that, although I was choosing to break the law, the law needed to be broken in this situation.  I viewed my actions neither as immoral nor unethical.  How do you interpret supposedly necessary breaches of the law?  Now, give us an honest answer, please!

Blame The Dieter, Not The Diet

Lifestyle changes are difficult, without doubt.  However, failure to implement desired lifestyle changes is doubly difficult on the initiator of the change.  We all intend well.  We all believe ourselves to be ethically sound, well-meaning persons. Yet, we look to blame others, or other circumstances for our own failures.

On the extreme end of blame are the conspiracy theorists, marching, lock-step, with the racist element.

I have a former friend whom I feel falls into, if not both categories, the classification as a conspiracy buff.  His claim is that the Chinese are strategizing to take over the free world.  His basis in fact?   Actually, his basis in fact is fact only in his own thoughts.  The theory began to take hold of him when he lost his job to an Asian person.  Then he lost another.  And another.  Not once did he self-evaluate, and say, “Maybe there is something that I am doing wrong.”  Instead, the easy way was to blame the Asian community for stealing his job.

Next was his recognition that there were thousands of Chinese students in our universities, taking, according to him, spots away from Canadians.  He ignored the reality that no Canadian was turned down as a consequence of a foreign student buying his way into that spot.  Like my friend’s jobs, the seats were filled with students who had the dedication to advance their education.

My friend then chose to add to his arsenal of “proof” that the Chinese were sending only the brightest to “his” country, and that they were acting as an advance guard, who would use their higher learning to take over.  Again, he dismisses the idea that individual families were screened carefully by Canadian authorities, who decided which students obtained visas.  To assume that these were “spies” bordered on ridiculous, but conspiracy theorists tend to ignore realities in favour of biases.  It is easier to blame others than look at uncomfortable truths.

My old buddy goes on to claim that the tens of thousands of economic immigrants that arrive each year actually are sent by the Chinese government, as well, to take over our economy.  Perhaps, a small bit of truth.  The investment by foreign interests in our country is huge.  But we make the choice to accept the inputs, so it is difficult to blame the Chinese authorities for our decisions.  Still, hundreds of thousands do ignore fact, and blame the Chinese.

My brother, like my friend, lost his job to an Asian worker.  The fact that the Asian worker was a much better employee than my brother does not stop my kin from claiming that the Filipino community is plotting to take our jobs.  He trumps that claim by stating that his former employer, a Jewish person, is part of a global Jewish plot.  I suppose that the Filipinos are now a part of that sinister program?  What my brother ignores is that we are part Jewish!  Does that make him part of the conspiracy?  He rationalized that fact away, briefly, by denying his origins.  That is, until my research proved otherwise, and then he claimed that there might be some Jewish people who were not part of the universal plot.

These two anecdotes seem a far reach from discussions of lifestyle changes and blame, but they are not.

How many millions of us have tried, dozens of times, to implement a diet, but failed?  How many have made New Years resolutions, but lacked the commitment to see them through beyond January?  And, in turn, how many of us have said, “That diet doesn’t work.”

Diets neither work nor fail.  The work is in the hands of the dieter.  We simply choose to deflect the blame, and decline to accept personal responsibility.

This deflection occurs regularly.  “The government should do this,” or “that accident occurred because the city didn’t clear the roadway,” and so on.  The truth?  We are the government, so we make choices, and the government that we have is the one that we allowed to be put in place.  The accident occurs, always, because someone fails to exercise proper caution, given the conditions in which he or she was driving.

We cry about high crime rates, yet expect others to take measures to prevent crime.  We cry about high fuel prices, then drive up those prices by driving big vehicles, using excess amounts of petroleum-based products and invest in oil companies so that we can benefit from the soaring stock prices.  We blame the rich for getting rich, then aggressively seek to get rich ourselves. 

In an old (1960s) study, jurists in a British shoplifting case found a young man guilty of stealing a few pounds worth of goods, sentenced him to a hefty sentence, and then took the afternoon to discuss, among themselves, how to inflate their expense claims for the trial!  The Kitty Genovese incident of the 1960s is one of thousands where people have chosen to not come to the aid of someone in urgent need, opting to expect others to step forward instead.

Personal accountability is difficult.  Accepting responsibility for our actions takes effort, and often can cost us.  Yet, the failure to accept the personal onus for ethical action costs us much more, in internal esteem.

When we do the difficult, and make moral, ethical choices regardless of the cost, the ease with which we live with ourselves becomes greater, while the more frequently we choose the easy, less ethical response, the more anguish and angst we face inside. 

The best diet, the hardest to adhere to, is not one that involves actual food.  It is the one that weans us off attributing blame to others, and leads us into accepting responsibility for who we are, who we want to be, and how we want the world around us to evolve.  Stop blaming the diet!  Be the ethical dieter. It is not the diet that doesn’t work: it is that people fail to implement the diet.

Watchful Eyes Deter Crime

When we discuss the concept of keeping a watchful eye on illegal activity, most of us focus on potential criminal or misdemeanour activity by youths, loose gangs or minorities. It is a stereotype and response that need to be resisted, since much of the deviant behaviour around us occurs at the hands of other groups, as well: law enforcement personnel, corporations and everyday citizens who infringe on human rights.
An equally pervasive reaction to calls for citizens to prevent crime is to assume that this responsibility should fall to others, and that we will have little impact, individually. Both responses are detrimental to making our lives and our communities safer. The adage that “it takes a village” to rise a child is equally applicable to making your life more safe and crime-free. Where there are watchful eyes, crime of all type decreases. Concurrently, when we assume a little responsibility, we make it less burdensome on those empowered with authority.
Consider that if, in addition to your own home, you paid attention to situations amenable to crime (break-ins, vandalism, etc.) for each of your neighbours on the four sides of your own property, one pair of eyes could prevent such activities in five, instead of one residence. Now, imagine if only one other owner out of those four properties did the same, and that pattern continued throughout your city, 20% of the community could deter 100% of the problems in every home.
In rural and smaller communities, statistics reveal that property crimes and serious violence are significantly lower than in larger centres. Neighbours concerned about neighbours constitute almost all of the reasons for this disparity between large and small centres. While many people view the attitudes of country folk as intrusive, nosy or prying, the interest of neighbours and friends in one’s life offers real dividends! Watchful eyes do work.
Conversely, anonymity provide the cover for deviance. Again, watchful eyes offer the best chance to see decreases in crime, by spotlighting deviant behaviour. It is no surprise, then, that many of the meth labs and concentrated grow ops in North America are placed in big cities, where people do not involve themselves in their neighbours’ lives, and place the onus for safety and crime prevention solely on the shoulders of justice and law enforcement systems.
Relying on the principle of five – that is, assuming responsibility for watching out for your four neighbours can be extrapolated to the workplace, or to the environment around you. Five vehicles adjacent to you, five nearby businesses, or five nearby co-workers can both benefit from your concern for their wellbeing, and be deterred form potential criminal activity. Expand your boundaries and horizons systematically and you expand your zone of safety and security, as well as the zone for others.
As our communities expand, and we become less involved, we invite crime. Simultaneously, our attitudes toward crime become more blurred, and acceptance of so-called softer crimes becomes easier. Think of how we view shoplifting. The very name implies diminished seriousness. Vandals who deface property brand their activity as “tagging,” making it sound more like a game than a crime. One study found that 38% of taxpayers admit to cheating on their income tax, and over 60% feel that avoidance of tax is not a serious problem. Maybe, stacked against murders, fraud is “soft,” but a willingness to cheat your fellow taxpayer and citizen out of money (our government is not independent: it is us!) is a willingness to step across that line of morality that separates criminals from honest people.
The violence in the United Kingdom in August, 2011, or the violent protest in Greece (some of it occurring because people, many of whom do not pay their taxes, were upset that the decreased tax revenue available could no longer pay for their early retirement) largely was based on concern for self, rather than concern for those around us. That psychology needs to change, if we want a safe environment around us. We need to think of others first, and watch out for our neighbours, ahead of ourselves.
Having a watchful eye, though, and merely watching are two different processes entirely. For what are we watching? The entrenched habit is to concentrate on youth, minorities, people who differ from us in beliefs, people who differ from us in objectives and activities, and people whom we see as not conforming to our way of viewing the world. On the other hand, many of us implicitly trust our law enforcement, our religious leaders, our seniors, our friends, and those who provide us with the things we desire. That is both myopic and misdirected. However, it also contains a small part of the essence of what we should be observing: differences.
Unfortunately, we cue in on the wrong differences. One religion or another, or example, has no exclusive domain over morality. Neither does one race or another. Blind studies and objective observation have found that youth often have a moral sense equal to adults, and that seniors are no less subject to the temptation to deviate. Rather, the differences that set us apart from those that are deviating from acceptable behaviour are those of action.
Think of the person in the car next to you, who texts on his cell phone. Notice how furtive his glance is, or his downward gaze, when he should be watching the road. Notice the shoplifter, who looks around for people who may be observing, rather than at the merchandise. Notice the vendor who tries to steer you away from examining some aspect or feature of the item that you are considering for purchase. Note the collection of people, not in the front but in the back of a building. Note the after-hours visits to a location that may indicate that illegal activity is being concealed. Note the person whose behaviour with you is markedly different than his behaviour with someone else. It is the difference in action that set apart differences in intent.
In the next article, I will discuss the MOI Inventory. MOI is an evaluative technique employed, in one form or another, by police and investigators, and relies on understanding of the three ingredients of any crime: Motive, Opportunity and Indicators.
In subsequent articles, I will provide details on how to watch, how to record, how to report and respond, without putting yourself at risk.
However, the beginning of the process is to be vigilant, and to keep a watchful eye, since merely being noticed often is a strong deterrent for those engaged in inappropriate behaviour.

Individual Accountability, Social Responsibility Lead to Good Government

In Greece, citizens riot because they do not want to relinquish their “right” to state-supported retirement at the old age of mid-fifties. In the USA, government comes to a standstill when the two parties –each of which holds a majority in either the Senate or Congress – cannot agree on whether companies should pay more tax and people be denied adequate health coverage or whether people should be handed a Cadillac of health and retirement benefits while business is hamstrung by increased taxes. In Canada, a new majority government looks to model the American Republican party approach to fewer government subsidies and supports for individuals while increasing incentives to big businesses (i.e. taking from the poor to give to the rich). This, in spite of the Canadian model being one of only a handful to survive, relatively unscathed, the 2009 worldwide economic collapse.
Democracies rule through majority, in theory. In practice, they rule through the power of receiving more votes of those eligible voters, who were sufficiently engaged to opt to vote, than any other party. In Canada, for example, only slightly more than 50% of the eligible adults that were enumerated cast their ballots in 2011. Often, only 80% of the eligible voters are willing or able to be enumerated. The current government received around 40% of that 50% of the 80% that were listed as eligible. That is 16% of the people who are empowered to decide the direction of our country! This, unfortunately, is typical of most elections and most democracies. So, bad government is not the fault of those elected officials, so much as it is the fault of those of us who were not committed enough to take the time to make a choice.
But let us look a little further into this whole voting process. In the USA, roughly one third of the voting population who respond to pollsters indicate that they are committed to the Republican Party approach, and about 1/3 committed to the Democratic Party approach. On the surface, that sounds like good involvement in the democratic process. But most people who support wither party can cite specific policies, ideas and priorities of their selected party! In Canada, farmers – a collection of individuals who historically have survived only by working cooperatively through crises – most often vote for the federal party most committed to increasing the power of corporations over small collectives. On the other hand, many academics and others in a position to gain wealth through their own intelligence and initiative support a party whose primary tenet is to give power to unions that historically benefit those workers who do not commit themselves to achievement based on merit and commitment to hard work. We, it seems, make very self-destructive decisions, not necessarily based on reason.
However, let me reverse field a little here. When I indicate that academics and intellectuals vote against their own self-interest that may not be a bad thing! When I suggest that farmers also vote against their own self interest, that, too, may have merit Those that vote, though, based simply on past practice, or do so without applying forethought and understanding of the issues involved, do the most serious damage to democracy.
I have voted for and worked for all three of the major political parties in Canada, and would have supported the Bloc Quebecois – a separatist party in Quebec -- if it had run the right candidates in my province of Manitoba. It has, in my view, a good, balanced approach to the environment and a fair approach to social policy, while not denigrating the merits and contributions of business to our country. I am certain, as well, that a different approach to our unity issue is needed, to make our great country work better. I vote for the candidate first, and the party second, and, in so doing, rely on the candidate’s ethics and values to guide my choice.
In following the US political scene, I have seen good qualities in the president with the lowest approval ratings in American history: George W. Bush. I embrace many of the ideas of Barrack Obama, even if some are detrimental to Canadian interests. But there are negatives in each of these leaders, as there are in every leader. Would I vote for either, or any of Canada’s politicians based on an abstract ideology? No.
Good government requires two elements: a commitment to individual accountability and an emphasis on social responsibility. If either of the two is missing or inadequate, then that party or candidate comes up short.
We cry loudly when our tax dollars are used inappropriately, but we view inappropriateness very subjectively. I have a libertarian friend who believes in minimal government involvement. Social safety networks should be the responsibility of the community at large. He insists that any regulation and control is intrusive. Yet, he wants to be secure from crime, have a paved back lane, enjoy the arts, know that his food is safe to eat. So how do you have no regulations and yet expect controls? Would a profit-oriented business prefer to buy low cost food and sell at a good profit, or would it want to have to devote time and money to making sure that the goods are meeting exceptionally high standards?
I have another friend who is enraged when tax dollars are spent on silly research projects or foolish arts events. Yet, he is adamant that the government should kick in money to support his professional sports team efforts to build a new stadium.
These two illustrate that social responsibility suffers, when narcissistic ideas are allowed to flourish. For-profit corporations, by definition, are profit- oriented. Public companies, by mandate, must place the interests of their investors above all others, in order to thrive. Social conscience takes a back seat to money. Individuals, though, who are less motivated to succeed in the corporate world, often feel that they should be supported in their choices, and demand greater and greater concessions and benefits, while offering less and less in return.
Give me early retirement, give me free access to cosmetic surgery, give me shorter work days and less responsibility. So where does the funding for these benefits originate? From the hands of those that are driven to earn it. Those demanding greater benefits, such as those in Greece and the U.K., also are reluctant to pay the price to earn those benefits. They demonstrate poor individual accountability.
Personally, I feel that our problem, around the free world, is that we all are selfish. If we were to return to the concept that “it takes a village,” we would look to others viewpoints and needs prior to making any decision that involved our own self interest. That would be the beginning of making us more socially responsible, and concerned about our fellow citizen. If we took the time to appreciate the effort and contribution of others, before we asked them to contribute to our own wellbeing, that would be the start of individual accountability.
The question is, what specific steps must we take to achieve that end? This will be the meat of the discussions that will be posted on this blog.